FL - Sarah Boone, 42, charged with murdering boyfriend Jorge Torres, 42, by leaving him locked in suitcase, Winter Park, Feb 2020 #2

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

They had to have time to investigate. They did, and got her phone info then made sure she understood she could come down and talk to them of her own free will.

Why on earth would she demand LE look at her phone?

She demanded they looked at pictures and videos on her phone. Of bruises she claimed JT had caused and a video of him smashing her TV allegedly. Seems they found some other more interesting videos.

JMO but I don't believe LE protected the public when they failed to detain SB at the crime scene. She could have lost the plot or felt at the end of the line in life and continued her rampage, at the very least harming herself but more so being a high risk to her ex husband and child. To think she went to stay with them after this crime is chilling. My opinion only.

Also, she could have absconded. Also they could have failed to secure vital evidence of a murder.

 

[Izzylizzy]

They had to have time to investigate. They did, and got her phone info then made sure she understood she could come down and talk to them of her own free will.

Why on earth would she demand LE look at her phone?

I want to know why SB wasn't taken to the police station that day to be questioned?
That's the usual LE mo when you're involved with a victim who is found dead.

 

[sasha17]

She demanded they looked at pictures and videos on her phone. Of bruises she claimed JT had caused and a video of him smashing her TV allegedly. Seems they found some other more interesting videos.

SBM. I just can't see her logic in this. Her boyfriend just died and at this point, she was still claiming it was all accidental and she didn't know what happened. If that was her defense then, why bring up the photos and tell the detectives about all the times he injured her? Telling them about how he hurt her in the past makes it sound like she's trying to explain that she was justified in hurting him back. Except his death was an accident and she doesn't know what happened? Baffling.

 

[Izzylizzy]

Peter @ LYK wasn't an approved source here a yr ago when he did 3 videos on SB's interrogation.
I want to hear his input which he gives from both the prosecutions side and the defences side.

Part 1

 

[Izzylizzy]

Part 11

 

[Izzylizzy]

Part 111

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

SBM. I just can't see her logic in this. Her boyfriend just died and at this point, she was still claiming it was all accidental and she didn't know what happened. If that was her defense then, why bring up the photos and tell the detectives about all the times he injured her? Telling them about how he hurt her in the past makes it sound like she's trying to explain that she was justified in hurting him back. Except his death was an accident and she doesn't know what happened? Baffling.

SB doesn't use logic IMO. Far from it. She uses coercion and manipulation with no care for if it makes sense. She'll thrash around, keep throwing out scores of ideas to see if any of the mud she slings in any direction hits and resonates or eases up the intensity of her situation.

She's waiting for the moment where someone, anyone, will say a placating aside 'oh yep right I got you now... it was one of those hide & go seek deaths we hear about in the news'. Or 'I'm so sorry you've lost your bf so unexpectedly after such a meaningful Sunday fun day, you must be devastated', case closed.

She's obv used to speaking with people pleasers and cowardly people or really nice people who only know how to be kind and caring. Also, pretty much everyone was avoiding her and she didn't have a job, so she's only been used to speaking to herself it seems. Detectives not so much.

 

[Izzylizzy]

Peter @ LYK answered something I've been wondering about since seeing the suitcase that JT died in.
He believes the prosecution will demonstrate putting someone in it for the jury.

He didn't get into zipping it and seeing if the person can maneuver the zipper from the small space that JT got his finger(s) out of.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Peter @ LYK answered something I've been wondering about since seeing the suitcase that JT died in.
He believes the prosecution will demonstrate putting someone in it for the jury.

He didn't get into zipping it and seeing if the person can maneuver the zipper from the small space that JT got his finger(s) out of.

Hmmmmmm. I am not sure whether that is a good idea or not. Unnecessary theatrics perhaps. And IMO have to wonder if that commenter is trying to precipitate something?

I seem to remember a certain case in the mid 1990s in Los Angeles where the prosecution asked for a demonstration of a pair of gloves by a defendant. And IIRC that turned out to be a major fail. A huge misstep in that case some believe.

So in this case of SB, IMO it might be best to let the defense have SB climb into it to demonstrate their perspective. There is video showing what happened to the now deceased JT in that suitcase. MOO

 

[Seattle1]

Peter @ LYK wasn't an approved source here a yr ago when he did 3 videos on SB's interrogation.
I want to hear his input which he gives from both the prosecutions side and the defences side.

Part 1

Take note the videos by LYK were from November 2022 where much has changed about this case including SB's defense so I don't think it fair to hold Peter to strategy of two years ago. JMO

 

[Izzylizzy]

SB doesn't use logic IMO. Far from it. She uses coercion and manipulation with no care for if it makes sense. She'll thrash around, keep throwing out scores of ideas to see if any of the mud she slings in any direction hits and resonates or eases up the intensity of her situation.

She's waiting for the moment where someone, anyone, will say a placating aside 'oh yep right I got you now... it was one of those hide & go seek deaths we hear about in the news'. Or 'I'm so sorry you've lost your bf so unexpectedly after such a meaningful Sunday fun day, you must be devastated', case closed.

She's obv used to speaking with people pleasers and cowardly people or really nice people who only know how to be kind and caring. Also, pretty much everyone was avoiding her and she didn't have a job, so she's only been used to speaking to herself it seems. Detectives not so much.

BBM
Excellent post, thank you!

I just watched Peter's 3 videos and during the first half of the integration when SB was on a roll you can actually see her thinking that she's convincing the 2 detectives of whatever.

Knowing from the beginning of her interrogation that she was going to be arrested that day made watching and listening to her somewhat pleasurable.
That said also knowing that this woman that I was listening to also went through 8 (?) lawyers before Owens and his team and took the judge on a long journey that one could believe he's never been on before.

How the hell was she capable of doing this?
Where did this ability of hers come from?
I find it mindboggeling and damn scary.

 

[Izzylizzy]

Hmmmmmm. I am not sure whether that is a good idea or not. Unnecessary theatrics perhaps. And IMO have to wonder if that commenter is trying to precipitate something?

I seem to remember a certain case in the mid 1990s in Los Angeles where the prosecution asked for a demonstration of a pair of gloves by a defendant. And IIRC that turned out to be a major fail. A huge misstep in that case some believe.

So in this case of SB, IMO it might be best to let the defense have SB climb into it to demonstrate their perspective. There is video showing what happened to the now deceased JT in that suitcase. MOO

Maybe beforehand the prosecution will put someone in there to see if the zipper could have been unzipped by JT ?
Then again I don't think they knew what position he was in when he passed in relation to the zipper because SB flipped the suitcase a few times?

SB supposedly thought he'd unzip it and come up to the bedroom.
I still can't believe he got in it and SB was able to zip it.

 

[Izzylizzy]

Take note the videos by LYK were from November 2022 where much has changed about this case including SB's defense so I don't think it fair to hold Peter to strategy of two years ago. JMO

It's not about holding Peter to anything, then or now.

I don't know what could have changed since then that could deter the prosecution from demonstrating someone in the suitcase for the jury if that was ever their plan.

The trial is on so we'll see when they present the suitcase as evidence.

 

[Cool Cats]

Hmmmmmm. I am not sure whether that is a good idea or not. Unnecessary theatrics perhaps. And IMO have to wonder if that commenter is trying to precipitate something?

I seem to remember a certain case in the mid 1990s in Los Angeles where the prosecution asked for a demonstration of a pair of gloves by a defendant. And IIRC that turned out to be a major fail. A huge misstep in that case some believe.

So in this case of SB, IMO it might be best to let the defense have SB climb into it to demonstrate their perspective. There is video showing what happened to the now deceased JT in that suitcase. MOO

Sorta gross. Demonstrating a murder that is already provable but I get what you are saying.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Sorta gross. Demonstrating a murder that is already provable but I get what you are saying.

Yes it is @Cool Cats . And in actuality, that suitcase is essentially JT’s coffin or tomb. There doesn’t seem to be any question whether someone could fit into it or not. And the morbid videos recorded by the defendant tell plenty. The deceased was in the case. And the defendant has made certain admissions relating to that in this case IIUC.

Whether or not the sadly deceased JT ‘could have escaped’ is IMO immaterial. He didn’t. MOO

 

[Seattle1]

It's not about holding Peter to anything, then or now.

I don't know what could have changed since then that could deter the prosecution from demonstrating someone in the suitcase for the jury if that was ever their plan.

The trial is on so we'll see when they present the suitcase as evidence.

Sorry if my post was unclear. In Nov 2022, we didn't have SB's video from her phone of JT trapped inside the suitcase, telling SB he could not breath, and instead of freeing him, SB taunts him. Nonetheless, I don't think it's necessary for the prosecution to demonstrate how JT got inside the suitcase as much as showing how he died inside the suitcase at the act and intent of SB. JMO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Peter @ LYK answered something I've been wondering about since seeing the suitcase that JT died in.
He believes the prosecution will demonstrate putting someone in it for the jury.

He didn't get into zipping it and seeing if the person can maneuver the zipper from the small space that JT got his finger(s) out of.

The jury will be given time to spend with the suitcase and will be allowed to handle it and try it for size or anything they wish. It wouldn't surprise me if the prosecution have hired a performer to get into it -or- have made some type of model / computer generated model.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I want to know why SB wasn't taken to the police station that day to be questioned?
That's the usual LE mo when you're involved with a victim who is found dead.

IMO they did not care about JT's death. They maybe thought toxicology will come back with a drug O/D, heroin or something, and be like huh just another day in paradise for a loser, who cares, can't prove anything in any direction... tumbleweed... JMO MOO

Then most likely it all ramped it up - ex Husband probably wondering why she's not held for questioning might have dialled in a few times what with her being in his home, family members of JT asking questions, then the tech people finding the videos. Even then, SB was not sought out and arrested she went to demand her phone back it seems. I suppose they would have sought court orders to go fetch her soon enough.

 

[arielilane]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1848341907664990399

 

[nodamselindistress]

SB did not have a job? How did she pay her bills, was her ex paying her enough alimony to pay for an apartment and bills? I believe I heard that Jorge did not contribute to the finances as he had his own children and child support.