Understood, but not if the clothes are turned inside out as they are taken off. Doesn't need to be coveralls either. One can get very fast at it.I meant a bloody mess.
Last edited:
Understood, but not if the clothes are turned inside out as they are taken off. Doesn't need to be coveralls either. One can get very fast at it.I meant a bloody mess.
But wasn’t it cold as heck? I guess it’s possible but idk.Incoming speculation from me.THAT could certainly explain alot. And it makes a lot of sense to me. The idea that a second non-resident male ran into the house, killed everyone, then naked from the house while BK was circling the neighborhood in his car is just absurd to me. I suppose it could be argued that a second person entered the house either naked, or stripped off before leaving. Of course, then I have other questions, including 1) how did this person get to the house? 2) were any other cars seen on video circling the neighborhood during that same period of time?
It could also explain the THUD (throwing the bloodied clothes into the trunk) and him driving quickly from the area. And the long drive. Because somewhere he would have to stop and dress without being seen.
Assuming the Mirror is not publishing total fiction today, and BF did see a naked person after DM saw a person in black, I can totally see the defense trying to interpret that into something besides BK stripping off bloodied clothes at the door on his way out. I don't think it will work, but it's a logical thing to try for.
51 Degrees at 4am.But wasn’t it cold as heck? I guess it’s possible but idk.
Yes, but I was just making the point that some of the members here are making it into another way to condemn the suspect in a different way than he's already been condemned even though the defense's request to compel the witness to testify at the PH is supposed to be exculpatory, rather than incriminatory. Also, just to note that although I quoted a member's post in my comment, my comment was not directed at them personally.I'm with @U.N. Known ...."what in the name of made up nonsense is this".....
THE AFFIDAVIT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT A NAKED MAN, or that BF saw him....
Indeed. But it paints quite a picture in one's mind. And with a gag order in place, such salaciousness is welcome for the absurdity alone.Since the Mirror is based in the U.K., I believe that their ‘first floor’ is our ‘second floor.’ So, I’m guessing that:
1: the affidavit is the one we all know so well.
2: Mirror mixed up DM with BF
3: Mirror removed the dark clothes because, well, nakedness makes a better story. Likewise for run vs walk.
MOO, of course
Agree, the more factoids, facts, and confusion the better for the D.Just a thought and not entirely up to speed here, but I don't recall in the PCA if there was mention of victim's being clad or not. Could the 'naked' man have been Ethan? If he was sleeping in the nude and woke up to a sound, perhaps what BF saw was him having stepped out into the hallway to check. That would not be exculpatory as it relates to BK, but not unlike a defence counsel to toss things out to start creating reasonable doubt from the start.
My thoughts... Actually, what the article says is "According to the affidavit, she allegedly witnessed a naked man run through a rear sliding door." and the affidavit does NOT say that. On pg 4 the affidavit says:So this article says BF saw a naked running out the sliding glass door? Also says she came face to face with the killer. I’m not sure I believe this. Thoughts?
Just a thought and not entirely up to speed here, but I don't recall in the PCA if there was mention of victim's being clad or not. Could the 'naked' man have been Ethan? If he was sleeping in the nude and woke up to a sound, perhaps what BF saw was him having stepped out into the hallway to check. That would not be exculpatory as it relates to BK, but not unlike a defence counsel to toss things out to start creating reasonable doubt from the start.
I searched the affidavit and found no mention of naked, nude, unclothed, in the buff, in the raw, bare-assed, in the altogether, au natural, Adamite, leafless, unclad, disrobed, stripped, starkers, commando, streaker, full frontal, flashing, flashed or flasher, nor birthday suit.Just a thought and not entirely up to speed here, but I don't recall in the PCA if there was mention of victim's being clad or not. Could the 'naked' man have been Ethan? If he was sleeping in the nude and woke up to a sound, perhaps what BF saw was him having stepped out into the hallway to check. That would not be exculpatory as it relates to BK, but not unlike a defence counsel to toss things out to start creating reasonable doubt from the start.
SBMFF.My thoughts... Actually, what the article says is "According to the affidavit, she allegedly witnessed a naked man run through a rear sliding door."
Source: How Reliable Is the Daily Mirror? - The Factual | Blog
I’m hoping there is some basis of facts that we don’t know about. What in the world?My thoughts... Actually, what the article says is "According to the affidavit, she allegedly witnessed a naked man run through a rear sliding door." and the affidavit does NOT say that. On pg 4 the affidavit says:
View attachment 417367
Also, the source of this utter nonsense is the Mirror (tabloid)!
The Daily Mirror scored an average Factual Grade of 49.8%, placing it in the 9th percentile of our dataset. This score puts the Daily Mirror among the lowest 25 sites that we analyzed.
Nuff said. At least IMO it's nuff said. lol
Source: How Reliable Is the Daily Mirror? - The Factual | Blog
snipped for focus @whiterhino.... we learned of the subpoena. BF must have some knowledge that DM does not also have.
ITA and would likely fight as well. Especially if I thought my words could result in the case being dismissed in any way.
Respectfully, if we're talking about BF, she hired a lawyer for "all that", so I don't think she is "in the dark" about what her testimony is relevant to or might mean. Just sayin', JMOWitness is Silent, for Fear of Dismissal?
snipped for focus @whiterhino
Yes, it's possible that BF has some knowledge that DM does not have, as she could have seen or heard something different than DM did.
IIRC, one was on ground floor; other was on second story ("first" for UK).
Speaking generally, a witness who "saw this and heard that" and wants to refrain from making stmts. may THINK the info could result in case being dismissed.
Some threads for ID-4 and other cases spawned discussions about whether "this and that" are exculpatory or inculpatory.
A witness may be wrong about how state or def't may argue and/or jury may interpret that testimony. Or could be right.
Imo.
51 Degrees at 4am.
Moscow, ID Weather History | Weather Underground
www.wunderground.com
SBMFF.
It just dawned on me that maybe AN affidavit does have her saying that, but it was some other incident at the house on an entirely different date. Likely a very rowdy and drunken party.The writer for the Mirror should double check their dates.
![]()