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

[SleuthDr]

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.

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

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?

 

[sequences]

I would like to clarify something. BB kissing SW was not a true "sexual" advance...a learned behavior. We all have "kissed a babies face"...kiss, kiss, kiss, kiss, kiss. Baby giggles. Unlearning a "long forgotten" "loving" facial sight sound expressions is puzzling.

 

[appleeye]

TBH we don't even know if Sam knew he was outed or how far his outing went. I'll be honest if someone told me that someone was gay, I wouldn't run around and tell everyone?

What does "outed" mean - did he tell about a hook up ?

Someone said at some point when POI name was finally said that they had a relationship a few years ago. It may be that more people knew than what are expecting. He may be bi?

We keep looking at this as a revenge thing and I am not so sure it was. There are many motives that could have caused this - again - none of them Blaze's fault. We're going down a rabbit hole and discussing it to death and there is nothing in the affadavit that states this is the reason. I get it that we are speculating but lets not go too far to demonize the victim.

Another thing that keeps being talked about is that Blaze didn't tell his parents. When I was 19 if I left my house to go "pick up" or "hook up" , I surely wouldn't tell my parents. I would just leave also. He didn't need permission obviously.

I also hooked up with people that didn't know my address back in the day. Totally unsafe but I did.

We have to be careful not to make speculation fact over the course of 5 threads.

The details will become public but it may not be until the trial.

 

[appleeye]

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?

You are totally right!!!!!!!!!

 

[SleuthDr]

"[FONT=&amp]In one conversation, Bernstein wrote that Woodward was about to “hit on me” and “he made me promise not to tell anyone … but I have texted every one, uh oh.”
[/FONT]https://www.ocregister.com/2018/01/15/blaze-bernstein-stabbed-at-least-20-times-in-possible-act-of-rage

• 
  
  

The previous version of events.

 

[appleeye]

I would like to clarify something. BB kissing SW was not a true "sexual" advance...a learned behavior. We all have "kissed a babies face"...kiss, kiss, kiss, kiss, kiss. Baby giggles. Unlearning a "long forgotten" "loving" facial sight sound expressions is puzzling.

Semantics. It is was a romantic advance. My guess if if they did not have a relationship and only had hook ups there was no romance. The act of kissing someone may be a learned behaviour but it doesn't sound like a smooch. If we are talking in the sense of a hook up it is nothing but sexual.

 

[stlrfninca]

From the CBS article,

The Register claims detectives found Bernstein's blood on a sleeping bag in the back of Woodward's rental car.

This is a perfect example of what drives me insane about journalists today. CBS took source material - the OC Register article - and through sloppy journalism CHANGED THE FACTS!

NOWHERE in the OC Register article does it say that the sleeping bag was found in the back of SW's rental car. It specifically says "in his possession".

Just because elsewhere in the affidavit there were reports of LE finding camping gear in the back of SW's rental car does not give the reporter license to connect these two pieces of information in the lazy way that CBS did.

In fact, if you believe someone who posted here last night claiming to have inside information from LE, the sleeping bag was found in SW's trash can, presumably when they searched the house AFTER obtaining the warrant.

Regardless, CBS inaccurately reported what was contained in the OCR article. If you're going to be that sloppy, please don't retell the story CBS - just give a link to the OC Register article and let people read for themselves.

Fortunately, this fact may not be that crucial, but it can certainly lead to some wrong conclusions - but imagine it were a more crucial piece of information that were handled so sloppily.

Truly exasperating.

The Register claims detectives found Bernstein's blood on a sleeping bag in the back of Woodward's rental car.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/blaze-...bbed-20-times-samuel-woodward-idd-as-suspect/

Detectives found Bernstein’s blood on a sleeping bag in the back of Woodward’s rental car, according to the Register.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/01/15/new-details-death-blaze-bernstein/

 

[SleuthDr]

TBH we don't even know if Sam knew he was outed or how far his outing went. I'll be honest if someone told me that someone was gay, I wouldn't run around and tell everyone?

What does "outed" mean - did he tell about a hook up ?

Someone said at some point when POI name was finally said that they had a relationship a few years ago. It may be that more people knew than what are expecting. He may be bi?

We keep looking at this as a revenge thing and I am not so sure it was. There are many motives that could have caused this - again - none of them Blaze's fault. We're going down a rabbit hole and discussing it to death and there is nothing in the affadavit that states this is the reason. I get it that we are speculating but lets not go too far to demonize the victim.

Another thing that keeps being talked about is that Blaze didn't tell his parents. When I was 19 if I left my house to go "pick up" or "hook up" , I surely wouldn't tell my parents. I would just leave also. He didn't need permission obviously.

I also hooked up with people that didn't know my address back in the day. Totally unsafe but I did.

We have to be careful not to make speculation fact over the course of 5 threads.

The details will become public but it may not be until the trial.

'Outing' is a generic term for revealing someone else's homosexuality to the public, when it had been previously been kept private. It implies that it is done against that person's will.

 

[appleeye]

'Outing' is a generic term for revealing someone else's homosexuality to the public, when it had been previously been kept private. It implies that it is done against that person's will.

I know that. What constitutes outing would be different in everyones mind.

If he said he kissed him. Is that outing him as gay?

If he said that he was gay - certainly it outs him as gay

If he said they talked about hooking up - does that out him as gay?

I am saying what is meant by the term is up to the person that is saying it.

Did he put a poster on campus? Tell a few friends he hooked up with him? Who knows. I certainly don't.

 

[Catonahottinroof]

I share others concerns about whether the OCRegister leaks from the affidavit may have been selective.
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/01/...ed-at-least-20-times-in-possible-act-of-rage/

A short way into the article, it says "[FONT=&amp]A search warrant affidavit obtained by the Orange County Register indicates that 19-year-old Bernstein may have been planning to sexually pursue Woodward."

[/FONT]While that may be what the affidavit says, it bothers me that other news stories picking up on it have had titles such as "Blaze Bernstein killing: Affidavit hints at sexual pursuit," meaning, BB's possible pursuit of SW.

I mean, had BB pursued SW, there would be nothing wrong with that, but I really doubt that happened. At this point, we only have SW's word for it, and after all his lies I don't believe a word he says. I wonder if someone is trying to set up a "gay panic" defense.

The Register also quotes the bit about BB possibly outing SW. I discuss this in an earlier comment but here I'll just say it's another thing that makes BB look bad.

Of course, BB being stabbed 20 times doesn't exactly make SW look good. In general, I appreciate the Register's reporting. These excerpts may be random rather than selective.

But I wonder if someone -- not sure who -- might be trying to protect SW here or to make sure BB's parents don't complain about a plea deal if the alternative is seeing their dead son dragged through the mud. Just my opinion.

When I read in the OCregister the line about BB might have been trying to pursue SW... I took it to mean that BB was the one who initiated on social media the late night meeting that night. I think BB texted SW first (on snapchat?) that fateful night... and then don't forget BB sent SW his address to be picked up by SW... IMO, that is what they mean by pursue. BB texted SW and arraigned a rendezvous that was supposed to end up as a late night tryst in the park... (Of course that is not deserving of being murdered!!)

Edit to add to the people saying the press should have held off on reporting this until the day after the funeral, That is not what freedom of the press is about. The press is supposed to report the news. The timing is unfortunate, but when we have a Press trying to manipulate the public with regards to when they distribute the facts of a case then we have lost a free Press in my opinion.

 

[Hraefn]

Maybe but if it can be proven that SW knew about BB letting his secret out, that plays to premeditation.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Oh absolutely. I was just pointing out the legal meaning of those terms because several posters have said the stabbing was both premeditated and an act of rage, which legally is not possible.

 

[stlrfninca]

You are totally right!!!!!!!!!

No, completely wrong. There are TWO completely separate events here, both of which have been reported and they are not in conflict.

EDIT: To clarify, they are in conflict in that they are two different stories, but they are separate stories, both or neither of which may have actually occurred

1) SW, during one of his interviews with, claimed to the police that LE, claimed that BB tried to kiss him. To me, this is just part of his defense/story and I question whether it actually happened or not. Who knows?

2) In the June of 2017, BB told (at least) two friends that SW tried to hit on him. If we are to believe the OC Register article we have this directly from text messages that have been found, so this is fairly direct evidence. Whether it's true or not is once again open to interpretation, but there seems to be corroboration for these set of facts if we are to believe SM posts from OCSA classmates of both BB and SW.

Once again, I would caution about 3rd party media sources that may be slightly and unintentionally rewording things, making us think the facts have changed which they have not. ALL of the MSM reports with details about these events refer back to the OC Register article, which is the only MSM organization with direct source material as far as I know. Where we're getting hung up is the semantics of reporters' retelling of these facts

 

[appleeye]

Who cares who initiated contact. If he knew that he was interested sexually in him, why did he pick him up unless he was either interested or he intended to kill him.

That makes him just as interested in meeting up.

Why in heaven's name are we trying to make BB look bad? Would we say the same about a hetero woman or man? No one forced SW to pick up BB. No one forced him to have him as a friend on Snapchat. No one forced him to respond to him -regardless of who initiated the contact, the contact was allowed and reciprocated. No one forced him to kill him.

Next someone is going to say that BB raped CW. Good lord.

 

[clearskies1]

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?

Phillynews seems to have gotten it backwards as it seems to have based its article on the OC Register article which reports it the other way i.e., that Bernstein reneged on a promise of silence about Woodward hitting on Bernstein. JMO.

 

[LAhiker]

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?

I suspect that Phillynews has indeed gotten it backwards. Maybe we should ask them to double-check that.

 

[Blef]

So, I'm gay. Outing someone isn't cool. HOWEVER being outed (if indeed SW was outed by Blaze) isn't an excuse to stab someone over 20 times. I can't imagine Blaze would ever meet up with SW if he had felt that SW had held a grudge or was angry with him about it. Personally I get the feeling that SW is trying to divert the blame to Blaze.

 

[Catonahottinroof]

Who cares who initiated contact. If he knew that he was interested sexually in him, why did he pick him up unless he was either interested or he intended to kill him.

That makes him just as interested in meeting up.

Why in heaven's name are we trying to make BB look bad? Would we say the same about a hetero woman or man? No one forced SW to pick up BB. No one forced him to have him as a friend on Snapchat. No one forced him to respond to him -regardless of who initiated the contact, the contact was allowed and reciprocated. No one forced him to kill him.

Next someone is going to say that BB raped CW. Good lord.

I was just explaining what I think the paper meant by using the word "pursue". Several people here were outraged by the use of that word. That in NO WAY makes BB look bad.

 

[Gussified]

From the CBS article,

The Register claims detectives found Bernstein's blood on a sleeping bag in the back of Woodward's rental car.

This is a perfect example of what drives me insane about journalists today. CBS took source material - the OC Register article - and through sloppy journalism CHANGED THE FACTS!

NOWHERE in the OC Register article does it say that the sleeping bag was found in the back of SW's rental car. It specifically says "in his possession".

Just because elsewhere in the affidavit there were reports of LE finding camping gear in the back of SW's rental car does not give the reporter license to connect these two pieces of information in the lazy way that CBS did.

In fact, if you believe someone who posted here last night claiming to have inside information from LE, the sleeping bag was found in SW's trash can, presumably when they searched the house AFTER obtaining the warrant.

Regardless, CBS inaccurately reported what was contained in the OCR article. If you're going to be that sloppy, please don't retell the story CBS - just give a link to the OC Register article and let people read for themselves.

Fortunately, this fact may not be that crucial, but it can certainly lead to some wrong conclusions - but imagine it were a more crucial piece of information that were handled so sloppily.

Truly exasperating.

Amen!

 

[prue]

I share others concerns about whether the OCRegister leaks from the affidavit may have been selective.
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/01/...ed-at-least-20-times-in-possible-act-of-rage/

A short way into the article, it says "[FONT=&amp]A search warrant affidavit obtained by the Orange County Register indicates that 19-year-old Bernstein may have been planning to sexually pursue Woodward."

[/FONT]While that may be what the affidavit says, it bothers me that other news stories picking up on it have had titles such as "Blaze Bernstein killing: Affidavit hints at sexual pursuit," meaning, BB's possible pursuit of SW.

I mean, had BB pursued SW, there would be nothing wrong with that, but I really doubt that happened. At this point, we only have SW's word for it, and after all his lies I don't believe a word he says. I wonder if someone is trying to set up a "gay panic" defense.

The Register also quotes the bit about BB possibly outing SW. I discuss this in an earlier comment but here I'll just say it's another thing that makes BB look bad.

Of course, BB being stabbed 20 times doesn't exactly make SW look good. In general, I appreciate the Register's reporting. These excerpts may be random rather than selective.

But I wonder if someone -- not sure who -- might be trying to protect SW here or to make sure BB's parents don't complain about a plea deal if the alternative is seeing their dead son dragged through the mud. Just my opinion.

Whatever we may think or whatever perspective anyone holds, imo this case is already being tried in the court of public opinion. It is patently obvious to me that the coverage is developing into a narrative, I find this very disconcerting. It is my opinion, as I stated before that this, in itself, could potentially affect a favorable and just outcome in this case. I wonder very much who indeed leaked the original affidavit and whether it was leaked originally, in part or whole.

Once that document was reported sealed I very much question the legal right of the publication to continue publishing any portion of it.

‘On December 19, 2007, the California Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District, issued a decision that significantly strengthens the ability of companies to produce discovery in litigation pursuant to protective orders with confidence that the documents will remain confidential until they are submitted to or relied upon by the trial court in connection with a substantive matter (Mercury Interactive Corporation v. Kenneth Klein, et al., The Recorder, et al., HO31175). Accepting arguments presented by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, the court held that sealed discovery attached to a complaint or other court filing does not automatically become presumptively public under California Sealed Records Rules CRC 2.550 and 2.551 (the rules). Under the rules, documents filed in court are considered presumptively public and cannot be sealed unless the party seeking confidentiality demonstrates that there is an “overriding interest” that would be substantially prejudiced by public disclosure, an extremely high burden to overcome. The Court of Appeals held that the rules apply only to documents that are actually used at trial or are submitted to the court as the basis for the adjudication of a substantive matter or material controversy. The court held that neither the First Amendment nor any presumed right of the public to newsworthy information created a general right of public access to discovery filed in court that was not used at trial or submitted as a basis for adjudication of substantive matters. ‘


…” The court also rejected The Recorder’s argument that the public had a general right to information concerning matters of public importance: “The claim that the subject of the litigation may be newsworthy—in effect, an argument that the public has a generalized right to be informed—cannot serve as a substitute for a showing of specific utility of public access to the information.”

https://www.wsgr.com/publications/pdfsearch/clientalert_klein.pdf


Soley my opinion.

 

[Busylady]

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