Found Deceased CA - Blaze Bernstein, 19, Lake Forest, 2 Jan 2018 #5 *Arrest*

[stlrfninca]

@prue, regarding your post in reference to the affidavit(s), leaking, etc...

I've been mulling over these same questions. If you recall last week I questioned whether the affidavit was leaked or not. One of the other users here presented a convincing argument that the OCR reporter was just doing his/her job well and hanging out at the court, jumping on the affidavit as soon as it was public record. That person's theory went on to say that quickly thereafter, all three affidavits were sealed, which would explain why no other news organizations ever got copies.

I pretty much bought into that story because it makes logical sense. But I do question this new material we learned yesterday. Was it from a different affidavit, i.e. not one of those original three? If so, why again did only OCR get access? Or is it, as someone else suggested, data from the first affidavit, that OCR is only releasing sparingly? I'm skeptical of the latter, because, "Why?" Or maybe I'm just skeptical because I prefer to hope that's not the case, that OCR would deliberately withhold information from the public like this - unless perhaps they were asked to do so by LE before the arrest was made?

Several possibilities - I wonder if anyone here has a contact at OCR that could clear all this up for us.

 

[Milenalee]

Very interesting. I hadn't gone back to think about that text in the context of all the new information we have.

I'm not sure one way or the other, though, but it's definitely something worth considering. I wonder how that would fit into the timeline. Are you thinking that perhaps SW and BB initiated the meeting that night in order to confront BB with a) that he knew about the "outing" and b) how much pain it had caused him? Then BB sends this text once he realizes how bad SW was feeling about it. Then some disagreement ensues between BB and SW resulting in BB's death and/or SW initiates the (premeditated) sequence that results in BB's death

Something like that?

I have an imaginary scenario. They've been flirting, maybe even have hooked up once or twice, over the break. Sam thinks Blaze's best friend is the big mouth. He understands it's because he seems like a hypocrite, but he blames her more than Blaze because he is and has been in love with Blaze for years. He was an early and important relationship and Sam has no friends....but he left his university after word got back there (it's a local school). So his life went downhill after being outed, just like it did when Blaze rejected him the first time. That time he left OCAS. So he's very upset, but still hoping to get together with Blaze, spend the night together, make a plan for the future. Hence the sleeping bag and camping stuff. Near the park is a big area with trails and plenty of privacy.

We might learn from the autopsy if they got together physically. In any case in a vulnerable moment I think Sam was rejected by Blaze again, either physically or for a future together, and learned that Blaze had outed him as much as his friend. He probably started sobbing. Blaze sent the text. Sam asked who he was texting, Blaze says the name of that same friend....and hurt turned to rage as he thought Blaze was telling her that Sam was crying, and still continuing the betrayal.

So rejection and betrayal at once. At a vulnerable moment. For someone who was rejected by peers his whole life. By the person he loved. Who also represented everything he wasn't. Add huge self loathing about being gay or bi, and he went nuts. I tend to think he strangled him and then stabbed him later to make it look like a his idea of a hate crime. And because he was so angry with himself.

I wouldn't be surprised if he blacked out in his rage and came to in shock. That might explain his terrible alibi, the shaking etc.

If he's taking steroids or Valium or many other things it might have made it easer to snap. Young men of that age are the most likely to die violently in car accidents, fights etc. . Their impulse control might not be well developed yet.

Not that anything excuses murder and violence but I think it's clear from the nature of the wounds, how closeted Sam is, how he was outed, and how long they've known each other, that this relationship was complicated and heavy. Add Sam's alienation and Blazes' success, Sam's disabilities and temper problem, a full moon, and the way everything is magnified with social media and you had a very dangerous mix.

I can't even say MOO here, more like "mainly imagination" trying to put the few facts we have together in a plausible scenario, but definitely a guess.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ReckoningDay]

Here's something that is frustrating to me. It would appear that mentioning anything that BB has ever done that could have provoked rage in SW, is going to be called victim blaming. That is unfair, IMHO. From the moment we found out about this violent act, almost every one of us has said "I just want to know WHY?"
Do we really? If all we want to hear is that SW is a horrible person who did this for NO reason, then what is the point of discussion.
There is NOTHING, that could ever justify him ever stabbing someone 20 times.....NOTHING!
But nobody that I've seen here is trying to justify it, only looking for clues as to what caused him to act in such a violent manner.

Let's say we have 2 brothers (ages 4 and 6) playing (true story) and one takes the other's ball away. The offended one (age 4!) picks up a kitchen chair and clobbers big brother. WHY? Because brother snatched his ball. Isn't this a gross overreaction? OF COURSE! It isn't a GOOD reason, but it is the reason , nevertheless.

(By the way, both brothers are adults now. Neither has become a serial killer, a car thief (or ball thief) or for that matter, had any brush with the law at all.)

So I think most of us are interested in knowing why on earth SW , who had no previous police record, would want to do something so vicious. It's an interest in human nature, which is one reason some of us are here. Yes, we want justice for BB...and for all other victims, but we also want to know the hows and whys and wheres. It does NOT make us victim shamers or victim blamers.

 

[Zinvestigator]

You guys do a great job and I value the integrity of Websleuths and the moderators!

 

[Milenalee]

IMO ...

This might be against popular opinion here, but I don't believe Sam is gay. I think he was baiting and he didn't like that someone thought he was or eluded to the fact he is gay. Makes me think that he used whatever method possible (grooming) to get trust and then do what he did. He seems more like a predator. Again, this is my opinion and based on his Saboteur username postings and followings.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

You can't legitimately base anything on saboteur. No MSM has quoted it. So really we shouldn't discuss it here. The site is used by trolls all the time (ifunny). No MSM will ever quoteit. You can bet there are alt right trolls trying to make Sam look like one of their own Don't feed them! if it was really him it would have been taken down when all his other media was. This crap came out of no where and was taken down yesterday. You can't believe anything on that site.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[prue]

@prue, regarding your post in reference to the affidavit(s), leaking, etc...

I've been mulling over these same questions. If you recall last week I questioned whether the affidavit was leaked or not. One of the other users here presented a convincing argument that the OCR reporter was just doing his/her job well and hanging out at the court, jumping on the affidavit as soon as it was public record. That person's theory went on to say that quickly thereafter, all three affidavits were sealed, which would explain why no other news organizations ever got copies.

I pretty much bought into that story because it makes logical sense. But I do question this new material we learned yesterday. Was it from a different affidavit, i.e. not one of those original three? If so, why again did only OCR get access? Or is it, as someone else suggested, data from the first affidavit, that OCR is only releasing sparingly? I'm skeptical of the latter, because, "Why?" Or maybe I'm just skeptical because I prefer to hope that's not the case, that OCR would deliberately withhold information from the public like this - unless perhaps they were asked to do so by LE before the arrest was made?

Several possibilities - I wonder if anyone here has a contact at OCR that could clear all this up for us.

Exactly stlrfninca, although I very much doubt OCR would clear it up. Using the argrument I made above, is it even legal to continue to publish it? We have as a body become so acculturated to accepting 'leaked' information and 'anonymous sources' as gospel it's difficult to say with any assurance what's true. As we all can see, even in the little bit of the factual information released by the authorities, the news media is actively editorializing it and presenting it as news. It just makes me feel manipulated and I think it could very much jepodize a just outcome.


always just my opinion

 

[Midge Montana]

Be careful about who you publicly humiliate. It isn't funny to them and it might get you killed. And everyone will say you didn't deserve it, but you will still be dead.

Word.

 

[Milenalee]

In average day-to-day life I don't see why 'outing' should be an accepted behavior. I do feel there is a gray area in cases when the individual being outed is doing harm to the gay community.

There was a report regarding an imgur page in which SW was catfishing and then exposing gay men. I have not seen this page, nor do I have verification of this or other activities that might be construed as proactively harming such individuals. Furthermore we do not know what Blaze knew of any of this, or whether he was aware of some other actions by SW that could be placed in this category. As the story unfolds, I hope we'll find answers to these questions, but as it stands there is the possibility that Blaze was being more cavalier about SW that he should have been.

We have no idea whether the interaction back in June was instigated by one party or the other. We're still under a cloud of uncertainty about events leading up to Blaze's murder the night of January 2. I do have the impression that SW was fully aware of BB's sexuality, which make me question the validity of SW's 'he tried to kiss me' defense. What was he expecting to do at Hobby Lobby, discuss model railroading? Many questions to answer.

Can you quote the MSM liking that reported this? There was so much total bull made up since the arrrest by right wing trolls on ifunny, I hope we don't waste time looking at that junk. I would be willing to bet this imgur page is the same story.

His Facebook page seems pro gay, comparing the rainbow flag and the confederate flags as a point of pride in a community, not racist. (This was years ago before Dylan roof).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[stlrfninca]

I think OCR is probably careful not to do anything illegal. I think there are a lot of details around these machinations we as laypeople simply do not now.

I've been one of the most critical of the MSM here, but overall I haven't found anything majorly objectionable about OCR's reporting - in fact, it's because of them primarily that we (and the rest of the MSM) know many of the details that we do.

That being said, if we get any conclusive details that show OCR have been manipulating us in a "slimy" manner, then I will be the first to criticize them. I have a healthy distrust of all media organizations in today's climate If something they write doesn't pass the "reasonable man" test, I scrutinize it heavily, and if I smell something fishy, I discount it until more data arrive from other sources.

Exactly stlrfninca, although I very much doubt OCR would clear it up. Using the argrument I made above, is it even legal to continue to publish it? We have as a body become so acculturated to accepting 'leaked' information and 'anonymous sources' as gospel it's difficult to say with any assurance what's true. As we all can see, even in the little bit of the factual information released by the authorities, the news media is actively editorializing it and presenting it as news. It just makes me feel manipulated and I think it could very much jepodize a just outcome.


always just my opinion

 

[siliconrod]

I might have missed it but have the contents of the text message sent from BB's phone to his female friend around 11:30pm on the night of the murder been released to the public yet. The contents could give us a better understanding of what happened that night.

 

[DAnthrplgst]

As a gay man, I personally think Blaze was lured to a meetup, and this crime was premeditated. Hate Crime vs Crime of Passion comingled. SW was certainly a conflicted individual when it came to Blaze. I say this only because of SW sm posts that I’ve read. All jmo. Remember, many gay people are reading on this thread. Please don’t let one gay “expert” speak for all of us. It simply is not true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What have I said that factually isn't true? I've been an out gay man for 23 years and as a cultural anthropologist I've studied this community extensively as part of my master's thesis and doctoral dissertation. I'm by no means an "expert" but I certainly have an informed opinion.

 

[prue]

I have read and re-read this just to make sure, and checked the phillynews itself, but indeed this is saying that it was Woodward who claimed to have rebuffed a sexual advance from Bernstein, and supposedly made a promise of silence, which he broke by texting everyone in June. This is the opposite of what was said before: that Bernstein was the recipient of romantic overtures, then 'narc'd' to two female friends, which has lead to all sorts of discussions regarding outing on the part of Bernstein.

This changes the dynamic by 180 degrees. Has Phillynews gotten it backwards? Am I reading this wrong?

No, you have read accurately. This is another example of what I mean by editorializing the story (my opinion). This, along with the social media citations in the article to back up their assertion is very interesting and selectively culled from those sources as well to, in my opinion, create a narrative. It's interesting that they have not included other social media accounts that are also available which suggest a long term previous relationship and a prior outing.

Whatever the outcome, the is not reporting, this is editorializing. I can imagine in the future we will see much more of this. The way it reads to me is this is an opportunity that is being jumped on to politicize this horrible crime. A tragedy heaped upon tragedy. I am not about to jump into politicizing myself here as it is forbidden, however I will state it will be very much a part of this trial and the reporting on it.

It sickens me.

The original link: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/c...rnia-stabbed-20-times-20180116.html?mobi=true

The quote, "Investigators uncovered text messages Woodward sent to two female friends in June that implied he had previously rejected a romantic advance from Bernstein. “He made me promise not to tell anyone … but I have texted every one, uh oh,” Woodward wrote in one message cited in the affidavit. He later told authorities that Bernstein had tried to kiss him on the lips just hours before the Penn student’s disappearance."

soley my opinion except referenced material and links

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

The previous version of events.

Well that wouldn't be Good!

 

[prue]

I think OCR is probably careful not to do anything illegal. I think there are a lot of details around these machinations we as laypeople simply do not now.

I've been one of the most critical of the MSM here, but overall I haven't found anything majorly objectionable about OCR's reporting - in fact, it's because of them primarily that we (and the rest of the MSM) know many of the details that we do.

That being said, if we get any conclusive details that show OCR have been manipulating us in a "slimy" manner, then I will be the first to criticize them. I have a healthy distrust of all media organizations in today's climate If something they write doesn't pass the "reasonable man" test, I scrutinize it heavily, and if I smell something fishy, I discount it until more data arrive from other sources.

I would point out the mere fact the information was leaked or selectively distributed is a manipulation.

 

[SleuthDr]

Can you quote the MSM liking that reported this? There was so much total bull made up since the arrrest by right wing trolls on ifunny, I hope we don't waste time looking at that junk. I would be willing to bet this imgur page is the same story.

His Facebook page seems pro gay, comparing the rainbow flag and the confederate flags as a point of pride in a community, not racist. (This was years ago before Dylan roof).

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I should have been clearer. The info ('report') about imgur was based on a post in these forums yesterday (Monday) afternoon, around the same time that the iFunny links were posted. Poster thought the imgur account was actually linked in here somewhere prior to that, but I have not been able to confirm. No idea if MSM ever mentioned it. If it can be found and verified, that would be important as far as this case goes. A Google search 'imgur Sam Woodward' turned up nothing, but I may have missed it, or imgur may not be searchable that way.

I also thought his rainbow flag comments were sympathetic; there are mixed signals about this.

 

[stlrfninca]

I would point out the mere fact the information was leaked or selectively distributed is a manipulation.

I know, but as I stated in my earlier post, we don't know either of those things to be true at this point. Both are mere suspicion and speculation. Which is why I wish we could get OCR to clear up some of the logistical details surrounding the affidavits

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

I don't think anyone is placing blame on BB for SW killing him, people need to brace themselves now though because if this goes to trial BB text messages, social media accounts, grindr accounts, his interactions with others is all going to be put on display. Nothing BB has said or done is gonna justify what SW did, but I am sure some of it will be very upsetting to hear. JMO

am just watching the Jodie Arias trial on T.V.. I sure hope they do not do what they did to Travis Alexander. If he was not already dead, he would have killed himself--Such a fall from grace .

 

[Milenalee]

I have read and re-read this just to make sure, and checked the phillynews itself, but indeed this is saying that it was Woodward who claimed to have rebuffed a sexual advance from Bernstein, and supposedly made a promise of silence, which he broke by texting everyone in June. This is the opposite of what was said before: that Bernstein was the recipient of romantic overtures, then 'narc'd' to two female friends, which has lead to all sorts of discussions regarding outing on the part of Bernstein.

This changes the dynamic by 180 degrees. Has Phillynews gotten it backwards? Am I reading this wrong?

It's clear elsewhere. Blaze rebuffed. Blaze texted that he promised not to tell but, "uh oh, I've told everyone. "


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Jonesjones]

Here's something that is frustrating to me. It would appear that mentioning anything that BB has ever done that could have provoked rage in SW, is going to be called victim blaming. That is unfair, IMHO. From the moment we found out about this violent act, almost every one of us has said "I just want to know WHY?"
Do we really? If all we want to hear is that SW is a horrible person who did this for NO reason, then what is the point of discussion.
There is NOTHING, that could ever justify him ever stabbing someone 20 times.....NOTHING!
But nobody that I've seen here is trying to justify it, only looking for clues as to what caused him to act in such a violent manner.

Let's say we have 2 brothers (ages 4 and 6) playing (true story) and one takes the other's ball away. The offended one (age 4!) picks up a kitchen chair and clobbers big brother. WHY? Because brother snatched his ball. Isn't this a gross overreaction? OF COURSE! It isn't a GOOD reason, but it is the reason , nevertheless.

(By the way, both brothers are adults now. Neither has become a serial killer, a car thief (or ball thief) or for that matter, had any brush with the law at all.)

So I think most of us are interested in knowing why on earth SW , who had no previous police record, would want to do something so vicious. It's an interest in human nature, which is one reason some of us are here. Yes, we want justice for BB...and for all other victims, but we also want to know the hows and whys and wheres. It does NOT make us victim shamers or victim blamers.

Thank you for this. I couldn’t agree more. I believe, there’s more to this story. And I don’t think that looking at all angles should be classified as victim blaming. An amazing life was taken and we all know that justice will be served, but I think looking at all angles is fair. It does seem that there was a history here and until the facts, if we are ever privy to then, come out, we can’t rule out a “heat of the moment” scenario. We don’t even know what the murder weapon is. Was it part of the camping gear? We don’t know that it was even a knife.

 

[cluciano63]

When did SW learn that BB possibly “outed” him? It could make a difference if he attacked BB when he found out, i.e if BB told him he had told his friends that last night that he had done so back in June, as far as why S attacked him. Which could be seen as “heat of passion” by some. Jmo