Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Christopher Vaughn Case Analysis | Dissociative Amnesia or Malingering?" video.

  1.  @kellyfelly6645  See the Bill Clutter analysis of this case. He thinks Christopher is innocent. He could be wrong. This is a tough one.
    9
  2. Two things about the wife's mental health and the drugs found in her system: first, if she was experiencing panic disorder, this could have been due to some intuitive sense of not being safe with her husband. That doesn't mean he killed her, because there were certainly other things he did wrong that she may have known or sensed, but her disorder by itself certainly does not make it more likely she committed the crime, either, and her panic could have been exacerbated by feeling unsafe with him. Second, the medications in her system: never underestimate the fact that major corporate interests are aligned against recognizing that some widely-prescribed drugs are very dangerous to a tiny group of people. So, there were interests involved in suppressing that possibility. That would make it harder for the defense to get a qualified expert to testify for their side. This is a tough case. Apparently, a lot of people who analyzed his entire statement to police agree it would be hard to fake believing his family was alive without slipping, and hard to fake interest in seeing the video of what happened. But that doesn't point to guilt or innocence, necessarily. It just means he really did have a traumatic memory lapse, making it impossible to assist in his defense.
    5
  3. Bill Clutter develops the contrary theory. Juries almost always return guilty verdicts, even against the factually innocent. I'd be petrified to stand trial for anything. I don't know that Clutter is right, but this is in no way an easy case the way most family murders frankly are.
    5
  4.  @gomahklawm4446  Juries almost always convict. You'd be surprised how biased they are, and on what flimsy evidence they have returned guilty verdicts.
    4
  5.  @zenawarrior7442  Right. He also mentioned how unusual it was for one investigator in a case to disagree completely with the state's theory, and how many pieces really don't fit the leading theory. But you already skipped over that and got to personality analysis. Someone else needs to get a life.
    3
  6.  @zenawarrior7442  What part of "the alternative theory is not implausible" is such a shock to the system? It's just true.
    3
  7.  @zenawarrior7442  Wow. Blocked.
    3
  8.  @gomahklawm4446  Not what I said. Juries find defendants guilty even in flimsy cases, so it's no surprise they convicted in THIS case.
    3
  9.  @zenawarrior7442  Listen carefully to Dr. Grande. The alternative theory is not implausible.
    2
  10.  @zenawarrior7442  You call people "cold psychotic narcissist," and someone else is obviously unhappy and needs to leave the discussion. Okay. I mean, it's your right to think anything. Bill Clutter has a different view of this case. I'm not persuaded by him, either, but no theory is without problems. That is simply true.
    2
  11.  @zenawarrior7442  Some people can write cogently, without interjecting intense emotions into every sentence. That doesn't mean they're bad people, although you are not alone in having that reflex.
    2
  12.  @gomahklawm4446  So, marijuana is legal in your state, I'm guessing.
    2
  13.  @gomahklawm4446  I didn't say this case was flimsy. I don't know why you keep implying I did. I said juries almost always convict, whether or not the defendant is factually guilty. You seem to be up on the "celebrity" cases, they come to mind easily for you. I wasn't referring to any of those, nor did I have them in mind. Those oddities are not relevant. The fact that a jury convicted someone does not mean that person was guilty. It simply means they were found guilty. I'm relieved to hear you will never be on a jury, but then I don't understand your concern that I might be. You brought it up. I don't know how minds such as yours are formed. Hence the question about marijuana legalization over by you.
    2
  14.  @gomahklawm4446  You came to jeer at a convicted murderer in a case where the evidence is persuasive but not ironclad, and you think someone else should get a life. Interesting. How does that happen?
    2
  15.  @DorothyJanetoo  I tend to think so, too.
    1
  16.  @gomahklawm4446  I hope you aren't ever on a jury. You can't follow a simple argument. I hope you aren't, but you will be. Lawyers like the gullible.
    1