Charlot123
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2018
- Messages
- 9,045
- Reaction score
- 60,827
There are a lot of diverse opinions on these threads from those posters who believe KR innocent.IMO. I don't believe we all fall into one simple basket when it comes to theorising/speculating on what may have occurred. Jmo
My take, for example, is KR couldn't have done this owing to medical and other expert evidence presented at trial. Because of this I believe JO was killed in some other way. I also believe the expert medical evidence pertaining to the arm wounds and am convinced BARD they were inflicted by a dog and given the context that dog is very likely to have been Chloe.jmo
Regarding RBBM in your post, that is an interesting abstract theory on what a conspiracy is but it is one theory/your opinion. The truth is probably a lot simpler yet does involve some level of cover up or keeping mum by players unknown but likely amongst those witnesses who testified. IMO
I certainly do not believe what occurred has much to do with fitting into rules a) and b) of your theory above. It's a shame a proper, impartial investigation of all potential POIs was never conducted. Imo
I agree with some others here that we may never reach the truth of what actually unfolded. That is not justice for JO or his family and IMO that is firmly on the head of a flawed investigation, then on the DA for prolonging the situation by pushing for trial and then the Judge for finding enough at prelim to go ahead and pushing the flawed case through. Moo
ETA First sentence of post: Regarding the idea that the entire investigating team would have to know if one of that team planted a bit of evidnnce such as some tail light pieces doesn't hold with me. It could involve only one person (Proctor for instance). On top of that, it isn't necessary that any of the Albert,Higgins, McCabes etc have to have known anything about it, if evidence was planted. MOO
My personal point of view: I still believe that more information points at KR doing it. However, Alternative Juror appears to be an educated, diligent person who sat in the room and took good notes, as she states. She, with the notes, and having sat there, believes that the case did not meet the standards for reasonable doubt. I can weigh in both versions, because nothing looks the same from inside the courthouse.
Not sure that Proctor planted evidence. If he did, he would not plant evidence for himself. He would plant evidence if not allowed to enter the house, if advised to make it a quick open-and-shut case, if there was zero evidence of a car trauma, and, mostly, if he didn’t know KR’s circumstances at all.
SODDI defense is common. The case when the police becomes that very “D” who “DI” is interesting in itself. I think we all pay attention to AJ, but Yanetti was instrumental in organizing KR’s specific defense. And there was evidence missing, as Proctor never entered BA’s house, and the case required specialists to testify, and is still missing bits and pieces.
Do I believe KR’s lawyers? No. Do I see why Yanetti believed the case was defensible? Absolutely. Do I think it is “not our typical case”, from both sides? Surely. But mostly, the guilty verdict missed evidence, and there was too much noise around the case.
I expect Stoughton case to be more telling.