This page is just a list of some examples where common sense was ignored in several of the various cases looked at on this website.
1) Hser Ner Moo
There are two main possible scenarios in this death.
- An older person got angry at Hser Ner Moo and injured then killed her. Then that person staged a sex crime. / This website's theory.
- A person raped and murdered her because they were attracted to her sexually. / The mainstream theory.
Common sense aspect / There are 100 cases per year of a stranger murdering a child for sex, and almost all of them involve older victims. That motive in the murder of a 7 year old is very rare.
Injuring or killing a child because an adult loses their temper is very common though.
A person could guess very roughly that for every person 7 years old or under who is raped and murdered there are maybe a thousand who are killed by somebody who lost their temper.
"In 2019, state agencies identified an estimated 1,840 children who died as a result of abuse and neglect — an average of five children a day. However, studies also indicate significant undercounting of child maltreatment fatalities by some state agencies by 50% or more."
In other words, in general terms before looking at specifics, it is maybe a thousand times more likely, a very rough guess, that the death was the result of an adult losing their temper or otherwise venting anger at a child due to the child's vulnerability.
The curve ball was how the body was positioned i.e., to suggest a sexual motive, but that motive was easily discredited by investigators who then had to focus on their real problem i.e., a heavily reported confession from somebody who was not involved.
2) Uta von Schwedler
Again two main possible death scenarios.
- She accidentally took too many chemicals and died.
- Her husband staged an elaborate false accident / suicide.
Common sense aspect / An accidental death after playing with chemicals is many thousands of times more common than a staged accident / suicide. So there has to be some credible evidence that negates that statistical fact. In other words almost any death can be imagined to be a murder, but when a specific type of death is much more common than an associated type of murder then there has to be evidence which is beyond circumstantial, or at least there has to be very strong circumstantial evidence. The evidence is discussed on another page, and it can be politely summarized by calling it non existent.
Here is an interesting reader comment, from an article on that case, that gives more information.
He is responding to the comment
"From what I have read it did place some doubt in my mind for sure if he did it."
And the reader's reply is
"Then again, Use your brain, you've gotten your information from a news story which is at best, a brief encapsulation of very general (and often inaccurate) details. I'd certainly hope you don't have enough information to convict; however, your comment suggests that the jurors also did not have sufficient information to justify a conviction, which is a rather arrogant presumption to make considering you are not privy to all the information the jury was, even if you attended every day of the trial. Have you not ever seen someone 'swear on their mother's grave' that they were innocent of something, but you could tell they were lying a mile away? Granted, maybe you weren't on a jury at the time, but did it make your observations any less real? No, certainly not. You knew with absolute certainty that the person was lying, period, and no one would have been able to convince you otherwise. That happens in court, too. Criminals aren't usually real bright, but some are. Rarely, though, is a criminal brighter than 12 of his peers who are trying to find the truth. Unless he's innocent, it's unlikely his mistakes will escape scrutiny..."
"Use your brain, you've gotten your information from a news story which is at best, a brief encapsulation of very general (and often inaccurate) details"
which is not true.
Then he says the previous commenter was making "a rather arrogant presumption" in supposing the convicted person might not be guilty.
Then he says
"Have you not ever seen someone 'swear on their mother's grave' that they were innocent of something, but you could tell they were lying a mile away? Granted, maybe you weren't on a jury at the time, but did it make your observations any less real? No, certainly not. You knew with absolute certainty that the person was lying, period, and no one would have been able to convince you otherwise. That happens in court, too."
which suggests the convicted person was obviously lying, and the conviction proves that, which is circular nonsense.
Then he says the 12 jurors, or "peers who are trying to find the truth", are brighter than "a criminal", which is also a circular way of thinking. All they have to do is convict somebody who is smarter than they are, and suddenly they are smarter because of their number, their group.
He ends with a common church double entendre "Unless he's innocent, it's unlikely his mistakes will escape scrutiny" meaning he believes they have the right to convict a person, of anything, as long as they feel the accused is more guilty than they are, of something.
An interesting side note about that commenter. He appears to be LDS, and accustomed to using his group to arbitrarily overpower others. He uses language that tries to go over the heads of 'outsiders' so that other people will know 'he is one of us and we have to cover him'. The owner of the website 'Websleuths' is also from that area but is not LDS as far as I know. She though knows and uses the same sort of group references, and it's likely that her success in that geographic area boils down to her understanding of how to signal others in that group that she is 'one of us' even if she may be from another group. It's entirely the same as any gangster process anywhere, and has absolutely nothing to do with justice, anymore than John Gotti giving gifts to the public had to do with charity.
3) Joseph Paul Franklin
The FBI obviously fabricated a lot of things in order to use Franklin as the solution to all of its unsolved racial hate crimes of an era. There are no shortage of examples of a lack of common sense in the fantasies concocted by the FBI, but one stands out.
Franklin sold blood or blood products, like a lot of homeless or less well off people do in places where that is an option. But part of the FBI fiction was that he was also constantly robbing banks.
Those two occupations are a bit hard to reconcile, but the FBI employees who made up the bank robberies were so confident in their ability to counteract common sense, i.e., to force nonsense on the public, that 'common sense' was not even a factor.
4) Patricia Rorrer, et al
This is a different kind of common sense issue.
There is quite a bit of doubt about her guilt, but the common sense issue involves imprisoning somebody for 'life plus' for a crime that is not likely to repeat. Even if a person believes she is guilty, it would mean she was jealous of the wife of somebody she had spent 5 years with, and there are not a lot of future potential victims most likely. A person who commits a random murder and who likely might tend to continue that would usually get a much lighter sentence than she got.
Prison is something from hundreds of years ago but common sense would be that a system, i.e., the people running a system, would have some tendency to update.
5) Beverly Lynn Smith
This is a documentary about a Canadian police "mr big" sting.
One 'common sense' aspect of the case is the fact that what police officers do as part of a group eventually will be done to those same police officers as individuals.
In this case police did not have a viable suspect in a murder so they created an elaborate scenario to get a false confession. Somehow they documented their mischief enough that a judge was able to see what they did and a film maker was able to make a film about it.
The person they selected was targeted entirely for his vulnerability to the ruse, and not for any evidence that he may have been the killer.
This is a common feature of policing in melting pots. Crimes, and the focus of police, are contorted however necessary so that the police only face softer weaker targets.
As in many similar cases, once the misdeeds are exposed the police involved defend their mistakes. Something that can only be done by people who feel they are protected by their membership in a powerful group.
One of the main players actually participated in the film and was interviewed and seems to be proud. Like almost all police he lives in a bubble that will pop eventually. If he escapes his children will not.
This particular police operation involved a lot of people, a lot of resources and had absolutely no reason to be done. The film makes clear that the police 'target' was a fairly simple guy who could have been drawn to confess very easily if he had been guilty, and if their were any police in that region who had enough integrity to conduct a basic honest interview. Neither of those conditions existed.
Police are not hired for their ability to do anything well. They are hired entirely for obedience. When such large operations can be conducted with absolutely no adult supervision it is not a good sign.