GUILTY WA - Ingrid Lyne, 40, Seattle, 8 April 2016 #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
What do they say? (He's the named perp in this case so I think we can talk about his FB, even if just paraphrase.)

They are too random to describe - you'd have to just check it out. They just look like "pocket posts", if that makes sense. I hope I didn't break a rule by bringing his Facebook into the discussion.
 
Gee you think JC could at least shed a few crocodile tears for the woman he was supposedly dating. The woman he snuffed the life out of. He couldn't even fake a sad performance to LE, now that's a psychopath.
 
Good article to use for having a discussion on motivation. Thank You.
I think it's some kind of combo of #2 & #3.

Further down in the article it says dismemberment types of murders are often associated with childhood sexual victimization, more so than other murders. Snipped quote -- "found mutilation and dismemberment murders was significantly associated with childhood sexual victimization, particularly compared to other kinds of murderer." It may not be with JC, but I found that interesting.

I say 3
 
I'm not sure if this was already posted, but apparently more body parts were found in someone's waste close to where the first ones were discovered. They have not yet been positively identified as the victim's but they are believed to be hers.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...after-seattle-mom-ingrid-lynes-murder-n557021

Didn't they release what parts were in the first bin before they were positively identified? I wonder if they found her torso which can be very telling in this case such as if she was raped, DNA etc so therefore they need to identify her first. Last time they had her head so they knew it was her.
 
I wonder why Brandon Lavergne's mug shot was released with his neck injury. It was stitched and almost healed when he was arrested. Mickey Schunick stabbed him in self defense. You can clearly see it in the photo. When it was released people thought it might be from Mickey. It was in the media before he took the plea deal and plead guilty. He admitted she stabbed him there which pissed him off more and killed her.

Judges' discretion. You can see 10 different results on the same issue in front of 10 different judges, unfortunately. :/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I actually detest how much emphasis the media is focusing on the fact that IL and JC met on an online dating site. The ugly truth is that being female is the biggest risk factor in dating in regards to domestic violence and other forms of assaults, and whether you met someone online, at work, through friends, or at church is just a tiny speck of a risk factor by comparison. Another ugly truth is that about 4% of the population are conscienceless sociopaths who lack empathy and feelings for humans and animals. The vast majority of these people easily pass background checks and, yes, these people may include your neighbors, your co-workers, some people at your church, and maybe even some of your friends that you have known for years (or you thought that you really knew them). I have worked with some people over the years that I would suspect as being sociopaths. As for people with phony profiles on online dating sites, both men and women often lie about their age, profession, location, height, weight, whether they are married/attached, they post photos that are from 10 years ago, etc, etc. Requiring that online dating sites perform background checks on all their members would prevent someone from posting a phony age and catch people with previous criminal records, but various other forms of deception would not be caught. If you had met Ted Bundy either on an online dating site or at a party and you started dating him, he would pass a background check because he did not have a record prior to his killing spree.

The good side of online dating is that it has enabled thousands of couples to meet and have happy relationships, and many of these people would have otherwise found it very difficult to meet single people to date for various reasons. The bad sides of online dating are not much worse than if you had met that person at a party, at a bar, or at work. I have a friend who dated her ex-husband for six years before they got married; they both met at the same law school during college. It was not until several years into her marriage that she realized her ex-husband had a severe drinking problem. Yes, he was that good at keeping it a secret. 15 to 20 years ago, people looked at you funny if you said that you found your partner online (or if you placed a personal ad in your local newspaper). But it is totally socially accepted nowadays. If you do it correctly, take it slow, trust your instincts, and do not blind yourself to red flags as the relationship progresses, online dating is actually safer than going to bars to look for a partner, and it gives many people better options than what they may find at work, church, or through friends.

Excellent post, thank you for this. I met my current spouse online in 1997, we were not looking to date, just to converse. I echo what you have said above about the positive points of meeting people online. I was disappointed by the commenters on the "People magazine" article above, some very scary victim blaming going on there. It's sad to think that many people view life in this way.
 
Didn't they release what parts were in the first bin before they were positively identified? I wonder if they found her torso which can be very telling in this case such as if she was raped, DNA etc so therefore they need to identify her first. Last time they had her head so they knew it was her.

I think that, by far, the main benefit to locating all of Ingrid's remaining body parts is so that other people do not have the traumatic misfortune of discovering her torso or other limbs, flesh, or internal organs scattered in the Seattle area. I would really hate to be that first homeowner who, having just returned from a trip to attend a funeral, found a severed head and severed limbs in his recycling bin.

It may be impossible to determine if she was "raped" since they were dating and JC had already told LE that he thought they had sex that night. So unless he actually admits that he raped her, he can easily make a case that the sex was consensual. As for his DNA or semen found on her body parts, again, since they were dating, that may not have much prosecutorial value. If JC was careless enough to leave the pruning saw behind, he probably was also careless enough to leave his fingerprints all over the pruning saw. JC already basically showed what his defense will consist of: he blacked out from drinking too much and does not remember what happened. This is a bit like the insanity defenses of other killers (e.g. a voice in my head told me to kill her). This may not have been his first murder, but I don't think he is as clever and calculating as Kevin Spacey's character in the movie "Seven". If he sticks to his story that he blacked out, then if LE asks him where he dumped the other body parts, he can just play dumb. But if he slips up and LE gets him to reveal the location of the other body parts, that can poke a hole in his "I blacked out" alibi.
 
I think that, by far, the main benefit to locating all of Ingrid's remaining body parts is so that other people do not have the traumatic misfortune of discovering her torso or other limbs, flesh, or internal organs scattered in the Seattle area. I would really hate to be that first homeowner who, having just returned from a trip to attend a funeral, found a severed head and severed limbs in his recycling bin.

It may be impossible to determine if she was "raped" since they were dating and JC had already told LE that he thought they had sex that night. So unless he actually admits that he raped her, he can easily make a case that the sex was consensual. As for his DNA or semen found on her body parts, again, since they were dating, that may not have much prosecutorial value. If JC was careless enough to leave the pruning saw behind, he probably was also careless enough to leave his fingerprints all over the pruning saw. JC already basically showed what his defense will consist of: he blacked out from drinking too much and does not remember what happened. This is a bit like the insanity defenses of other killers (e.g. a voice in my head told me to kill her). This may not have been his first murder, but I don't think he is as clever and calculating as Kevin Spacey's character in the movie "Seven". If he sticks to his story that he blacked out, then if LE asks him where he dumped the other body parts, he can just play dumb. But if he slips up and LE gets him to reveal the location of the other body parts, that can poke a hole in his "I blacked out" alibi.

As for whether or not he raped her, IMO (and I hate to say this), there could be trauma, as in he was just plain brutal. He seems like quite the sick *advertiser censored*... Who's to say he "gently raped her" if he would proceed to murder and cut her up? I also remember a CSI episode (read: this could be total Hollywood BS) that said there are signs of resistance that can be visible upon examination.
 
Excellent post, thank you for this. I met my current spouse online in 1997, we were not looking to date, just to converse. I echo what you have said above about the positive points of meeting people online. I was disappointed by the commenters on the "People magazine" article above, some very scary victim blaming going on there. It's sad to think that many people view life in this way.

I frequently cringed during this past week while reading the headlines of some articles on some highly respected news Web sites, with headlines such as "Mom was dismembered in own home after online date", "Ingrid Lyne murder sparks worry over dangers of Internet dating", and "Mom missing after going on a date with a man she met online". It is okay to mention these details in the main body of the news article. But when these headlines inflate the dangers of meeting someone online, this amounts to irresponsible fear-mongering tabloid journalism. Whether you meet people via meetup.com or match.com, the fact is that meeting people online is very normal these days. 20 years ago, the online crowds often consisted of computer nerds and geeks. But nowadays the online population is just a cross-section of the regular population. And considering that roughly 4% of the general population has sociopathic behavior, you can bump into weirdos whether you meet them initially online or whether you meet them in an office or on a college campus. And, yes, the commenters on some of these news articles are almost just as bad as Charlton. I read some article comments blaming Ingrid, one comment that said "Ingrid is a *advertiser censored*!", and some commenters made very tasteless recycling jokes.
 
Ok the title of this article says the remains are connected to Ingrid: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ingrid-lyne-dismembered-seattle-mom/83118894/

but in the article they said the police are still investigating if there is a connection. Hmm...

From the above link:

"Seattle police say they are investigating the remains in connection to the Ingrid Lyne case. The remains were discovered about 1.5 blocks from where Lyne’s remains were found inside a recycling bin in Seattle’s Central District last Saturday."
 
Excellent post, thank you for this. I met my current spouse online in 1997, we were not looking to date, just to converse. I echo what you have said above about the positive points of meeting people online. I was disappointed by the commenters on the "People magazine" article above, some very scary victim blaming going on there. It's sad to think that many people view life in this way.

Met my husband on line in 2000.
 
As for whether or not he raped her, IMO (and I hate to say this), there could be trauma, as in he was just plain brutal. He seems like quite the sick *advertiser censored*... Who's to say he "gently raped her" if he would proceed to murder and cut her up? I also remember a CSI episode (read: this could be total Hollywood BS) that said there are signs of resistance that can be visible upon examination.

Yes, you can detect even faint bruises and signs of trauma on a dead body. But to associate the bruises directly with a forceful rape can be very difficult since they had been dating for about two months already. She could have been raped and then killed. But they could have also had consensual sex earlier before he then killed her for whatever reason. LE noticed that JC had bruises on his forehead and hands, injuries on his lip, and scratches on his chest, and those were likely from her fighting for her life.
 
I know it is the weekend But I wish they will tell us if we are done with more bags. Its traumatic and I cant imagine what it is like for those that loved her. I think of her collegues often, having to go into their pts rooms and its all over the news in the rooms. I bet if we did a study , that unit will have changed recoery rates etc. .But a find makes it go huge again- its retraumatizing. Very rarely has my Lunesta not worked, it is not nightmares, it is endless rumination of why- trying to put it somewhere, and I dealt with this stuff hourly- so mad, sad confused, freaked. I remember Dahmer when it was breaking. But that is the only other one I remember.................You guys are my therapist ...................
 
From the above link:

"Seattle police say they are investigating the remains in connection to the Ingrid Lyne case. The remains were discovered about 1.5 blocks from where Lyne’s remains were found inside a recycling bin in Seattle’s Central District last Saturday."

Hi White! How are you?

I get they have to be careful, but come on we all know it is her

Can/has a judge kept that cant see face nonsense for a whole trial before???
 
I frequently cringed during this past week while reading the headlines of some articles on some highly respected news Web sites, with headlines such as "Mom was dismembered in own home after online date", "Ingrid Lyne murder sparks worry over dangers of Internet dating", and "Mom missing after going on a date with a man she met online". It is okay to mention these details in the main body of the news article. But when these headlines inflate the dangers of meeting someone online, this amounts to irresponsible fear-mongering tabloid journalism. Whether you meet people via meetup.com or match.com, the fact is that meeting people online is very normal these days. 20 years ago, the online crowds often consisted of computer nerds and geeks. But nowadays the online population is just a cross-section of the regular population. And considering that roughly 4% of the general population has sociopathic behavior, you can bump into weirdos whether you meet them initially online or whether you meet them in an office or on a college campus. And, yes, the commenters on some of these news articles are almost just as bad as Charlton. I read some article comments blaming Ingrid, one comment that said "Ingrid is a *advertiser censored*!", and some commenters made very tasteless recycling jokes.

The only thing that stands out as a big difference for me between meeting someone online vs elsewhere is the subtle cues we pick up from people when face-to-face that might stop us from getting past hello. We are not really aware of these subconscious interactions, but they are there, and we get a feeling about the person.

Online you don't have that filter until you actually do meet them, and maybe by then they have already gotten you to think positively toward them with fun banter and false narratives. You are primed to accept them before you ever meet in person. So your mind could over-ride your gut instincts at that point. That's what I would worry about.

Of course if you normally don't listen to your gut instincts anyway, it would be a wash!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
57
Guests online
3,077
Total visitors
3,134

Forum statistics

Threads
604,274
Messages
18,169,959
Members
232,271
Latest member
JayneDrop
Back
Top