Sweet, a guy without access to actual evidence offering up a conclusion that CD was the mastermind and LV was a follower. (literally to the Mason/Van Houten extreme)
He keeps saying, "in my mind". I would love if anything he's saying would be supported with any facts as we're not trying this case in the court of public opinion.
Given how pathetically they used burner phones (I have a hard time calling them that when they utilized them in such an absurd manner) and what has been collected on a whole, I feel the forensic and digital evidence will be overwhelming. At this point, I'm more concerned about the state simply blowing this (IE, Barry Morphew).
Why in that last 3 years, we're now interested in what he has to say? I know he's spoken on Dr. Phil about cults and whatnot.
He reminds me of Sgt. Paul McManigal, who was the (in my opinion), one of the wildest "expert" testimonies I've seen. (Alex Murdaugh case)
All just my opinion but I think the evidence will be there
I believe it. I think Chad was manipulating Lori in an abusive cult-leader way.
I also think Lori is guilty of the crimes with which she is charged, and guilty of crimes with which she hasn't been charged. Some of those crimes had nothing to do with Chad. (ex. Creating illness in Tylee)
It is not as if Chad being a cult leader absolves Lori in any way. It's not as if acknowledging this is going to help her case.
On the other hand, refusing to acknowledge that Chad was manipulating Lori COULD help Chad's case.
That seems to be Chad's strategy. There was no cult. I am no cult leader, just a humble gawky guy. The mainstream LDS church knew what I was doing and tacitly supported it. Lori and Alex learned their spiritual justifications for murder from the LDS church.
Then they framed me.
Denying the cult leader qualities of Chad plays right into his defense.
(But this is complicated. I agree with the assertion that the LDS church did tacitly support Chad- even though they did stop selling his books at Deseret and ultimately excommunicated him. In spite of that tacit support, I still consider Chad a cult leader. The church tacitly supported Chads supporters and suppressed criticism such as by his SIL. The church was aware of his "teachings" from people such as his SIL. The problem is the church won't go all the way with quashing Church of the Firstborn tenets. LDS teaches that church leaders are literal prophets who have communicated in a literal way with God. That puts them in a bad position- current prophets lose their credibility if they question the credibility of previous prophets. Then cults easily spring up- citing prophets that taught things that the current church does not emphasize. But the current church does not divorce itself from old teachings, either. The only way out of being a cult factory for the church is to teach that prophets haven't literally communicated with God. Then they can move away from teachings they want to move away from, as culture evolves. I think the vast majority of LDS church members are unaware of the older de-emphasized teachings- and of course are overwhelmingly good people living good lives. But the church teachings, especially of old prophets, can and does get used to create cults and give them credibility.)
MOO
Edited for clarity. The edits probably didn't help. I'm not sure if I have adequately explained my complicated position.
1) The LDS faith facilitates the development of cults
2) Chad was indeed a cult leader, facilitated by the church
3) Denying that Chad is a cult leader helps Chad's defense
4) Denying that the LDS church facilitates the development of cults makes it impossible for the church to help prevent cults and related tragedies in the future
5) Chad's being a cult leader does not absolve Lori
6) LDS's facilitation of cults does not absolve Chad.
MOO