I think those names were probably included in the report and in that particular spot for a reason. Most likely because they were at the bonfire. But then again I wonder why they wouldn’t have said something in the report like, “Lott reported that in attendance at the event where the confession was made included, Joe Schmo, Jane Doe, John Smith” etc. I don’t know if it even matters but there is a difference. On another note, I have no idea who anyone is and I don’t care to know. It’s none of my business. I just like intelligent discussions, and I have a thing for facts. I’m not asking that everyone agree; that would be boring.
Thanks @buster - that’s how I took the names (those at the bonfire). I made my post and thoughts after finding it disturbing the regular suggestions that other mem were involved in these crimes while no evidence has emerged to support those claims. Anyway - after this length of time, and no evidence - it doesn’t add up. Regret the drama but I was not going to sit here and be attacked.i have NEVER said I am right and someone else is wrong as @slick stated. Yes - at times my posts can be lengthy but this case is complex due to the deceptions and I haven’t formed a verdict. Ignore the length - but know they’re not a fly by the seat of my pants opinions and most intelligent posts are. Couldn’t sit here and be accused of the nonsense.Happy to grab my hubs (who took the podcast in with me on our runs), my dog, and neighbor if need be by FaceTime vs bullying. I’ve had a little more time on my hands lately for good reason and glad this board is staying active - Tara deserves it and so would ANY human being.
@bustersmom I read that part several times trying to understand why Shoudel worded it the way he did. Like you, I was wondering why he didn't just list the names of those in attendance. I guess it could be that Lott wasn't absolutely 100 % sure that all five of those guys were present and listening to the words of this drunk confession as they were being spoken. Since their pack almost always included those five fellas, maybe he felt fairly confident they were all there, but not certain.
Agree, @j_macklin. That’s a pretty good probability considering 11 years had gone by when he gave that statement in 2017. Sure would be nice if someone could find the paperwork from when he first reported it in 2005.
That makes a lot of sense and pretty logical conclusion, Mack.
Maybe he listed them as "being in the same peer group at that time " as a reference to additional interviews and notes with those individuals that we all have not seen or been privy to as of yet. A lot of times LE will reference specific fact they had either asked in the form of a question, like "were you friends with ZD, JD, etc at that time?" And then Garland confirmed that. Or it could be a reference to confirming their being the other people in attendance that evening, but maybe had given statements that contradict what Garland was saying, like that they never heard RD/BD confess anything that night?
Precon is full if shit. This cat has had nearly a year to substantiate this story about guns. Never anything but vague, ambiguous hints. Please stop feeding this clown.
Thanks BJ. Its 4 sentences, it’s separated from the body of the other content into its own paragraph, and about the confession. In the second sentence the word “group” is used (Bo and Ryan confessed to) and in the 4th and last sentence “peer group” and the names. FWIW I take it the added descriptor “peer” is used to indicate there were no older adults in the group, just peers. And to my original point - Bo and Ryan did not say anyone else was involved.
It's just a slippery slope of jumping to conclusions. So because they were mentioned they were all there? And because they were they for sure heard the whole confession? You just can't go around making assumptions. Or you can, but you can not present them as facts.
@mcboaty I kinda feel the same. precon ii doesn’t seem to be precon. Kinda like Mr Wrestling and Mr Wrestling II. The “drugs and guns” reply was too easy. It is what it is I reckon. But I was thinking the real precon could possibly shed some light if he/she chose to. Who knows? Maybe precon could get into some hot water by giving away too much info.
@smocking I never used the word fact. I shared my interpretation and reasoning on the document. After your comment of I was “incorrect” I clarified. The document is right there for all to read and interpret. This is a DB. I am discussing the document. Everyone is free to do so.
Speculation is Bo attempted Tylenol OD last night which is the reason hearing scheduled for him today is not occurring
Tylenol overdose? That’ll take his liver on out.
How would Bo attempt anything like that while locked up?
Where and why was he scheduled to report in court today? How did he get that much Tylenol when incarcerated?
>And to my original point – Bo and Ryan did not say anyone else was involved How do you know what they did or did not say? Were you there, perched on the limb of one of those young pine trees nearby? I'm sure Lott did his best to give Shoudel an accurate account of who said what on that night over a decade ago, but it is possible he missed something. Were Bo and Ryan taking turns speaking clearly to a captive audience that heard and understood every word they said? Or were they so inebriated they were talking over each other or at the same time? Were they slurring? Were others trying to hush the nonsense coming from these two babbling drunks or talking among themselves trying to make sense of what they were hearing? There's no telling how much alcohol those guys had consumed, we don't know their level of intoxication. It's entirely possible that everything said that night wasn't heard by all those present. How can you make such a claim based on the summary of an interview with only one of the people there that night?
Also, eye witness testimony is one of the LEAST useful types of evidence. GL may not have spoken of that night for 12+ years. His word is not Gospel.
👆🏾case in point.
Yes, memory is an interesting thing. I trust you are not an expert. Neither am I but I have been called to testify as a witness in a case ( it was related to observing disturbing behavior of a jerk). The court deemed it helpful for the jury and I can speak to there are some things you just don’t forget. People understand that.