Good point. Nor any search histories found regarding how to do so. Just the tides in SF bay IIRC.Any marks on his body will obviously draw scrutiny, especially with the obvious implications here.
It really could be present from any number of innocuous reasons though. Razor burn, mosquito bite, pimple, I mean there are any number of reasons why that mark could have been there.
Scott Peterson was able to kill his pregnant wife, and he apparently didn’t have a mark on his body.
LE certainly would have photographed his body in an effort to document marks.I feel like if he went after her in a rage like he says while she was actively strangling CeCe then he should definitely have defense marks on him. They would have both been in a rage and it would have been sudden and manic and a free for all. If he doesn’t, it leads me to think he may have done it while she was sleeping or in a more vulnerable position like from behind during a sneak attack. If he did it suddenly from behind I would still think he would have nail marks at least on his hands and maybe face. That’s why I think it’s more likely he sat on her while she was sleeping and her arms were pinned down. But yes we don’t know if he has injuries under his clothing.
Did that idea really only originate from me? I mean, I didn't hear it anywhere else first but I can't possibly be the only person to consider it.
To be clear, though, I'm not saying that I THINK it's reasonable or loving or symbolic, I'm suggesting it MAY HAVE BEEN for CW.
Just my own issue, but I’m still stuck on The lack of bruising or any kind of injuries on CW. There was that little red spot on his neck, but that’s it. Also, in the porch video, he was holding his arms close to his body, one in particular. Man, my eyes were glued to that one motionless arm because I was sure he injured it during the murders. Then at the end, he gestures with it, seemingly painlessly. So maybe it was just a defensive posture or “holding himself together”.
And this is my long-winded way of wondering if he had drugged the kids and Shanann, so he could kill them without resistance. Even if he ambushed shanann from behind, she would still struggle and inflict SOME kind of injury.
JMO
I suppose we have to wait for toxicology.
Yes sadly there was no warning signs leading up to this and she was 100% caught off guard. Poor SW had no chance IMOLE certainly would have photographed his body in an effort to document marks.
I absolutely agree, if this event occurred in the way that he claims it did, there would be evidence of it on his body. She would have clawed, kicked, and perhaps bitten him.
No marks, is a strong indicator that she was caught off guard, and she never had a chance to fight back.
That’s exactly what happened.
Exactly. SP literally put himself at the dumpsite, many miles from their house.Good point. Nor any search histories found regarding how to do so. Just the tides in SF bay IIRC.
They always have an excuse, however! IIRC, defense claims that the "kidnappers" heard he was boating that day so they dumped her body there later! Always SOMETHING for people to hold onto if they want to believe innocence, IMO. We see that in every case, including here.Exactly. SP literally put himself at the dumpsite, many miles from their house.
What are the odds that a stranger kidnaps your wife and dumps her in the same body of water where you admitted “fishing” on the day in question?
Anyone who questions his guilt, has to keep that in mind.
He was checking the tides all right.
Interesting re Scott P. Hiding his self. Makes sense.
Any info like that on any of the other killers?
Infants learn to quit crying when no one answers their cries. It used to be, and still is with some people, thought that babies should not be responded to. It spoils them.
The interactions babies learn are very interesting. There are many studies about parental interaction even at the smallest levels of eye movements.
I wonder if anyone will study the FA so there are more clues to pathology.
It really could be present from any number of innocuous reasons though. Razor burn, mosquito bite, pimple, I mean there are any number of reasons why that mark could have been there.
LE certainly would have photographed his body in an effort to document marks.
I absolutely agree, if this event occurred in the way that he claims it did, there would be evidence of it on his body. She would have clawed, kicked, and perhaps bitten him.
No marks, is a strong indicator that she was caught off guard, and she never had a chance to fight back.
That’s exactly what happened.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, Marli61!! I hope it's a great one!Yes!! I was just thinking about that last night! How he misused the word inclination.
Definition:
1.
a person's natural tendency or urge to act or feel in a particular way; a disposition or propensity.
It’s certainly possible.I wonder if SW's previous surgery/procedure on her neck made her more vulnerable to a sudden trauma in that area, perhaps leading to a partial paralysis? That might explain lack of any obvious defensive injuries on CW.
Did that idea really only originate from me? I mean, I didn't hear it anywhere else first but I can't possibly be the only person to consider it.
To be clear, though, I'm not saying that I THINK it's reasonable or loving or symbolic, I'm suggesting it MAY HAVE BEEN for CW.
Interesting re Scott P. Hiding his self. Makes sense.
Any info like that on any of the other killers?
Infants learn to quit crying when no one answers their cries. It used to be, and still is with some people, thought that babies should not be responded to. It spoils them.
The interactions babies learn are very interesting. There are many studies about parental interaction even at the smallest levels of eye movements.
I wonder if anyone will study the FA so there are more clues to pathology.
Thank you!!!HAPPY BIRTHDAY, Marli61!! I hope it's a great one!
Symbolic and loving? Wow that’s pretty sick. Was that from a “devils advocate” talking head or a guest comment on AB? Even if he didn’t kill them (which he did) putting them in oil tanks is the opposite of loving and I can’t imagine what’s symbolic about it. I can’t imagine anyone thinking those babies being in crude oil was in any way a positive thing. This is a perfect example of bending over backgrounds to make every excuse for this man.
I'm not sure where it originated but it was being discussed here sometime before we found out the 8 inch hatch size. A few might have changed their minds after realizing CW might have had to contort their little bodies and break bones to get them into the tanks. And I agree, it takes a sick mind to try to make that into a loving gesture.![]()
Did that idea really only originate from me? I mean, I didn't hear it anywhere else first but I can't possibly be the only person to consider it.
To be clear, though, I'm not saying that I THINK it's reasonable or loving or symbolic, I'm suggesting it MAY HAVE BEEN for CW.
Yes, I wonder if SW will have any broken nails? I agree any lack of wounds on either of them will not support his story. Of course we do not know what details he gave LE after speaking with his dad, he may have described a brawl.LE certainly would have photographed his body in an effort to document marks.
I absolutely agree, if this event occurred in the way that he claims it did, there would be evidence of it on his body. She would have clawed, kicked, and perhaps bitten him.
No marks, is a strong indicator that she was caught off guard, and she never had a chance to fight back.
That’s exactly what happened.
I don't think anyone will. It's too rare a phenomena to be worthy of study. Especially when issues like schizophrenia, bi polar disorder and personality disorders need so much study.
And the thing is, IMO, as much as people desperately want there to be signs so that people can beware of the potential of something like this happening, I don't see anything super concrete emerging.
The general characteristics of a family annihilator may help us determine the likelihood as to whether someone whose family has already been murdered, fits the profile of an annihilator, despite looking like a normal, nice guy.
But I don't think those same characterics can really help us determine whether the person sleeping next to us has the propensity to become a monster.
It's all so subtle, really. There are millions of introverts who are devoted family men, with no criminal or mental health histories, who don't have a lot of close friends and aren't great with women, etc., who come from family dysfunction, who have a secret and are unsatisfied with their lives, but will never kill anyone.
I mean we have stronger "clues" or cues or signs with mass shooters and yet that still can't be predicted with any reliability or prevented typically. Because there are tons of resentful loners who stockpile guns or weapons, can't get women, have neurological and/or psychological issues, feel entitled to more and are drawn to violent or hateful ideologies, and spend time saying weird things on the internet, but who never do one violent thing in their lives.
Its incredibly interesting to me but I don't think we will get any answers.