I think the defense lawyers are taking advantage of the fact that many Americans have sadly fallen into straight up conspiracy-frenzy thinking. IMO
Here you go (from the docs released this week by the Defence, Page 34, point 12).
"12. The autopsy notes taken by Liggett reveal that the pathologist stated that because of the particular vein that was severed, Abby suffered a “slow death.26”
It is not conspiracy. I think sadly, LE in this case is so much mistrusted that people have hard time to believe that they might be right. I mean, they may be right, with RA, why not, even a broken clock is right twice a day. But we are primed by ever-changing pois and sketches, heights, weights, names. Remember, KK appeared, everyone dropped JBC and followed KK. Now, Odinites appeared, everyone dropped RA and follows Odinites. It's very common for the Delphi case.
Did you ever look at pictures of his property? Up around his house is well-kept, down along the hill and creek, not so much. He was almost 80 and it was said he was not in good health. I don't think he was down there cutting tree branches. MOOWe commonly do this as trees are damaged in storms etc - you will find dozens of them randomly around the place
Old men could be as bad as younger men or even more bad or brash/brazen. I'm old myself, I'm allowed to say that.I can only remember an old YouTube movie featuring the talk with a couple whose house was not that far from RL's one (same neighborhood). They were sort of snowbirds, I remember, and this guy spoke about a lot of scary activity in his backyard. What I want to say, at that bridge, lots of things happened. I think RL, an old man, lived according to the principle "it's no business of mine". He disliked the police, he probably felt sorry it happened in his backyard, but most of all, he was an old man.
I think he probably didn't know about some of the stuff that went on down by the creek. Anyone could have parked at the cemetery and walked down there. I would have strongly considered the possibility of the girls being taken down on that side if LE hadn't shown us the video of him on the bridge.Old men could be as bad as younger men or even more bad or brash/brazen. I'm old myself, I'm allowed to say that.
RL hadn't to be the most evil person in a group of aquaintances, but he had the resources: large property ("backyard"), even more rural than a village, including pastures and forests and half of the creek; a big home, since years without a watchdog-wife around; sheds (if not shacks). He certainly had few scruples either, to let his drinking buddies get away with a lot, IMO.
RS&BBMHere you go...
Above Abby’s head were smaller sticks that had been placed over her hair, crudely mimicking horns or antlers.
63. Once those sticks/twigs are found, then the man acting alone would have to lay the twigs/sticks over Abby’s hair so that they cross and crudely resemble antlers.
“Elvis told her (his sister) Abigail is a little troublemaker, that he placed leaves on her and used sticks to give her horns.”
Find attached a close-up photograph of Abby’s head from the crime scene. From a distance, it may not be immediately noticeable. However, upon closer inspection it is obvious that someone involved in the killings intentionally placed small sticks from a tree on top of Abby’s hair to resemble horns or antlers. The horns formed from sticks on Abby’s head looks similar to the image found on Holder’s Facebook page (Exhibit 97). The Defense has not viewed one single report that discusses the sticks placed atop Abby’s hair shaped like horns/antlers being compared with Elvis’s statement to his sister that he shaped sticks into horns on Abby.
Having been through the McStay and Morhpew cases where the defence actively misled the court, I am extremely sceptical about taking any of this motion at face value.
Frankly the Odinist stuff makes laughable allegations that make no sense on the face of the document - especially the idea that the prison guards are in on it. But let's look at the more obvious misdirections that we know already
* Trigger warnings *
1. The idea of SODDI is the prosecutor got tunnel vision and ignored another potential offender(s). This needs to raise doubt. i.e. it can't just be generic - it needs to be specific evidence raising suspicion against an alternate offender. This document does not show any such evidence. It's just conspiracy theories around something police actually investigated. That investigation is not evidence of SODDI. Indeed the evidence discovered ruled out the offender primafacie!
2. Ditto the FBI profile stuff. This does not implicate any particular offender. Indeed it could apply against RA for all we know!
3. The first interview. Contrary to what the defence alleges, the officer noted the name and street address correctly, but at some stage a transpositional error was made. IMO this is what led to the tip never being followed up. This does not mean the notes are incorrect/unreliable! Indeed the 1.30pm arrival time is verified by the camera image of RA's car, AND his own evidence of meeting the 3 girls, corroborated by the girls. This evidence shows RA in fact lied to officers in his October 22 interview.
4. Based on the accused's own evidence, we can infer it was most likely his car was still parked at CPS. We know he actually entered the trail around 1.30pm based on 3 evidence points. We know witness BB enters the trails sometime after 1.46 and 'sweeps' the trail for us. So where was RA if not on the bridge? There is no way for RA to leave the trails without seeing BB or the victims. I raise this once again to show how the defence is simply misleading about Liggett & BBs evidence because clearly witness BB did in fact leave the trails before RA on any reasonable view. ETA the defendant implicity confessed in prison to being there!
5. The defence does not substantiate that Abby must have been redressed in Libby's sweateshirt and jeans post mortem, except for the blood claims. But is it very likely that if she were redressed by the killer, after two bloody murders, the clothes would be clean? Were abby murdered naked, there will be spray on her skin presumably. What does the autopsy say about this? They don't say. I am certainly not taking this at face value.
6. The lack of blood on Abby's feet or hands - this is obviously extremely unusual. Was she restrained and lying face down then? Because were she free and naked there would certainly be a lot of blood on her body, feet and hands.
The problem with the defence version is obvious - the blood would have to be all over Abby whether she was clothed or not, unless it were prevented in some way. IMO her hands must have been restrained at least - and presumably she was pinned down.
7. The idea in para 66 that Abby was hung like a slain animal to bleed out is obvious nonsense. If she had, her hair would be full of blood which would be totally obvious. the rope marks would also be on her feet. The defence is simply introducing wild speculation at this point based on no evidence.
I could go on ....
In any event, I await the prosecution response to the Frank's aspects. The rest will no doubt wait for trial.
Did you ever look at pictures of his property? Up around his house is well-kept, down along the hill and creek, not so much. He was almost 80 and it was said he was not in good health. I don't think he was down there cutting tree branches. MOO
Page 28, 29, and 30 of the 136 page doc describes the crime scene and cites exhibits. From my understanding the def is describing the crime scene per their perception of the crime scene photos they have.let me understand this
how is he/the defence excactly describing the crime and the crime scene ?
was all of this given to them ? ! or is he implicating himself by knowing the crime scene
Link to the doc:I haven't seen the actual document but would love to - If it's linked I need to go find it in this new thread of the old one. Yes, fan fiction meets B-movie meet wishful thinking bullcrap. that is my take just hearing about what the document alleges.
Many types of saws are battery operated now. So much easier than gas as long as you have the battery charged. And batteries last a decent amount of time.It’s not as if there’s electrical boxes anywhere nearby the crime scene so it’s kind of preposterous for anyone to using an electric saw in the bush. Why an electric saw, why not a handsaw or chainsaw? Probably because whoever wrote this imaginary garbage knew absolutely nothing about saws (except for the fact that some are electric) or saw cuts………Why would sticks for runes need to be sawed when dry and fallen branches can easily be broken by hand?….IMO it’s pointless to even attempt to analyze their “evidence” because it’s all just ridiculous.
In My Opinion... I'm not an expert so I'm just guessing that maybe there is a difference between saw cut marks? Or maybe defense is hinting at premeditation?It’s not as if there’s electrical boxes anywhere nearby the crime scene so it’s kind of preposterous for anyone to using an electric saw in the bush. Why an electric saw, why not a handsaw or chainsaw? Probably because whoever wrote this imaginary garbage knew absolutely nothing about saws (except for the fact that some are electric) or saw cuts………Why would sticks for runes need to be sawed when dry and fallen branches can easily be broken by hand?….IMO it’s pointless to even attempt to analyze their “evidence” because it’s all just ridiculous.
Page 28, 29, and 30 of the 136 page doc describes the crime scene and cites exhibits. From my understanding the def is describing the crime scene per their perception of the crime scene photos they have.