Re: Similar Murder 6 Months Later - BOMBSHELL!! Same Community

[khintx]

Do we know where this guy was 10 years ago? Was he in the community then? kh

[khintx]

OMG KH.... YES.... this happened only 6 months earlier.. It is said he lived at his moms in EUGENE!!!!!!!!



The day Daniella was found was only a couple of days after she went missing...

The day the article was written was prior to knowing who killed Daniella....

It was also clearly prior to the autopsy....

HOW DID THE LE ALREADY KNOW THAT LEAHS CASE AND THIS CASE WERE NOT CONNECTED..?????????

OMG. I didn't realize it was around the same time! HOW DID THEY KNOW? kh

[markmywordz]

That's because the overwhelming majority of people killed in this country are killed by somebody the victim knows.
The people who investigate these crimes know this.
Of the 50,000 or so people murdered each year, fewer than 100 juveniles each are killed by complete strangers. It's just rare, so when investigators start their work they always look at who are the closest people to the victim and then work their way out.
It would be a waste of resources to immediately begin to think it is a random stranger or a serial killer.
That's not to say they don't think it is.....It's just they don't get there until they start ruling out people who are closer to the victim.
In each of these cases, there was somebody much closer to the victim that was a better match as a suspect than somebody random.

[markmywordz]

OK....here's a scenario....
he drives by the house at 9 p.m. and she's not there. He's told she left. He drives the few blocks and finds here and she gets in. This is now let's say 9:18. He drives the few blocks talking to her....and takes her to the cemetery (since that's where he shoe was found). They get out of the car at 9:22 and they are still talking...he goes to the trunk. She doesn't know why so she stays there. He gets out a tire iron and hits her several times killing her. This happens by 9:30. He immediately puts her in the trunk and drives to the dumping spot. Dumps her and drives back to town and is back in town by 10pm, goes by the house again at 10:15 and eventually picks up his friend by 11pm. He had plenty of time to do all this.
Now the other answers.
They didn't find the shoe for weeks and it was in the grass at the cemetery.
You don't realize this, but when a person is beaten to death, they bleed but not all of there blood comes out right away. In this case, it would have seeped out into the trunk of his car or the other car he may have used. (Remember a witness said he drove her car around on that night as well).
Those cars both had been well cleaned between the time of the murder and the time they had been looked at by investigators.
Also, as far as cadaver dogs go.....they are trained to smell decomposition, not immediate death. Even if they had searched his car within 24 hours of all this....they would likely not have smelled anything of interest. She would have been dead in his car for only a few minutes between the time of her death and the time she was dumped.
The blood in the grass in the cemetery would have been long gone in the weeks it took for somebody to find her shoe.
And, the last time I checked....30 Year old cars have flat tires, too. And, when they have flats they have to have spare tires and jacks and tire irons just like all other cars normally do.
In your world, at what age car do people usually stop having car parts in their trunk? Because in the real world, the age of the car has no bearing whatsoever on whether parts are in its trunk. It is totally illogical to assume that cars stop having jacks, tire irons and spare tires in their trunk just because they are old.

[markmywordz]

Just a few answers and then my final comments on this...

Why is it that you care about specifics only when they fit your narrow opinion? You spout off with wild ideas with no specifics but when somebody else has a competing opinion to yours then specifics become important for you to always win your argument.

OK so I missed the time of when the shoes were found, big deal. That doesn't mean Nick didn't do it. Do you think you win the argument because the shoes were found right away.

Also back to the timeline. The investigators are asking this....where was Nick between 9 and 9:30 and where was he between 9:30 and 10:15. Since he can't account for that with anybody to prove he didn't do it, then of course he's going to be a prime suspect.

Even with your additional time specificity requested, he still could have picked her up and killed her between 9 and 930 and dumped her body between 9:30 and 10:15.

So where do you think he was between 9 and 930 and between 9:30 and 10:15? Don't you think that if he had a better alibi, he wouldn't be where he is now.

You also didn't answer a very important question in this case. If he knew she was going home, then why didn't he go to her house to see if she was there?

That was the key question that led investigators to decide if he should take a polygraph test (which he flunked....can you explain why he flunked?).

I can tell there is never going to be enough evidence for you to ever believe he did it, is there? Maybe unless he just outright confesses.

Also, thank you for not slamming me too hard personally.

I don’t really wish to get into a flame war with a professional poster like yourself, so this will likely be my last post on this.

Let’s just say it’s a good thing that neither you nor I are professional criminal investigators, because if we were no crimes would ever be solved. I’d go and jump to conclusions based on the slightest bit of evidence (which you apparently don’t like) and you’d be running around trying to prove it wasn’t the most obvious of choices insisting that there’s a conspiracy of some sorts and trying to find things that just don’t exist.

You might as well just say that aliens dropped out of the sky and killed Leah Freeman. Hey speaking of that, you haven’t ruled that out yet…have you? I can’t believe you haven’t gone off on the authorities for not ruling out aliens yet. That should have been done long ago.

So, maybe you should just leave it to the pros to do their job and lay off them.

You know you ravage me for posting opinions as if yours was the only one that counts.

The true danger to society are people like you who use forums like these to spread absolute nonsense when you don’t have the slightly clue what you are talking about.

You are doing everything you can to try to cast light on somebody....anybody...other than Nick. So we can see what your motivation is.

People read these and some people might actually believe your nonsensical and illogical nonsense and that would be a travesty.

I hope the jurors have more of an open mind than you do, because you’ve already shut yours.

Be thankful you still have anonymity because without that people would really see just how little your posts should be taken for. Worthless.

[FystyAngel]

wow! I'd like to say that this is a discussion (I hope) and not a flame/board war. I'd like to think that lots of careful consideration goes into each post. I know that AJ puts lots of research into each of her posts. WE ALL want the same thing here...no matter what side of the fence you are on. We want LEAH to have justice.

I would love for someone to convince me beyond reasonable doubt...that he did do it...but I just don't see it. I also don't think he had time & I also have MANY questions. WHY did Cheri change her story after all these years? WHY would Nick think Leah was heading home? Cheri & her mom BOTH said Leah was going jogging...correct?

I'll have to wait until I get home to post more on this subject ...as I'm doing it now by my phone, lol.

I hope everyone joins this discussion & lets try to learn from each other.

[littlethings]

Maybe Nick's defense team will attempt to throw suspicion on this guy...

I do see a similarity here, though: A young perp (think he was 30 or so)well-known to the young victim, who was strangled and left in the dirt. The perp showed no signs he was capable of such a thing and used drugs. Also very similar to the murder of Jayme Austin, where a family member with no criminal history was the guilty party.

Food for thought.

[Sponsored content]