lucegirl
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2013
- Messages
- 547
- Reaction score
- 5,845
I am trying to wrap my brain around the general “reasonable doubt” theories that depend on an apparent legal need to 1) put the actual gun in AM’s hands at the kennels in order to convict; 2) debunk the multiple shooter theory when there is no objective evidence of other shooters; 3) consider the possibility that MM and PM were still alive after they never unlocked their phones, read or answered a text, or were able to send a Snapchat; 4) among other red herrings.
It is undisputed that AM 1) arrives at the Moselle property on 6/7/21, after work, at 6:42 PM, and 2) does not ever leave the property, in a car, until 9:06 PM.
If we look at the timeline during the critical path, from 8:44 PM to 9:06 PM, there are only 3 linear paths to pressure test whether other killers are earthly possibilities. If a UFO is needed to move from one indisputable fact to another indisputable fact, the logic chain for that scenario is interrupted. This is not reasonable doubt; it’s factual impossibility or fantasy land.
If Defense offers “alternative facts” that are to rise to the level of “reasonable doubt” they have to coexist with the irrefutable facts in the 8:44-9:06 window and then connect back up to AM’s post 9:06 behavior and events without having to suspend reality.
#1: AM is at kennels at 8:44 PM.
I think AM’s physical location at the Kennels is an irrefutable fact, per Snapchat and witness corroboration.
The only way the jury, or an individual juror, can overlook this irrefutable fact is to deploy unsanctioned “jury nullification”, or aliens, to explain why 7 (ish?) close acquaintance-witnesses, under oath, would lie, or collectively mistake, the 3rd voice to be anyone other than AM.
So let’s assume for this scenario that rational jurors do not sidestep the fact as to AM’s whereabouts at 8:44 PM which places AM at the kennels/murder site at the exact time (within less than 5 minutes) of the murders.
What is the nature of the “reasonable doubt” that could cause a reasonable person to question or break the linkage between AM’s 8:44-killing-opportunity (unsuspecting targets at home playing with dogs), the victims near instant deaths at 8:49, and AM’s ability to distance himself from the murder scene by barreling down a deserted country road, undetected (except for Onstar - oops), in a black SUV, under cover of darkness, where he can lie and adjust how long he sat with his memory-challenged mom while she slept.
Where the jury agrees AM is at the kennel at 8:44 (because it defies logic that he is anywhere else), putting a particular gun in AM’s hand, and/or into evidence, doesn’t seem necessary to overcome the lack of evidence of other shooters who AM must have seen doing the crimes because he was there, unless they were invisible aliens. Lots of double negatives, but this is proving a negative.
#2: AM is at kennels at 8:44 PM but leaves kennels on foot before 8:49-9:00.
If a juror can’t ignore the undeniable, that voice #3 is AM, but nevertheless has unspecified doubts about AM’s culpability and/or the time of death, due to “fog”, what is the nature of the “reasonable doubt” that could cause a reasonable person to question or break the linkage between AM being on foot, in very close proximity to the murders at 8:44, and at a minimum, within earshot of the murders or worse, and making an instantaneous decision to run to his car up at the main house, and then drive to mom’s house at 9:06, without calling 911, being reasonably certain his family was in imminent peril, but also having time and wherewithal to text MM that he was going to check on his mom, and not her and PM (in case they aren’t dead and are reading texts), after he runs away from the 7 gunshot blasts he hears from where he last saw them alive.
Again - missing guns, mystery shooters aren’t reasonable doubt because he can’t not hear the gunshots in this scenario; you then cannot play out hearing the shots with AM’s post 9:06 behavior. Logic chain broken unless he temporarily lost his hearing until it was time to call people to set up alibi.
#3: AM was never at, or near the kennels, between 8:44 - 9:00, but was nevertheless on the property (napping) because his car was there, but he didn’t hear the gunshots because he was asleep or in a sound chamber.
I don’t see how this scenario even has legs because it has to get around both Snapchat scenarios (if it wasn’t AM he either saw murders and/or heard murders). If you think he was napping or not within eyesight or earshot, you have to resort to believing voice #3 is Santa.
This is how I hope the jury will process the “alternative facts”:
Let’s say Defense has a video reenactment of a person exiting the SUV at the kennels, and running to check the pulses of two slain bodies (and look at a cell phone and/or possibly try to roll a body over) in under 20 seconds. We could spend until the end of time running these 20 second sprints around a mock crime scene; testing how fast AM can run if he is size 2x or smaller, in various footwear …
#1 - Evidence that you could conceivably check the pulses under 20 seconds doesn’t create reasonable doubt as to his presence at the murder; if you have already accepted the evidence that he was at the murder, the pulse checking thing is just dangling out in thin air unrelated to anything and is just a distraction.
#2 - Taking pulses in under 20 seconds doesn’t make it more possible that you could not have heard the gunshots earlier and instead innocently drove to mom’s.
#3 - Taking pulses in under 20 seconds doesn’t mean voice #3 isn’t AM.
It is undisputed that AM 1) arrives at the Moselle property on 6/7/21, after work, at 6:42 PM, and 2) does not ever leave the property, in a car, until 9:06 PM.
If we look at the timeline during the critical path, from 8:44 PM to 9:06 PM, there are only 3 linear paths to pressure test whether other killers are earthly possibilities. If a UFO is needed to move from one indisputable fact to another indisputable fact, the logic chain for that scenario is interrupted. This is not reasonable doubt; it’s factual impossibility or fantasy land.
If Defense offers “alternative facts” that are to rise to the level of “reasonable doubt” they have to coexist with the irrefutable facts in the 8:44-9:06 window and then connect back up to AM’s post 9:06 behavior and events without having to suspend reality.
#1: AM is at kennels at 8:44 PM.
I think AM’s physical location at the Kennels is an irrefutable fact, per Snapchat and witness corroboration.
The only way the jury, or an individual juror, can overlook this irrefutable fact is to deploy unsanctioned “jury nullification”, or aliens, to explain why 7 (ish?) close acquaintance-witnesses, under oath, would lie, or collectively mistake, the 3rd voice to be anyone other than AM.
So let’s assume for this scenario that rational jurors do not sidestep the fact as to AM’s whereabouts at 8:44 PM which places AM at the kennels/murder site at the exact time (within less than 5 minutes) of the murders.
What is the nature of the “reasonable doubt” that could cause a reasonable person to question or break the linkage between AM’s 8:44-killing-opportunity (unsuspecting targets at home playing with dogs), the victims near instant deaths at 8:49, and AM’s ability to distance himself from the murder scene by barreling down a deserted country road, undetected (except for Onstar - oops), in a black SUV, under cover of darkness, where he can lie and adjust how long he sat with his memory-challenged mom while she slept.
Where the jury agrees AM is at the kennel at 8:44 (because it defies logic that he is anywhere else), putting a particular gun in AM’s hand, and/or into evidence, doesn’t seem necessary to overcome the lack of evidence of other shooters who AM must have seen doing the crimes because he was there, unless they were invisible aliens. Lots of double negatives, but this is proving a negative.
#2: AM is at kennels at 8:44 PM but leaves kennels on foot before 8:49-9:00.
If a juror can’t ignore the undeniable, that voice #3 is AM, but nevertheless has unspecified doubts about AM’s culpability and/or the time of death, due to “fog”, what is the nature of the “reasonable doubt” that could cause a reasonable person to question or break the linkage between AM being on foot, in very close proximity to the murders at 8:44, and at a minimum, within earshot of the murders or worse, and making an instantaneous decision to run to his car up at the main house, and then drive to mom’s house at 9:06, without calling 911, being reasonably certain his family was in imminent peril, but also having time and wherewithal to text MM that he was going to check on his mom, and not her and PM (in case they aren’t dead and are reading texts), after he runs away from the 7 gunshot blasts he hears from where he last saw them alive.
Again - missing guns, mystery shooters aren’t reasonable doubt because he can’t not hear the gunshots in this scenario; you then cannot play out hearing the shots with AM’s post 9:06 behavior. Logic chain broken unless he temporarily lost his hearing until it was time to call people to set up alibi.
#3: AM was never at, or near the kennels, between 8:44 - 9:00, but was nevertheless on the property (napping) because his car was there, but he didn’t hear the gunshots because he was asleep or in a sound chamber.
I don’t see how this scenario even has legs because it has to get around both Snapchat scenarios (if it wasn’t AM he either saw murders and/or heard murders). If you think he was napping or not within eyesight or earshot, you have to resort to believing voice #3 is Santa.
This is how I hope the jury will process the “alternative facts”:
Let’s say Defense has a video reenactment of a person exiting the SUV at the kennels, and running to check the pulses of two slain bodies (and look at a cell phone and/or possibly try to roll a body over) in under 20 seconds. We could spend until the end of time running these 20 second sprints around a mock crime scene; testing how fast AM can run if he is size 2x or smaller, in various footwear …
#1 - Evidence that you could conceivably check the pulses under 20 seconds doesn’t create reasonable doubt as to his presence at the murder; if you have already accepted the evidence that he was at the murder, the pulse checking thing is just dangling out in thin air unrelated to anything and is just a distraction.
#2 - Taking pulses in under 20 seconds doesn’t make it more possible that you could not have heard the gunshots earlier and instead innocently drove to mom’s.
#3 - Taking pulses in under 20 seconds doesn’t mean voice #3 isn’t AM.
