- Joined
- May 21, 2013
- Messages
- 19,708
- Reaction score
- 152,220
I think there's a difference though between him suspecting Madalina wasn't actually in the house, and that DC was lying about her being in her room, or in the bathroom... and Madalina being MISSING, missing. If that makes sense. I don't think it was until later that he realized she really was MISSING, just as he testified to. In other words, I think he was making excuses for DC (to himself) because he really didn't believe she'd do anything to make Madalina go missing.I think that much or even most of his testimony could be true---but I am not buying ALL of it.
I am still doubting that he never realised the child was missing. He even admitted a few times that he knew his wife was lying about her being in her room. So it makes me wonder why he just went along with it.
Also, I do believe him when he says his wife was nutty and borderline crazy. But I also wonder if he is exaggerating somethings to maker her look clinically insane---to get him off the hook.
But he admits seeing the child's trundle bed being partially burned---and her photos being burned. How could a grown man, with a skilled technical job and a security clearance ignore things like that, when he hasn't seen his stepdaughter for weeks? It doesn't pass the smell test for me. Smells very fishy.
I don't think he harmed this child---and back at the start of this case I thought he was the abusive one and that his wife was afraid of him and shipped her child to safety somewhere.
I no longer believe that. I don't think he was the aggressor---but I do think there's a chance that he looked the other way when he saw his wife acting aggressively, and maybe even helped herr w/a coverup?
I also don't think he helped her with any type of coverup. If evidence comes to light that indicates that he did, then of course I'll change my mind but so far, I haven't seen anything to point that direction (other than my jaded opinion after following true crime for so long).
jmo