ND - Several bodies found at Mandan business, 1 April 2019 *Arrest* #2

[TTF14]

Yet this ‘outstanding police work’ has yielded absolutely no convincing evidence whatsoever.

Nothing they’ve done can be trusted based on trying to pass off a random Orange hoodie as THE Orange jacket worn by the perpetrator.

That’s blatantly introducing items as evidence that you know has nothing to do with the crime.

The jury will be asking themselves….”If you are willing to attempt to con the jury with that Hoodie, what else are you prepared to do to secure a conviction based on the outcome you want?”

Law Enforcement completely lost all credibility and their integrity comes into question = reasonable doubt.

Is there a particular part of the trial that you thought this became obvious - that it was not the same sweatshirt?

 

[trialobsessive]

The lack of CCTV footage of the suspect leaving/returning from the trailer park on the day of the crime within the reasonable timelines required is a huge hole in this case…for the prosecution.

HOW did Chad Isaak get to the crime scene that early in the morning to carry out the murders?

They haven’t been able to demonstrate that. We know CCTV covers the road into the trailer park, where is the footage?

If it existed, it would 100% guaranteed have been presented as a ‘key’ piece evidence by the prosecution.

CCTV covering the road into the trailer park, fair point as surely the prosecution would have used this to tighten up their case?

Regarding the orange hoody, is it even the same one as is shown in the CCTV of RJR of the person wearing it who carried out the murders? Not convinced.

As I say, I do not think the state has proven their case beyond reasonable doubt although the defense (despite not being required to put up a defense) left a lot of holes, too.

 

[FriendlyFella1976]

He lives in a mobile home park with neighbors nearby. If he had actually been home that morning all the neighbors within sight of his house and parking area would have been interviewed (which maybe they were) and there would be a reasonable chance that a few folks noticed his truck was at his home during the relevant time that morning.

Hey, that gives me an idea. I heard the part of the defense closing where he talked about video cameras that capture vehicles entering the mobile home park. He was talking about how the LE tracked the F150 after the crime, leaving Mandan and driving to Washburn that morning, but no video captured CTI's truck returning to the mobile home park at about the time it would have after reaching Washburn. (and since LE looked for CTI's truck on 4/2 and 4/3 and didn't find it at home until 4/4, it seems like maybe CTI didn't return home immediately after the killings. Maybe he returned hours later? Or 2 days later?) (in which case who cared for the dog?)

But my point is, if there are really such cameras that capture the entrance(s) to the mobile home park, then why didn't the prosecution look at the video to see if it captured CTI's truck leaving the mobile home park early the morning of 4/1 heading to Mandan? Obviously that would be very circumstantial, but still it would be helpful. MOO

The thing with the neighbours though…

1. I live in a 10 house cul-de-sac
2. I work from home
3. I know everyone who lives in my road

If you asked me to tell you who left their houses this week and what times of the day their vehicles were/weren’t on their driveways…I can hand on heart say I would have absolutely no idea.

It made me think about the character ‘Red’s’ comment in The Shawshank Redemption…” Seriously…how often do you look at a mans shows?”

It’s not something the average person pays any attention to. The local business CCTV footage would hold far more weight than ‘word of mouth’ testimony from his neighbours.


If his vehicle left the trailer park within the required timeline on the morning of the crime…let’s see the CCTV footage showing that.

This wasn’t presented, so we can either assume one of two things:

1. Law Enforcement is incompetent
2. No CCTV exists because his vehicle didn’t leave the trailer park within the required timeframe.

3. Both of the above (the most likely based on what I’ve seen in this case)

 

[TTF14]

This wasn’t presented, so we can either assume one of two things:

1. Law Enforcement is incompetent
2. No CCTV exists because his vehicle didn’t leave the trailer park within the required timeframe.

3. Both of the above (the most likely based on what I’ve seen in this case)

Not #4 - Cameras/recording equipment was either nonexistent or malfunctioning?

 

[FriendlyFella1976]

Is there a particular part of the trial that you thought this became obvious - that it was not the same sweatshirt?

When the prosecutor asked the smiley cop to examine it while he was on the stand.

I was shocked when they showed that, and pictures of him holding it up.

It’s obvious to anyone (including him) that this isn’t the outdoor jacket type garment worn by the perpetrator, so what on earth are they doing presenting that as a piece of evidence?

They might just as well have presented a Blue Hoodie and claimed it was the jacket worn by the perpetrator.

Again, attempting to con me as a juror would make me completely disregard your entire case.

You’d clearly be untrustworthy from that point onwards.

 

[TTF14]

When the prosecutor asked the smiley cop to examine it while he was on the stand.

I was shocked when they showed that, and pictures of him holding it up.

It’s obvious to anyone (including him) that this isn’t the outdoor jacket type garment worn by the perpetrator, so what on earth are they doing presenting that as a piece of evidence?

They might just as well have presented a Blue Hoodie and claimed it was the jacket worn by the perpetrator.

Again, attempting to con me as a juror would make me completely disregard your entire case.

You’d clearly be untrustworthy from that point onwards.

OK thank you. I'll have to go try to find that moment of the trial. I appreciate your detailed insight.

What's your thought about the knife in the washer and the shell casings in the sock??

 

[FriendlyFella1976]

Not #4 - Cameras/recording equipment was either nonexistent or malfunctioning?

I’ve not heard anything regarding the CCTV equipment not working/malfunctioning….but if that was true…it would be very convenient that it wasn’t working on April 1st.

I don’t want to assume anything, but I would expect both Prosecution AND Defence teams to have spoken to that business and established that the cameras were working.

The Defence team reference that business and their CCTV coverage, so I would think they have checked this out and confirmed it was functional.

Logic would say so…but I can’t assume.

 

[FriendlyFella1976]

OK thank you. I'll have to go try to find that moment of the trial. I appreciate your detailed insight.

What's your thought about the knife in the washer and the shell casings in the sock??

Based on what I’ve seen at the trial, I wouldn’t rule out those items being planted.

If you consider the process of arrest….

Once he has been arrested and he is off the premises (his trailer), it’s a free-for-all.

Law Enforcement can do absolutely ANYTHING they want at this point and put items wherever they like.

Alternatively, if he is eccentric and extremely untidy, he may just hoard junk/random items and put them in unconventional places.

His trailer had random items everywhere. We have to assume he was responsible for putting those items where they were all photographed, but again…Law Enforcement could have staged almost anything.

 

[FriendlyFella1976]

Based on this statement, if you think the prosecution did a terrible job, then you must think the defense is absolutey AWFUL. Why wouldn't they have done more??

I'm interested to hear more about what you're saying about the sweatshirt not matching. You really think it was a different sweatshirt than the one pictured in CCTV? And just happened to be in the dryer, with a knife, right after the murders? Circumstantial evidence is still evidence.

I don't know as much as you do about this trial, clearly. I need to go watch some part of it that you're bringing iup.

I don’t really know what more the Defence can do??

From what I’ve seen…there is literally nothing to defend.

They don’t really have anything to work with because the evidence presented against their client is virtually non-existent.

 

[Gardenista]

Log In or Sign Up to View

 

[TTF14]

They don’t really have anything to work with because the evidence presented against their client is virtually non-existent.

I completely disagree. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence.

 

[Gardenista]

I don’t really know what more the Defence can do??

From what I’ve seen…there is literally nothing to defend.

They don’t really have anything to work with because the evidence presented against their client is virtually non-existent.

There is more evidence in this case than virtually any other trial I've watched.

 

[TTF14]

View attachment 309542 View attachment 309543 View attachment 309544

Log In or Sign Up to View

Thanks, Gardenista! I was trying to find it on the CourtTV videos and couldn't find it.

 

[Gardenista]

Thanks, Gardenista! I was trying to find it on the CourtTV videos and couldn't find it.

They don't upload the trial until it's over. PITA

 

[TTF14]

There is more evidence in this case than virtually any other trial I've watched.

Yes, thanks for making me feel not crazy lol. Absence of evidence (i.e. CCTV) doesn't equal evidence of absence. There is a ton of evidence here and if even some of it was planted (doubtful), there'd have to be a whole hell of a lot of people in on it!

 

[FriendlyFella1976]

Based on this statement, if you think the prosecution did a terrible job, then you must think the defense is absolutey AWFUL. Why wouldn't they have done more??

I'm interested to hear more about what you're saying about the sweatshirt not matching. You really think it was a different sweatshirt than the one pictured in CCTVhttps://www.amazon.co.uk/Fruit-Loom-Hoodie-Sweatshirt-Orange/dp/B004ZURZ36/ref=sr_1_9?c=ts&dchild=1&keywords=Men's+Hoodies&qid=1629467078&refinements=p_n_size_two_browse-vebin:14223226031&s=clothing&sr=1-9&ts_id=1730980031

I completely disagree. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence.

It isn’t proof of anything though and is “Our best guess”.

That isn't enough to send someone to jail for life.

 

[FriendlyFella1976]

Yes, thanks for making me feel not crazy lol. Absence of evidence (i.e. CCTV) doesn't equal evidence of absence. There is a ton of evidence here and if even some of it was planted (doubtful), there'd have to be a whole hell of a lot of people in on it!

Having a ton of evidence is one thing, but the evidence needs to be meaningful and reliable.

There isn't anything we've seen to suggest that is the case.

 

[TTF14]

Having a ton of evidence is one thing, but the evidence needs to be meaningful and reliable.

There isn't anything we've seen to suggest that is the case.

Again, I 100% disagree. There's been a ton of meaningful and reliable evidence. Still no motive, but they don't have to have one.

 

[FriendlyFella1976]

Again, I 100% disagree. There's been a ton of meaningful and reliable evidence. Still no motive, but they don't have to have one.

Where is the meaningful evidence?

They can't even place him at the scene of the crime.

 

[TTF14]

Where is the meaningful evidence?

The prosecutor's closing argument lays it all out. I do think CI will have grounds for appeal, though, based on incompetent defense.