Did you guys speak the night before, and what did you say to her?
“Every day for the last 10 months, she has made it a point to text me at work that she
loves me, and have a good day honey. When I finally arrived in Biloxi around
7:30, which was later than I was supposed to be there, I spoke to her. She said
good night, and it was still about 8 o’clock. I called her anyway, probably
around 9 or 9:30 to tell her I love her, and she was already half-asleep. And
that’s the last time I spoke to her.”
...RSBM..youtube...
excerpt from:
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1607/06/ddhln.01.html
"...Lisa Bloom, Host: [KS], police reports are saying that [MB] may have had an affair. Did you know anything about that?
[KS]: I knew of one um that happened about
a year and a half ago. Um, that was the only one that I knew of. And um you know when this thing first happened, that um was the first thing that went through my mind was--you know--was, did this have anything to do with--with an affair, that she may have had another one, you know, cause what a lot of people thought, you know, it (clears throat) it certainly looked targeted and could an affair play a part in this?..."
18 months before murder - an affair by MB
10 months before murder - "I love you" every day MB to BB
4 months before and continuing to murder - MB engaging in flirtatious LI messages
How did LE know so quickly that MB and CW were engaging in flirtatious LI messages since there were attempts to immediately delete them?
WHO is it that knew about the flirtatious messages and informed LE? Was it CW or someone else? The LinkedIn SW for CW was issued without his knowledge, and the strongest terms were advised to LinkedIn not to disclose the existence of the SW, so was it someone else who told LE about the flirtatious and intimate messages?
From the LinkedIn SW dated 4/27/2016:
page 13/18 of pdf, page 4/9 of CW SW:
"...THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS THE ABOVE-LISTED PROVIDER NOT TO
DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF THIS SEARCH WARRANT, BECAUSE THE
EVIDENCE BEING SOUGHT IS EASILY DELETED OR DESTROYED. IN
ADDITION, AFFIANT’S INVESTIGATION IS NOT KNOWN TO THE SUSPECT AND
DISCLOSURE OF THE INVESTIGATION WILL LIKELY CAUSE IMMEDIATE
DANGER TO WITNESSES, DESTRUCTION OFOTHER PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND
FLIGHT FROM PROSECUTION ..."
page 16/18 of pdf, page 7/9 of CW SW:
"...Additionally, law enforcement has conducted several interviews with persons of interest
and during one such interview learned that [CW], had engaged in while on
the Linkedln Social Media Service several correspondence with the decedent since
(January of2016) until her death. These communications were described as flirtatious
and familiar. ...
...An electronic forensic data extraction of the cellphones belonging to the decedent and
[CW] confirms that the communications using Linkedln occurred. The content of
the recovered communications appears intimate in nature. The extracted information
also showed that these communications were deleted after the conversation ended and
were only able to be partially recovered. ..."
JMO If there had been affair(s), and an attempt to reconcile, and daily "I love you", then a new series of flirtations or an affair that is being kept secret by deleting the messages... JMO if I were a spouse in this situation, I would feel more than betrayed, more than lied to,
but more like duped, made a fool of, or made a chump, and I would be more than angry about another affair, I would be enraged at the duplicity.
This SW is why I never understood the aspersions cast on AT/CT when the SW states that the person MB was having flirtatious and intimate messaging with was CW, not AT.
