Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people comment on the husband's looks because they expect monsters to look different than other people. They are surprised (and maybe scared) that they might have dated a guy that looked like that.

There is decades old feminist research that documents how female crime victims are sexualized, as fodder for purient entertainment.

There's also a sense of control. "Look at him, I knew right away something was wrong with him, therefore this could never happen to me". Except that he's a decent looking dude who looks just like everyone else, who could be considered attractive by many standards...

Have you noticed that the individuals involved in these types of crimes (both victim and murderer) are usually fairly attractive couples and often the murderer is engaged in an affair.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people comment on the husband's looks because they expect monsters to look different than other people. They are surprised (and maybe scared) that they might have dated a guy that looked like that.

There is decades old feminist research that documents how female crime victims are sexualized, as fodder for purient entertainment.

There's also a sense of control. "Look at him, I knew right away something was wrong with him, therefore this could never happen to me". Except that he's a decent looking dude who looks just like everyone else, who could be considered attractive by many standards...

Have you noticed that the individuals involved in these types of crimes (both victim and murderer) are usually fairly attractive couples and often the murderer is engaged in an affair.

Male entitlement. I deserve what I want, when I want it. To hell with who is in my way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people comment on the husband's looks because they expect monsters to look different than other people. They are surprised (and maybe scared) that they might have dated a guy that looked like that.

There is decades old feminist research that documents how female crime victims are sexualized, as fodder for purient entertainment.

There's also a sense of control. "Look at him, I knew right away something was wrong with him, therefore this could never happen to me". Except that he's a decent looking dude who looks just like everyone else, who could be considered attractive by many standards...

Have you noticed that the individuals involved in these types of crimes (both victim and murderer) are usually fairly attractive couples and often the murderer is engaged in an affair.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people comment on the husband's looks because they expect monsters to look different than other people. They are surprised (and maybe scared) that they might have dated a guy that looked like that.

There is decades old feminist research that documents how female crime victims are sexualized, as fodder for purient entertainment.

There's also a sense of control. "Look at him, I knew right away something was wrong with him, therefore this could never happen to me". Except that he's a decent looking dude who looks just like everyone else, who could be considered attractive by many standards...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If that girlfriend has an ounce of decency in her, she'll tell what she knows so they can find Jennifer's body. If not, she's as depraved as Fotis Dulos.

Uh, I think that's been established.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the police are checking to see if her body was tossed in the trash and incinerated. If they find her bone chips in the incinerator that's all they'll need.

If they have 5 bags of trash filled with bloody murder scene clean up supplies then they don't really need the 25 other bags do they? At this point they're just trying to confirm where her body is.

Yes I think at this point they don’t know where the body is and want to rule in/out if it was placed in the trash bags or elsewhere. Given the cell phone pings and unlikelihood of the body being buried or burned, I think the bags are the most likely outcome.

What a dumb dumb.

If 5 bags have her blood, but one of the other 25 had the husband's bloody fingerprint - THEY WANT THAT ONE. They need to build a case against him, not just prove she'd dead.

Finding her body gives some closure to the family. Putting the murderer away with a conviction allows the victim to rest in peace.

Cell phone pings and surveillance video show that he and the girlfriend were the ones dumping those bags and those bags have Jennifer's blood in them.

And? Unless the girlfriend flips, a good attorney can argue that's circumstantial evidence. Doesn't prove he shot her or stabbed her or beat her to death with his fists.

He could even argue that they have no proof she's actually dead with no bone evidence.

Yes he could argue that but will the jury believe it? I think not. Five innocent children now have no parents due to his actions. I don’t think a jury will buy his excuses. Also I think they will find a part of her somewhere. What an awful statement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the police are checking to see if her body was tossed in the trash and incinerated. If they find her bone chips in the incinerator that's all they'll need.

If they have 5 bags of trash filled with bloody murder scene clean up supplies then they don't really need the 25 other bags do they? At this point they're just trying to confirm where her body is.

Yes I think at this point they don’t know where the body is and want to rule in/out if it was placed in the trash bags or elsewhere. Given the cell phone pings and unlikelihood of the body being buried or burned, I think the bags are the most likely outcome.

What a dumb dumb.

If 5 bags have her blood, but one of the other 25 had the husband's bloody fingerprint - THEY WANT THAT ONE. They need to build a case against him, not just prove she'd dead.

Finding her body gives some closure to the family. Putting the murderer away with a conviction allows the victim to rest in peace.

Cell phone pings and surveillance video show that he and the girlfriend were the ones dumping those bags and those bags have Jennifer's blood in them.

And? Unless the girlfriend flips, a good attorney can argue that's circumstantial evidence. Doesn't prove he shot her or stabbed her or beat her to death with his fists.

He could even argue that they have no proof she's actually dead with no bone evidence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just started reading this post from the beginning and was horrified that someone felt the need to comment that this person looks good for her age.

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Must women still be objectified, even when they are possible murder victims? This is not some TV plot. It is a human being's life.

It's interesting in that she looked attractive, healthy and younger than her age. The mistress, on the other hand, looks older and hardened by life, in spite of only being 44 - I would not be at all surprised if drugs were somehow involved for her. Desperate addicts do desperate things.

To add to this. Whenever someone posts on DCUM talking about how their husband has lost interest or is cheating, someone always responds with "But did you let yourself go/get fat". Implying that if the wife were still attractive, it would somehow prevent cheating and divorce. Well, here's a wife that was slender and attractive and wealthy and aging nicely. And murder aside, this guy was not only divorcing her and carrying on with someone else, but that someone else was actually significantly less attractive than the wife...

She filed the divorce papers, not him. And it was because he was a threatening, abusive asshole, not because he was cheating on her.

Maybe but she clearly stated in the divorce filing that her complaint also stemmed from the fact that he was trying to move his 'paramour' and her 10-year-old daughter into the marital home.

I don't know if he was trying to disguise her as his personal secretary for his business or what, but the wife didn't like it.

I thought that was in a custody filing, not the divorce petition.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just started reading this post from the beginning and was horrified that someone felt the need to comment that this person looks good for her age.

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Must women still be objectified, even when they are possible murder victims? This is not some TV plot. It is a human being's life.

It's interesting in that she looked attractive, healthy and younger than her age. The mistress, on the other hand, looks older and hardened by life, in spite of only being 44 - I would not be at all surprised if drugs were somehow involved for her. Desperate addicts do desperate things.

To add to this. Whenever someone posts on DCUM talking about how their husband has lost interest or is cheating, someone always responds with "But did you let yourself go/get fat". Implying that if the wife were still attractive, it would somehow prevent cheating and divorce. Well, here's a wife that was slender and attractive and wealthy and aging nicely. And murder aside, this guy was not only divorcing her and carrying on with someone else, but that someone else was actually significantly less attractive than the wife...

She filed the divorce papers, not him. And it was because he was a threatening, abusive asshole, not because he was cheating on her.

Maybe but she clearly stated in the divorce filing that her complaint also stemmed from the fact that he was trying to move his 'paramour' and her 10-year-old daughter into the marital home.

I don't know if he was trying to disguise her as his personal secretary for his business or what, but the wife didn't like it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just started reading this post from the beginning and was horrified that someone felt the need to comment that this person looks good for her age.

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Must women still be objectified, even when they are possible murder victims? This is not some TV plot. It is a human being's life.

It's interesting in that she looked attractive, healthy and younger than her age. The mistress, on the other hand, looks older and hardened by life, in spite of only being 44 - I would not be at all surprised if drugs were somehow involved for her. Desperate addicts do desperate things.

To add to this. Whenever someone posts on DCUM talking about how their husband has lost interest or is cheating, someone always responds with "But did you let yourself go/get fat". Implying that if the wife were still attractive, it would somehow prevent cheating and divorce. Well, here's a wife that was slender and attractive and wealthy and aging nicely. And murder aside, this guy was not only divorcing her and carrying on with someone else, but that someone else was actually significantly less attractive than the wife...

She filed the divorce papers, not him. And it was because he was a threatening, abusive asshole, not because he was cheating on her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just started reading this post from the beginning and was horrified that someone felt the need to comment that this person looks good for her age.

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Must women still be objectified, even when they are possible murder victims? This is not some TV plot. It is a human being's life.

It's interesting in that she looked attractive, healthy and younger than her age. The mistress, on the other hand, looks older and hardened by life, in spite of only being 44 - I would not be at all surprised if drugs were somehow involved for her. Desperate addicts do desperate things.

To add to this. Whenever someone posts on DCUM talking about how their husband has lost interest or is cheating, someone always responds with "But did you let yourself go/get fat". Implying that if the wife were still attractive, it would somehow prevent cheating and divorce. Well, here's a wife that was slender and attractive and wealthy and aging nicely. And murder aside, this guy was not only divorcing her and carrying on with someone else, but that someone else was actually significantly less attractive than the wife...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And? Unless the girlfriend flips, a good attorney can argue that's circumstantial evidence. Doesn't prove he shot her or stabbed her or beat her to death with his fists.

He could even argue that they have no proof she's actually dead with no bone evidence.

There is not a judge or jury who wouldn’t convict. We all know she is dead. We all know he killed her.

Never say never. We all know OJ killed Nicole, too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the police are checking to see if her body was tossed in the trash and incinerated. If they find her bone chips in the incinerator that's all they'll need.

If they have 5 bags of trash filled with bloody murder scene clean up supplies then they don't really need the 25 other bags do they? At this point they're just trying to confirm where her body is.

Yes I think at this point they don’t know where the body is and want to rule in/out if it was placed in the trash bags or elsewhere. Given the cell phone pings and unlikelihood of the body being buried or burned, I think the bags are the most likely outcome.

What a dumb dumb.

If 5 bags have her blood, but one of the other 25 had the husband's bloody fingerprint - THEY WANT THAT ONE. They need to build a case against him, not just prove she'd dead.

Finding her body gives some closure to the family. Putting the murderer away with a conviction allows the victim to rest in peace.

Cell phone pings and surveillance video show that he and the girlfriend were the ones dumping those bags and those bags have Jennifer's blood in them.

And? Unless the girlfriend flips, a good attorney can argue that's circumstantial evidence. Doesn't prove he shot her or stabbed her or beat her to death with his fists.

He could even argue that they have no proof she's actually dead with no bone evidence.

There is not a judge or jury who wouldn’t convict. We all know she is dead. We all know he killed her.

OJ walked...