Shiressleuth
Former Member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2016
- Messages
- 10,088
- Reaction score
- 4,833
That's great kitty. TYVM. Perhaps it can go in media thread so it is always available for all to see.
Sounds like he threatened to do it again to a witness, which explains why they acted and arrested him so soon after the vigil. That witness will doubtless give evidence to back up the tape . I don't think he's insane, just a cold, calculated, murderer IMO.Even if BC admitted on secret taping to murdering YZ that, by itself, wouldn't necessarily carry decisive weight, and might not even be admissible in court. What I still assume LE has from the apt. is forensic evidence (which may or may not include blood), and sniffer dogs responding to the scent of human death. And yes, probably also video from his cell phone. Given the assuredness of prosecution statements, with words like "heinous," "depraved," etc. in the indictment, I'd be surprised if they don't have a very solid case. Again, I think it will soon move to an insanity plea to save him from the death penalty (JMO). But hey, we're all shootin' in the dark here.
I was posting it specifically because it heavily suggests they know which depraved act he carried out:That's great kitty. TYVM. Perhaps it can go in media thread so it is always available for all to see.
I was posting it specifically because it heavily suggests they know which depraved act he carried out:
defendant intentionally participated in an act, contemplating that the life of a person would be taken or intending that lethal force would be used in connection with a person
and
knowing that the act created a grave risk of death to a person, such that participation in the act constituted a reckless disregard for human life and the victim died as a direct result of the act.
What do people think?
It could have been a bloodless death- like asphyxiation..hanging..drowning (bath),poisoning(drugging), beating..I think its vague intentionally to try to scare a confession or a deal.
I think they have kidnapping, but unless they massive amounts of blood inside (which hasnt been reported or ppl living with him never said anything) or have a video of actually doing the deed.
We don't have a media thread yet, do we? Not that there's been a whole lot of media coverage, but that could change when it goes to trial. I find media threads very useful.That's great kitty. TYVM. Perhaps it can go in media thread so it is always available for all to see.
It could have been a bloodless death- like asphyxiation..hanging..drowning (bath),poisoning(drugging), beating..
Its vague but it uses the work TORTURE.. that word more than anything else in the entire indictment suggests they may have seen a video.
No body. No autopsy.
i doubt they would guess at it.. they are obliged to produce specific evidence at trial.
I think they have him hook, line and sinker. And a grand jury indicted him just to make sure it couldn't be wriggled out of IMO. The evidence will come out at trial.I think its vague intentionally to try to scare a confession or a deal.
I think they have kidnapping, but unless they massive amounts of blood inside (which hasnt been reported or ppl living with him never said anything) or have a video of actually doing the deed.
I was posting it specifically because it heavily suggests they know which depraved act he carried out:
defendant intentionally participated in an act, contemplating that the life of a person would be taken or intending that lethal force would be used in connection with a person
and
knowing that the act created a grave risk of death to a person, such that participation in the act constituted a reckless disregard for human life and the victim died as a direct result of the act.
What do people think?
this seems particularly suggestive of a SPECIFIC act in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse to the victim;
how can they make this statement without a body?
They MUST know detail of the methodology of his act..
??
I think they have him hook, line and sinker. And a grand jury indicted him just to make sure it couldn't be wriggled out of IMO. The evidence will come out at trial.
I think they have him hook, line and sinker. And a grand jury indicted him just to make sure it couldn't be wriggled out of IMO. The evidence will come out at trial.
I think you are reading way too much into the indictment. If you were to google "in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse to the victim" in quotes, you will find numerous references to other indictments. The language is legaleze and not necessarily indicative of any specific act let alone torture.
The legal answer may be that they don't know for certain how premeditated the murder was (was it planned all along or an offshoot of the kidnapping). He already faces the death penalty for "kidnapping leading to murder," so there's nothing further to be gained by making it a murder 1 or 2 charge.If they for sure have him, why isnt he charged with Murder? 1st or 2nd?
<snip>
And its also gone through the Grand Jury alreadyYes the language is legaleze but I think for a quite specific class of acts, including as they further say, heinous, cruel, depraved acts. I don't think they'd use the language lightly or off-handedly without a LOT of evidence. It's completely normal for the police/prosecution to hold back (from the public) MOST of their evidence/details prior to trial, in order to not prejudice the jury pool.
Just a thought. BC's first attorneys asked to be removed. They knew what the prosecution had and that it would be a lengthy process trying to defend him. Just throwing that out there. JMO
You'd have to ask the Grand Jury or a lawyer that.If they for sure have him, why isnt he charged with Murder? 1st or 2nd?
Why not release info on evidence in hopes of gaining a tip to find the body. If they have him hooklinesinker, what would it hurt? Not having a body is just as upsetting as evidence information being released to public.
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2017-09-05/attorneys-accused-kidnapper-ask-withdraw-case.htmlThats why they left? link?
Sounds right to me. If the death penalty is still on the table he may give up the body location to save his skin-if there is a body.The legal answer may be that they don't know for certain how premeditated the murder was (was it planned all along or an offshoot of the kidnapping). He already faces the death penalty for "kidnapping leading to murder," so there's nothing further to be gained by making it a murder 1 or 2 charge.
ETA: also, just occurred to me, that a straight murder charge might revert the case back to the state of Illinois (which has NO death penalty). Kidnapping leading to murder keeps it in the Federal jurisdiction where the death penalty applies. But I'm not a lawyer, so someone correct me if I've got that wrong.