- Joined
- Oct 22, 2018
- Messages
- 17,856
- Reaction score
- 296,854
We will likely never know how it all happened, but based on the signature gouges on Barry's arm, there was an intimate scuffle.
The point of tranquilizing wildlife, it seems to me, is to drop the animal -- to prevent injury to animal and tranquilizor. Sedate the animal before approaching, then conduct whatever business necessitated that sedation (transport, veterinary care, tagging, etc and not to saw off antlers) before giving the corresponding reversal agent.
We don't know what was in the dart associated with the sheath. We don't know if it was a lethal agent, or whether it was or wasn't intended to be such.
But I have two theories. Theory #1 is that Barry made first contact outside (not directly outside) the bedroom, grabbing Suzanne in a chestlock, probably from behind, injecting her manually. And that's when she gouged him, perhaps momentarily breaking free, attempting then to find safety in her bedroom.
Or alternately, Theory #2, it was inside the bedroom, that he held her down, resulting in the gouges.
Did he attempt to immobilize her to inject her or did he attempt to hold her down until the tranquilizer overwhelmed her?
I think this is determinable. Based on the position and angle of the gouges. Whether he was behind her or atop her.
IMO there are two reasons for breaking into the bedroom --
1. Suzanne had her phone and he couldn't let her call for help.
Or
2. There were weapons in that room. He couldn't let Suzanne get hold of a gun, to defend herself.
Because, otherwise, he only had to wait for the tranquilizer to work before calmly picking the lock.
I think Suzanne may have briefly shifted the power axis and he was forced to punt.
The sheath and the doorframe and the gouges tell a story.
There is evidence of a crime in the home.
I disagree with the judge's finding that the sheath is no more evidentiary than knives in a kitchen or guns in a gunsafe.
If a set of knives were missing, I'd say that could have significant evidentiary value. Both the presence and absence of a means for violence is relevant IMO!
That Barry himself brought firing tranquilizers into the story makes tranquing materials even more relevant.
They should be there (in the home) so why are they missing? Smoking gun.
It takes one google search and one video of a deer being tranquilized to feel the brutality of a dart into thin human skin.
JMO
The point of tranquilizing wildlife, it seems to me, is to drop the animal -- to prevent injury to animal and tranquilizor. Sedate the animal before approaching, then conduct whatever business necessitated that sedation (transport, veterinary care, tagging, etc and not to saw off antlers) before giving the corresponding reversal agent.
We don't know what was in the dart associated with the sheath. We don't know if it was a lethal agent, or whether it was or wasn't intended to be such.
But I have two theories. Theory #1 is that Barry made first contact outside (not directly outside) the bedroom, grabbing Suzanne in a chestlock, probably from behind, injecting her manually. And that's when she gouged him, perhaps momentarily breaking free, attempting then to find safety in her bedroom.
Or alternately, Theory #2, it was inside the bedroom, that he held her down, resulting in the gouges.
Did he attempt to immobilize her to inject her or did he attempt to hold her down until the tranquilizer overwhelmed her?
I think this is determinable. Based on the position and angle of the gouges. Whether he was behind her or atop her.
IMO there are two reasons for breaking into the bedroom --
1. Suzanne had her phone and he couldn't let her call for help.
Or
2. There were weapons in that room. He couldn't let Suzanne get hold of a gun, to defend herself.
Because, otherwise, he only had to wait for the tranquilizer to work before calmly picking the lock.
I think Suzanne may have briefly shifted the power axis and he was forced to punt.
The sheath and the doorframe and the gouges tell a story.
There is evidence of a crime in the home.
I disagree with the judge's finding that the sheath is no more evidentiary than knives in a kitchen or guns in a gunsafe.
If a set of knives were missing, I'd say that could have significant evidentiary value. Both the presence and absence of a means for violence is relevant IMO!
That Barry himself brought firing tranquilizers into the story makes tranquing materials even more relevant.
They should be there (in the home) so why are they missing? Smoking gun.
It takes one google search and one video of a deer being tranquilized to feel the brutality of a dart into thin human skin.
JMO
Last edited: