layer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2017
- Messages
- 2,547
- Reaction score
- 18,753
I still have the feeling something isn't right.I'm glad she listened to that little feeling that said something isn't right.
I still have the feeling something isn't right.I'm glad she listened to that little feeling that said something isn't right.
RA was on the bridge platform, the witness turned around at the bridge and passed the girls midway between the Mears parking area and the bridge as they walked to the bridge.Did the girls have their first encounter at the bench with him perhaps? They didn't do video or audio then. Maybe, they had a conversation, maybe ambiguous and cheeky. 20 minutes in the girls' timeline were unaccounted for, I remember, we said here on WS. Of course, RA had to say, he didn't see them, if this 20min.-meeting led to the double murder. And of course, the girls filmed him, when he followed them onto the bridge. They recognized by his clothing, that he was the man from the bench, and they noticed (being scared), he had broken the rule, not to enter the bridge, when another person was already walking the bridge.
Maybe, it all began there at the bench?
Speculation, MOO
Exactly what is bothering you?I still have the feeling something isn't right.
About EF:FM page 91
BBM
Concerning EF:
“Mary Jacobs told law enforcement that on February 14, 2017, Elvis was rambling, hyper and borderline incoherent. He was talking about having a “brother” (even though Elvis had no male siblings) and was now part of a “gang.” Elvis told Mary that he had been on a bridge with two girls that were killed. Elvis told her that someone named Abigail was a pain in the *advertiser censored* and a troublemaker. She said Elvis tried to give her (Mary Jacobs) a blue jacket. She told him that she had her own jacket.”
I wonder if they investigated whether or not EF went to work on Feb 14th seeing he was at his sister’s telling her this “story.” Of course, since MJ did not live with EF she would not know about his sleep patterns. I wonder if they asked RAbrs his roommate? Likely not. JMO
FINAL DRAFT - 9.17 at 6.30 pm - Delphi Franks brief.pdf | PDF Host
PDF Host read free online - FINAL DRAFT - 9.17 at 6.30 pm - Delphi Franks brief.pdf - ANDREW J. BALDWINpdfhost.io
Honestly, after 7 years of this - thinking about it, trying to understand it, trying to figure out who carried out these murders, how they did it, why they did it... maybe I figured it would all make sense to me by the time they charged someone. That's how it usually works for me, I never stick around for trials. LE splatters their best evidence everywhere (think of the cop holding up Berkowitz's gun, on the street, at his arrest). Usually that alone is enough to make the accused cop a plea and there isn't any need for the pain and expense of a trial. And I'm out. Either way, we get to know who and how, at least. AFAIK, motive is not required for a conviction, but any rational juror is going to want a reasonable motive.Exactly what is bothering you?
MOO something isnt right. The Conservation Officer, the Sheriff and the Chief of Police still have their jobs.Honestly, after 7 years of this - thinking about it, trying to understand it, trying to figure out who carried out these murders, how they did it, why they did it... maybe I figured it would all make sense to me by the time they charged someone. That's how it usually works for me, I never stick around for trials. LE splatters their best evidence everywhere (think of the cop holding up Berkowitz's gun, on the street, at his arrest). Usually that alone is enough to make the accused cop a plea and there isn't any need for the pain and expense of a trial. And I'm out. Either way, we get to know who and how, at least. AFAIK, motive is not required for a conviction, but any rational juror is going to want a reasonable motive.
But here it almost looks like the prosecution is hiding stuff, trying to whip it out at trial for ambush. Now that may a wrong impression, but I feel it. And if there is no secret sauce, that's almost scarier.
I'm old, things don't work like they used to. That alone gives me the feeling something isn't right.
I wonder if he or anyone had occasion to be in the area of the crime scene after dark. And saw it. And bolted.Honestly, after 7 years of this - thinking about it, trying to understand it, trying to figure out who carried out these murders, how they did it, why they did it... maybe I figured it would all make sense to me by the time they charged someone. That's how it usually works for me, I never stick around for trials. LE splatters their best evidence everywhere (think of the cop holding up Berkowitz's gun, on the street, at his arrest). Usually that alone is enough to make the accused cop a plea and there isn't any need for the pain and expense of a trial. And I'm out. Either way, we get to know who and how, at least. AFAIK, motive is not required for a conviction, but any rational juror is going to want a reasonable motive.
But here it almost looks like the prosecution is hiding stuff, trying to whip it out at trial for ambush. Now that may a wrong impression, but I feel it. And if there is no secret sauce, that's almost scarier.
I'm old, things don't work like they used to. That alone gives me the feeling something isn't right.
@Boxer I know you and I don’t see this case the same, but I 100% agree with this sentiment, perhaps for different reasons, but that’s okay .MOO something isnt right. The Conservation Officer, the Sheriff and the Chief of Police still have their jobs.
Most states keep the details of SA of children pretty much under wraps until it has to be revealed at the trial.Honestly, after 7 years of this - thinking about it, trying to understand it, trying to figure out who carried out these murders, how they did it, why they did it... maybe I figured it would all make sense to me by the time they charged someone. That's how it usually works for me, I never stick around for trials. LE splatters their best evidence everywhere (think of the cop holding up Berkowitz's gun, on the street, at his arrest). Usually that alone is enough to make the accused cop a plea and there isn't any need for the pain and expense of a trial. And I'm out. Either way, we get to know who and how, at least. AFAIK, motive is not required for a conviction, but any rational juror is going to want a reasonable motive.
But here it almost looks like the prosecution is hiding stuff, trying to whip it out at trial for ambush. Now that may a wrong impression, but I feel it. And if there is no secret sauce, that's almost scarier.
I'm old, things don't work like they used to. That alone gives me the feeling something isn't right.