Moxie_McTavish
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2014
- Messages
- 302
- Reaction score
- 1,140
Thanks, Puakenikeni, for sharing your thoughts! You bring up good points. I wasn't aware that SC is being charged with attempting to deal those drugs in prison. My assumption was that the aunt had brought him those drugs for his own recreational use/relief, and on that assumption, I personally don't think the aunt would bring him meth to use had he not already been familiar with taking the drug...unless it was under the precept of "If anyone's picking on you in there, just try a bit of this, it'll help you fight anyone off, and no one will mess with you after that."
I agree, he looks too healthy to be a major tweaker. And yet, this crime is just so brutal...being familiar with similar assaults and murders in the area, meth is very often a component, and the details of this case to me had METH written all over them. The only thing that kept me from going there sooner was his healthy appearance. But when I saw that his aunt had brought him meth in prison, something clicked inside of me. I would bet money that he was under the influence of crystal meth at some point during the committing of the crime. Far from certain of course...but I would bet that he was.
About SC placing Charli's dismembered remains into the stream, it is certainly possible, although the rolls of tape at the side of the stream point more toward sealing up in a bag or whatnot to me. Also, even if the body was hacked into small bits (I'm sorry, everyone, I really don't like referring to this aspect of Charli's fate...), that is a lot of remains to dump into that stream. The dog only snorkeled at that one spot, whereas if her remains were floating down the stream in a torrent, some of them would undoubtedly touch branches, fall to the bottom, get snagged, etc. And yet, the dog did not detect remains anywhere else - only at that one spot where he snorkelled AFAIK. So for these reasons, I would be disinclined to believe he deposited her remains in the stream. It's all so speculative, we will likely never know the minutiae of how he committed the crime.
Finally, I just want to say that I found all the speeches so moving. I watched the whole thing. I found Kimberlyn's to be the most powerful, although she was speaking so quietly it was hard to hear sometimes. It almost felt like she was chanelling - I found it deeply moving.
I understand that the family is completely focused on finding Charli's remains and that it was a concerted effort for everyone to keep asking Steven "Where is she, Steven?" But I don't think that is going to work - especially when everyone keeps telling him what a piece of **** he is. I think if they want him to spill the beans, they need to start thinking more along the lines of a trade-off:
What can I give him to get him to reveal what happened?"
IMO, it's the only strategy that *might* work. But I doubt that anything will work. :-(
I agree, he looks too healthy to be a major tweaker. And yet, this crime is just so brutal...being familiar with similar assaults and murders in the area, meth is very often a component, and the details of this case to me had METH written all over them. The only thing that kept me from going there sooner was his healthy appearance. But when I saw that his aunt had brought him meth in prison, something clicked inside of me. I would bet money that he was under the influence of crystal meth at some point during the committing of the crime. Far from certain of course...but I would bet that he was.
About SC placing Charli's dismembered remains into the stream, it is certainly possible, although the rolls of tape at the side of the stream point more toward sealing up in a bag or whatnot to me. Also, even if the body was hacked into small bits (I'm sorry, everyone, I really don't like referring to this aspect of Charli's fate...), that is a lot of remains to dump into that stream. The dog only snorkeled at that one spot, whereas if her remains were floating down the stream in a torrent, some of them would undoubtedly touch branches, fall to the bottom, get snagged, etc. And yet, the dog did not detect remains anywhere else - only at that one spot where he snorkelled AFAIK. So for these reasons, I would be disinclined to believe he deposited her remains in the stream. It's all so speculative, we will likely never know the minutiae of how he committed the crime.
Finally, I just want to say that I found all the speeches so moving. I watched the whole thing. I found Kimberlyn's to be the most powerful, although she was speaking so quietly it was hard to hear sometimes. It almost felt like she was chanelling - I found it deeply moving.
I understand that the family is completely focused on finding Charli's remains and that it was a concerted effort for everyone to keep asking Steven "Where is she, Steven?" But I don't think that is going to work - especially when everyone keeps telling him what a piece of **** he is. I think if they want him to spill the beans, they need to start thinking more along the lines of a trade-off:
What can I give him to get him to reveal what happened?"
IMO, it's the only strategy that *might* work. But I doubt that anything will work. :-(
