>Hans hated Nina and wanted her out of the way: Proved.
If Gaskill were halfway honest he would have stated this:
>Hans hated Nina and wanted to kill here (to get her out of the way): NOT PROVED.
But Gaskill is not halfway honest, so he conflates "wants her out" with "kills her."
By the way, Nina started screwing Hans best friend about May 2001. She destroyed his life long friendship with Sturgeon. If Hans didn't kill her during her 3 year affair with Sturgeon, then he never would.
>Nina disappeared under sinister circumstances: Proved.
Sinister!?!?!? What were the sinister circumstances? Does he mean an ongoing divorce and related court action. Does he mean the sinister action of Hans looking after the kids on the day she disappeared.
Once more, Gaskill, being as dishonest as he is, wants you to see sinister circumstances, through the careful use of words.
Gaskill is trying to make circumstances appear sinister, even though they were not.
>If Nina could come back she would: Proved.
A total lie by Gaskill. If she is hiding out in Russia, by definition, she would not come back. Gaskill often resorts to telling lies, when it suits.
>Hans threatened Nina: Blocked [Pending - Hard Drive may reopen]
>Nina's blood was left behind in sinister places: Proved [Blood evidence is still solid, but some circumstantial doubt was added]
Gaskill is using words again to lie to you. Blood was found on a sleeping bag stuff-sack, on a post and a number of other places in the house. These places are not sinister.
The blood evidence is so poor, that the prosecution gave up on it and now claims that Hans chocked Nina with some judo hold. Gaskill does not mention this fact.
>Hans destroyed key evidence: Proved.
Hans tossed some car parts as he rearranged the car to sleep in. It is very questionable as to whether this was key evidence.
>No one else is a plausible suspect: Open [Sean Sturgeon is the wild card here.]
Ellen Doren actions are totally suspect. More so than those of Hans.
Ellen Doren should be on trial for murder.
>Hans has an alibi: Not Proved.
Hans has two witnesses who have provided alibis. Both son Rory and daughter Niorline have given multiple interviews to police and social workers concerning events. Gaskill deliberately ignores all this. Another example of him lying to you. If either Niorline or Rory had said anything implicating Hans, we would have read it in foot high letters in the controlled press.
>Hans has lied about important matters: Proved.
I think Hans has admitted to providing incorrect information concerning his habit of removing batteries from cellphones (this is totally unimportant anyway as turning a cellphone off, achieves the same effect as removing the battery).
>Hans behaved evasively when under suspicion: Proved.
Let's see how Ellen Doren reacts as her trial for murder begins.
>The only reasonable explanation is that Hans murdered Nina. ??? Still Open
More crap from Gaskill. There are many reasonable explanations that have been deliberately ignored by mouthpieces like Gaskill, the court system, etc.