Arrest in Malibu Creek shootings.

Good news!

 ​https://www.cbsnews.com/news/malibu-creek-state-park-murder-anthony-rauda-accused-of-killing-tristan-beaudette-camping-daughters/​​​

Thanks for posting. Good news, indeed.

A relief for sure. 

https://www.gq.com/story/unsolved-mystery-of-malibu-creek-murder?utm_source=onsite-share&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=onsite-share&utm_brand=gq

 
 
Interesting follow-up, in-depth

Matt, that was a good article, thanks for sharing.

Matt N. I just read this GQ article. It's a long article but a good read. For everybody else, it has a lot of interesting information and recommend reading. It certainly leaves me unsettled and doubting that they actually caught the right person. I mean the person that they did catch does seem to be shady, but as the article indicates, there's scant forensic evidence linking him to the actual murder.  It talks about a confrontation police had with a guy before the arrest where the guy moved in a way that people are trained in the military to move (the guy who was arrested doesn't have military experience). Then it says that gunshots have been heard in the area even after the guy was arrested. It talks about officials squabbling over who has jurisdiction to investigate the crimes reported there and how the LA Sheriff's department was trying to cover up reports of crime to make Malibu seem 'safer.'

La Chivita wrote: Matt N. I just read this GQ article. It's a long article but a good read. For everybody else, it has a lot of interesting information and recommend reading. It certainly leaves me unsettled and doubting that they actually caught the right person. I mean the person that they did catch does seem to be shady, but as the article indicates, there's scant forensic evidence linking him to the actual murder.  It talks about a confrontation police had with a guy before the arrest where the guy moved in a way that people are trained in the military to move (the guy who was arrested doesn't have military experience). Then it says that gunshots have been heard in the area even after the guy was arrested. It talks about officials squabbling over who has jurisdiction to investigate the crimes reported there and how the LA Sheriff's department was trying to cover up reports of crime to make Malibu seem 'safer.'

The general public doesn't have, or know, all the facts and evidence that law enforcement does. Neither does the author of the article, but it was a good read. Probably not a good idea to try the case on Mountain Project.

FrankPS wrote:

The general public doesn't have, or know, all the facts and evidence that law enforcement does. Neither does the author of the article, but it was a good read. Probably not a good idea to try the case on Mountain Project.

I don’t think she’s trying to do that anymore than you are.  You are correct that details of crimes are often not released since they can reflect on the suspect’s state of mind, which is often an element of a particular offense.  However, and I’m reserving judgment here, but the annuals of criminal justice are filled with perps in the wrong place that are used to satisfy society’s need for the appearnace of justice.

My intent is to get the word out about what’s going on  Most of the news stories and posts about this case I’ve read make it sound like this case is closed and they caught the right person. This is the first article I came across that puts doubt into that. So maybe it’s not a good idea to be in the area after dark. 

Cops love a good easy scapegoat. Super easy to grab a homeless and crazy person and say they did it. Seems like typical lazy police work. 

Ben Pellerin wrote: Cops love a good easy scapegoat. Super easy to grab a homeless and crazy person and say they did it. Seems like typical lazy police work. 

Would you say this to a cop?  I'm gonna say no.

Ben Pellerin wrote: Cops love a good easy scapegoat. Super easy to grab a homeless and crazy person and say they did it. Seems like typical lazy police work. 

Interesting theory :). Do you think prosecutors proceed on a case with no evidence against the fall guy?

Edit: I noticed you are from Spaceship Earth. Now it makes sense.

I remember the Dude had some trouble in Malibu, you have to remember not to cross Jackie, "he treats objects like women".

Frank PS - I was going to reply to your post but given this site is about climbing, decided to send the discussion back to the original intent. Malibu State Park is a popular rock climbing area and those who go there should be informed of what's going on in this case and make decisions about their stay there. Just because an arrest was made doesn't mean they caught the person responsible for the murder that happened here,  or the other shootings for that matter, and it doesn't mean it is a safe place to be after dark. 

m Mobes wrote:

Would you say this to a cop?  I'm gonna say no.

Cops don’t support the First Amendment?  I think they get more than enough flak on a daily basis to hear criticism of how they do their jobs.  

m Mobes wrote:

Would you say this to a cop?  I'm gonna say no.

Most certainly would. 

FrankPS wrote:

Interesting theory :). Do you think prosecutors proceed on a case with no evidence against the fall guy?

Edit: I noticed you are from Spaceship Earth. Now it makes sense.

I noticed your from California which means you should understand the average person is easily swayed by circumstantial evidence. You dont need to prove the fall guy did it. Just convince a "jury of their peers" that they did. Unless they announce some real evidence everything stated is circumstantial. Doesn't take much to convince 12 average Americans of anything. 

Ben Pellerin wrote:

I noticed your from California which means you should understand the average person is easily swayed by circumstantial evidence. You dont need to prove the fall guy did it. Just convince a "jury of their peers" that they did. Unless they announce some real evidence everything stated is circumstantial. Doesn't take much to convince 12 average Americans of anything. 

Yep, keep spewing BS and the world  becomes full of BS. Similar to talking shit to cops or much harder climbers than yourself.

Ben Pellerin wrote:

I noticed your from California which means you should understand the average person is easily swayed by circumstantial evidence. You dont need to prove the fall guy did it. Just convince a "jury of their peers" that they did. Unless they announce some real evidence everything stated is circumstantial. Doesn't take much to convince 12 average Americans of anything. 

So the prosecutors will take a case to court with no evidence? I'm pretty sure they need more than the cops saying "he did it." Anyway, it's obvious you don't like cops and that's your prerogative.

And circumstantial evidence can be very compelling. It is "real" evidence.

Did any one of you talking about circumstantial evidence, cop ethics, so on and so forth read the original article that talks about the details in the case?? If not, read it and then comment. It's a long article: https://www.gq.com/story/unsolved-mystery-of-malibu-creek-murder 

First, the cops caught a lot of flak for not disclosing the incidents before the murder (some instances not even investigating them). The publicity affected the election for the top sheriff so as the article states, it created an urgency to 'solve' the case. There have been many documented instances in the past of scapegoating to 'solve' cases in many police departments. It happens. And I've met some really good cops and some really shady cops, so I'm not trying to throw cops under the bus by saying there are bad cops out there.

Secondly, the 'burden of proof' in a criminal trail is based on 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' If you have a criminal trail based on a lot of circumstantial evidence, it becomes more difficult to convince a jury.

m Mobes wrote:

Yep, keep spewing BS and the world  becomes full of BS. Similar to talking shit to cops or much harder climbers than yourself.

There is a lot of truth to this.  You don’t appear to be comforable with or willing to accept it, but that does not make it any less true.

BTW, Frank is correct. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence.  I believe a prosecutor should have more than that to try a case, but it hasn’t stopped many from trying one with just that.  Black defendant, white prosecutor and jury, a conservative jury pool who would never believe that a cop might lie or arrest someone that is not guilty.  Add to that a politically motivated DA and you’re going to trial with a good likelihood of a conviction, circumstantial evidence or  not.  Many are more interested in the appearance of justice rather than knowing the truth.