Found Deceased CA - Blaze Bernstein, 19, Lake Forest, 2 Jan 2018 #6 *Arrest*

[PrairieWind]

PrairieWind,

I was just answering to the question "What precedent is there for requiring testimony from his priest regarding what SW may have said?" from a poster called SleuthDr with my opinion on this.

I do not know why you are quoting my answer on yours as mine clearly states I do not know if there is any precedent for requiring testimony from a priest neither my message states as a fact that he went to confession. I simply do not know, just like everybody else on this thread. Information on this has not been released.

Sorry, I didn't mean that to come across as adversarial. The question had been asked about the confession issue and your last post was just the one i responded so that my response was attached to something with context.

 

[Gardenista]

Can you give an overview of that case? I’m not familiar with it.

In this case, the parents hacked into the victim’s computer/device, not the suspect’s. Also, the suspect subsequently admitted to picking up the victim, which was what the parents discovered in the ‘hack’.

Edit: (hit post too soon) just wondering if those facts make a difference?

Jenna Van Gelderen

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/s...A-Jenna-Van-Gelderen-25-Atlanta-18-Aug-2017-4

 

[Gussified]

Jenna Van Gelderen

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/s...A-Jenna-Van-Gelderen-25-Atlanta-18-Aug-2017-4

So, no, you can’t give an overview? I looked at the link and there’s a ton of information there. Just scanning it, Nothing jumps out at me about hacking. Just don’t have time to read through the entire thread.

 

[Blef]

I personally don't care if BB kissed SW. If SW didn't want to be kissed by BB then there are other ways to deal with that other than stabbing him 20 times. I could understand SW slapping Blaze. I could even understand SW punching Blaze. However I cannot .understand stabbing Blaze 20 times. I don't believe for one second SW didn't know Blaze was gay. They went to the same school for a time, they talked prior to the murder obviously. They made arrangements to meet up. It wouldn't have come as a surprise to SW that Blaze was gay. From all accounts it wasn't something Blaze hid, in fact he and his family have been very open about it. I don't even know if SW is closeted, never mind gay. It may be that he was exploring his sexuality at some point. SW and Blaze made arrangements to meet, to hang out, and SW brought a knife with him and kept it close enough to him to be able to use it over and over again on Blaze. That smacks of premeditation to me. I'm pleased he is being kept in jail with no bond. He seems to be an angry dangerous man to me.

 

[SleuthDr]

Sorry, I didn't mean that to come across as adversarial. The question had been asked about the confession issue and your last post was just the one i responded so that my response was attached to something with context.

Thanks to everyone for responding to this topic. A statement to the effect that confession and communion are 'bundled' was made here in these forums yesterday. If that's not completely correct, I am pleased to see it clarified.

 

[curiosityscat]

(SNIP-SNIP)In this case, the parents hacked into the victim’s computer/device, not the suspect’s. Also, the suspect subsequently admitted to picking up the victim, which was what the parents discovered in the ‘hack’.

Edit: (hit post too soon) just wondering if those facts make a difference?

Yes!, the “who” hacking “what” makes a BIG difference...

== HACKING vs NOT HACKING ==

A 3rd Party..ex: Parent’s “Hacking” some 3rd person’s property (let’s say a suspect’s equip), without that person’s knowledge or permission = “Hacking”, illegal

A 3rd Party...Ex: let’s say a suspect...”Hacked” a victim’s equipment, without the victim’s knowledge or permission = “Hacking”, illegal

A Parent (especially, a “legal guardian”), accessing their own dependent child/adult’s equipment = NOT HACKING, legally done..
In this specific case, Blaze was likely (I am presuming this) still considered a ‘legal dependent’, because of his age, and the fact that he was still attending (again, presumption on my part), a “full time” student status, AND (another presumption) his parent’s were likely providing more than 50% of his financial support while away attending college..generally, meeting these criteria, extends the age of an allowed ‘dependent’ and parent’s to remain their ‘legal guardian’ until a higher age of majority beyond the typical 18yrs old, and in some cases can go as high as 22-24yrs old..(this is done to help the parent’s claim deductions, and the “child” to continue to get health coverage under the parent’s policy for a little longer while attending college)..
SO, as I was saying, a “LEGAL” guardian accessing a “dependent’s” equipment (in a home that they mutually share)....wouldn’t matter the age so long as it is an official legal dependent...= NOT HACKING, wouldn’t be ‘hacking’ if their kid were 5yrs old, or 12yrs old, or whatever age, so long as THEIR Dependent...(again) = NOT HACKING, legal access as they are the Legal Guardian (meaning the individual can not enter into legally binding contracts, etc, without the Legal Guardian’s permission, etc..so the dependent would not actually “own” property..all ‘property’ would be the parent’s and they can’t ‘hack’ their own property...(did that make sense?)

All of the above is just my thoughts, views, humble opinions, presumptions, etc., unless other wise indicated by a Website URL and/or my referencing a specific source...Thanks!

 

[JaneEyre]

Thanks to everyone for responding to this topic. A statement to the effect that confession and communion are 'bundled' was made here in these forums yesterday. If that's not completely correct, I am pleased to see it clarified.

I clarified it then, but it was in response to a post that got deleted.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Catonahottinroof]

"Davis said he last saw Woodward at church on Jan. 7, when he expressed excitement about taking Communion."
http://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/tn-dpt-me-woodward-charges-20180117-story.html

What an odd statement for the priest to make. The priest was excited that SW took communion? SW expressed to the priest that he was excited to take communion? The priest noticed that SW seemed excited when taking communion?

Could a court compel a priest's testimony regarding this statement and lead into how it relates to SW and the crime ... I.e. Im thinking usually in confession one receives a penitence that one must do before taking communion again... say he confessed or partially confessed the crime to the priest and the priest told him he must tell his parents or attorney what he remembers... then when the priest saw SW taking communion he was excited bc he knew that meant the SW had told someone...

I just cant think of any other reason for a priest to be"excited" that a parishioner is taking communion...

Edit to add- and if its SW who expressed that he was excited to take communion to the priest... this seems very odd given that his friend disappeared and was killed several days before and he is a suspect..

 

[DAnthrplgst]

Thanks to everyone for responding to this topic. A statement to the effect that confession and communion are 'bundled' was made here in these forums yesterday. If that's not completely correct, I am pleased to see it clarified.

No prob. It's a common misconception. Technically you're not supposed to receive communion without going to Confession, there are exceptions to this rule, most notably if you've only committed venial (or minor) sins, those are sins that are absolved at the start of mass during a part of the mass called the Confiteor (the prayer for this part is beautiful, IMO). If you've committed a mortal sin (the serious stuff) then you MUST go to Confession before receiving Communion. Most American Catholics don't follow those rules, mostly because they don't really understand how it's all supposed to work.

 

[DAnthrplgst]

"Davis said he last saw Woodward at church on Jan. 7, when he expressed excitement about taking Communion."
http://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/tn-dpt-me-woodward-charges-20180117-story.html

What an odd statement for the priest to make. The priest was excited that SW took communion? SW expressed to the priest that he was excited to take communion? The priest noticed that SW seemed excited when taking communion?

Could a court compel a priest's testimony regarding this statement and lead into how it relates to SW and the crime ... I.e. Im thinking usually in confession one receives a penitence that one must do before taking communion again... say he confessed or partially confessed the crime to the priest and the priest told him he must tell his parents or attorney what he remembers... then when the priest saw SW taking communion he was excited bc he knew that meant the SW had told someone...

I just cant think of any other reason for a priest to be"excited" that a parishioner is taking communion...

BBM. He (the priest) could be excited because maybe SW was away from the church for awhile and by taking Communion that would mean SW returned to his church family. Truthfully though, I have my doubts about the veracity of this apparent statement by the priest. The LA Times is no friend of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, so anything they report that is church related I tend to take with a grain of salt until it's verified.

 

[Cherry]

I don't care if he went to confession, it seems he broke a commandment of his God: Thou shalt not kill.
Oh the ironic dichotomy here.

 

[Vaccine]

Re parents opening an unopened snapchat message from a few pages back:

I didn't hear that before. So BB went out with his loan phone (as we know that a text was sent when he was out and that the phone was then closed down), and his parents accessed his Snapchat on a laptop, computer or other device at home which he had left open?

 

[Gussified]

"Davis said he last saw Woodward at church on Jan. 7, when he expressed excitement about taking Communion."
http://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/tn-dpt-me-woodward-charges-20180117-story.html

What an odd statement for the priest to make. The priest was excited that SW took communion? SW expressed to the priest that he was excited to take communion? The priest noticed that SW seemed excited when taking communion?

Could a court compel a priest's testimony regarding this statement and lead into how it relates to SW and the crime ... I.e. Im thinking usually in confession one receives a penitence that one must do before taking communion again... say he confessed or partially confessed the crime to the priest and the priest told him he must tell his parents or attorney what he remembers... then when the priest saw SW taking communion he was excited bc he knew that meant the SW had told someone...

I just cant think of any other reason for a priest to be"excited" that a parishioner is taking communion...

Edit to add- and if its SW who expressed that he was excited to take communion to the priest... this seems very odd given that his friend disappeared and was killed several days before and he is a suspect..

I took it that SW was excited to take communion.

If SW didn’t go to confession...Could be that SW was excited to take communion, as a demonstration that he did not commit a mortal sin.

If SW did go to confession...Could be that SW was excited to take communion, as a demonstration that he’s been absolved of his sin?

 

[Gussified]

Yes!, the “who” hacking “what” makes a BIG difference...

== HACKING vs NOT HACKING ==

A 3rd Party..ex: Parent’s “Hacking” some 3rd person’s property (let’s say a suspect’s equip), without that person’s knowledge or permission = “Hacking”, illegal

A 3rd Party...Ex: let’s say a suspect...”Hacked” a victim’s equipment, without the victim’s knowledge or permission = “Hacking”, illegal

A Parent (especially, a “legal guardian”), accessing their own dependent child/adult’s equipment = NOT HACKING, legally done..
In this specific case, Blaze was likely (I am presuming this) still considered a ‘legal dependent’, because of his age, and the fact that he was still attending (again, presumption on my part), a “full time” student status, AND (another presumption) his parent’s were likely providing more than 50% of his financial support while away attending college..generally, meeting these criteria, extends the age of an allowed ‘dependent’ and parent’s to remain their ‘legal guardian’ until a higher age of majority beyond the typical 18yrs old, and in some cases can go as high as 22-24yrs old..(this is done to help the parent’s claim deductions, and the “child” to continue to get health coverage under the parent’s policy for a little longer while attending college)..
SO, as I was saying, a “LEGAL” guardian accessing a “dependent’s” equipment (in a home that they mutually share)....wouldn’t matter the age so long as it is an official legal dependent...= NOT HACKING, wouldn’t be ‘hacking’ if their kid were 5yrs old, or 12yrs old, or whatever age, so long as THEIR Dependent...(again) = NOT HACKING, legal access as they are the Legal Guardian (meaning the individual can not enter into legally binding contracts, etc, without the Legal Guardian’s permission, etc..so the dependent would not actually “own” property..all ‘property’ would be the parent’s and they can’t ‘hack’ their own property...(did that make sense?)

All of the above is just my thoughts, views, humble opinions, presumptions, etc., unless other wise indicated by a Website URL and/or my referencing a specific source...Thanks!

Yes, I understand your POV and agree with you. I’m interested in hearing about the case gardenista mentioned, where LE indicated they couldn’t use info found thru hacking. Wondering how the facts compare with this case.

 

[DizzyB]

I didn't hear that before. So BB went out with his loan phone (as we know that a text was sent when he was out and that the phone was then closed down), and his parents accessed his Snapchat on a laptop, computer or other device at home which he had left open?

I think there was an unopened Snap on a secondary device (iPad?) and when parents looked at it, they saw who it was from and advised LE. If they knew enough about Snap to save it, it would have alerted SW that it had been saved, and he could reasonably expect a visit from LE. JMO.

On the "hacking" note-I did look up the referenced case of Jenna Van Gelderen-linking and copy & pasting pertinent info below-hope I get this right-
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/s...-Van-Gelderen-25-Atlanta-18-Aug-2017-4/page20

"From the interview episode 105 with Jenna’s father, Jenna’s father speaking.

“One thing we haven’t touched on that is interesting about this case and I think that other parents in this situation need to be aware off
Because I had access to her phone, T-Mobile was able to let me ghost a new phone with her phonenumber. And my son who’s technology savvy was able to change all her passwords and get into all her Google and G-mail account, everything, and we turned all that information over to the police, because I didn’t know how much information Google collects on somebody including timeline, recorded chat, you name it. There was a trove of information. And when we gave it to the police they said well you got it illegally, we can’t look at it, your daughter might sue you over this.
I’m an attorney and to this day --to this day!-- the information that we have given them, they keep ignoring it. They had hundreds of pages that we have given them that we got from online sources. I’ve been reading enough other cases where other parents have done the same thing and access the account right away cause you can pull it up online and right away see who were the last calls and it’s essential.. most people don’t realize that if the phone has ‘location’ turned on that Google is tracking the phone and has a timeline…and that information is invaluable and we had that information and gave it to the police. As recently -as a couple offweek ago- they were still questioning whether I owned the account, although we gave them all the information. “

 

[PrairieWind]

Re parents opening an unopened snapchat message from a few pages back:

I didn't hear that before. So BB went out with his loan phone (as we know that a text was sent when he was out and that the phone was then closed down), and his parents accessed his Snapchat on a laptop, computer or other device at home which he had left open?

I think that is essentially what we are all guessing is what happened. It just isn't clear.

 

[Gussified]

I think there was an unopened Snap on a secondary device (iPad?) and when parents looked at it, they saw who it was from and advised LE. If they knew enough about Snap to save it, it would have alerted SW that it had been saved, and he could reasonably expect a visit from LE. JMO.

On the "hacking" note-I did look up the referenced case of Jenna Van Gelderen-linking and copy & pasting pertinent info below-hope I get this right-
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/s...-Van-Gelderen-25-Atlanta-18-Aug-2017-4/page20

"From the interview episode 105 with Jenna’s father, Jenna’s father speaking.

“One thing we haven’t touched on that is interesting about this case and I think that other parents in this situation need to be aware off
Because I had access to her phone, T-Mobile was able to let me ghost a new phone with her phonenumber. And my son who’s technology savvy was able to change all her passwords and get into all her Google and G-mail account, everything, and we turned all that information over to the police, because I didn’t know how much information Google collects on somebody including timeline, recorded chat, you name it. There was a trove of information. And when we gave it to the police they said well you got it illegally, we can’t look at it, your daughter might sue you over this.
I’m an attorney and to this day --to this day!-- the information that we have given them, they keep ignoring it. They had hundreds of pages that we have given them that we got from online sources. I’ve been reading enough other cases where other parents have done the same thing and access the account right away cause you can pull it up online and right away see who were the last calls and it’s essential.. most people don’t realize that if the phone has ‘location’ turned on that Google is tracking the phone and has a timeline…and that information is invaluable and we had that information and gave it to the police. As recently -as a couple offweek ago- they were still questioning whether I owned the account, although we gave them all the information. “

So, is this in regard to tracking down a missing adult?
Is LE taking the position that she may have left voluntarily and by hacking into her account, they’ve violated her privacy?

If that is the case, it seems like very different circumstances than this case. In this case, it would be a question of whether BB’s Snapchat can be used as evidence that SW picked him up on the night of his disappearance. Since SW subsequently acknowledged that he picked him up, the way the Snapchat was accessed may be a moot point. SW’s own statements could be used instead.

 

[whitelilac]

Regarding the taking communion and confession discussion, do we know if the family is Catholic?
Episcopalians also can take communion, and not necessarily confession.

Do we know which church they attended? Being from Tennessee I would have imagined they'd be Southern Baptist or something like that, but I don't know anything about those.

Sorry if that's already been disclosed, I'm a bit behind (present family problems)

 

[JaneEyre]

No prob. It's a common misconception. Technically you're not supposed to receive communion without going to Confession, there are exceptions to this rule, most notably if you've only committed venial (or minor) sins, those are sins that are absolved at the start of mass during a part of the mass called the Confiteor (the prayer for this part is beautiful, IMO). If you've committed a mortal sin (the serious stuff) then you MUST go to Confession before receiving Communion. Most American Catholics don't follow those rules, mostly because they don't really understand how it's all supposed to work.

I'm going to say that I've never met an American Catholic who doesn't "understand how it's all supposed to work." (What is this nonsense, honestly? Catholics are beat over the head with how this all works before we are allowed to make our First Communion, which is a big, big deal and involves a serious ceremony where we are dressed almost for a wedding in little white dresses and suits.)

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[DizzyB]

So, is this in regard to tracking down a missing adult?
Is LE taking the position that she may have left voluntarily and by hacking into her account, they’ve violated her privacy?

If that is the case, it seems like very different circumstances than this case. In this case, it would be a question of whether BB’s Snapchat can be used as evidence that SW picked him up on the night of his disappearance. Since SW subsequently acknowledged that he picked him up, the way the Snapchat was accessed may be a moot point. SW’s own statements could be used instead.

Right there with you