flatfootjoe
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2014
- Messages
- 391
- Reaction score
- 0
I think the point is, back in 2011 there was a whole lot of body and house burning going on, for one reason and one reason only: to get rid of evidence. The coroner stated the victim died of gunshot wounds, so the fire was definitely not to kill him.
Likewise in Jessica's case, there was no reason to burn an entire car just to kill her. The arson was obviously to cover the murderer's tracks. The tiniest pieces of evidence federal LE could have used to pin the tail on the donkey -- fibers, hairs, DNA of any type -- would have been destroyed in the inferno. I am convinced burning Jessica alive was not the perpetrator(s) intention, burning her CORPSE and car were. JMO
:burn:
Yet once they knew she was alive, you have to assume and reasonably so that she screamed at some point, they chose to restrain her somehow and let the blaze finish the job? If so, if she were so close to death, apparently or otherwise, why weren't her previous injuries what she succumbed to? That's the sole point of contention that keeps me from agreeing with that theory. It only takes a coward and a gun to pop some lead in someones gourd, it takes a really special kind of monster to trap or restrain someone burning to death.
I don't think it was an ooops she's not quite dead yet, hold the door closed moment. I don't see how that would be possible as there is more than one door to control, and she'd have been kicking, fighting, doing whatever she could including kicking the windshield out (that by the way happens relatively easily). Being on fire would be more than adequate to introduce enough adrenaline to make you uncontrollable. Not to mention the fact that if the culprits weren't wearing asbestos flame suits, they would have been burned quite badly while attempting to keep her confined.
I see the value in the point you're making, it just doesn't cover all the bases enough IMO.