Found Deceased CA - Blaze Bernstein, 19, Lake Forest, 2 Jan 2018 #6 *Arrest*

I find it extremely unlikely that this murder occurred over one unwanted kiss. I would put big money that the motive behind this killing is considerably more complicated.

 

Was wondering that too!

 

Most likely... it's probably reasonable to infer that.

 

I'm sorry but the OC Register isn't completely trustworthy. Before the hearing today they reported in their article SW was being held in $2M bond. Now after they are still reporting that there was a suggested $2M bond that wasn't granted. This simply isn't true.
This concerns me because although they may be releasing facts from the affidavit, I can't trust the manner, tone, or context with how these snippets are being released. I would like to see this information in the context of the entire document, not how they choose to portray it.

https://www.ocregister.com/2018/01/...-using-a-knife/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

 

Me too! Does that mean B.B. sent the txt at 11:30? Could SW get in a rage over that “ maybe txting a friend about it??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

http://abc7.com/blaze-bernsteins-parents-speak-out-about-devastating-loss-of-gentle-soul/2960621/

Part of an interview with Blazes' amazing parents

Amen

 

It seems to me that the OC Register got what journalists call a 'scoop' or an 'exclusive'. Through some determination and hustle by one of their reporters they were able to get their hands on this affidavit before it was sealed. Now they are milking it for what it's worth.

I don't like the fact that they are piecemealing us info from this affidavit day-by-day rather than just giving us the whole dump, but that's business. Tell me that other news organizations wouldn't do the same thing. They all only care about the bottom line these days. Integrity by and large left journalism a long time ago.

But given all that, I think it's a stretch to say they are fabricating things. We have to assume that what they are quoting from the affidavit is true. if not, they're going to take a lot of heat and it possibly could even be illegal. They're not going to risk their business over something that serious. They have to be in this for the long haul.

So I'd say let's be reasonable and assume that what they quote from the affidavit is true. If anyone has hard evidence to the contrary I'd like to see it. As for 3rd party media outlets, like the Philly News or KTLA, misquoting the article in their "retelling" of the story, that's a whole other issue - they should just link to the source material IMHO - but they won't - they need to "appear" to be adding value.

 

There's nothing wrong with what the attorney said, I agree.

To the OP: the lawyer's job is to defend his client and point out the positive things he's achieved, etc.

 

I pray that it would be true, and believe me I hope it will, but I won't hold my breath. The discourse and integrity of our MSM has been on a downward spiral in to the depths of ... for 30 years.

 

Don't forget about us middle aged women :genie:

 

Apparently, SW went to church the day after the murder.

 

I still haven’t ruled out that SW felt rejected by BB. Especially with BB returning to school. Where do we get this idea that Blaze tried to kiss SW? From his accused killer. And just like his stories about the third person, his girlfriend, fight club and mud puddles, it could be all bs. He likes to lie. His words are meaningless to me. JMO

 

They weren't deep in the park to roast marshmallows. C'mon. This all my opinion, but obviously they went there to have some type of sexual encounter.

SW may have become enraged after they finished.

 

The "entire document" is sealed by the court, iirc.

 

It sounds to me, from the LE description of the night, that they were together for several hours that night before BB was killed. I still really, really want to know what the last text message said to his female friend before his phone was disabled/turned off.

 

Thanks for your input, Maroon10.

With all due respect though, it doesn't change one word of my prior post.

How do we know she didn't use her insight to recognize red flags in his behavior?

She may have gone to extensive lengths to help him, but can anyone ever control another person's behavior?

There may be some misconceptions about the extent of what she could have done for 'red flags.'

'Red flags' can warrant out-patient mental health treatment which I believe she likely would have obtained for SW.

I can tell you for a fact, though, you cannot have anyone admitted to a psychiatric unit against their will, unless they are a danger to self or others. That's the criteria.

'Red flags' won't get you admitted. Danger to self or others will.

I seriously doubt though if SW told her he was planning to kill Blaze.

So even if she was scared out of her mind from seeing all those red flags, and doing everything possible to get help for him, she didn't have the ability to control SW.

In fact, she may very well have done everything right, but in the final analysis, SW is responsible for his own choices and behavior.

As I said, unless I learn differently, I will continue to wish her much support too in this horrible tragedy...



JMO

 

But how do we know who was the pursuer in the relationship was? For all we know it was SW, and like you said he became enraged after.

 

xx00 : )

 

I believe that yesterday, Woodward's mother asked for privacy for both families:

""I would like it very much if everyone would respect our privacy and the privacy of the Bernstein family," she told NBC4 outside her home. "This is a time of great suffering and we would ask that you would respect that suffering. Thank you very much.''"

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/Criminal-Charges-to-Be-Filed-Against-Man-Arrested-in-Connection-With-UPenn-Students-Murder-469639603.html