there is only one person so far who has testified that MR raped TS and that is the one who is convicted of murder and also confessed that it was she herself who swung the hammer...what other pieces of evidences are you talking about...can you list them...:what::moo: I may have missed something:banghead::banghead:
To me, there are 4 things that point overwhelmingly towards sexual assault, or rather, rape. Sexual assault sounds so 'meh', doesn't it? Could be an unwelcome pat on the bum. This was rape; that word is less ambiguous.
In order of importance....
1. The absence of clothing on the lower extremities of the body - no pants, no underwear. Nudity = vulnerability; no amount of mental gymnastics results in a scenario where I would, mid-kidnapping, remove half of my clothing.
Just no...NO. Perhaps this isn't self-evident to men?
Perhaps I had an accident, as someone suggested - nope, I'd sit in it as long as I had to. Had to go to the bathroom, so took off my pants? No, ask any woman - you either hike it and squat (skirt) or pull down to the ankles and squat. In no scenario (outside outside of the privacy of my bedroom) would I remove my clothes entirely because of urgent need or wet underwear. It defies reason and common sense.
If they removed clothing to prevent DNA evidence, why wouldn't they remove all clothing? Anyone over the age of about 16 knows, tops are easy to remove, bottoms - a bit harder. Legs are heavy compared to arms.
2. The uncanny accuracy of her statement. The description of the location, how the statement ties in with video (school, Home Depot, gas stations) and witness evidence (the percocet seller), the absence of the back seat, the description of the knife she used to cut the seat, the fact that a piece of the seat was found on the floor with DNA. Bottle caps with the remains and the use of water bottles to 'clean up'. Etc, etc, etc...it just goes on and on.
Despite the appearance that she is clearly an irrevocably damaged and twisted human being,
her story is backed by evidence at every turn. On top of that, it rings true to me in a horrible way.
3. Motive - If TLM was a scorned woman, hell-bent on revenge, why would she change her statement and admit that she did the killing?
Conversely, if she is lying out of some sense of loyalty, to protect him, why wouldn't she recant her statement that a rape had occurred?
I can't see a motive to lie about the rape but change her statement to admit that she committed the murder - can anyone else?
4. The CSI generation - we've been raised on a diet of CSI and Law & Order. We have to assume that any criminal will attempt to destroy evidence, and they clearly did - tire tracks interfered with, shoes discarded (evidence), car wash, hair dye (evidence), discarded seat (evidence), new cell phone (evidence) when they started to close in, etc, etc.. again, it just goes on and on.
Even the fact that the blood was found on the door frame rings true - I always forget to clean there when I wash my car.
Would you, in a juror's shoes, discard everything you know about the world today and expect evidence to be handed to you on a silver platter? I would expect that proof would have to come in the form of numerous pieces of circumstantial evidence that ultimately combine to present the overall picture.
I find the evidence of rape overwhelming.
It breaks my heart that it just happened to be land belonging to a farmer who, because of his religion, avoided media - what a terrible coincidence. If it weren't for that, the search may have ended much sooner, perhaps in time to have incontrovertible evidence.