CJPRINCESS
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2013
- Messages
- 1,324
- Reaction score
- 488
I love your tests![]()
I'd rather do a test/experiment..including posting a pic of me, that I would never post anywhere lol! Just to save arguments on stuff
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I love your tests![]()
Yes, they are both in question, I just wonder why DM is the only one looked at as surely guilty of first and not MS. Actually no in my quoted quote (?) I am referring to the importance of the texts. regardless, why DM a for sure and MS a maybe???
You added in your words of being for sitting and watching. Sitting and watching what and where?
I don't see any other evidence of premeditation for murder other then texts that are being interpreted different by different people and some online searches that others did as well.
I see a lot AFTER the fact. Clean up. Destroying evidence for a different charge but as a whole, I'm not seeing it.
Not to be confused with, I'm on MS' side.
For those who are referring to the fireside furniture and sausage texts, what do you interpret this to mean?
he could have also wiped his hands clean before hopping into the Yukon.
I think they are equally guilty, together, blood brothers, murderers, together, with their mission, planned and completed, together. If one had the boat, the other had the plank.He didn't? I guess we're seeing different things for DM. If you'd like to point out why you feel DM is not guilty of first degree murder, feel free.
Ok so if you're "sitting fireside", watching a fire, on "fireside furniture" with "sausages", (in a frying pan) is that done at an industrial hangar where the incineration took place? Seems completely out of place to me. JMO.Normally one sits on furniture, particularly when said furniture is a couch or stools. Typically, when one is sitting fireside, he/she is enjoying i.e. watching the fire.
?
Normally one sits on furniture, particularly when said furniture is a couch or stools. Typically, when one is sitting fireside, he/she is enjoying i.e. watching the fire.
?
You can explain away anything you want with "maybe this or that happened", but the fact is they were specifically discussing the truck mission when Smich sent the sausage and fireside furniture pictures. There was no response from millard to the effect of "what the heck is that supposed to mean?". Then coincidentally TB ends up in their "BBQ". As to the slim jim, Millard is buying all the tools, windshield removal tool, walkie talkies, change of clothes, but he won't buy the cheap tool that saves him from smashing a window in the middle of the night? Come on.
AC described the words "fireside furniture" as a "caption". It was never clear to me whether the caption was part of the image or typed by MS with with picture. Either way, it was not "for our fireside sitting".
? why did he say to protect bystander's?. as a side... i don't want to even say what I ( and a few others) believe the frying pan pics mean. If TB was drowned and MS sent a picture of an anchor...tying up kittens in a bag with a stone. I think it's clear. crystalThat DM likes sausages and MS was teasing him.
That the furniture was a picture tag by MS and he wanted to go steal it. A. Humphrey's tweet said "those were not made public to protect bystander's". Not too sure how else to read his tweet.
The jury was immediately told to disregard the two gun evidence.
I'm not following... I remembered and described it as being furniture for fireside sitting/watching. When I pulled up the tweet re the text, it was "fireside furniture". What else do you use "fireside furniture" for? It's furniture for sitting around a fire. What's the context change?
That DM likes sausages and MS was teasing him.
That the furniture was a picture tag by MS and he wanted to go steal it. A. Humphrey's tweet said "those were not made public to protect bystander's". Not too sure how else to read his tweet.
This is great - HOWEVER, none of this proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
None of this is true, solid evidence. No DNA, no finger prints, no admission of guilt (to warrent 1st).
You can't with a good conscious put someone away for life because a few texts about sausages, bbqs and fireworks that could mean anything - like a REAL BBQ (which was previously testified).
A few rap lyrics and previous knowledge of an incinerator dont prove someone is a murderer.
Trying to put myself in their shoes, I think everyone has done things they aren't proud of or that would make them look bad if spun in the wrong way. Reminds me of the final Sienfeld episode where all the people wronged in their past come back to testify against him. No one is perfect and any of our past indescretions can work against us if spun in the right way. Saying his rap lyrics are proof he's a murderer is akin to saying Beyonce is also: her new song on Lemonade talks about dismembering the other women Jay Z sleeps with, wearing their skin on her skin, their teeth like confetti.... truly gross but artistic and means nothing. None of this proves murder.
It would be a purely emotional decision to make MS guilty of first because there's simply no true evidence that he committed this. There's plenty of evidence on his co-accused DM and I'd like to see him put away for life!
? why did he say to protect bystander's?. as a side... i don't want to even say what I ( and a few others) believe the frying pan pics mean. If TB was drowned and MS sent a picture of an anchor...tying up kittens in a bag with a stone. I think it's clear. crystal
They probably didn't raise the issue in cross because they knew Smich would have a stupid answer for them. Better leave them for closing arguments when they can be used to better effect.
That DM likes sausages and MS was teasing him.
That the furniture was a picture tag by MS and he wanted to go steal it. A. Humphrey's tweet said "those were not made public to protect bystander's". Not too sure how else to read his tweet.
Who brought the gun in this case? Did the other know about it?If someone is gonna bring a loaded gun to a robbery they are prepared to use it. If someone goes up to a teller in a bank and points a loaded gun at them and says give me all your money....they are prepared to use it if they need to. Is that premeditation by the letter of the law? If the teller gets murdered because she didn't cooperate or pass the money over fast enough???? They purchased a gun and ammo and brought it to a robbery and somebody was murdered. That is all I need to know. IMO this is premeditation. Whether it be by the letter of the law or not. If I was on that jury.....they are both going down. Gone by by. Not problem at all for me.