Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He wouldn't have thrown anything out in his community dumpster.
He dumped what he was going to dump on that circular commute back to his apartment.
That is very possible, but don't you think the investigators searched that area?
Anyway, we are talking about his personal DNA evidence, not about the murder weapon or other crime scene related items. DNA can be gotten from anything he threw away.
nah.........he was nerdy, over-read crime documentaries/ watched too many Dexter shows and thought he could pull off a quad murder right out of the gate.
Reading the evidence, they have had this guy nailed since 11/25. Cell phone and car on video nailed him.
If he rented a car, left the cell phone at home the cops would likely be still scratching their heads. Once they had him as a suspect they just needed a few weeks to put all the pieces together.
I doubt a rental car would have worked. I'm sure they checked with all the rental companies in the area. He would have had to steal a car, or park a long distance away and walk or bike to the crime scene.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 11 days ago)
35,637 posts, read 17,994,810 times
Reputation: 50679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metlakatla
We don't know what they'd have. They could have blood DNA by now for all we know.
Well right.
But they had to first start with crime scene DNA, that they got from the clasp on the knife shield.
Blood DNA will be needed before trial, but it would take crime scene DNA (which they got from the shield) to start your comparison. Had they not had DNA from the scene, taking his DNA would be pointless, because they'd have nothing to match it to.
But they had to first start with crime scene DNA, that they got from the clasp on the knife shield.
Blood DNA will be needed before trial, but it would take crime scene DNA (which they got from the shield) to start your comparison. Had they not had DNA from the scene, taking his DNA would be pointless, because they'd have nothing to match it to.
Yeah, that's not what I meant at all. Think before you pounce, please.
Again, we don't know what they have, including other crime scene DNA that he may have left behind. As in possibly cutting himself during the course of the murders and leaving a drop or two of blood somewhere. That would take quite some time to tease out. The point was that it isn't realistic to make judgement calls about the case against him based on the probable cause affidavit.
Last edited by Metlakatla; 01-06-2023 at 06:23 PM..
But they had to first start with crime scene DNA, that they got from the clasp on the knife shield.
Blood DNA will be needed before trial, but it would take crime scene DNA (which they got from the shield) to start your comparison. Had they not had DNA from the scene, taking his DNA would be pointless, because they'd have nothing to match it to.
Crime scene DNA could include fibers, sweat, blood, anything perp could possibly have left behind, all kinds of things could have happened and showed up as evidence that police won't/can't/better not reveal; that's the sort of stuff that's for the trial. ID police, Moscow & state, seem very capable and thorough. Affidavit is the minimum, bare bones, of what they are revealing to demonstrate cause for arrest warrant, I think. I don't know anything about procedures in crime scenes, case development, etc. I just have read a LOT of mystery novels.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 11 days ago)
35,637 posts, read 17,994,810 times
Reputation: 50679
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowsgarden1
Crime scene DNA could include fibers, sweat, blood, anything perp could possibly have left behind, all kinds of things could have happened and showed up as evidence that police won't/can't/better not reveal; that's the sort of stuff that's for the trial. ID police, Moscow & state, seem very capable and thorough. Affidavit is the minimum, bare bones, of what they are revealing to demonstrate cause for arrest warrant, I think. I don't know anything about procedures in crime scenes, case development, etc. I just have read a LOT of mystery novels.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but fibers aren't DNA. They are physical evidence, though.
All this aside, it seems to me they've got the guy. I can't imagine wiggling around his DNA on a knife sheath found in the room of the stabbing victims.
Imagine his surprise when he went back to the house at 9:30 in the morning, and there was zero hubub. What a surprise. He could have walked back in there, and gotten his knife sheath if he realized he'd left it, and this would be a different case at this point, IMHO.
But they had to first start with crime scene DNA, that they got from the clasp on the knife shield.
Blood DNA will be needed before trial, but it would take crime scene DNA (which they got from the shield) to start your comparison. Had they not had DNA from the scene, taking his DNA would be pointless, because they'd have nothing to match it to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC
Not to put too fine a point on it, but fibers aren't DNA. They are physical evidence, though.
All this aside, it seems to me they've got the guy. I can't imagine wiggling around his DNA on a knife sheath found in the room of the stabbing victims.
Imagine his surprise when he went back to the house at 9:30 in the morning, and there was zero hubub. What a surprise. He could have walked back in there, and gotten his knife sheath if he realized he'd left it, and this would be a different case at this point, IMHO.
Yes fibers could be evidence, traceable, or maybe clothes/cloth transfers that hold DNA, I don't know at all, just guessing. Also saliva. Probably lots of evidence/DNA left at scene.
I was probably thinking skin sheds, hairs or hair/scalp sheds. I thought of skin and hair as fibers. Probably inaccurate. I don't know.
I'm not certain he could have walked back in there without something big happening because of the two living roommates. It would have been horrible, another horrific event for them I guess, if that had actually happened.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 11 days ago)
35,637 posts, read 17,994,810 times
Reputation: 50679
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowsgarden1
Yes fibers could be evidence, traceable, or maybe clothes/cloth transfers that hold DNA, I don't know at all, just guessing. Also saliva. Probably lots of evidence/DNA left at scene.
I was probably thinking skin sheds, hairs or hair/scalp sheds. I thought of skin and hair as fibers. Probably inaccurate. I don't know.
I'm not certain he could have walked back in there without something big happening because of the two living roommates. It would have been horrible, another horrific event for them I guess, if that had actually happened.
Unbeknownst to the murderer, the roommates didn't wake up until noonish.
Thank goodness he didn't press his luck and retrieve the sheath.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
