missacorah said:
I'm a little disappointed no one has offered a theory!
Be grateful to hear your opinions on this one! Thanks!. . .
Is there any reason that makes you think the jury got it right?
Juries sometimes allow guilty people to go free. In my opinion the OJ trial was one of those instances and there have been others. To offer a theory other than the one that investigators used to charge the mother with murder I would have to believe that the jury got it right and that the mother was innocent.
However the mother had no alibi that I am aware of and she was seen in the area near where the body was found at the right time to have been involved in his death. She was a self confessed high priestess of the occult & had books on sacrificing people and his body was found in a position and manner which matched the books she had and she had predicted to someone how or where the body would be found. She had been known to grab him by the throat in times past and she was on meth which it seems her husband supplied and I have read many true horror stories of what meth did to people and how they committed murders while under its influence.
Social services were told, more than once, she would kill the boy if she did not get help and on many occasions they were begged to take the boy away to save his life. Social services people merely collected their pay checks and did nothing to save the boy at all and as far as I am concerned they are as much to blame for his murder as the mother and should have been charged along with her.
Also the stepfather of the boy was a bigamist and was married to another while still being married to Rikki's mother. Did she get wind of something about the other woman and in combination with the drugs it snapped her? I don't know but somehow I doubt it. Maybe she thought she had made a deal with the devil and something about the boys dead sacrificed body was supposed to be proof of some imbued power which may be why she wanted to see it in such a way that it seemed odd to those present and was remarked about in print. I don't know.
I also do not know if she did the act alone or if she had help from some young person or young people. Only those who gathered evidence might have an idea of whether one or more than one person was involved in the death. She was a selfconfessed high priestess so maybe she managed to wow a young person or persons into becoming her followers. Maybe she used sex and/or drugs as an inducement. . . . maybe, but no evidence surfaced to connect anyone else to her in that way. The only other young person to be allegedly connected to the murder was one that had bragged to another kid that he had done the deed. Evidently that "confession" was not proven true by L.E. upon their investigation. Only in one article did I read where other boys had possibly been with Rikki for awhile on the day he died and this was in an article that was trying to make the case that his murder was similar to another previous murder so I may have read so fast that I confused that bit about boys with the Rikki case.
So far I see no reason to think the mother should not have been brought up on charge of murder.
Back to my original question:
Is there any reason that makes you think the jury got it right?
