oceanblueeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 26,446
- Reaction score
- 43,739
I don't want to belabor the point, but it doesn't make sense that the killer would try to frame SD by decapitating her husband.
It would take significant strength to beheadsomeone if you don't do it in the right area. And a woman born and bred in NJ and CT society who went to Barnard is not someone accustomed to breaking down deer.
There is a big difference between a 70 year old and a 90 year old woman. While it may have happened once or twice that a woman that old killed their husband, it is far from the norm. No amount of explanation will convince me that the killer thought he was framing SD by beheading her husband.
I understand your opinion and highly respect it even though I don't agree.
I agree with Sills and he believes he did this trying to make it look like Shirley was just missing whereabouts unknown. And Sills could never say with 100% certainty that Shirley hadn't done this. If he thought she was too elderly to do something like this then he would have ruled her out and he never did. In fact he said he had to consider that as a possibility because she was only classified as missing at the time. The reporters asked him that question about whether Shirley could be involved. Even they thought it could have been a possibility or they would have never asked the question.
All that is needed is a very sharp instrument........the sharpness of the instrument does the work.
It has happened far way more than once of twice.

IMO