GUILTY NE - Sydney Loofe, 24, brutally murdered, Lincoln, 15 Nov 2017 #4 *Boswell appeal 2023*

New Posts

ACE422 said:
Sad to think that something horrible has to happen for them to act on this. Unfortunately, it’s the same for anyone making reports to adult protective services or child protective services in Nebraska. Something horrible has to happen in order for them to step in and by the time it happens, it is usually an unfortunate
, unnecessary loss of life that occurs before legal action is taken .
Click to expand...
I agree...I have worked with reporting concerns to adult protective Services and Child Protective Services in Nebraska..it’s very frustrating and they will wait until something horrible happens before they step in unfortunately :( heartbreaking
 
I also thought the prosecutor did a good job of getting under AT's skin during cross. The whole tattoo thing was prefaced with maybe BB did it. AT was the most emotional at that moment during the cross. I can't wait for BB to be tried.
 
Snick1946 said:
2 women contacted Lincoln police about Aubrey Trail's activity months before he killed Sydney Loofe

Apologies if this link doesn't work. The Omaha World Herald has IMO an awful website. I cannot view articles very often, keep getting requests to register, did so years ago. Maybe somebody with better skills than i can link to it. It's a good article, Lincoln cops were contacted about these two months earlier and apparently never did much.

I have to wonder why so many young women seem to discard common sense when dealing with the internet. I keep thinking about the young woman in Utah being lured to meet someone she never knew; would her mother or grandmother have done something this risky? Not victim blaming, but I really wonder if people exposed to the internet since early childhood just now take too much for granted.
Click to expand...
Just a note: it hasn’t been said whether MacKenzie Lueck had ever met AA previously. Everyone has jumped to the conclusion that this was their first meeting, but that’s not confirmed at this point. *He* claimed they had never met before, but I’d say we can safely assume nothing he says is true.

And with Sydney, well, meeting a woman in person isn’t nearly as risky as meeting a man in person, generally speaking. While admittedly it was a quick search, I wasn’t able to find any cases of women murdering someone they met on a dating site other than Bailey Boswell.

The most common cases of women killing someone they met online seem to be women who lure and then kill pregnant women in order to take their babies.

People meet people online and then in real life all the time and rarely does something like this occur. I found this article from Nov 2018 reporting that worldwide, most women are killed by their partners or other family members.

Most Women Killed by Partners or Family, Global Homicide Report Says

And if you look at the many cases we see on WS, that seems to be pretty accurate.
 
kaen said:
I watched the whole AT testimony. While the graphic photo was incredibly disturbing, the question that the prosecutor asked about the cut at the bottom of the tattoo was incredibly telling. AT said he had gotten rid of knives. But, the prosecutor kept wanting to know about that cut. It lends more credence to the state's presentation of torture rather than what AT claims as an accident. He wasn't just dismembering her, he was carving at the underlying the message of the tattoo--Everything will be wonderful someday. It shows that this wasn't just an accident to me. Why did he need the knives? I certainly believe that they did something with the organs as well. I think it was more about getting a victim or, if they did indeed know her from before, then, I think it was retribution.
Click to expand...
I think by the time AT testified he knew his goose was cooked but thought he could feed some BS story to the jurors and have a chance to get by with a lesser charge. Thank God they saw right through him. In my opinion the murder was probably much more horrific than we could or would ever imagine. I personally don’t want to know any more of the details I just want him off the streets to die in prison one way or another
 
JenniD said:
I think by the time AT testified he knew his goose was cooked but thought he could feed some BS story to the jurors and have a chance to get by with a lesser charge. Thank God they saw right through him. In my opinion the murder was probably much more horrific than we could or would ever imagine. I personally don’t want to know any more of the details I just want him off the streets to die in prison one way or another
Click to expand...

Totally agree on all points. We just have to make sure BB dies in prison as well.
 
TristanP said:
Just a note: it hasn’t been said whether MacKenzie Lueck had ever met AA previously. Everyone has jumped to the conclusion that this was their first meeting, but that’s not confirmed at this point. *He* claimed they had never met before, but I’d say we can safely assume nothing he says is true.

And with Sydney, well, meeting a woman in person isn’t nearly as risky as meeting a man in person, generally speaking. While admittedly it was a quick search, I wasn’t able to find any cases of women murdering someone they met on a dating site other than Bailey Boswell.

The most common cases of women killing someone they met online seem to be women who lure and then kill pregnant women in order to take their babies.

People meet people online and then in real life all the time and rarely does something like this occur. I found this article from Nov 2018 reporting that worldwide, most women are killed by their partners or other family members.

Most Women Killed by Partners or Family, Global Homicide Report Says

And if you look at the many cases we see on WS, that seems to be pretty accurate.
Click to expand...
I assume you mean AT. He actually kept insisting they had met before, but we believe they did not, partly based on the video at her workplace when he went to check her out and she clearly did not recognize him.
 
JaneEyre said:
I assume you mean AT. He actually kept insisting they had met before, but we believe they did not, partly based on the video at her workplace when he went to check her out and she clearly did not recognize him.
Click to expand...

Also I imagine there would be an electronic record had Sydney and AT/BB been communicating prior to November 2017. I believe AT made up that story from whole cloth to make him and BB look more sympathetic.

As to meeting strangers online, I’d like to point out it wasn’t as if Stranger murders didn’t happen before the digital age. In some ways it is safer as you can find a lot of personal info online. I think for anyone dating whether they met online or in person they should take precautions when going on a date - let someone know who it’s with and where, stick to a public place etc.

Also take into consideration AT and BB were preying on troubled young women. With the exception of Sydney who seemed to have solid family relationships the other “Witches” seem to have unstable backgrounds and seemed to want acceptance and validation, even from a dubious source.
 
“And he said the court's decision to allow Loofe's mother, Susie, the state's first witness, to remain in the courtroom for the rest of the trial over a defense objection, prevented the defense from recalling her as a witness later.”

Seriously.... I hope our justice system see he gets off on re-victimizing family members and replaying the gruesome details of her murder . He can’t physically harm another innocent soul where he is at, but he will try to mentally harm her family again, which brings him pleasure . And he will get to re-live the crime aloud again if this happens, which brings him great pleasure.

If the court allows another trial, it will set a dangerous precedence that will allow any defendant to get a new trial if they attempt self harm during their trial. I hope to God the system is smart enough to NOT allow this!
All of this is MOO ...

IMO...I would not be able to sleep at night if I was his court appointed attorney.
Aubrey Trail’s attorney files motion for new trial, citing irregularities
 
ACE422 said:
“And he said the court's decision to allow Loofe's mother, Susie, the state's first witness, to remain in the courtroom for the rest of the trial over a defense objection, prevented the defense from recalling her as a witness later.”

Seriously.... I hope our justice system see he gets off on re-victimizing family members and replaying the gruesome details of her murder . He can’t physically harm another innocent soul where he is at, but he will try to mentally harm her family again, which brings him pleasure . And he will get to re-live the crime aloud again if this happens, which brings him great pleasure.

If the court allows another trial, it will set a dangerous precedence that will allow any defendant to get a new trial if they attempt self harm during their trial. I hope to God the system is smart enough to NOT allow this!
All of this is MOO ...

IMO...I would not be able to sleep at night if I was his court appointed attorney.
Aubrey Trail’s attorney files motion for new trial, citing irregularities
Click to expand...

I agree. If AT's defense attorney intended to cross-examine Sydney's mother, why didn't he speak up at the trial? Wasn't it the defense attorney's job to do that?

And seriously, was he really going to cross-examine Sydney's mother and risk upsetting the jury as he tried to get Sydney's mother to say bad things about her murdered daughter? No way.

IDK, but I had to testify in a personal injury trial years ago (for the prosecution). The prosecuting attorney told another witness and I to take a seat in the courtroom, but the defense attorney insisted we leave the courtroom before the trial started. We had to sit on a bench outside the courtroom for two days waiting for our turns to testify.

JMO, AT's defense is doing what AT does - just throw some cra* up against the wall and see if it sticks.

All JMO.
 
Last edited:
Aubrey Trail's attorney files for a new trial
Aubrey Trail's attorney files for a new trial
Aubrey Trail's attorney filed a motion on Wednesday in Saline County District Court to get Trail a new trial.

According to court documents, the case for a new trial is centered around what Trail's lawyer claims to be irregularities in court proceedings during the trial.


Those include rulings at jury selection and the court's denial of a mistrial when Aubrey Trial slashed his throat with a razor blade in front of the jury.

Trail's attorney also said the court's decision to allow gruesome photographs tainted the jury.

No word yet when today's motion will be heard.
Click to expand...

AT needs to just give it up already
 
molly1255 said:
I agree. If AT's defense attorney intended to cross-examine Sydney's mother, why didn't he speak up at the trial? Wasn't it the defense attorney's job to do that?

And seriously, was he really going to cross-examine Sydney's mother and risk upsetting the jury as he tried to get Sydney's mother to say bad things about her murdered daughter? No way.

IDK, but I had to testify in a personal injury trial years ago (for the prosecution). The prosecuting attorney told another witness and I to take a seat in the courtroom, but the defense attorney insisted we leave the courtroom before the trial started. We had to sit on a bench outside the courtroom for two days waiting for our turns to testify.

JMO, AT's defense is doing what AT does - just throw some cra* up against the wall and see if it sticks.

All JMO.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, and I'm not an attorney, but they probably have to do what he wants them to do. If they don't, that leaves room for him to file an appeal on the grounds of ineffective counsel. By them doing this, they can say we did what he asked for. If they don't, there's probably a greater chance the courts can go back and see that he asked his attorneys to file this and they declined. I could be COMPLETELY wrong on this, I'm just guessing.

As far as them calling her mother, I'm sure if they had any intention of calling her as a witness, she would have been asked to leave the courtroom. IMO, the defense had no intention of doing so which is why she was permitted to remain in the courtroom. I imagine the defense attorneys will have some sort of documentation showing that it was never their intent to call her which is why she was permitted to remain in the courtroom as she pleased. This isn't their first rodeo. I have faith that they crossed their "t's" and dotted their "i's". I hope I'm not proven wrong.
 
MommyStephV said:
Unfortunately, and I'm not an attorney, but they probably have to do what he wants them to do. If they don't, that leaves room for him to file an appeal on the grounds of ineffective counsel. By them doing this, they can say we did what he asked for. If they don't, there's probably a greater chance the courts can go back and see that he asked his attorneys to file this and they declined. I could be COMPLETELY wrong on this, I'm just guessing.

As far as them calling her mother, I'm sure if they had any intention of calling her as a witness, she would have been asked to leave the courtroom. IMO, the defense had no intention of doing so which is why she was permitted to remain in the courtroom. I imagine the defense attorneys will have some sort of documentation showing that it was never their intent to call her which is why she was permitted to remain in the courtroom as she pleased. This isn't their first rodeo. I have faith that they crossed their "t's" and dotted their "i's". I hope I'm not proven wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I'm not a lawyer either, but I think this is part of AT's sick, twisted strategy. I'm not sure when the next phase occurs, but IMO, it's not soon enough. He deserves nothing less than the death penalty, IMO.
 
?mysterian? said:
I agree with you. I'm not a lawyer either, but I think this is part of AT's sick, twisted strategy. I'm not sure when the next phase occurs, but IMO, it's not soon enough. He deserves nothing less than the death penalty, IMO.
Click to expand...
What if he had asked them to call her mother and they didn't? Would that make any difference? If he has got no evidence he wanted them to call her then the request for a new trial will go nowhere and be denied. I think he is trying to muddy the waters for BB trial. AJMO.
 
Niner said:
No date has been given just "later this year". A 3-Judge panel will decide his fate. I'm keeping an eye out on the court site. He is not there anymore.
Click to expand...
Thank you for letting me know. And BB case begins in September, correct? Thanks, Niner!
 
If AT is not legitimately mentally ill in the manner of Charles Manson, he is dumb as a box of rocks. Or filled with what they call "dumb cunning". He seriously thinks that someone in the jurisprudence system is going to use ... the fact that he willingly and wilfully cut his own throat in front of the jury, as cause to void his trial?? Nobody in their right mind would approve that. They'd open the door to thousands of defendants up and doing the same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 129 more.
Total: 3,552 (members: 130, guests: 3,422)

Online statistics

Members online
130
Guests online
3,422
Total visitors
3,552
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,675
Messages
17,957,385
Members
228,586
Latest member
chingona361
Back
Top