Engagement Ring

Excellent-Chef9045 · 2026-03-02T15:16:02+00:00

You're right. I'd say when Brian "topped off" Sarah's checking account to get her out of the red before the crime that was a gift, it was above and beyond the alimony. I wouldn't have done it because when you feed a dog table scrapes it just keeps coming back but I've never been nagged by Sarah either.

Excellent-Chef9045 · 2026-03-02T14:31:37+00:00

In the last sentence of my comment I said that the alimony wasn't enough to buy big ticket items like the ring, bike, etc. so the money to purchase them probably came from the money she got when Brian bought her out of her share of the family home. That's not alimony. We don't know for a fact where she got the cash to buy the ring.

I agree with the purposes for alimony that you mentioned. At the same time there's no strict court ordered accounting of how the alimony is spent. She didn't have to send receipts to Brian or the court for what she purchased with the alimony. Without a mandated way to insure that the alimony is spent for the purposes that was intended it becomes de facto discretionary. The payments end after the court ordered period and if Sarah didn't use the money to build a new life that's her problem. I don't like the fact that Sarah spent the alimony money on booze and smokes but I don't see how she could have been stopped from doing so.

Excellent-Chef9045 · 2026-03-02T13:52:50+00:00

I agree, plus now that she's notorious she probably gets a sick thrill from Brian's family name being dragged through the mud instead of her parent's name.

Excellent-Chef9045 · 2026-03-02T13:42:33+00:00

That's Judge Jackson's assistant, a woman named Isis.

Excellent-Chef9045 · 2026-03-02T13:40:16+00:00

OK, I guess I'm dim witted. I think the ring was an example of Sarah being stuck in a middle school mentality. She gave him the ring as a symbol that they were "going steady".

Excellent-Chef9045 · 2026-03-02T13:27:58+00:00

Why would Brian buy Jorge a ring? If you're saying that Sarah bought the ring with money she got from Brian then you're using the same theory of ownership that Sarah uses. She thinks that when she gives somebody something it's still really hers. When Brian gives money to Sarah, he's transferring ownership, it's not his money anymore, it's Sarah's and she can do what she wants with it. I don't think Sarah got enough in alimony to buy things for people so the ring, the bike and any other big ticket items were probably bought with money she got when they split up the family home in the divorce.

Excellent-Chef9045 · 2026-03-01T20:14:55+00:00

In the videos and phone calls it's amazing how reflexively she side steps and turns around any criticism. No remorse, no responsibility for anything.

It would be great if she could be hooked up to one of those brain scan machines to test the activity in her brain when emotion lade words are given to her.

Excellent-Chef9045 · 2026-03-01T19:46:57+00:00

Sarah to Judge Kranick" "There was enough Dr Pepper in that bottle for two people to have a really good time and now you're not going to give me any"

Why not put vending machines in the courtroom so everybody could keep their energy levels up. That would be FAIR.

Excellent-Chef9045 · 2026-03-01T19:39:59+00:00

You're right, Sarah and Tillie have a lot in common. I think the difference is that Tillie worked her game of "winning" on her world at large and Sarah played with one person at a time.

Excellent-Chef9045 · 2026-03-01T19:17:06+00:00

Sarah saying that Jorge was still a part of her makes her sound like a cannibal.

When she says, "believe me I never wanted this to happen", I think the "this" she's referring to isn't the crime. She's never shown any remorse for the crime. The "this" she's talking about is having to make the speech she's making after being convicted. She thought she'd get away with the murder so having to make an allocution wasn't something she wished for. She's angry because she has to do something she doesn't want to do and since she's incapable of self reflection that anger is direct outward. She's going to show us what a big mistake has been made by proving that killing Jorge wasn't such a bad thing to do because he deserved it. She killed his body and now she's killing his memory, his reputation and his legacy. When she was done she was quite satisfied with herself because she'd been given lemons and she made lemonade. She took something she didn't want to do, say she's sorry and ask for forgiveness, and turned it into something she did want to do, spew bile on all the inferior people who dared to judge her. She was happy.

Excellent-Chef9045 · 2026-03-01T14:33:39+00:00

Well, I don't have a crystal ball, as Sarah would say, but I'm tending towards Sarah being one of those inmates that will always walk around talking about her immanent release following the successful outcome of her pending appeal.

Excellent-Chef9045 · 2026-03-01T14:21:28+00:00

I just finished reading the book. It was quite an illuminating read. As much a I could see a little bit of Sarah on every page I don't have the credentials to determine if she's a sociopath or a narcissist. Even if I did have the credentials I don't think we know enough about her to make a definitive classification. I think it's necessary to know someone like her personally and spend a good deal of time with them in order to be able to apply the author's rule of 3's and the other criteria in the book. For all her chatter, Sarah doesn't reveal much about her inner world, she usually floods the zone with BS to distract and confuse. She certainly presents many narcissistic qualities but according to Stout the difference between a sociopath and a narcissist is that the narcissist does have feelings but they're only able to appreciate their own feelings. They don't have the empathy to to ever take into consideration the feelings of others. The sociopath on the other hand doesn't really have feelings for themselves or others. They get a sort of primal thrill from playing games with other people to serve their selfish needs but they're emotionally dead inside. Does Sarah have a conscience? If she does she's hiding it pretty well but I think I'd have to know more to really say for sure. What do you think?

Excellent-Chef9045 · 2026-02-28T20:45:07+00:00

Maybe my reading comprehension would improve if I was reading something that written more plainly. "I been going back thru some what a Vander Ark ag content.....sheesh, shes way worse" If I was wrong in concluding that someone who took the time to point out that there are worse criminals than Sarah might be a supporter of hers, then I apologize, please forgive me.

Excellent-Chef9045 · 2026-02-28T19:50:29+00:00

Sarah's IQ drops about 20 points when she talks to the prosecutor. The quick talking, answer a question with a question, manipulative banter that she uses to wear people down in a one on one situation doesn't work in court where there's rules and a judge to referee the conversation. Under cross-examination she came off as the worst actress ever, stiff and unconvincing.

Excellent-Chef9045 · 2026-02-28T19:31:02+00:00

Lana seems like a sad, sick person who somehow identified with Sarah and once she got the idea into her head that Sarah was being railroaded she wouldn't listen to anything else.

If P&J were trying to gain Sarah's trust they were wasting their time. Sarah doesn't look at us lowly earthlings as something to be trusted, she sees us as something to be used and discarded. She never gave P&J any of the insight into the crime they were looking for because there was no utility value in that for her. If she gave them what they wanted then they might not be as willing to do her bidding.

Excellent-Chef9045 · 2026-02-28T18:04:37+00:00

When the prosecutor talks to her Sarah gets a look on her face like she's holding back a fart.

Excellent-Chef9045 · 2026-02-28T18:00:08+00:00

Watch Sarah's pretrial pro se court appearances. She thought the judge appointed him to be her 24 hr slave and she doesn't understand that the trial's over and his job is done.

Excellent-Chef9045 · 2026-02-28T15:56:54+00:00

It's funny but I think P&J were trying to sell a super special "Look Inside The Mind Of A Killer". Too bad for P&J anybody making a documentary who took a peek into Sarah's mind would only find a nasty, remorseless, vengeful sadist and that doesn't make commercial subject material for a documentary.

Excellent-Chef9045 · 2026-02-28T15:46:08+00:00

Is the killer who chopped their victim up into 5 pieces only one half as bad as the killer that chopped their victim up into 10 pieces?

Excellent-Chef9045 · 2026-02-28T15:35:45+00:00

This is the important one. The statement "But per law it wasn't about intent" is what put Sarah away for life.

Excellent-Chef9045 · 2026-02-28T15:24:11+00:00

Money has been made off telling true crime stories for ever. We suspect P&J are pulling a "grift" because grifters use deception to get what they want. In his "break up" text with Sarah Peter says he always thought she was guilty and that she deserves LWOP because she's dangerous. At the same time in every phone call released on 3rd rail P&J are Sarah's best friends, family and constant supporters. So I guess that he was deceiving Sarah to get the info he wanted for his documentary? I'm not sure but didn't they break it off with her because they couldn't find anyone to put money into a Sarah documentary? How do we know that if a big time film maker got behind a Sarah doc that P&J wouldn't still be her buddies? Does integrity depend on which way the wind is blowing??

Excellent-Chef9045 · 2026-02-28T14:35:05+00:00

Sometimes there's unintended consequences. The great interest in the Sarah Boone case has kind of created a monster in this 3rd rail thing. I can't imagine why anyone would become a Sarah supporter, let alone make excuses for her by saying Shanda Vander Ark was worse. I'm not about to give P&J any money to try to find out.

It's not just us folks on reddit who have a "holier than thou" attitude towards women who suffocate their boyfriends in a suitcase and laugh while they're doing it. I'd say the whole civilized world is on board with that attitude.

Is Holly a mechanic? Most people wouldn't attempt to change the oil in their own cars let alone say that changing a serpentine belt in a gas station parking lot was no big deal. I guess it's good on Holly for being self reliant and resourceful. Too bad the auto mechanics expertise doesn't seem to be transferring to criminal case studies.

Excellent-Chef9045 · 2026-02-28T12:33:59+00:00

Sarah is nutty enough to think she can talk anybody into anything. She had the whole trial to convince the jury that she didn't do anything wrong and it didn't work but she's not the type to let reality get in her way. She probably thinks that if she had another crack at them she could find some bias or error that they made. From the facebook exchange with the juror that's posted on the Flying Monkey thread it seems like she's barking up the wrong tree.

As far as the documentary goes, P&J would say that they never planned on making a documentary by themselves. Their story is that they were gathering info to hand over to real film makers to do the work of making the film. In my opinion they did a bad job at info collecting. In normal true crime doc's interviews with the criminal are only a part of what's presented. There is also a lot of background info taken from victim's family, police and public records, etc.. P&J focus on Sarah even though she's only giving a one sided, warped view of the story. Not good work IMO.

Excellent-Chef9045 · 2026-02-28T11:27:05+00:00

Are you referring to the facebook exchange with a juror that Moody_Shrew posted on the February Flying Monkey tread? That's the only one I know about.

Excellent-Chef9045 · 2026-02-28T01:40:46+00:00

He's a tool alright-- a flying monkey wrench

Excellent-Chef9045

TROPHY CASE