Found Deceased CA - Blaze Bernstein, 19, Lake Forest, 2 Jan 2018 #7 *Arrest*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
The new article can also be accessed on Blazebernstein.org under latest news for those who can't access the LA times

https://blazebernstein.org/blog

The Bernstein's say they aren't going to attend any of the criminal court proceedings at all unless they are really needed.

I worry though about the impact not having the victims family in the courtroom may have on a jury to keep Blaze real to them. Hopefully I just worry too much.
Any thoughts on this ??


The Bernsteins still have 2 children to raise and worry about. Personally, I wouldn’t want to sit in a courtroom with the person who murdered my child day in and day out. Can you imagine how draining that would be?

I am sure they will be there to give victim impact statements as well as to testify if needed. It is part of the prosecutors job to make sure the victim is a real person to the jury.

I agree with someone else who responded to your comment. I think they are showing a lot of class.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
He has Sanpaku eyes in the mugshot. Ann Rule wrote about Diane Downs and Ted Bundy both having Sanpaku eyes, where you can see the whites of the eyes above or below (in the case of Downs and Bundy) the pupil.

This isn't forensically supported other than the relation of sanpaku eyes to heightened or flattened emotional states. Humans can quickly 'read' emotions from our eyes, and the difference in the eyes in the two photos is chilling, partly because we pick up the 'whites of the eyes' so quickly.

The rule of thumb is that if you see someone with full Sanpaku eyes, watch out!

I just looked through some pictures of myself & saw one with eyes like that, while other pics of me didn't.

I think it depends on the expression, angle, etc.
 

The daily fail is claiming that ifunny sab guy is him. I don't think it is as it would have gone down earlier. There is a video that people claim was him. Maybe. Maybe not. That guys eyebrows were even bigger and he was not tall relative to his peers, plus he was joking, laughing and with a bunch of friends. Not like sad serious loner Sam.

But could the Defence argue that us trial has been prejudiced by all the untrue media stories (after proving they are false)?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I wonder if part of the reason the arraignment was postponed was that the parents weren't sure what they wanted to do about posting bail. MOO

I have wondered that as well. A public defender has been appointed as well, and I am unclear on the ramifications: the Woodwards don't have a family attorney and they are shopping around for one, they could afford one but don't want to bother, or they can't afford one, or something else.

If they CAN by some standards afford to hire an attorney, is it legal and proper to have taxpayers funding SW's defense?

Back to the arraignment, the defender for SW has explicitly stated that the arraignment has been postponed - and no plea yet entered - because had not seen any evidence. Presumably he will be spending the second half of January going over it, but I have no idea what the DA or LE may be obligated to share in such circumstances.
 
I have wondered that as well. A public defender has been appointed as well, and I am unclear on the ramifications: the Woodwards don't have a family attorney and they are shopping around for one, they could afford one but don't want to bother, or they can't afford one, or something else.

If they CAN by some standards afford to hire an attorney, is it legal and proper to have taxpayers funding SW's defense?

Back to the arraignment, the defender for SW has explicitly stated that the arraignment has been postponed - and no plea yet entered - because had not seen any evidence. Presumably he will be spending the second half of January going over it, but I have no idea what the DA or LE may be obligated to share in such circumstances.

where did you hear he has a public defender? The media is reporting that he has hired Edward Munoz - who used to be a deputy district attorney but he is not a public defender...
 
where did you hear he has a public defender? The media is reporting that he has hired Edward Munoz - who used to be a deputy district attorney but he is not a public defender...

On the Superior Court of California - County of Orange website, the case detail names Edward Munoz as Sam’s “Retained Attorney.”
 
where did you hear he has a public defender? The media is reporting that he has hired Edward Munoz - who used to be a deputy district attorney but he is not a public defender...

Shortly after the arrest, in an online report IIRC the Woodward's were described as having a public or court-appointed attorney. It may have been in error, or I read it wrong, or there is more to this.

Munoz does indeed have his own practice:
http://www.emunozlaw.com/
 
Shortly after the arrest, in an online report IIRC the Woodward's were described as having a public or court-appointed attorney. It may have been in error, or I read it wrong, or there is more to this.

Munoz does indeed have his own practice:
http://www.emunozlaw.com/

He may be retained, but public defenders can have a private practice
 
He may be retained, but public defenders can have a private practice

OK thanks. More than likely I had thought that public defenders were employed by the state/county, so possibly I had a misconception. In the event a defendant cannot afford a lawyer, I believe the language is "one will be appointed for you".

Whatever the Woodwards have going with Munoz, I am sure they have worked something out, and chosen him specifically.
 
I have wondered that as well. A public defender has been appointed as well, and I am unclear on the ramifications: the Woodwards don't have a family attorney and they are shopping around for one, they could afford one but don't want to bother, or they can't afford one, or something else.

If they CAN by some standards afford to hire an attorney, is it legal and proper to have taxpayers funding SW's defense?

Back to the arraignment, the defender for SW has explicitly stated that the arraignment has been postponed - and no plea yet entered - because had not seen any evidence. Presumably he will be spending the second half of January going over it, but I have no idea what the DA or LE may be obligated to share in such circumstances.

Shortly after the arrest, in an online report IIRC the Woodward's were described as having a public or court-appointed attorney. It may have been in error, or I read it wrong, or there is more to this.

Munoz does indeed have his own practice:
http://www.emunozlaw.com/

OK thanks. More than likely I had thought that public defenders were employed by the state/county, so possibly I had a misconception. In the event a defendant cannot afford a lawyer, I believe the language is "one will be appointed for you".

Whatever the Woodwards have going with Munoz, I am sure they have worked something out, and chosen him specifically.

This is just a guess, but maybe...
SW is legally an adult. His parents’ finances do not enter into his ability to pay for his own defense. So, if that’s true, and SW could not afford an attorney based his own finances, he was assigned a public defender. But then, his parents went out and hired Mr Munoz for him. I would think the public defender is no longer involved, since he now has hired a private attorney.
 
I have wondered that as well. A public defender has been appointed as well, and I am unclear on the ramifications: the Woodwards don't have a family attorney and they are shopping around for one, they could afford one but don't want to bother, or they can't afford one, or something else.

If they CAN by some standards afford to hire an attorney, is it legal and proper to have taxpayers funding SW's defense?
.

SW is an adult, and no longer attends college. However, I'm going on the assumption that his parents financially support him and possibly claim him as a dependent if his income is not sufficient enough to support himself.

Would that make them responsible for hiring an attorney? Or is SW, with limited income (no idea of personal assets), able to use a public defender if he has no money of his own?
 
The court site specifically lists Munoz as a retained attorney. A retained attorney is paid by the defendant. In this case, I am assuming Sam’s parents put up the retainer for him. There is no public defender.
 
SW is an adult, and no longer attends college. However, I'm going on the assumption that his parents financially support him and possibly claim him as a dependent if his income is not sufficient enough to support himself.

Would that make them responsible for hiring an attorney? Or is SW, with limited income (no idea of personal assets), able to use a public defender if he has no money of his own?

I did not think the parents would be compelled legally to pay for their child's defense if that child is a legal adult. It doesn't matter what the parents are worth or what they can afford, it has more to do with the age of the child. Even if he lives it's them, they are not legally responsible to pay for his legal issues. That's all on him. IMO
 
I have to disagree with that statement. If that were the case (hate being the ultimate consequence), why don't we see people getting murdered on a daily basis? I see this case as not about an entire religion, but about one person who had problems going on in his life.

Who defines hate?

Agree. Obviously the kid was sick to begin with if he stabbed BB times.

we don't know the cause of SW's rage yet, but to say it's religion or scouts or growing root vegetables, without absolute PROOF that anything of the sort caused this, is just incomprehensible. Many folks go to church, kids are in scouts, they don't run around killing people randomly just because their lifestyle doesn't agree with theirs.

I've questioned in my heart if this was a revenge rage killing. Something in their past festered in SW's head, he waned revenge. This is just MOO and hopefully my comment won't be deleted because I am speculating just some of you that are screaming the almighty Catholics are mean and evil people. I'm not Catholic, and I feel for any good and caring Catholics on here who are reading this slam day after day against their religion.
 
:goodpost::goodpost::goodpost:
Agree. Obviously the kid was sick to begin with if he stabbed BB times.

we don't know the cause of SW's rage yet, but to say it's religion or scouts or growing root vegetables, without absolute PROOF that anything of the sort caused this, is just incomprehensible. Many folks go to church, kids are in scouts, they don't run around killing people randomly just because their lifestyle doesn't agree with theirs.

I've questioned in my heart if this was a revenge rage killing. Something in their past festered in SW's head, he waned revenge. This is just MOO and hopefully my comment won't be deleted because I am speculating just some of you that are screaming the almighty Catholics are mean and evil people. I'm not Catholic, and I feel for any good and caring Catholics on here who are reading this slam day after day against their religion.

Thank you and I agree with your speculation/opinion that this is more about their past history & revenge.

I think we’ll know soon enough....
 
Agree. Obviously the kid was sick to begin with if he stabbed BB times.

we don't know the cause of SW's rage yet, but to say it's religion or scouts or growing root vegetables, without absolute PROOF that anything of the sort caused this, is just incomprehensible. Many folks go to church, kids are in scouts, they don't run around killing people randomly just because their lifestyle doesn't agree with theirs.

I've questioned in my heart if this was a revenge rage killing. Something in their past festered in SW's head, he waned revenge. This is just MOO and hopefully my comment won't be deleted because I am speculating just some of you that are screaming the almighty Catholics are mean and evil people. I'm not Catholic, and I feel for any good and caring Catholics on here who are reading this slam day after day against their religion.
Thank you for this.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
This killing, to me, sounds very very personal. Even planned and thought out a bit. Some type of revenge.

Things I would like to know:

1. when was the last time before the two had contact face to face, before that night? Throughout Blaze's winter break? Summer?
2. Were they still in contact with each other when Blaze was away at college?
3. Did they hang out with mutual friends?
4. During an interview in the very beginning when Blaze was missing and the parents were lead to believe he might have taken off on his own, his mother made a plea for him to please come home. While not a direct quote, she did ask him to please come home, no matter where he was was, who he was with, and no matter who he was talking to. I've wondered since then, the part of "no matter who you've been talking to"- who were they referring to? Could it have been Sam, but because his physical appearance changed a bit since high school, that they didn't recognize him at first? Did they meet the junior high/ high school Sam once or twice before, didn't like him, and perhaps banned Blaze from hanging out with him? The last time that they might have seen him in person could have been when Sam was 16. He's drastically changed since then (lots of boys get taller and fill out, grow beards, etc)
5. According to LE, Blaze contacted Sam first that night on social media. He gave Sam his address. So he planned to go out with Sam that night. Yet, he didn't bring anything with him other than a borrowed cell phone from a relative. What were their actual plans? Was it ever established that Blaze actually knew that they were going to go to Borrego Park, or did Sam tell the cops this? Did Blaze know for a fact they were heading there after?
6. Who rented the rental car for Sam, was that car used that night of the murder?
7. Does Sam have a car of his own? If so, where was it during the investigation?

I've been going back and forth in my mind with these thoughts. This case is tough for me, because they're both so young, both had their entire lives ahead of them, yet for some reason, Sam went off the deep end over something.

If Sam wanted to kill a gay person for being gay, he had plenty of other gays he could have picked from in that area or he could have used any one of those gay pick up sites to kill a gay person.

I just don't buy that this is over Blaze being gay. There is a personal element to this, something deep, and I just don't feel it had anything to do with sex or religious beliefs. I could be wrong, feel free to tear my thoughts apart, but their just my opinions and have been right from the start of this case. I always knew that the "driver friend" killed him. What I didn't know, is if he acted alone. So far, it appears Sam did do this alone, or he would have sung like a canary if someone else was involved.
 
OK Everyone,

Stop with the constant Catholic Church stuff.

We know the Catholic Church's position on Homosexuals.

Let's wait and see if the motive for the murder of Blaze has anything to do with religion.

Stop posting bulletins for the Catholic Church. Stop posting anything that has people's names on it that are either minors or have nothing to do with the case.

I am not going to say you can't mention the Catholic Church. I really want to give you all a bit of leeway to discuss all reasonable motives but I will shut down the whole religion discussion if everyone keeps harping on it and arguing with each other.

Move on, please.

Tricia

From page 1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
59
Guests online
1,784
Total visitors
1,843

Forum statistics

Threads
600,248
Messages
18,105,848
Members
230,993
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top