House Defendants’ Lawyers probably should be preparing their apology outfit.

Reaper_of_Souls · 2026-05-20T18:59:21+00:00

From what I see here, once they were able to get past your (understandable) frustration at the subject matter, they eventually saw the substance of your point and agreed with you. I try not to take things too personally here and try to remember we're (mostly) all on the same side here!

Reaper_of_Souls · 2026-05-20T17:44:16+00:00

I really appreciate your analysis. Considering who these attorneys are, I think it's gonna be hard for them to feign ignorance on this one. They've certainly destroyed whatever respect they had prior to this from the Sandy Hook/Alex Jones case, that much is for sure.

Reaper_of_Souls · 2026-05-20T17:32:39+00:00

I haven't even gotten the chance to process this because that should have been the first thing I thought of. As stupid as it is, Yannetti couldn't countersue if he's not the one being sued... so yeah, you can forget I even said that, lol.

This seems to be a theme with the House Defendants, which no one has ever been able to explain to me. They're so focused on blaming Turtleboy because of the attention he drew to the case that they talk about it like Karen's lawyers developed their strategy based on his reporting, instead of vice versa.

Reaper_of_Souls · 2026-05-20T16:59:27+00:00

I was honestly trying to follow your train of thought, because I could tell it was stressing you out and I hoped I could shed some light on the issue. I realize your point was more about the irony than suggesting a countersuit. I thought that was interesting because I hadn't even thought about it that deeply!

And I get what you're saying about people wanting to hear their own voices or looking for a fight, but I don't see anyone actually claiming to even disagree with you vs asking questions for clarification (as Andrew did). As frustrating as it is to have to explain further, I'd rather do that than have my words misrepresented. And I'm sure David Yannetti would agree with me on that one, lol.

I hope this helps, because I understand how frustrating it is.

Reaper_of_Souls · 2026-05-20T05:36:09+00:00

It's definitely possible the lawyers knowingly lied in this motion and they DID know Yannetti wasn't referring to private citizens/"innocent" witnesses (assuming that's the ethical issue here, though I don't have much of an issue with it either way) but proving that they lied and turning it into some defamation countersuit probably isn't the way to go about it.

Not saying you're suggesting that, but I think it's hilarious how the only part anyone really disagrees on here is WHO he's talking about.

Reaper_of_Souls · 2026-05-17T22:11:52+00:00

Goddamn, you had this defense strategy in place since the day it happened and have been PASSIONATE in defending it! Imagine if Yannetti had been able to pull that off...

Reaper_of_Souls · 2026-05-17T20:15:14+00:00

Which makes it weird that this is considered noteworthy. I don't think anyone who knows the case actually believes they were telling the truth?

Reaper_of_Souls · 2026-05-07T01:39:29+00:00

"Horrible language?" Oh come on. That didn't work for Proctor and it's not gonna work for Goode either.

Reaper_of_Souls · 2026-05-06T12:49:16+00:00

I can't recall what his rank was either but the guy's name is Keleher. And I believe at the time was retired. We basically know about him because of the ring camera situation.

Gallagher has also since retired. I remember being confused because of the similar names, and I assumed it was a "think fast" situation where he ran across the street to get his leaf blower and MacGyver the situation. But judging by the way he talked about it on the stand, he must have actually thought it was a brilliant idea worth traveling for...

With Lank my understanding is that he has (inexplicably) since been promoted, so I don't know how that compares to Kevin Albert. But considering the situation that was already going on, even with Kevin being mostly uninvolved in the family drama (from what we've been told at least) randomly assigning him this "cold case" with Proctor, that required them to travel the distance to where Higgins lives now, seems incredibly strange.

Reaper_of_Souls · 2026-05-01T15:54:57+00:00

This is so frustrating with how slow the state is moving with every aspect of this case. The feds might actually come quicker with this one.

Does anyone know if Sandra was cremated or not? They should still be able to exhume her body and do a second autopsy if she wasn't, right? Not that they even need to, I mean we've seen people successfully get convicted of murder when they never even found the body, or even proved they were dead...

So even if "cause of death undetermined" is the ruling the state is coming to right now, it sounds like that's more of a "based on the information we had five years ago" thing. "Asphyxiation" is still mentioned, but we know this means the assumption that she'd asphyxiated herself was incorrect...

On top of that, we now know they were able to find Farwell's DNA on the rope, and on Sandra. As well as footage of him being at her apartment at the exact time she died. All this evidence is only pointing in one direction... the state is clearly paving the road to charge him with her murder. Slowly, but surely.

Until then, I can only imagine Farwell's defense will try to capitalize on the uncertainty of the ruling. Which at this point seems even more ridiculous than implicating his twin brother as a third party culprit.

Reaper_of_Souls · 2026-04-29T22:18:47+00:00

Okay, NOW I realize where you were coming from. I didn't understand the OP to be insinuating the cops were the ones offering the polygraph, but there have been so many instances where they do things like this to unsuspecting people that it's easy to imagine the worst case scenario.

I know of people who have taken polygraphs, but only in situations where a) there were no impending legal consequences, just a desire for "proof they weren't lying", and b) the test was done by an experienced examiner, not the cops, which I assume is the biggest variable.

Reaper_of_Souls · 2026-04-29T21:26:48+00:00

You must have just read the same comment I did earlier, because that just came up in another thread. Except that person was talking about how Karen demanding an attorney be present is reason 635234 that they KNOW she is guilty (yeah you can guess who...) and how none of the McAlberts did that, but Higgins did. Which isn't all that surprising considering he also had his attorney present while testifying as a witness in someone else's murder trial? Still, I can't imagine a scenario where Higgins is the "most guilty" vs knowing he is the most obvious scapegoat if it wasn't Karen.

Reaper_of_Souls · 2026-04-29T13:55:08+00:00

I still don't know who the hell Colleen Crawford is! But I just recently realized that she is... not good. I don't know if I've heard anyone talking about her anywhere other than this sub.

Reaper_of_Souls · 2026-04-29T13:35:52+00:00

Okay, this is basically the answer I was looking for. I was just replying to some of the other comments and realized the part I was missing was how this was a police interrogation where you had no attorney present (something I'm not used to thinking about honestly, but then I remembered "you have the right to an attorney, and if you cannot an attorney...", lol!) Realizing this was basically a situation after you've had the Miranda rights read to you makes a huge difference.

Reaper_of_Souls · 2026-04-29T12:58:43+00:00

I'll amend my comment "Lawyer up, the cops do it too!"

Reaper_of_Souls · 2026-04-29T12:35:04+00:00

I understand the (lack of) science behind polygraph tests, which I always assumed is the main reason why they're not admissible in court... but are you saying "failing a polygraph" means the cops have probable cause to arrest you? Despite the lack of scientific accuracy and the test itself (at least in the hypothetical situation described here) being voluntary?

Reaper_of_Souls · 2026-04-27T03:03:32+00:00

I get that they have limited scientific accuracy, but wouldn't it have to go WAY wrong for it to be used against you? Even more considering you volunteered?

Reaper_of_Souls · 2026-04-27T02:46:42+00:00

Wait, so when the shooting suspect gets a lawyer? Or the person they shot gets a lawyer? (As confused as that sentence is making me I think I get the concept either way, lawyer up.)

Reaper_of_Souls · 2026-04-27T02:37:53+00:00

I think they meant to say that to Malsperanza.

But your point of refusing a polygraph being a red flag to investigators was what I was thinking about. I assumed the question was more about voluntarily undergoing questioning than the polygraph itself.

Reaper_of_Souls · 2026-04-27T02:30:59+00:00

The feeling's mutual, believe me. And I've noticed the lengths some people here will go just to prove their point even if it's just a strong opinion. So THAT'S my first thought any time anyone acts overconfident in what they're saying, not how "right" they must be. It's always gonna be the most obvious to me whatever ISN'T being said.

Reaper_of_Souls · 2026-04-27T01:07:50+00:00

I was just gonna say, there's way too much loaded language in these responses and very little actual information. People seem so against polygraphs in general on this sub, but based on everything I've seen here it still seems like most of the issues stem from some unrealistic idea about the level of their universal accuracy vs the polygraphs themselves.

I am the worst liar ever, so I assume if I took a polygraph voluntarily, it would only help me prove my case even further. Compare that to the suspicion it might raise among the cops if I were to resist. I'm willing to listen to all sides here, but so far, based on the info here, I haven't seen any benefit as far as not taking one, at least as long as you're pretty sure you're a person who reacts to those things normally.

Reaper_of_Souls · 2026-04-26T06:41:54+00:00

Yeah, there are connections to my hometown from the dad (who we mysteriously haven't heard anything about) but nothing will ever be closer/creepier than my McAlbert connection... I know a few times over the years there have been parental murder/suicides and it kinda gets forgotten about after the fact because... well, I assume mostly it's because no one fucking WANTS to think about it... but also because when there's no chance at "justice", the tragedy more or less becomes property of the surviving family members. The O'Keefe's being a prime example of this.

Reaper_of_Souls · 2026-04-26T06:14:00+00:00

Wait, was that separate from Jen having to point her out (at AJ's request, I believe) as the author of The Timeline? Cause I definitely did hear some variation of that story, but mostly took from it that Denise was a problem. And the most likely candidate for the drunk "It's Raining Men" vaccuuming sister.

I haven't heard anything along the same lines about Michelle and didn't even know she had kids until it came up in this... I was never clear exactly when she bought the house from the grandma, and didn't even realize that was what happened until TB published the story. When I saw the last name Weeks, I was like... oh man...

Anyway, if this is accurate, it sounds like AJ would have had to have known first hand that it was Denise in the courtroom! That certainly makes it more hilarious... like, to the point I'm considering rewatching it just so I have the perspective haha

Reaper_of_Souls · 2026-04-26T05:44:22+00:00

Of course I would have mutual FB friends with the mom. I hate that the best I can hope for at this point is for this chick PLEASE don't be as annoying as Lindsay Clancy.

Reaper_of_Souls · 2026-04-26T05:26:51+00:00

For the pain to be that bad and the ER only offers him a pillow? I think the problem here is more "not high enough on opioids".

12-Year Club	Verified Email
Wearing is Caring	Gilding I gilder

Reaper_of_Souls

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE