I can't get over this:
NL told LE that CL had a .22 rifle and that he had moved it from the Jeep to the ranch, then she took LE to the ranch to retrieve it. Why? If she was trying to cover up, why lead them to the murder weapon?? If she truly thought the body would never be found, what was her impetus behind telling them this? Why not just say "I don't know where it is?"
I honestly do not put much credence into the IM statements in either direction, since she did her about face move to the media. I consider her an unreliable witness no matter what...therefore, all of her statements are, IMO, completely useless. In my mind, we should pretend she never said anything about not finding a body, etc etc, unless or until we hear an explanation for why her story changed.
NL told LE that CL had a .22 rifle and that he had moved it from the Jeep to the ranch, then she took LE to the ranch to retrieve it. Why? If she was trying to cover up, why lead them to the murder weapon?? If she truly thought the body would never be found, what was her impetus behind telling them this? Why not just say "I don't know where it is?"
I honestly do not put much credence into the IM statements in either direction, since she did her about face move to the media. I consider her an unreliable witness no matter what...therefore, all of her statements are, IMO, completely useless. In my mind, we should pretend she never said anything about not finding a body, etc etc, unless or until we hear an explanation for why her story changed.
Ehhhhh.........I'm kind of hanging over the side of the fence that NL DID have something to do with the murder.
*quoted from Knox's post*
I get the idea NL thinks CL is about as dumb as a box of rocks. Whether she was part of the planning/executing of the murder, or covering up....she's sounds like she's knee deep in it.
Who says, "No body, no crime"? *paraphrasing* And has LE determined that the computer searches where in fact done by CL? If CL is asking other people about where or how to hide a body, doesn't sound like he's doing a "google" search.
How would she know LE missed "something" if she didn't know exactly what that "something" was? And how that "something" connected to the murder?
Could NL be angry that maybe EC was going to make this "Public" and put a bad light on NL's marriage? Some women can get pretty PO'd when the other woman hints at public disclosure. Maybe NL is "all about appearances"? Horse lady noticed in February that there was a "disconnect" between CL, NL, and EC, after the initial affair was discovered. NL was probably embarrassed and mad, more so that EC was still turning up at the ranch, maybe NL thought EC was rubbing it in her face, reminding her? And EC did nothing to move her adopted horse to another stabling facility, just adding to NL's perceived "insult to injury".
Could dropping EC in a mine be NL's idea? Back to the "no body, no crime" comment. If she WAS doing the "google" searches, it would give credence to her convo with the horse ranch lady about the Scott Peterson trial, because she certainly wasn't old enough to be considered a "trial watcher" when Peterson's trial was going on.
CL's alibi could have been rehearsed BEFORE the murder actually happened, "not able to keep his lies straight". Rehearsed between CL and NL. Would have worked.......but EC had to text her friend in Tn. CL can't keep his lies straight, the ongoing affair surfaces when he's interviewed by LE. NL's not there to "coach" him. Maybe they never got to the "what if" scenarios when they rehearsed? Neither thought "Deny, deny, deny" would be needed as an option?
I'm just going off the possibility the LE MAY charge NL, and what the basis of those charges MIGHT be.
"Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."
Diane Zamora with a twist.
I think there's going to be more to this case as it unfolds.