zh0r4
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2020
- Messages
- 728
- Reaction score
- 3,888
Great points. These are all legitimate questions and personally, I’m not sure why so many people appear dismissive of a lot of the stuff in the memo. I read a post on another site where someone said the most recent motions/affidavits reiterated how silly the D memo was and how much they are reaching…JMO if anything, from my perspective, the more information that comes out, the more I think “Wow, this is surprising.”/it adds potential legitimacy in my mind to the D memo. It makes me really question how much in the memo is simply for theatrics? What if any of these allegations are true? As you said, LE was looking into the Odinism angle/potential connection, so why does it seem so far fetched?I'm still stunned by the weird coincidences surrounding this case. One victim was likely being catfished, the other was dating the son of an Odinist. Both angles were clearly investigated by LE, so while people here on WS dismiss it like it's some kind of joke, the taskforce apparently did not. In fact, they spent 5 weeks on a river search based on KAK's (a known liar) word, and TC felt strongly about his line of investigation on men who happened to be involved with Odinism, even if he doesn't feel it was ritualistic. The FBI and Purdue professor (and Harvard professor) supposedly say it looks like someone with Norse beliefs, or it was meant to appear that way. Now we have the guards wearing patches based on Norse beliefs? Even if RA just snapped and went out on the trails to get his kicks killing someone, it still doesn't take away the oddness of these other circumstances, just at face value, in and of themselves. It's weird, IMO.
Judge D recused himself. The warden got in legal trouble. The P said they have good reason to believe others are involved, and the D wasn't lying about every single thing they wrote. TL omitted witness details from the affidavit. What to make of it all?
If the patches were no big deal, then why were the COs ordered to remove them? In the affidavit it says they were worn before ordered to remove them-well why? The warden says it is allowed to wear patches (which IMO is unorthodox)-so why were they asked to remove the patches at all?
The only thing I can make of anything right now is confusion, but I’m ok being confused. A solid case will stand end the end.