I'm getting the sense that the majority of posters believe SK's confession was more honest than CD's. That's interesting to me because I formed the opposite opinion after reading the affidavits. I think the biggest reason for me was the way CD admitted responsibility for nearly all of the shots that were fired. He didn't pin the majority of the violence on SK. I, for whatever reason, got the impression that, in general, CD only blamed SK for the parts he was actually involved in.
In contrast, all of the language related to SK's interview involves a distancing of himself from the killing. Literally everything was CD, according to SK. SK won't admit to participating in any of the killing, and yet he stuck around, waiting for CD to bring Meo and Sturgis back to the farm, and this was after Dean had already been shot. If he wasn't complicit in what CD did to Dean, then why did he wait at the farm? After seeing what happened to Dean, could SK actually believe that CD only intended to "rob" Meo and Sturgis? And why did SK return to the farm the next day to help with disposal, if he was only a bystander in the murders? IMO, SK's statements seemed like he was trying to paint himself as no more than a bystander, which just doesn't resonate as truth.
However, I'm interested in how the two versions in the affidavit are interpreted in the other camp. Do you believe SK was more of a bystander? And, if so, what are the theories explaining his actions.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk