ND - Several bodies found at Mandan business, 1 April 2019 *Arrest* #2

[Auntie Cipation]

I don't recall reading or hearing any mention of CTI's supposed alibi for that morning. Does anyone recall it ever being mentioned?

I'm on the fence about whether the prosecution presented a sufficient "beyond a reasonable doubt" case but I do think CTI is guilty even if the jury finds otherwise due to insufficient police work.

If he truly wasn't guilty I think there would have been an oft-mentioned alibi as a major part of the defense's case.

MOO

 

[TTF14]

I don't recall reading or hearing any mention of CTI's supposed alibi for that morning. Does anyone recall it ever being mentioned?

I'm on the fence about whether the prosecution presented a sufficient "beyond a reasonable doubt" case but I do think CTI is guilty even if the jury finds otherwise due to insufficient police work.

If he truly wasn't guilty I think there would have been an oft-mentioned alibi as a major part of the defense's case.

MOO

The defense case was TERRIBLE, and if there was an alibi they would have called an alibi witness. There was no alibi.

 

[FriendlyFella1976]

What reasonable doubt do you have?

1. The timeline makes no sense
2. He’s clearly considerably taller than 5ft 8ins (6ft 4 is a ‘tall’ man)
3. No known motive
4. No conclusive evidence that it was his vehicle
5. No CCTV from the business opposite the trailer park seeing his vehicle leaving that morning
6. An embarrassing case put forward by the Prosecution (if they can make that much of a mess of collecting evidence, anything they’ve been involved in can’t be relied on)
7. The coat they are claiming was worn by the murder is completely different to the hoodie recovered from his trailer (not sure what they were thinking attempting to submit that as a piece of viable evidence??) laughable!
8. Selective video evidence used with chunks stripped out - makes it entirely subjective and allows for a biased view point
9. There's a sense of ‘trying to hard’ by the Police to make the evidence fit the suspect of their choice which can suggest/lead to planting of evidence

They clearly can't be trusted based on the evidence they already provided. Shambolic is an understatement. If a case with this many holes in it was presented here in England, the prosecution would be laughed out of court.

Just one of these things brings the states case into question.

 

[carbuff]

The ID being checked still gives me pause. I can't think of any reason other than making sure you killed the right person for that, and that sounds like a hit.

 

[FriendlyFella1976]

The defense case was TERRIBLE, and if there was an alibi they would have called an alibi witness. There was no alibi.

What if he spent the entire morning/early afternoon in bed?

Apparently he wasn't much of a morning person.

I think it’s quite common for people to cancel work by using an excuse that isn't entirely true.

How many people phone into work sick, but they really just can't be bothered and want a day off?

I don't think Isaak calling his customer to cancel an appointment and using the excuse that he has a Dentist appointment is that outrageous.

Would you tell a customer you can't see her at the scheduled time because you can't be bothered to get out of bed early enough? I wouldn't.

I'd at least provide a somewhat plausible reason.

Let's assume he DID spend the morning in bed. There wouldn't be an Alibi.
Certainly nothing that can be corroborated by anyone else.

The onus isn't on him to prove where he was.

The Prosecution need to put him at the scene of the crime to have been able to commit it.

They've not been able to do that.

We've got a 5ft 8 suspect in a coat that doesn't match the defendants being touted as the ‘murder coat’, no defensive injuries despite apparently murdering 4 people and no sign of blood on any clothing, anywhere.

For the record, I'm not saying I think he’s innocent. I don't think the state have proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Their case has more holes in it that a Tramps vest.

This is a similar mess to the O.J. trial. He was almost certainly the perpetrator but was rightfully exonerated based on the evidence collection process and the subsequent train-wreck presented by the state.

 

[KidonGadol]

The ID being checked still gives me pause. I can't think of any reason other than making sure you killed the right person for that, and that sounds like a hit.

and if it was a hit and the person involved (Lady involved??) employed CTI to do the job - he had recently had a discussion with Fakler on snow moving and so on going forward so he knew Exactly what he looked like.

The problem with the hit theory is that hit men would just shoot you once to stop you moving and then blast you throught the skull - as per poor Dan Markel FL 2014. All of this super bloody stuff with knife and the DnA risk does not sound like a proper hit.

my tuppencewert

KG

 

[TTF14]

What if he spent the entire morning/early afternoon in bed?

Apparently he wasn't much of a morning person.

I think it’s quite common for people to cancel work by using an excuse that isn't entirely true.

How many people phone into work sick, but they really just can't be bothered and want a day off?

I don't think Isaak calling his customer to cancel an appointment and using the excuse that he has a Dentist appointment is that outrageous.

Would you tell a customer you can't see her at the scheduled time because you can't be bothered to get out of bed early enough? I wouldn't.

I'd at least provide a somewhat plausible reason.

Let's assume he DID spend the morning in bed. There wouldn't be an Alibi.
Certainly nothing that can be corroborated by anyone else.

The onus isn't on him to prove where he was.

The Prosecution need to put him at the scene of the crime to have been able to commit it.

They've not been able to do that.

We've got a 5ft 8 suspect in a coat that doesn't match the defendants being touted as the ‘murder coat’, no defensive injuries despite apparently murdering 4 people and no sign of blood on any clothing, anywhere.

For the record, I'm not saying I think he’s innocent. I don't think the state have proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Their case has more holes in it that a Tramps vest.

This is a similar mess to the O.J. trial. He was almost certainly the perpetrator but was rightfully exonerated based on the evidence collection process and the subsequent train-wreck presented by the state.

How about the blood on the truck door handle area? Is it your opinion all of this evidence was planted and he was framed?

 

[Seattle1]

The ID being checked still gives me pause. I can't think of any reason other than making sure you killed the right person for that, and that sounds like a hit.

I think that's exactly what CI wanted this massacre to look like. I think he's fantasized about a life as a professional assassin. This guy ain't right!

 

[KidonGadol]

How about the blood on the truck door handle area? Is it your opinion all of this evidence was planted and he was framed?

The RJT Dodge Truck (Indigo signs dump off ) door blood which was an incredibly faint smear (as per photos we have seen ) may not have been blood or it could have been non human blood.. Either the forensics people stuffed up and missed it or it was not possible to test. I liked at what they said they tested and it did not turn up even as a "not possible to test " sample.

That is Very very strange. Anyone care to comment ... ? KG

 

[trialobsessive]

Thoughts: I’m not sure I’m convinced either way, although I do believe CI is guilty, the evidence hasn’t been convincing and I do feel there’s enough reasonable doubt.

Is there something to be said for the chain of custody and why evidence custodian wasn’t called - perhaps it’s uncommon for them to be called so this is not out of the ordinary.

Could the blood on CI’s truck, that could not rule out two of the victims have got there because of transfer from LE?

Why no blood on CI clothing?

As I said, what’s been presented raises doubts (there’s more evidence that doesn’t convince me) but I feel CI is guilty… has the state proved beyond reasonable doubt? Not in my eyes.

 

[Niner]

Friday, August 20th:
*Trial continues (Day 13)-Verdict Watch! (@ 8:30am CT) – ND – Lois Ann Cobbs (45), employee; William Dee “Bill” Cobbs, Jr. (50), employee; Adam Fuehrer (42), employee; Robert John Fakler (52) co-owner (April 1, 2019, at RJR Maint. & Mgmt business, Mandan) - *Chad Trolon Isaak (44/now 47) arrested (4/4/19), charged (4/5/19) & arraigned (5/9/19) with 4 counts of murder (Felony AA), 1 count of burglary (Felony B), 1 count of concealment within a vehicle (Felony C) & 1 count of unauthorized use of vehicle (misdemeanor A). Plead not guilty. $1M Cash only bond.
Trial began on 8/2/21 with jury selection & ended 8/3/21 & trial began on 8/4/21 & ended on 8/19/21. 12 jurors & 2 alternates. (6 men & 6 women make up the jury with 1 man & 1 woman serving as alternates). Judge David Reich does not intend to sequester jurors. The State rested their case on 8/17/21. Defense rested their case on 8/18/21. And State’s rebuttal done. Closing arguments started on 8/19/21 & the jury sent out for deliberations. Jury deliberations (Day 1) 8/19/21: 3 hours.
Court info from 4/5/19 thru 7/16/21 & Jury selection (Day 1-2) 8/2/21-8/3/21 & Trial (Day 1-11) 8/4/21-8/18/21 reference post #461 here:
ND - Several bodies found at Mandan business, 1 April 2019 *Arrest* #2
8/19/21 Thursday, Trial Day 12: Judge David Reich presiding. The judge is taking care of some judicial housekeeping matters related to the organization of the exhibits in the trial for presentation to the jury.
Closing arguments by prosecuting attorney Gabrielle Joy Goter. She recounts how four people were discovered dead at RJR Maintenance and Management on the morning of April 1, 2019. (started @ 8:41am & ended @ 10am). Closing arguments by defense attorney Bruce Quick. Says during the opening we told you what we believed the evidence would show. We do not dispute a vicious serious crime took place. But this was not about what but who. (started @ 10:34am & ended @ 11:56am).
Judge says if the jury is still deliberating late Thursday, he will likely send them home around 5:00 p.m., and then have them resume on Friday morning. If they are close to a verdict late Thursday afternoon, he may let them continue for a few more hours into the evening. He is also considering having the jury deliberate on Saturday if they still have not yet reached a verdict, but he would play that by ear.
Judge David Reich reads the final jury instructions. The judge says the two alternate jurors will not deliberate with the 12 jurors selected. The alternates are retained in case a juror is not able to complete deliberation. The two will be kept in a separate jury room while the six-man, six-woman jury deliberates in another room. Sometime after 4:30 p.m., the bailiff will check to see if the jurors are close to a verdict. If they are, they can stay longer. If not, they will be dismissed for the day around 5:00 p.m., and resume deliberations on Friday.
~ 2pm - Jurors begin deliberations. Stopped at 5pm. Jurors continue deliberations on 8/20/21.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

What if he spent the entire morning/early afternoon in bed?

Apparently he wasn't much of a morning person.

I think it’s quite common for people to cancel work by using an excuse that isn't entirely true.

How many people phone into work sick, but they really just can't be bothered and want a day off?

I don't think Isaak calling his customer to cancel an appointment and using the excuse that he has a Dentist appointment is that outrageous.

Would you tell a customer you can't see her at the scheduled time because you can't be bothered to get out of bed early enough? I wouldn't.

I'd at least provide a somewhat plausible reason.

Let's assume he DID spend the morning in bed. There wouldn't be an Alibi.
Certainly nothing that can be corroborated by anyone else.

The onus isn't on him to prove where he was.

The Prosecution need to put him at the scene of the crime to have been able to commit it.

They've not been able to do that.

We've got a 5ft 8 suspect in a coat that doesn't match the defendants being touted as the ‘murder coat’, no defensive injuries despite apparently murdering 4 people and no sign of blood on any clothing, anywhere.

For the record, I'm not saying I think he’s innocent. I don't think the state have proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Their case has more holes in it that a Tramps vest.

This is a similar mess to the O.J. trial. He was almost certainly the perpetrator but was rightfully exonerated based on the evidence collection process and the subsequent train-wreck presented by the state.

He lives in a mobile home park with neighbors nearby. If he had actually been home that morning all the neighbors within sight of his house and parking area would have been interviewed (which maybe they were) and there would be a reasonable chance that a few folks noticed his truck was at his home during the relevant time that morning.

Hey, that gives me an idea. I heard the part of the defense closing where he talked about video cameras that capture vehicles entering the mobile home park. He was talking about how the LE tracked the F150 after the crime, leaving Mandan and driving to Washburn that morning, but no video captured CTI's truck returning to the mobile home park at about the time it would have after reaching Washburn. (and since LE looked for CTI's truck on 4/2 and 4/3 and didn't find it at home until 4/4, it seems like maybe CTI didn't return home immediately after the killings. Maybe he returned hours later? Or 2 days later?) (in which case who cared for the dog?)

But my point is, if there are really such cameras that capture the entrance(s) to the mobile home park, then why didn't the prosecution look at the video to see if it captured CTI's truck leaving the mobile home park early the morning of 4/1 heading to Mandan? Obviously that would be very circumstantial, but still it would be helpful. MOO

 

[trialobsessive]

There's a lot the defense didn't appear to put forward, the lack of footage showing CI truck leaving/entering on the dates in question, the "dentist appointment" but no confirmation from the dental surgery or any documents relating to said appointment... although what dental surgery opens THAT early in the morning? Still...

Maybe the defense did explore those avenues and didn't get what they needed... Doubt on both sides for me in terms of proving their case (either guilt by state or raising enough reasonable doubt from what the defense put forward).

Who knows, maybe a verdict today?

 

[FriendlyFella1976]

How about the blood on the truck door handle area? Is it your opinion all of this evidence was planted and he was framed?

Not necessarily planted….

I think LE were WAY out of their depth with this case (apparently cases of this nature are very rare in this area) and didn’t have the experience or expertise to process a crime scene of this nature and the subsequent investigation.

In their haste to wrap up a result (4 days) I think they’ve focused on one single suspect and attempted to ensure the evidence points in that direction.

In essence, the prosecution don’t have a single, solid piece of evidence that can be relied on.

The way they’ve put the case together is totally open to scrutiny from multiple angles.

Biased, Unreliable, Untrustworthy, Incompetence.

How can any jury be comfortable sending a man to a life sentence based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence?

It’s important to remember that this trial isn’t about whether people ‘think’ Chad Isaak committed this crime…it’s whether the evidence can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did.

We’ve not seen anything to guarantee this.

Too many people wrongly spend years in jail because they are convicted off the back of weak evidence, or jurors that aren’t able to understand the evidence they are being asked to evaluate and make a sensible decision.

Look at the hoodie they’ve presented as a piece of evidence. What does that have to do with this case?

If I was on the jury I’d be thinking “You are trying to influence my decision based on a piece of supposed evidence that we both know isn’t anything to do with the crime”.

This would fall under the heading of ‘evidence tampering’ or ‘falsifying evidence’ in my book as the prosecution are trying to convince the jury that it was worn by the perpetrator as the crime was being committed.

As a juror, as soon as I see that, you’ve lost me. It’s a simple question I’d be asking myself…

”How can I trust any of the other evidence you are going to present?”

 

[FriendlyFella1976]

There's a lot the defense didn't appear to put forward, the lack of footage showing CI truck leaving/entering on the dates in question, the "dentist appointment" but no confirmation from the dental surgery or any documents relating to said appointment... although what dental surgery opens THAT early in the morning? Still...

Maybe the defense did explore those avenues and didn't get what they needed... Doubt on both sides for me in terms of proving their case (either guilt by state or raising enough reasonable doubt from what the defense put forward).

Who knows, maybe a verdict today?

The lack of CCTV footage of the suspect leaving/returning from the trailer park on the day of the crime within the reasonable timelines required is a huge hole in this case…for the prosecution.

HOW did Chad Isaak get to the crime scene that early in the morning to carry out the murders?

They haven’t been able to demonstrate that. We know CCTV covers the road into the trailer park, where is the footage?

If it existed, it would 100% guaranteed have been presented as a ‘key’ piece evidence by the prosecution.

 

[FriendlyFella1976]

There's a lot the defense didn't appear to put forward, the lack of footage showing CI truck leaving/entering on the dates in question, the "dentist appointment" but no confirmation from the dental surgery or any documents relating to said appointment... although what dental surgery opens THAT early in the morning? Still...

Maybe the defense did explore those avenues and didn't get what they needed... Doubt on both sides for me in terms of proving their case (either guilt by state or raising enough reasonable doubt from what the defense put forward).

Who knows, maybe a verdict today?

The lack of CCTV footage of the suspect leaving/returning from the trailer park on the day of the crime within the reasonable timelines required is a huge hole in this case…for the prosecution.

HOW did Chad Isaak get to the crime scene that early in the morning to carry out the murders?

They haven’t been able to demonstrate that. We know CCTV covers the road into the trailer park, where is the footage?

If it existed, it would 100% guaranteed have been presented as a ‘key’ piece evidence by the prosecution.

 

[Gardenista]

There was outstanding police work in this case--some of the best and most meticulous I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot. Those who say inexperienced LE investigated the case are wrong as BCI was there within 2 hours. The majority of LE who testified were from BCI.

As the defense has nothing, they attack LE. It's typical.

 

[FriendlyFella1976]

You can't base that on how long it takes them to come to a verdict. Sometimes other factors are at work.

I served on a jury once that was a simple case...a daughter stole a check out of her father's checkbook and wrote it to herself for cash. It was for a very large amount and he decided enough was enough of her foolish behavior and had her prosecuted for check fraud/theft. We got the case after lunch and first elected a jury foreman who did a quick vote. Guilty all around.

But Foreman decided we couldn't just go back out within the hour with a guilty verdict so he decided we had to discuss the opposite side first and who else could have done it per the defense argument. I've watched a lot of trials in my life and was gritting my teeth with frustration when at 5 that afternoon he decided he liked the lunch they fed us and wanted to have it again the next day. 24 hours later...after lunch...he finally filled out the verdict form.

So I learned that day that human behavior is not predictable while being held hostage with 10 other reasonable people by a really obstinate man who is too cheap to buy his own lunch.

This case has a lot of holes in it, so the jury WILL be going over the evidence (lack of) with a fine tooth comb to try to make sense of it. That’s going to take time, and rightly so.

There is no place for ‘Kangaroo Courts’ when you are deciding the long-term fate of a humans future right to freedom.

Look at the supposed blood evidence.

They are saying his blood was transferred onto the car door, yet the ‘assumed’ perpetrator is covered from head to toe in clothes, gloves etc. and his patients said there were no cuts anywhere on his arms, hands shortly after he apparently murdered 4 people.

1. I think Law Enforcement may have obtained a sample of his DNA unlawfully? Very possibly.

2.Do I think they even found his blood present on the vehicles? Possibly not.

Once they have a sample of his DNA, they can match that/plant it wherever they want. How can we even be sure they have blood evidence?? Has anybody actually seen this supposed sample and has it been tested by the defence team?

Corruption is rife throughout Government, Law Enforcement etc. We know this.

 

[FriendlyFella1976]

There was outstanding police work in this case--some of the best and most meticulous I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot. Those who say inexperienced LE investigated the case are wrong as BCI was there within 2 hours. The majority of LE who testified were from BCI.

As the defense has nothing, they attack LE. It's typical.

Yet this ‘outstanding police work’ has yielded absolutely no convincing evidence whatsoever.

Nothing they’ve done can be trusted based on trying to pass off a random Orange hoodie as THE Orange jacket worn by the perpetrator.

That’s blatantly introducing items as evidence that you know has nothing to do with the crime.

The jury will be asking themselves….”If you are willing to attempt to con the jury with that Hoodie, what else are you prepared to do to secure a conviction based on the outcome you want?”

Law Enforcement completely lost all credibility and their integrity comes into question = reasonable doubt.

 

[TTF14]

Once they have a sample of his DNA, they can match that/plant it wherever they want. How can we even be sure they have blood evidence?? Has anybody actually seen this supposed sample and has it been tested by the defence team?

Based on this statement, if you think the prosecution did a terrible job, then you must think the defense is absolutey AWFUL. Why wouldn't they have done more??

I'm interested to hear more about what you're saying about the sweatshirt not matching. You really think it was a different sweatshirt than the one pictured in CCTV? And just happened to be in the dryer, with a knife, right after the murders? Circumstantial evidence is still evidence.

I don't know as much as you do about this trial, clearly. I need to go watch some part of it that you're bringing iup.