After more reading it still seems like a lot of this is based on blood splatter stuff which is still super weird. It really sounds, the more I read the statement of facts, they took someone who was pretty fucked after what happened and who was already a little crazy and then cross examined the fuck out of her till she was like “I don’t remember what happened!”
Which like shit I get that way when my girlfriend questions something I said too much. I have 0 confidence in my own memory.
I mean I agree with the defense like if you’re willing to kill why not kill the husband for his life insurance why not idk rob someone. Killing your kids is such a shenanigans way to go about this if the motive is financial struggles.
The big thing that makes me question things is one of the knives in the block having fibers that are supposedly consistent with the intruder’s entry point on it. A lot of people take that as she cut it from the inside and put the knife back. I mean that sounds compelling and all but like that’s really the only thing here that feels like actually evidence that it may have been a staged crime scene.
Other than that it just seems a lot like they’re speculating on blood stain patterns, remarking on a lack of evidence that there was an intruder when a lot of the evidence they expect from an intruder aren’t the type of thing that HAS to be there, and they keep referencing these statements on the wound she had that are in my opinion really inconsistent. Like why’d they do the exploratory surgery? Idk the whole thing doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
Idk I’m just really hesitant to even believe the “statement of facts” because so much of this seems like she was presumed guilty from the start. I mean go back and read the original statement of facts from any death row murder case that ended up overturned to give you a good example. Kirk bloodsworth Like those are almost always written in such a way that supports the outcome of the case in my experience.
Ralph Wright is another one that comes to mind where there’s a statement of facts out there that sounds incredibly damning but resulted in his exoneration after DNA testing.
Yeah again it’s super inconsistent in how it’s described. Also given how long the slash is going from neck to chest I dunno just can’t imagine how she managed that. There’s the defensive cuts and the one near her neck just BARELY missed her carotid artery.
Also something that’s never mentioned is that her youngest child who was I believe 7 months lived and was asleep upstairs with her husband. How did he not wake up? Why would she kill her two kids and leave the other one?
I dunno I kinda wonder if it wasn’t some kind of domestic abuse situation gone particularly bad where she was coerced into going with the intruder story.
Idk I just can’t say that there’s anywhere near enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt she did it.
I guess. And I believe in law and order, except I do think there’s some cases, sometimes where it’s known even if the evidence cannot be provided. Don’t know how to describe it.
Like remember OJ? Pretty much the opposite of that.
After more reading it still seems like a lot of this is based on blood splatter stuff which is still super weird. It really sounds, the more I read the statement of facts, they took someone who was pretty fucked after what happened and who was already a little crazy and then cross examined the fuck out of her till she was like “I don’t remember what happened!”
Which like shit I get that way when my girlfriend questions something I said too much. I have 0 confidence in my own memory.
I mean I agree with the defense like if you’re willing to kill why not kill the husband for his life insurance why not idk rob someone. Killing your kids is such a shenanigans way to go about this if the motive is financial struggles.
The big thing that makes me question things is one of the knives in the block having fibers that are supposedly consistent with the intruder’s entry point on it. A lot of people take that as she cut it from the inside and put the knife back. I mean that sounds compelling and all but like that’s really the only thing here that feels like actually evidence that it may have been a staged crime scene.
Other than that it just seems a lot like they’re speculating on blood stain patterns, remarking on a lack of evidence that there was an intruder when a lot of the evidence they expect from an intruder aren’t the type of thing that HAS to be there, and they keep referencing these statements on the wound she had that are in my opinion really inconsistent. Like why’d they do the exploratory surgery? Idk the whole thing doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
Idk I’m just really hesitant to even believe the “statement of facts” because so much of this seems like she was presumed guilty from the start. I mean go back and read the original statement of facts from any death row murder case that ended up overturned to give you a good example. Kirk bloodsworth Like those are almost always written in such a way that supports the outcome of the case in my experience.
Ralph Wright is another one that comes to mind where there’s a statement of facts out there that sounds incredibly damning but resulted in his exoneration after DNA testing.
They said her knife wounds were also superficial, yet the knife knicked her spine?
Yeah again it’s super inconsistent in how it’s described. Also given how long the slash is going from neck to chest I dunno just can’t imagine how she managed that. There’s the defensive cuts and the one near her neck just BARELY missed her carotid artery.
Also something that’s never mentioned is that her youngest child who was I believe 7 months lived and was asleep upstairs with her husband. How did he not wake up? Why would she kill her two kids and leave the other one?
I dunno I kinda wonder if it wasn’t some kind of domestic abuse situation gone particularly bad where she was coerced into going with the intruder story.
Idk I just can’t say that there’s anywhere near enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt she did it.
I guess. And I believe in law and order, except I do think there’s some cases, sometimes where it’s known even if the evidence cannot be provided. Don’t know how to describe it.
Like remember OJ? Pretty much the opposite of that.