Discussion in 'Located Persons Discussion' started by eekasaur, Jan 5, 2018.
Good morning. Thread is open for posting.
This really got to me listening to BB mom talking about deconstructing his life when they go back east in a few weeks to clean out his apartment. So sad!
The more I think about it, the more I don't believe SW's story about pushing him off after being kissed. I think that's what he wished he would have done when he thought about it later.
I think Blaze had to have been the one to tell him about the park and how to get there. I don't think that would have happened if SW hadn't been a participant in the kiss or even the one who initiated it.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Except your whole basic premise falls flat bc its not someone caught unaware of the others romantic attentions ... REMEMBER we have a text of an earlier time in which BB talks about SW hitting on him romantically. So there is NO WAY SW can say he was completely unaware that there would be any romantic intentions....
I disagree. Just because BB/SW were hanging out doesn't mean SW thought it would be anything more, for all we know SW was over his romantic interest, thought he "got straight" and when BB kissed him, if he did in fact do so, it caught him off guard.
Nashville has areas that a progressive relative to what we consider 'southern conservatism', but Memphis or Knoxville, to name two other larger cities, may not.
Do we have an exact place of birth for him?
In a situation like this, is there some argument for making his medical records - including psychiatric - available? I have difficulty believing that his parents were totally clueless that their son had issues. I know the parents are not on trial, but I do want to consider the possibility that they may have contributed to their son's reactions that night, and think it is a valid avenue for investigation.
It is said that SW took communion the day after the murder, which would suggest that SW also went to confession. What precedent is there for requiring testimony from his priest regarding what SW may have said?
School friends have stated that he was homophobic and clearly in the closet. SW's intentions that night are unclear, but he came armed w a knife. Sometimes it is the circumstantial evidence and malice aforethought that tells truth.
It is absolutely forbidden by law, a priest/pastor/minister can't be compelled to break the priest/penitent relationship. Even if a prosecutor were to try and compel a Catholic priest into revealing what was said during confession the priest would refuse to do it because he is bound by Canon Law to NEVER reveal the contents of a confession to anyone, to do so would cause him not only to be kicked out of the priesthood but he would be excommunicated from the church as well.
On the psychiatric side of things, if SW does have mental problems I'm sure his lawyer will try to introduce them if they are relevant. The lawyer won't go for an NGI plea though. I only know that because those are damn near impossible to win, the courts have set the bar so high for NGI pleas that even those who suffer with the most profound mental illnesses are rotting in prisons instead of getting the help they need in a hospital. Heck, just look at the dude who shot up the movie theater in Colorado, he had a vast record of profound mental illness and they still sent him to a prison instead of a hospital.
IIRC, the priest said he took communion on Jan 7. Thats morphed into the day after the murder in our discussions here.
Davis said he last saw Woodward at church on Jan. 7, when he expressed excitement about taking Communion.
Sorry, here it is not even a few hours since my last post and I'm already going back on my promise to let this go.
Actually, I agree with much of what you said. I seriously doubt if SW's parents were clueless about his issues. In fact, they may have been scared out of their minds! They may have been doing everything they could to get help for him.
Getting help though does not equate to the issues disappearing. They couldn't lock him up until his problems resolved.
With that said, I do agree with you that awareness of family attitudes would be helpful in knowing whether those attitudes could have influenced any conflicted feelings he may have.
However, since we're not allowed to sleuth any family members or discuss their spiritual values, it is conjecture.
Unless MSM informs us of credible reasons to believe otherwise, I think it's only fair then for me to give them the benefit of the doubt...
Pardon me if this was addressed already, but, Ive been flipping thru the forum to catch up, and saw your post and havent seen a reply...so, here goes..
Yes, I would say that evidence from Hacking is not admissible evidence (aka not allowed in court), mainly because it was illegally obtained...obtained without permission, no search warrant signed by a judge justifying access, etc.
HOWEVER, I am also almost certain that type of Hacking is referring to an outside 3rd Party, that hacks into someones system, computer, whatever whom they have no legal immediate family member relationship with brother, sister, mother, father with whom they share their home/residence permanently or temporarily....BUT...& thats a BIG OL BUT...
In THIS case, the Hacking was a Parent, who owned the given property, Their Sons Computer/Phone/Whatever, and due to extenuating circumstances, their son missing, that was the last link to him, and his possible activities and therefore key to his whereabouts...the Parent had every legal right to hack into the Computer/Phone, etc...so it wouldnt really be seen or labeled as Hacking in this case/situation, it would be a case of the Parents..who were likely still the legal guardians of their son, because he was still in college so legally under most insurance plans, he would be covered under their Insurance longer than the age of majority (18), and up to higher age usually 22-24, as well as, the Parents still being able to claim him as a legal dependent, for IRS tax purposes, particularly if they were financially supporting him while he was still in college full-time, and they were
providing the majority of his financial support..all of which furthers the legal claim that the Parents had every right to access or do whatever to their sons/their computer/phone equipment..and to install or delete & use whatever Apps, delete pics, whatever..(obviously nothing obstructing an obvious crime), but at that point they had no idea what was going on at all, nor how serious everything was, their son could just as easily have been hanging out at a friends house and lost track of time, or gone for a walk and gotten a broken ankle and been lying in a ditch up the road and horse from yelling for help..*shrugs*..point being, hacking would not apply in this particular instance..
As always only my own humble opinions, views, thoughts, theories, presumptions and assumptions; Unless, otherwise indicated by a Website URL or my referencing a specific source.Thanks!
The TRUTH WILL OUT!, and There will be a Reckoning, in this Life or the Next!
It was a parent who did it in the other case.
Can you give an overview of that case? Im not familiar with it.
In this case, the parents hacked into the victims computer/device, not the suspects. Also, the suspect subsequently admitted to picking up the victim, which was what the parents discovered in the hack.
Edit: (hit post too soon) just wondering if those facts make a difference?
I'm with you. This thought did lead me to another one that had been hinted at in some earlier posts. Again, this question will remain generic, rather than flagging any individuals at this time.
It seems that it might be in the defense's interest to reveal or prove any molestation that may have occurred while SW was under 18. The idea would be to blunt or mitigate his (self-confessed) emotional reaction to a come-on from another male. I don't see this as exonerating his guilt, assuming that is proven, but more as an avenue to a reduced sentence.
This brings in a serious potential conflict between SW and adult males in his past, assuming there is a legacy which causes such conflict. I'm sure everyone understands, and it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
The Towle case comes to mind. It took him 15 years if I remember well to tell the judicial system what the murderer had confessed to him but I am just glad he did and finally the two boys wrongly accused for the murder got released from prison. Horrific to think what they went through all those years behind bars knowing they had done nothing wrong
I do not know if there is a precedent for requiring testimony from a priest. The only two cases I can think of are this Jesuit priest from New York and a Mormon one from Argentina. In both cases it was them who came forward with the information.
I really hope that if SW confessed anything to the priest he will forget about Canon Law and tell the authorities.
First of all, just because SW attended mass and took communion doesn't mean he went to confession. They arent linked. Second, if he did go to confession and told the priest something about the crime, that will never make it into court unless SW and his attorney agree to it. Even if the priest violated the sanctity of the confessional (which isn't going to happen) it still isn't admissible in court.
I was just answering to the question "What precedent is there for requiring testimony from his priest regarding what SW may have said?" from a poster called SleuthDr with my opinion on this.
I do not know why you are quoting my answer on yours as mine clearly states I do not know if there is any precedent for requiring testimony from a priest neither my message states as a fact that he went to confession. I simply do not know, just like everybody else on this thread. Information on this has not been released.
You can't get info from a priest. Plus, priests do not monitor whether or not someone has been to confession prior to taking communion.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
RBBM. As you imply, we don't actually know that BB kissed SW -- we only have SW's word for it. In the excerpts of the affidavit that have been leaked so far, SW appears to be trying to paint the picture that BB was the one who initiated sexual contact and that he, the totally straight SW, recoiled in horror. Given that SW's story kept changing and he clearly lied about many things, at this point I don't believe a thing he says.
By that point in the interrogation, SW may have realized that there was a lot of evidence connecting him to the crime and that he needed a fallback defense: Instead of "I didn't do it," he may have been trying "BB came on to me and I freaked out." (His public defender may also push this line, I don't know.)
I do think SW's internalized homophobia and self-hatred were probably involved in the murder, whether the crime was revenge for (possibly) being outed, rage at being rejected, or an inability to deal with his own desires. Who knows, maybe BB even kissed him or came on to him and he was affronted. I hope that the DA can get a better sense of the background of this murder through interviews of both SW and BB's friends and classmates, evidence from texts and social media, etc. But we may never know exactly what happened that night. JMO