Post by Admin Horan on Nov 19, 2020 8:43:06 GMT -6
"Bones found on the property" are not evidence that Charles is guilty of 11 counts of capital murder. The one videotape proves he is the last known person to see one of the victims alive. That's it. It proves NOTHING else. At all.
"The video was a "simulation"? Care to offer proof?" Yeah. The video, shit for brains. It's on Youtube. WATCH it. (NOT the fictional one made a couple of years ago. The one presented at Charles's trial.) NO actual violence. It isn't even pornographic. The woman isn't even naked, let alone injured. It's just like the "Zodiac Killer" letters. The LETTERS THEMSELVES prove the letters were some kind of hoax. So does that video. It is NOT a "snuff film." It's a FAKE "snuff film."
"Could you imagine losing a loved one like that" How many fucking times do I have to tell you people that feeling sorry for people will accomplish NOTHING in uncovering the truth? If you don't have the stomach for homicide investigation, then bow out. There's no shame. But pity is no substitute for logic. Let alone justice.
"There's hardly ever a smoking gun in murder cases." Yes. There is. Oswald. OJ. Dahmer. Bundy. Let alone everyday murders.
"there's more evidence against these two guys being killers than most other cases." Where the fuck did you get THAT idea? Just because you fell for the media hype is not the same thing as presenting evidence that Charles Ng murdered ELEVEN PEOPLE.
"how anyone could come away with the idea they had nothing to do with it." Where the FUCK did I say THAT?
"is proof they were involved with the killing of at least 7 people" He wasn't convicted of murdering 7 people. He was convicted of murdering ELEVEN people.
"I can see why the prosecution might withhold some evidence" Rule Number One: An EXCUSE for a lack of evidence is NOT the same thing as evidence.
"but I guarantee" I couldn't give a shit less what you "guarantee." Period.
Whilst (snicker) I'm at it:
"but that doesn't mean Ng deserved" Let me clarify one thing: I don't give one single solitary shit about what Charles Ng or anyone else "deserves." I only care about hosing away the horseshit and uncovering the truth. That's it. Nothing else. Not revenge. Not entertainment. Not morbid thrills. Just the truth.
"And it is an understandable approach to make a clear separation between what we know to be true and what we merely suspect to be true" No, Mario, it is not "understandable." It is the STATED PURPOSE of my website and podcast. They have NO OTHER purpose. And again, thanks for getting it. We will make NO progress until people get it.
The "evidence" against Charles includes claims by Klaralyn that she and Leonard made violent S&M pornography. Which does NOTHING to prove Charles guilty of murdering ANYONE. Klaralyn's not dead. So, not every person who appears in one of Lake's "movies" is the victim of murder. Are they? Anthony Hopkins appears in several movies in which he is a serial killer. That doesn't prove he WAS a serial killer. Does it?
Here is the "evidence" presented at Charles Ng's trial by the prosecution: 1. He lived there from time to time. 2. He talked to fellow jailbirds about violent fantasies. That's called "hearsay," but it was entered into "evidence," anyway. 3. He appears in a video that purports (by the prosecution) to show Charles mentally--NOT physically--"torturing" a woman who shortly thereafter turned up murdered.
ONE problem with that video is, the woman seems to have been "playing along" until a point where Charles tells her something about her husband and child that she DIDN'T know before. That is, it SEEMS to show that she DIDN'T know that Leonard and Charles had perhaps kidnapped (let alone murdered) them. She is SURPRISED by the threat. So, if she wasn't coerced into making the video by threats against her husband and child, then why WAS she appearing in the video? I'll say it again--Klaralyn told investigators that she and Leonard had made S&M porno for years. But she never said anything about murdering anybody in those pornos. And she sure as shit wasn't murdered.
It is EXACTLY like the "case" against Tex and Patty. Fingerprints showed that they had been at the Tate house recently (just like the video of Charles and the woman.) Then, hours and hours of horseshit "testimony" by Kasabian, et al. Klaralyn didn't even actually testify at Charles Ng's trial. Only a couple of jailbirds. Oh, and the video of LEONARD talking about his FANTASIES. He even SAYS on the video that it's his FANTASY. Which "proves" WHAT about CHARLES'S actions, exactly?
That was the entire prosecution case. A highly fictionalized trial by media, a sham "trial" where, AT BEST, Ng is directly implicated in ONE murder (just like Tex and Patty being implicated by fingerprints in the Tate massacre, but not LaBianca) and bingo! ELEVEN death sentences. Just. Like. "Manson." Just. Like. Berkowitz. And THEN in turns out that not only is this "case" very much like those two "cases," but there are lots of OTHER links between them. For example, the myth that the victims were mostly chosen at "random." That turns out NOT to be the case in Manson, and it turns out NOT to be the case in Leonard Lake/Charles Ng. NONE of the victims were "random." And they knew each other in surprising ways. Another example: the media hype, AND the trials (Berkowitz didn't even get a trial) is all about the MOTIVE. Not the "evidence" of guilt. Just. The. Motive.
I'm not saying I can prove that Ng, Tex, and Patty are all "innocent." I don't even care. What I care about is, these cases are not only the same, they are connected to each other in other specific, concrete ways. And THAT, kids, is evidence of some kind of conspiracy. (There are other murders and murderers which also seem to be connected to various people connected to this apparent conspiracy, but those may not be part of the "plan" or part of the same "plan." For example, in OJ, Dahmer, and Oswald, at least there is a mountain of ACTUAL EVIDENCE to prove them guilty. Oh, I know, I knoooooooowwww, it was aaaalllll "fake" evidence. But, that's NOT the same thing as NO evidence. Can you comprehend that? At all? Even if those cases are related in other ways, they are NOT the pattern I'm talking about.) Which I will discuss this Saturday on the podcast.
I know I take all the fun out of murder. Morbid curiosity is NOT "justice."
"The video was a "simulation"? Care to offer proof?" Yeah. The video, shit for brains. It's on Youtube. WATCH it. (NOT the fictional one made a couple of years ago. The one presented at Charles's trial.) NO actual violence. It isn't even pornographic. The woman isn't even naked, let alone injured. It's just like the "Zodiac Killer" letters. The LETTERS THEMSELVES prove the letters were some kind of hoax. So does that video. It is NOT a "snuff film." It's a FAKE "snuff film."
"Could you imagine losing a loved one like that" How many fucking times do I have to tell you people that feeling sorry for people will accomplish NOTHING in uncovering the truth? If you don't have the stomach for homicide investigation, then bow out. There's no shame. But pity is no substitute for logic. Let alone justice.
"There's hardly ever a smoking gun in murder cases." Yes. There is. Oswald. OJ. Dahmer. Bundy. Let alone everyday murders.
"there's more evidence against these two guys being killers than most other cases." Where the fuck did you get THAT idea? Just because you fell for the media hype is not the same thing as presenting evidence that Charles Ng murdered ELEVEN PEOPLE.
"how anyone could come away with the idea they had nothing to do with it." Where the FUCK did I say THAT?
"is proof they were involved with the killing of at least 7 people" He wasn't convicted of murdering 7 people. He was convicted of murdering ELEVEN people.
"I can see why the prosecution might withhold some evidence" Rule Number One: An EXCUSE for a lack of evidence is NOT the same thing as evidence.
"but I guarantee" I couldn't give a shit less what you "guarantee." Period.
Whilst (snicker) I'm at it:
"but that doesn't mean Ng deserved" Let me clarify one thing: I don't give one single solitary shit about what Charles Ng or anyone else "deserves." I only care about hosing away the horseshit and uncovering the truth. That's it. Nothing else. Not revenge. Not entertainment. Not morbid thrills. Just the truth.
"And it is an understandable approach to make a clear separation between what we know to be true and what we merely suspect to be true" No, Mario, it is not "understandable." It is the STATED PURPOSE of my website and podcast. They have NO OTHER purpose. And again, thanks for getting it. We will make NO progress until people get it.
The "evidence" against Charles includes claims by Klaralyn that she and Leonard made violent S&M pornography. Which does NOTHING to prove Charles guilty of murdering ANYONE. Klaralyn's not dead. So, not every person who appears in one of Lake's "movies" is the victim of murder. Are they? Anthony Hopkins appears in several movies in which he is a serial killer. That doesn't prove he WAS a serial killer. Does it?
Here is the "evidence" presented at Charles Ng's trial by the prosecution: 1. He lived there from time to time. 2. He talked to fellow jailbirds about violent fantasies. That's called "hearsay," but it was entered into "evidence," anyway. 3. He appears in a video that purports (by the prosecution) to show Charles mentally--NOT physically--"torturing" a woman who shortly thereafter turned up murdered.
ONE problem with that video is, the woman seems to have been "playing along" until a point where Charles tells her something about her husband and child that she DIDN'T know before. That is, it SEEMS to show that she DIDN'T know that Leonard and Charles had perhaps kidnapped (let alone murdered) them. She is SURPRISED by the threat. So, if she wasn't coerced into making the video by threats against her husband and child, then why WAS she appearing in the video? I'll say it again--Klaralyn told investigators that she and Leonard had made S&M porno for years. But she never said anything about murdering anybody in those pornos. And she sure as shit wasn't murdered.
It is EXACTLY like the "case" against Tex and Patty. Fingerprints showed that they had been at the Tate house recently (just like the video of Charles and the woman.) Then, hours and hours of horseshit "testimony" by Kasabian, et al. Klaralyn didn't even actually testify at Charles Ng's trial. Only a couple of jailbirds. Oh, and the video of LEONARD talking about his FANTASIES. He even SAYS on the video that it's his FANTASY. Which "proves" WHAT about CHARLES'S actions, exactly?
That was the entire prosecution case. A highly fictionalized trial by media, a sham "trial" where, AT BEST, Ng is directly implicated in ONE murder (just like Tex and Patty being implicated by fingerprints in the Tate massacre, but not LaBianca) and bingo! ELEVEN death sentences. Just. Like. "Manson." Just. Like. Berkowitz. And THEN in turns out that not only is this "case" very much like those two "cases," but there are lots of OTHER links between them. For example, the myth that the victims were mostly chosen at "random." That turns out NOT to be the case in Manson, and it turns out NOT to be the case in Leonard Lake/Charles Ng. NONE of the victims were "random." And they knew each other in surprising ways. Another example: the media hype, AND the trials (Berkowitz didn't even get a trial) is all about the MOTIVE. Not the "evidence" of guilt. Just. The. Motive.
I'm not saying I can prove that Ng, Tex, and Patty are all "innocent." I don't even care. What I care about is, these cases are not only the same, they are connected to each other in other specific, concrete ways. And THAT, kids, is evidence of some kind of conspiracy. (There are other murders and murderers which also seem to be connected to various people connected to this apparent conspiracy, but those may not be part of the "plan" or part of the same "plan." For example, in OJ, Dahmer, and Oswald, at least there is a mountain of ACTUAL EVIDENCE to prove them guilty. Oh, I know, I knoooooooowwww, it was aaaalllll "fake" evidence. But, that's NOT the same thing as NO evidence. Can you comprehend that? At all? Even if those cases are related in other ways, they are NOT the pattern I'm talking about.) Which I will discuss this Saturday on the podcast.
I know I take all the fun out of murder. Morbid curiosity is NOT "justice."
