- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Idaho Murders Thread (Links inside)
Posted on 1/7/23 at 12:14 pm to AUWDE
Posted on 1/7/23 at 12:14 pm to AUWDE
quote:
Why are you so damn wound up about it? You do realize that people will see things from different perspectives than you, right?
Thank you. Not sure why a couple of you get so pissy when this chicks behavior is questioned. And the why kinda is Important to understanding her actions. Nobody has suggested that she’s an accomplice. But her actions are certainly worthy of questioning.
2
Posted on 1/7/23 at 12:20 pm to Hangit
quote:
When I see something posted that I feel is either wrong, or possibly new, I will ask for a fricking link.
Support 100%
Easy to mix up the details in this case and in this thread.
For example, I appreciate that a poster highlighted the detail that he was wearing a Covid-style face mask.
Because my mind must’ve just assumed it was a ski mask, and I probably would’ve gone on thinking that until someone pointed it out.
And I’ve seen a good bit of that in this thread: posters interjecting assumptions as if they are certainties.
The little details make a difference.
Posted on 1/7/23 at 12:26 pm to L.A.
Is this his first kill(s) or is it possible he is a serial killer? Could he have made a single kill in much surer settings in the past and wanted to try multiples, take more chances, and then it went really wrong? Isn't anything still on the table with this individual?
Posted on 1/7/23 at 12:30 pm to LarryDavid
It’s possible LarryDavid.
But in my opinion, no.
He wasn’t a predator honing his skills. He made way too many amateur mistakes.
But in my opinion, no.
He wasn’t a predator honing his skills. He made way too many amateur mistakes.
Posted on 1/7/23 at 12:32 pm to LarryDavid
So the pappa rodger handle he was using (if it's confirmed to be him) is a tip. Of the hat to Incel hero Eliot Rodger who killed random sorority girls to get internet fame in the Incel community?
Doesn't mean this guy was an Incel but he was likely aware of the mythology of rodger and the online Incel Community.
Doesn't mean this guy was an Incel but he was likely aware of the mythology of rodger and the online Incel Community.
Posted on 1/7/23 at 12:35 pm to LarryDavid
quote:
Is this his first kill(s) or is it possible he is a serial killer?
He seems kind of weasel-like. The kind that would KO a small girl that was walking down the street, then take her to a remote cabin that he had access to.
Whether he did, or not, I am sure detectives are looking into cold cases from when he was in their areas.
Posted on 1/7/23 at 12:45 pm to Delacroix22
quote:
BK kills Ethan in hallway and he collapses in hallway bathroom.
I thought Ethan was killed in the bed. Xana found on the floor with defensive wounds? Xana received door dash and was on TikTok during the time BK was at the house.
Posted on 1/7/23 at 12:52 pm to berrycajun
quote:
Would Dylan seeing him IN the house be considered direct evidence? It wasn’t him fleeing the scene of the crime.
Yes. Eyewitness testimony placing him inside the home at the time the murders occurred is direct evidence. The dna and other forensic findings are circumstantial evidence as they do not independently prove anything. However, when there’s a lot of circumstantial evidence all pointing to the same thing, it becomes very compelling.
I only posted that bc people often dismiss some things as circumstantial evidence without realizing that dna and forensic evidence is circumstantial. Meanwhile, eyewitness testimony which is known to be unreliable frequently is classified as direct evidence.
This post was edited on 1/7/23 at 7:59 pm
Posted on 1/7/23 at 12:58 pm to Saintsisit
quote:
There's a post on there where he questions the group if a stun gun could have been used to incapacitate. I'm assuming marks would have been visible. Would be interesting if that comes out in trial from autopsies.
What if he stabbed in the same spot as the stun gun markings?
Posted on 1/7/23 at 1:04 pm to SWLA92
quote:
Even if she called the cops right away sadly they were already dead but if she was really so high/drunk to hear all of that and go back to bed til 11am and then call friends first and not cops is really crappy of here I can’t wrap my head around it
I agree her actions are puzzling. Crappy is too harsh of a term to describe them though.
She is rumored to have suffered from PTSD from a traumatic event in her childhood.
Posted on 1/7/23 at 1:07 pm to LSUGrrrl
quote:
Eyewitness testimony placing him inside the home at the time the murders occurred is direct evidence.
In this particular case, I disagree. Her mental facilities were not on par with someone who could act rationally in that moment.
Posted on 1/7/23 at 1:12 pm to Chief Hinge
She might have been tripping, and thought(hoped) that she hallucinated it all. It is puzzling in any case, but who would think that what happened in that house was a possibility? Seeing him through the crack in her door makes sense now, but at 4 am, after a night of partying, in the dark presumably? Could you trust beyond a doubt what you were seeing? The affidavit doesn’t say she heard any screams, only muffled sounds and spare responses.
This post was edited on 1/7/23 at 1:22 pm
Posted on 1/7/23 at 1:16 pm to Chief Hinge
quote:
In this particular case, I disagree. Her mental facilities were not on par with someone who could act rationally in that moment.
We don’t know that. It’s pure speculation by people on this board. That’s why some are questioning the delay in calling the police. Many have said she was likely high or wasted as a possible explanation for that delay but we do not know. She may have passed out after being frozen in shock. She may have stayed frozen in shock for hours. We. Don’t. Know. It’s an intriguing piece to this story which is why so,e, including I, keep circling back to it even though it likely won’t have any impact on the prosecution. It’s just interesting.
Regardless of all that, direct vs circumstantial evidence classification is a legal term. Eye witness testimony is direct evidence from a legal perspective and is classified as such no matter her state of mind. It’s just a label. Her state of mind will certainly be questioned by the defense team but her eyewitness testimony, while direct evidence, seems to be the weakest evidence we know of so far.
My post was simply explaining the legal definitions of direct vs circumstantial evidence and was in response to some dismissing some evidence as circumstantial while still relying on dna which is also circumstantial.
Posted on 1/7/23 at 1:19 pm to LSUGrrrl
Well said
Posted on 1/7/23 at 1:35 pm to CrimsonTideMD
quote:
For example, I appreciate that a poster highlighted the detail that he was wearing a Covid-style face mask. Because my mind must’ve just assumed it was a ski mask, and I probably would’ve gone on thinking that until someone pointed it out.
I admit, I’m guilty of that, and i was quite disappointed in my reading comprehension skills once i realized it. lol
I felt like like a gossip girl wrongly repeating “but he was all in black wearing a face mask”
I didn’t realize it was a Covid type mask until i read the affidavit a second time.
Posted on 1/7/23 at 1:38 pm to Chief Hinge
Interesting
Posted on 1/7/23 at 1:38 pm to tigerinthebueche
quote:You can be sure that a defense attorney will question it.
Thank you. Not sure why a couple of you get so pissy when this chicks behavior is questioned. And the why kinda is Important to understanding her actions. Nobody has suggested that she’s an accomplice. But her actions are certainly worthy of questioning.
Posted on 1/7/23 at 1:42 pm to Saintsisit
quote:
There's a post on there where he questions the group if a stun gun could have been used to incapacitate. I'm assuming marks would have been visible. Would be interesting if that comes out in trial from autopsies.
Again though this is what I was getting to earlier. Who is this guy? He’s a PhD student. He’s a student researcher interested in what drives criminal behavior. Look at the questions in his student research at DeSales. He’s asking people that have committed criminal acts questions about why they did it, how they did it and their behaviors before and after the crime. In the discussion group Pappa Rodgers is asking the same questions sometimes almost verbatim, only this time he’s not asking them from a research interviewers point of view. He’s conducting it from the killer’s point of view.
quote:
Do you think a stun gun could have been used to incapacitate the victims
Read it this way.. Do you think I used a stun gun to incapacitate my victims?
When you read all of his questions to the group in the first person, it’s obvious he was still in his researcher frame of mind because that it’s the essence of who he is. He’s his own continuing research study.
Posted on 1/7/23 at 1:53 pm to tigerinthebueche
quote:
Thank you. Not sure why a couple of you get so pissy when this chicks behavior is questioned. And the why kinda is Important to understanding her actions. Nobody has suggested that she’s an accomplice. But her actions are certainly worthy of questioning.
IMO it’s irrelevant in regards to the outcome of the case
Posted on 1/7/23 at 1:55 pm to mmcgrath
I don’t think so considering the defense atty is a woman
hopefully the prosecutor won’t make her a HUGE part of it considering the rest of the evidence is actually more damning.
If the prosecutor doesn’t bring her into it too much then she won’t need to be questioned too much. What is the defense going to say? She was in on it?
No. They won’t say that.
So they say She’s not credible because she was high or drunk or whatever? Objection you don’t know that. Or maybe they do if they talked to people she hung out with that night. Ok but since when does being high make you make up seeing a man you don’t recognize in your house?
No reason for her to make this up and ruin her life. It would be much smarter for her to say i didn’t hear a peep! I woke up and everyone was dead and i called 911.
This girl is telling the truth and the truth doesn’t make her look good. Poor thing :(
For her OWN sake she would have been better off lying, but for her friends’ sakes, she told the truth
& Whether she was high etc or not. She saw a man. A man she didn’t recognize at the same time there was video footage and ring cameras etc.
& Suppose Dylan didn’t exist….
it doesn’t matter. They don’t even need her to back it all up. The other evidence is damning and think of all they have that we the public don’t yet know yet…
He’s a goner
hopefully the prosecutor won’t make her a HUGE part of it considering the rest of the evidence is actually more damning.
If the prosecutor doesn’t bring her into it too much then she won’t need to be questioned too much. What is the defense going to say? She was in on it?
No. They won’t say that.
So they say She’s not credible because she was high or drunk or whatever? Objection you don’t know that. Or maybe they do if they talked to people she hung out with that night. Ok but since when does being high make you make up seeing a man you don’t recognize in your house?
No reason for her to make this up and ruin her life. It would be much smarter for her to say i didn’t hear a peep! I woke up and everyone was dead and i called 911.
This girl is telling the truth and the truth doesn’t make her look good. Poor thing :(
For her OWN sake she would have been better off lying, but for her friends’ sakes, she told the truth
& Whether she was high etc or not. She saw a man. A man she didn’t recognize at the same time there was video footage and ring cameras etc.
& Suppose Dylan didn’t exist….
it doesn’t matter. They don’t even need her to back it all up. The other evidence is damning and think of all they have that we the public don’t yet know yet…
He’s a goner
This post was edited on 1/7/23 at 1:57 pm
Page 133 of 183
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News