VA - Couple & two teens found murdered, Farmville, 15 Sept 2009 #8

[dangrsmind]

Going back to the list of supporting evidence for the "crime of passion" theory, we have a lot of statements from various people about Sam being quiet, picked on, etc. but not very much in the way of facts that support this. But I don't really see how these stories prove the theory one way or another.

We know Sam and Emma were not "together" at STFW this is supported by PiXY's statements and photographs of the event.

The only evidence supporting the story that he found a text message on Emma's phone so far seems to be McCroskey's reported statement to the cab driver.

Anything else?

 

[dangrsmind]

I get that what was said might be kept secret, but why the identity of the person?

I wonder how much detail was in that conversation. I think the details of that conversation may end up answering a lot of questions, particularly about Sam's frame of mind at the time.

No idea on that. Generally though, LE keeps a variety of facts about the case secret in order to ensure that they know some things that only the perpetrator could know. At this stage I would guess the secrecy has more to do with the trial process ensuring that the defense gets to see and respond to all of the evidence that the prosecution has and preserving the integrity of the jury that will eventually be picked. Maybe one or more of the lawyers can opine on this point.

 

[AndresEscobar]

And you say you watch horror films??? I don't and even I can get this scenario..."hey, I heard noises in the basement"; "don't worry son, I'll go check it out"...halfway down the stairs BAM in the head from behind..or ar least that is enough of a fantasy for Sam's brain. I'm not saying it's a great plan, but neither was smashing them with a wood maul and ball peen hammer and leaving evidence all over the place and living with dead bodies and...on and on. Sam was not an organized killer. See?

Yes, I watch horror films. I also know that killers in horror films and people who commit violent crimes are nothing alike. Here are my questions for you, dangrs, and everyone else that buys into this "lone, skinny cop murder fantasy" theory:

1. Who told us that the first cop to show up was a "lone, skinny cop"? Or rather, is this something we know for a fact or something that we were told might be true from local rumor? Because, if it's simply local rumor, the theory is already on shaky ground to begin with.

2. You both point to instances where he made obvious mistakes or lacked "organization" as a killer and use these to draw inferences that perhaps he was trying to kill this "lone, skinny cop". You argue in the face of the logical aspects of killing a cop that he may have been too illogical and not have realized them, but suddenly when two cops show up he's logical enough not to try to kill two cops?

I'm sorry, but you both argue that he was not a dumb criminal. I am going to agree that he wasn't a violent criminal mastermind, and that is exactly why I will refuse to give him credit for concocting some diabolical trap for a "lone skinny cop".

 

[AndresEscobar]

Wait a ticky: has it been confirmed what Sam's demeanor was when he called whatshisname? I can't recall that we know for sure he was upset or freaked out.

I just can't wrap my head around a normal yet reclusive kid who "snaps" and starts wielding a fricking wood maulm, mutilating the bodies of three women.

THEN: what comes next is even more out of character for the poor little kiddo that Pax describes.
* calmly tells the cop that they are at the movies (when their bloody remains are right inside where he killed them)
* leaves phone messages for Mrs. Wells
* CALLS more cops to the house with 4 dead bodies therein
* Makes a few trips to Kroger and wherever
* It is rumored he bought some scented candles to hide the smell
* It is rumored he hung out with some college kids and smoked with them
* Calmly encounters the police two more times while reeking of death
* Has casual conversations with cab driver about Emma as if she were still alive
* Has a meal at Huddle House
* Sleeps at the airport
* Doesn't seem too surprised to be arrested
* Smirks and smiles when the cameras catch him being led into custody
* Jokes that "Jesus told me to do it" for the camera

All of this does not add up to a regular soul who acted under the heat of passion and was unable to control his actions for a very short period of provocation...remember - he had plenty of cooling off time prior to killing Mark and all he had to do was LEAVE the house to avoid Mark, not kill him.

This doesn't pass the smell test for a poor, neglected, socially underdeveloped "kid". I think the horrocore also ate away at any conscience he may have had.

The scented candles thing is completely unsubstantiated. As is hanging out with college kids to smoke with them. There were no scented candles in the search warrant. If a scented candle had been placed in an area around the bodies and had been burned recently it would have been taken as evidence. Also, if he would have bought then, they would have been on the kroger receipts and this would have lead them to taking them as evidence. People who collect evidence do extremely thorough jobs.

ETA: I'd like to add that when the scented candle rumor was originally proffered, it also included that he bought air cleaning machines as well. A quick googling showed that these would likely be too expensive for someone who reportedly couldn't afford to change their plane ticket. From that, we quickly disposed of the air cleaning machines as "unlikely". Since the scented candles were coupled with the most likely false air cleaning machines rumor, why didn't we do the same with the scented candles?

I think a lot of this stuff is just the erratic behavior of someone who just committed a ghastly, violent crime.

 

[dangrsmind]

The scented candles thing is completely unsubstantiated. As is hanging out with college kids to smoke with them. There were no scented candles in the search warrant. If a scented candle had been placed in an area around the bodies and had been burned recently it would have been taken as evidence. Also, if he would have bought then, they would have been on the kroger receipts and this would have lead them to taking them as evidence. People who collect evidence do extremely thorough jobs.

ETA: I'd like to add that when the scented candle rumor was originally proffered, it also included that he bought air cleaning machines as well. A quick googling showed that these would likely be too expensive for someone who reportedly couldn't afford to change their plane ticket. From that, we quickly disposed of the air cleaning machines as "unlikely". Since the scented candles were coupled with the most likely false air cleaning machines rumor, why didn't we do the same with the scented candles?

I think a lot of this stuff is just the erratic behavior of someone who just committed a ghastly, violent crime.

The list specifies "rumored" but I tend to agree with you Andres about these two points. Either way, these are not the most important items in the list supporting the sociopath theory.

Any more items to add to either list?

 

[dangrsmind]

Yes, I watch horror films. I also know that killers in horror films and people who commit violent crimes are nothing alike. Here are my questions for you, dangrs, and everyone else that buys into this "lone, skinny cop murder fantasy" theory:

1. Who told us that the first cop to show up was a "lone, skinny cop"? Or rather, is this something we know for a fact or something that we were told might be true from local rumor? Because, if it's simply local rumor, the theory is already on shaky ground to begin with.

2. You both point to instances where he made obvious mistakes or lacked "organization" as a killer and use these to draw inferences that perhaps he was trying to kill this "lone, skinny cop". You argue in the face of the logical aspects of killing a cop that he may have been too illogical and not have realized them, but suddenly when two cops show up he's logical enough not to try to kill two cops?

I'm sorry, but you both argue that he was not a dumb criminal. I am going to agree that he wasn't a violent criminal mastermind, and that is exactly why I will refuse to give him credit for concocting some diabolical trap for a "lone skinny cop".

To be clear, I don't believe in this theory particularly. However, I would say that it is unexplained at this time as to why Sam called the police to report a noise in the basement after murdering three people in the house. That strikes me as a very strange thing to do. But I don't see any particular evidence that points to an attempt to attack a police officer, for example there was no report that the officer saw him holding a weapon or even that a wood chunk, maul or hammer was observed at the scene by the officer that checked the basement.

 

[AndresEscobar]

The list specifies "rumored" but I tend to agree with you Andres about these two points. Either way, these are not the most important items in the list supporting the sociopath theory.

Any more items to add to either list?

I am uninterested in whether he's a sociopath or not. However, buying the scented candles and air machines change our legal analysis of the crime completely. If a witness gave testimony to something that was completely implausible (air cleaning machines) and in the same sentence gave included something plausible but completely uncorroborated by anything (scented candles), wouldn't the entire statement's credibility be questioned?

 

[dangrsmind]

I am uninterested in whether he's a sociopath or not. However, buying the scented candles and air machines change our legal analysis of the crime completely. If a witness gave testimony to something that was completely implausible (air cleaning machines) and in the same sentence gave included something plausible but completely uncorroborated by anything (scented candles), wouldn't the entire statement's credibility be questioned?

Andres, you know I am being careful not say something that will get me put on time out. As far as the credibility of the witness in question here, it is between zero and nil IMO. I agree with the above therefore.

But dude, who peed in your corn flakes today? Smile!

 

[AndresEscobar]

Andres, you know I am being careful not say something that will get me put on time out. As far as the credibility of the witness in question here, it is between zero and nil IMO. I agree with the above therefore.

But dude, who peed in your corn flakes today? Smile!

Ha, I'm not upset, but, like Pax, I advocate strongly for truth.

One thing that sticks with me every day as a criminal defense attorney was a case I read in my evidence class in law school. A man was accused of committing a violent sexual attack on an 8 year old, who died from her injuries. The DA's chief piece of evidence was a pair of shorts found about a mile from the man's house. The shorts had some stains on it that at trial the prosecutor called blood. The judge denied the defense a chance to examine the underwear themselves, and the man was sentenced to death.

The defense eventually got a chance on a writ of habeas corpus to examine the underwear and after analysis it turned out there was no blood on the shorts. The stains were paint. Not only that, but it was later revealed that the prosecutor knew that these stains were paint.

One thing that I will advocate strongly against is unsubstantiated evidence accepted as truth for the narrative of this thread. This scented candle thing just wont go away. I found this thread through googling SM's name. LE glances at these forums. Don't you think a jury member might stumble upon this thread as well?

 

[dangrsmind]

Ha, I'm not upset, but, like Pax, I advocate strongly for truth.

One thing that sticks with me every day as a criminal defense attorney was a case I read in my evidence class in law school. A man was accused of committing a violent sexual attack on an 8 year old, who died from her injuries. The DA's chief piece of evidence was a pair of shorts found about a mile from the man's house. The shorts had some stains on it that at trial the prosecutor called blood. The judge denied the defense a chance to examine the underwear themselves, and the man was sentenced to death.

The defense eventually got a chance on a writ of habeas corpus to examine the underwear and after analysis it turned out there was no blood on the shorts. The stains were paint. Not only that, but it was later revealed that the prosecutor knew that these stains were paint.

One thing that I will advocate strongly against is unsubstantiated evidence accepted as truth for the narrative of this thread. This scented candle thing just wont go away. I found this thread through googling SM's name. LE glances at these forums. Don't you think a jury member might stumble upon this thread as well?

When I served on a jury we were given specific instructions not to use Google to search for information related to the case. I never did, but I recognize that all jurors may not be so careful. In fact I know that some jurors are pretty sketchy; during the trial I was involved with I had to report one of the other jurors to the court for making some rather strange sexual remarks about one of the other jurors and a victim/witness in the case.

 

[AndresEscobar]

When I served on a jury we were given specific instructions not to use Google to search for information related to the case. I never did, but I recognize that all jurors may not be so careful. In fact I know that some jurors are pretty sketchy; during the trial I was involved with I had to report one of the other jurors to the court for making some rather strange sexual remarks about one of the other jurors and a victim/witness in the case.

Oh, they will be instructed not to do any outside research. And if it's revealed that they did there will be a mistrial.

 

[PAXIMUS]

Well malware sucks. But hey what's another night without sleep?:furious:

 

[ziggy]

Well malware sucks. But hey what's another night without sleep?:furious:

Ahh Pax: that happened to me at work two days ago and a friend told me about a link for malware that worked, but all the info is at work! Sorry I couldn't share.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Going back to the list of supporting evidence for the "crime of passion" theory, we have a lot of statements from various people about Sam being quiet, picked on, etc. but not very much in the way of facts that support this. But I don't really see how these stories prove the theory one way or another.

We know Sam and Emma were not "together" at STFW this is supported by PiXY's statements and photographs of the event.

The only evidence supporting the story that he found a text message on Emma's phone so far seems to be McCroskey's reported statement to the cab driver.

Anything else?

I read yesterday that Emma had met Sam in person once prior to his trip to VA. I hadn't realized that tidbit before and it changes the way I view the whole picture a bit. Before I envisioned a relationship based purely on internet exchanges and thought when they met in person, Emma was turned off. But the real story is that they had already met, then continued the relationship via internet. When they saw each other again, whatever sparks that Emma had for Sam apparently went out. Sam was not expecting that as he had come to VA with high expectations. Also we can conclude that Sam doesn't know much about sixteen year old girls.:waitasec: Make sense?

That may have cut him deeper.

 

[ziggy]

First, I conceded wholly in the post that these were rumor and not fact. They are but two small pieces in the bigger picture and their absence does not diminish the portrait of a cool, seemingly unaffected Sam post quadruple murder.

Next, we are not in a court of law and the strict rules of evidence are not forced upon us. Speculation is not appropriate for a trier of fact, but for us it is, as long as we always distinguish the rumors from the facts as I have attempted to do.

In addition Andres, if those who collect evidence at a crime scene are so thorough as you suggest, then the search warrant or warrants released to the public are really THIN for a quadruple murder, so I am speculating again that we have not seen an entire list of all of the evidence collected.

Whereas you do not like speculation upon “possibilities” such as a lone skinny cop and scented candles which are rumors up to this point, I find taking any particular stance based perhaps not on evidence that is lacking, but evidence that has not been revealed to us in the same ballpark.

Scented candles and air cleaning machines brings me to another outright speculation that they may have been something like those Glade Plug Ins – not an advanced “air cleaning machine” and not a candle that would have to be kept lit and yet would serve the same purpose. Because they are plugged into the sockets, the evidence collectors may not have thought them relevant until they looked through the receipts. I’m sure they collected evidence for days, not just one night.

Now I will be accused of starting the Glade Plug In rumor – so please Andres, hear me now or tell me later – I am just tossing possibilities around and am certainly not trying to perpetuate rumors. However, I will not set a tone here that will make the local people afraid to share what they have heard regarding the case for fear of being pounced on or accused of tainting a jury pool! So I’ll take the hit for them and go toe to toe with you if you want, but all things coming out of Farmville regardless of the source can and should be discussed here so long as facts are distinguished from rumors and I might suggest sticking to a courtroom if that bothers you.

Some can snit about the National Enquirer all day long as not being “real news” but guess what??? they often get the story right.

I don’t think it is prudent to ask people to sit in here and speak only on what is known as fact, when so little facts are known. Speculating on unsubstantiated facts is the same as speculating on only a fraction of the facts. Either way we all know we are uninformed and I can live with that for a while.

 

[ziggy]

And hey, here's a deal...if the rumors turn out to be fact, then you can fly me to Chicago, introduce me to Oprah and buy me dinner and if not, then I'll admit I'm wrong

 

[PAXIMUS]

I read yesterday that Emma had met Sam in person once prior to his trip to VA. I hadn't realized that tidbit before and it changes the way I view the whole picture a bit. Before I invisioned a relationship based purely on internet exchanges and thought when they met in person, Emma was turned off. But the real story is that they had already met, then continued the relationship via internet. When they saw each other again, whatever sparks that Emma had for Sam apparently went out. Sam was not expecting that as he had come to VA with high expectations. Also we can conclude that Sam doesn't know much about sixteen year old girls.:waitasec: Make sense?

That may have cut him deeper.

False rumor, they never met before his trip to VA as far as I know.

 

[ziggy]

I read yesterday that Emma had met Sam in person once prior to his trip to VA. I hadn't realized that tidbit before and it changes the way I view the whole picture a bit. Before I invisioned a relationship based purely on internet exchanges and thought when they met in person, Emma was turned off. But the real story is that they had already met, then continued the relationship via internet. When they saw each other again, whatever sparks that Emma had for Sam apparently went out. Sam was not expecting that as he had come to VA with high expectations. Also we can conclude that Sam doesn't know much about sixteen year old girls.:waitasec: Make sense?

That may have cut him deeper.

Some of the stories we've stumbled upon in the media have been less than accurate as well. There have been conflicting stories as to whether Sam and Emma had met in person previously.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I am uninterested in whether he's a sociopath or not. However, buying the scented candles and air machines change our legal analysis of the crime completely. If a witness gave testimony to something that was completely implausible (air cleaning machines) and in the same sentence gave included something plausible but completely uncorroborated by anything (scented candles), wouldn't the entire statement's credibility be questioned?

Before he did either of these things, his first priority would have been to remove the bodies from the house I would think. If that had been accomplished along with cleanup, air freshners and candles would make more sense.

Of course we're talking about someone who probably puts dirty clothes on after or if ever he takes a shower so who knows how to judge what makes sense in this case. It's possible he could have lit some candles that were already in the house. A lot of people have them on the table, bath and kitchen. If so, he probably just did that for himself not to coverup.

 

[ziggy]

Maybe not. He was staying in the house until it was time for him to go back to CA and the bodies were beginning to smell. If not for his own comfort, he may have had too many close calls with cops coming over and Mel's mom calling and figured he had to try and cover the smell in case someone else came calling.

Until we see what is on the Kroger receipts we won't know for sure but it doesn't make it implausible that one would try to cover up the smell of decay for one reason or another even while not being able to move the bodies.

I would think if he really wanted to move them, he could have taken them to the basement. Perhaps that might have been a way to conceal the smell rather than just leave them in another part of the home on the same floor. Seems he left them where they were - and perhaps he had a reason for that.