cottonweaver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,136
- Reaction score
- 31,557
All of your points in that post can be true but the Owl T shirt theory can still be problematic.Maybe LR or SG were not the intended recipients of her "visual?" How about the only contact was KM? (Remember GeoCap asking WA on the witness stand whether or not she had WhatsApp at that time or if she had kept in contact with KM. And I heard another one of WA's noncommittal answers, "Not that I can remember." (It reminded me of a man who was a fitness buff and he had just celebrated his birthday and someone asked, "How old are you? He replied, "I'll never see 45 again." So, everyone assumed he was now 46 years old.
But, I knew he was 54 years old!)
WA likes to keep secrets about a lot of things...except for the agenda of sharing how much "Danny hurt me."
As a woman who was close to WA stated...(paraphrasing) "I was close to her and never even knew she was writing a book."
She could have shared photos w/FB, INstaG, Twitter (now X), Photobucket, Flckr, Snapfish, Shutterfly, Drop Box, Google, Zoom, Text, Hello Cupid or other high tech process I haven't heard about yet.
Now we are hearing of WA contacting an attorney who is an expert on Kastigar (sp?). Hmm.. what part of WA's testimony would even have her concerned? Anybody got a clue? (Sometimes it is so hard to push that POST REPLY button...but here goes!)
In the new scenario, how does it work if KM is the intended recipient of the owl T shirt message?
That's the boring bit, the step-by-step. Once you go down that road, don't you find you're in another cul de sac? ( Believing Wendi is the main contact for Katie during the murder means you next have to disregard most of other evidence which just convicted Charlie)
Yes I totally agree with your last point. One should feel comfortable thinking out loud on WS, comfortable posing unexpected ideas and wild twists but equally we should also feel okay asking wtte ' but what if something we've long believed to be true, is actually wrong?' (WS needs both, otherwise it gets very dry & boring)
IMO Websleuths - traditionally & at it's best - is also collaborative & substantiated ( source linked.) Ideally, we ' keep each other honest' as the saying goes or ask each other to double-check our homework. It's boring and a pain in the proverbial to track back to links & time stamps which appear to show, for example, that in 2014 the hirers didn't even know the nicknames of the assassins. ( Linked, previous page, Dulce Vita transcript.)
WS at it's worst can stray into point-scorey & sneery/censorious tones -but the Markel threads have largely avoided that too, imo.
The case is a beast. (Even Jeremy Kutz said he'd never attempt to write a book about it)
Almost 10 years, 3 trials, 7? co-conspirators, zillions hours of un-enhanced audio, a raft of dodgy Defense lawyers behind the scenes, 3 co-conspirators whose brains are mush, 4? co-conspirators who are BS-ers of the highest order, addicted to sub texts, coded language and elaborate manipulations.
Next, chuck into the mix so many case 'unknowables' and the tik-tok-ification of True Crime.
It's human nature that our brains want to fill gaps even if sometimes we're forcing square chunks into round holes.
So, circling back to the starting point, does the Owl T shirt work if Katie instead, is the intended recipient of Wendi's message? (I love ' out of the box' creative thinking but once we get the thing out of the box, we still have to assemble the pieces to see if they fit together)
Anyway, apologies for the long post - yes even I am bored re-reading it - but didn't want anybody to feel they're walking on eggshells on the Markel thread but also wanted to jump off your post to make some broader points for newbies who will join WS for this case as Donna's trial moves forward.