Do we have any understanding of why there were paper bags on SW hands when her body was discovered? Im really scratching my head over it
That makes sense. Thank you
Do we have any understanding of why there were paper bags on SW hands when her body was discovered? Im really scratching my head over it
I think so they could test her hands since CW claimed SW strangled the girls prior to him killing her. IMODo we have any understanding of why there were paper bags on SW hands when her body was discovered? Im really scratching my head over it
I think that's normal especially in this type of investigation.
I believe those were put on by law enforcement afterward, in order to preserve evidenceDo we have any understanding of why there were paper bags on SW hands when her body was discovered? Im really scratching my head over it
It's common procedure to protect evidence, such as DNA under the fingernails.Do we have any understanding of why there were paper bags on SW hands when her body was discovered? Im really scratching my head over it
Particularly well said. Thank you.
I get it.
But, that transparency can be coupled with common sense; i.e. redacting info. that is not necessary to the general public.
Example - say you witness a home invasion/robbery at your neighbors home, someone at the home is raped and murdered, as a good citizen, you contact local LE and you are interviewed. They'd like to know, did you maybe take a picture or video of anyone entering the home? Why yes, you did!
LE asks if they may see your phone, so that they may validate date/time/location of photo or video taken, and extract it. They need to know that it's not just some random photo/video that appears to be a robbery, or that you staged to look that way (maybe you're a nut and want your name in media lights aka Trent B., etc.) You agree, your a good citizen doing your civic duty. You've already sent the photo to your husband at work, your adult daughter and maybe a few friends...just because, or asking them what you should do.
This is a murder case, media is all over it. Article in the local and not-so-local papers, includes the photo or video taken, your first name is mentioned, along with the fact that you are a neighbor of the victim...and the murder locations approx. address is included ("110 block of Stevens St., in Baltimore, or whatever). LE sees that you've distributed the photo, and asks your about that. You, sadly, have a son-in-law who has a break-in and robbery conviction in his past. He and some buddies broke into someones garage and stole tools, or whatever. LE wants to know more about that, could he maybe be involved? He lives, with you, close to the crime scene, he has a record, etc. Your son-in-law has done his time, paid his dues...and does not associate w/his tool stealing buddies, but they have continued to commit crimes. Bad hombres.
All of a sudden, your civic duty has become more. Your first name, approx. address, and possibly phone number are out there, via the media and "data dump".
I think you can see/understand how this could blossom.
This is just one (admittedly slightly convoluted) example of how releasing private info. that isn't necessary to the general public (and bad hombres) can potentially lead to problems.
In the case of domestic abuse, this can be very, very bad. Phone numbers CAN be part of the record, but they DO NOT have to be made public.
Again, this is why we have the word redact.
Last I will defend my position on data privacy.
I would say ALL people.
I'm saying the discovery reference (a list of statements from Chris on how gee he didn't know where his family is) is not one people would take at its word on anything else?
Imagine the women that sent love letters to CW. Lol, bet they had no idea as they put pen to paper, they were in essence, writing to the world.I get it.
But, that transparency can be coupled with common sense; i.e. redacting info. that is not necessary to the general public.
Example - say you witness a home invasion/robbery at your neighbors home, someone at the home is raped and murdered, as a good citizen, you contact local LE and you are interviewed. They'd like to know, did you maybe take a picture or video of anyone entering the home? Why yes, you did!
LE asks if they may see your phone, so that they may validate date/time/location of photo or video taken, and extract it. They need to know that it's not just some random photo/video that appears to be a robbery, or that you staged to look that way (maybe you're a nut and want your name in media lights aka Trent B., etc.) You agree, your a good citizen doing your civic duty. You've already sent the photo to your husband at work, your adult daughter and maybe a few friends...just because, or asking them what you should do.
This is a murder case, media is all over it. Article in the local and not-so-local papers, includes the photo or video taken, your first name is mentioned, along with the fact that you are a neighbor of the victim...and the murder locations approx. address is included ("110 block of Stevens St., in Baltimore, or whatever). LE sees that you've distributed the photo, and asks your about that. You, sadly, have a son-in-law who has a break-in and robbery conviction in his past. He and some buddies broke into someones garage and stole tools, or whatever. LE wants to know more about that, could he maybe be involved? He lives, with you, close to the crime scene, he has a record, etc. Your son-in-law has done his time, paid his dues...and does not associate w/his tool stealing buddies, but they have continued to commit crimes. Bad hombres.
All of a sudden, your civic duty has become more. Your first name, approx. address, and possibly phone number are out there, via the media and "data dump".
I think you can see/understand how this could blossom.
This is just one (admittedly slightly convoluted) example of how releasing private info. that isn't necessary to the general public (and bad hombres) can potentially lead to problems.
In the case of domestic abuse, this can be very, very bad. Phone numbers CAN be part of the record, but they DO NOT have to be made public.
Again, this is why we have the word redact.
Last I will defend my position on data privacy.
I get it.
But, that transparency can be coupled with common sense; i.e. redacting info. that is not necessary to the general public.
Example - say you witness a home invasion/robbery at your neighbors home, someone at the home is raped and murdered, as a good citizen, you contact local LE and you are interviewed. They'd like to know, did you maybe take a picture or video of anyone entering the home? Why yes, you did!
LE asks if they may see your phone, so that they may validate date/time/location of photo or video taken, and extract it. They need to know that it's not just some random photo/video that appears to be a robbery, or that you staged to look that way (maybe you're a nut and want your name in media lights aka Trent B., etc.) You agree, your a good citizen doing your civic duty. You've already sent the photo to your husband at work, your adult daughter and maybe a few friends...just because, or asking them what you should do.
This is a murder case, media is all over it. Article in the local and not-so-local papers, includes the photo or video taken, your first name is mentioned, along with the fact that you are a neighbor of the victim...and the murder locations approx. address is included ("110 block of Stevens St., in Baltimore, or whatever). LE sees that you've distributed the photo, and asks your about that. You, sadly, have a son-in-law who has a break-in and robbery conviction in his past. He and some buddies broke into someones garage and stole tools, or whatever. LE wants to know more about that, could he maybe be involved? He lives, with you, close to the crime scene, he has a record, etc. Your son-in-law has done his time, paid his dues...and does not associate w/his tool stealing buddies, but they have continued to commit crimes. Bad hombres.
All of a sudden, your civic duty has become more. Your first name, approx. address, and possibly phone number are out there, via the media and "data dump".
I think you can see/understand how this could blossom.
This is just one (admittedly slightly convoluted) example of how releasing private info. that isn't necessary to the general public (and bad hombres) can potentially lead to problems.
In the case of domestic abuse, this can be very, very bad. Phone numbers CAN be part of the record, but they DO NOT have to be made public.
Again, this is why we have the word redact.
Last I will defend my position on data privacy.
I don't get your logic at all. Shannan had more to lose and somehow that contributed to causing her husband to murder her and her kids? Because she might be upset if he left her pregnant (and a pregnancy he suggested)? I think we all are interested din the why dunnit but if you take any time to research family annihilators, a category to which CW surely belongs, you will understand that there is absolutely nothing in the wife or children's behavior that needs examination. The toxicity is within the murderer, in every way. If his original wife had been NK and he had several kids with her and then met SW, the same thing would likely have happened. It's about freedom and responsibility, sexual newness, lack of empathy, shame, and many other things, I do think it is offensive and actually an intellectual farce and stupidity to keep looking at Shannan and how her particularities and their marriage contributed to what he did. JMO, MOO.
To my mind, if someone says a person was fooled into buying a product, that implies the seller is intentionally "fooling" customers.
