GUILTY Australia - Andrew, 45, Rose, 44, & Chantelle Rowe, 16, slain, Kapunda, 8 Nov 2010 #4

[patroler]

Hmmm, I don't think you can match DNA to a fingerprint, it's an odd idea but could have happened.

Given he was a friend and had been in the house before fingerprints wouldn't mean anything. If they had unknown DNA from blood collected from around the house and towels etc they would need the persons DNA to match it to.

Also seems in past cases they don't like to let the suspect know they are a suspect if they don't have to.

remember the door that they took away - had bloody hand print on it - and a fair guess would be that the print belonged to the perp

 

[KG1]

I'd like to know what kind of DNA they took from whatever they removed from the shrine....what could he have left? ...Paper? (a note)....flowers??...a teddy bear??...And wouldn't it have been contaminated by everything else left there?

Thoughts??

Whatever the article was - spray of flowers, soft toy, card or note, then his hand/s would have touched it, and deposited perspiration, as it was a warm temperature.
It is my understanding from all the print media and news film that an interior door was removed from the Harriet St house - photos of a door wrapped in brown paper being carried from the house and being placed in a police or forensic vehicle were in the media. Within a day or so, police announced that they had a DNA profile from inside the house of an unknown male. During the investigations, many of the male friends volunteered their DNA pursuant to a police request for volunteers. Accused was apparently not one of those.

A day or so after the door removal, police removed some of the memorial items from the memorial at the back fence of the property. It could be assumed that they took a few items, but likely already knew the closer male friends of the family who had NOT so far volunteered their DNA, and would have included any of those friends in the removals. (Could not be seen to take just one). It is also highly likely that they had other information which could have assisted in homing in on the accused from other friends of CR who may have been aware of the alleged infatuation with her. The DNA match from the memorial item to the unknown male DNA from inside the house (the door) would then have been the confirmation for the police - hence the charges. Also the blood spots outside the house, if they belonged to the accused would have been unknown DNA at the time they were profiled. But they may also have been blood from the victims which was tramped into the street, and would not have been unknown DNA. I don't think we know whose blood it actually was as I don't believe that information has been released.
Even if the memorial item which matched was contaminated from other items, it would likely have undergone the process of elimination - only needed to find a match for the unknown DNA profile from inside the house. But if it was contaminated, then that is an arguable point for the defence at trial.

 

[anjay]

On the Toyota landcruiser parked outside the house around the time of the murder and two occupants and 1 seen leaving the vehicle.

15/11 DSGM states and wants to talk to them and can’t eliminate them from the enquiry until they do.

16/11 DSGM states if anyone has further info in regards to who may be involved, may have assisted the offender either before or after or during this offence, now is the time to come forward. I ask you to reflect on the nature of the crime and assist police. He said it was not unusual for more than one person to know about a crime or to become involved in it unintentionally after the fact.

Kind of makes me think they knew there was someone who knew, and that they wanted them to come forward & letting them know that they understand their involvement could in unintentional and therefore not an accessory maybe?

Then of course they arrested the accused later that day, so did someone come forward, sometime during that day, after the statement by DSGM that morning.

Is it possible that toward the end of the day they now had a DNA match and a statement by someone who came forward and whatever other evidence they had collected, thereby giving them enough to arrest and charge the accused?

 

[midsommer]

remember the door that they took away - had bloody hand print on it - and a fair guess would be that the print belonged to the perp

I never was able to find a reference to why they took that door away.
What did you find?

 

[anjay]

Whatever the article was - spray of flowers, soft toy, card or note, then his hand/s would have touched it, and deposited perspiration, as it was a warm temperature.
It is my understanding from all the print media and news film that an interior door was removed from the Harriet St house - photos of a door wrapped in brown paper being carried from the house and placed in a police or forensic were in the media. Within a day or so, police announced that they had a DNA profile from inside the house of an unknown male. During the investigations, many of the male friends volunteered their DNA pursuant to a police request for volunteers. Accused was apparently not one of those.

A day or so after the door removal, police removed some of the memorial items from the memorial at the back fence of the property. It could be assumed that they took a few items, but likely already knew the closer male friends of the family who had NOT so far volunteered their DNA, and would have included any of those friends in the removals. (Could not be seen to take just one). It is also highly likely that they had other information which could have assisted in homing in on the accused from other friends of CR who may have been aware of the alleged infatuation with her. The DNA match from the memorial item to the unknown male DNA from inside the house (the door) would then have been the confirmation for the police - hence the charges. Also the blood spots outside the house, if they belonged to the accused would have been unknown DNA at the time they were profiled. But they may also have been blood from the victims which was tramped into the street, and would not have been unknown DNA. I don't think we know whose blood it actually was as I don't believe that information has been released.
Even if the memorial item which matched was contaminated from other items, it would likely have undergone the process of elimination - only needed to find a match for the unknown DNA profile from inside the house. But if it was contaminated, then that is an arguable point for the defence at trial.

I agree with all you have said, the stories I read & videos I watched all said some or serveral or youths or males had been tested that were known to the family NOT ALL just some & that some had volunteered IF required.

 

[Cyclone82]

remember the door that they took away - had bloody hand print on it - and a fair guess would be that the print belonged to the perp

Yeah i was just about to say that. I reckon they had bloody finger prints or even non bloody fingerprints from an item or area of the house (im not sure what or where ATM) that the accused would have not normally touched by being a visitor to the house on a normal day. For example you would expect that on any normal visit to see CR that he would not have been going into her parents room and touching things in there. But yeah, bloody finger prints on the door sounds likely. It didn’t have to be his blood, it could have been the deceased’s blood. That bit of evidence could have been just to prove who's bloody finger prints they were. Then they removed the shrine to try and match any prints on the door or item in the house i assume. Yeah ok, i know some will say that the bloody finger prints may be from someone at the party who had a blood nose but i doubt if anyone would leave bloody fingerprints in someone’s house that they were a guest in. Anyway, I think by this time they already had enough other stronger evidence and bloody finger prints were just the icing on the cake really and they were in no way relying on bloody finger prints as the main evidence. If they had his bloody fingerprints (which im guessing they can date how old the blood is) and several sources of DNA in the house, well that would be pretty hard to explain. If there were bloody fingerprints, they were by no means the main eveidence they would have had. As others have also said, i bet they have a mountain of evidence.

 

[chaser33]

On the Toyota landcruiser parked outside the house around the time of the murder and two occupants and 1 seen leaving the vehicle.

15/11 DSGM states and wants to talk to them and can’t eliminate them from the enquiry until they do.

16/11 DSGM states if anyone has further info in regards to who may be involved, may have assisted the offender either before or after or during this offence, now is the time to come forward. I ask you to reflect on the nature of the crime and assist police. He said it was not unusual for more than one person to know about a crime or to become involved in it unintentionally after the fact.

Kind of makes me think they knew there was someone who knew, and that they wanted them to come forward & letting them know that they understand their involvement could in unintentional and therefore not an accessory maybe?

Then of course they arrested the accused later that day, so did someone come forward, sometime during that day, after the statement by DSGM that morning.

Is it possible that toward the end of the day they now had a DNA match and a statement by someone who came forward and whatever other evidence they had collected, thereby giving them enough to arrest and charge the accused?

The driver (17yr old male) allegidly came forward to police within days after the murders. his identity and evidence given would not be released to the public as they would see him as an accomplise to the suspect for driving him there. i remember the police saying they are no longer looking for this vehicle, which to me indicates they are worried that the public would attack anyone driving a matching vehicle, or the driver had already come forward. apparently the driver expressed his guilt through facebook status updates.

 

[KG1]

would it be safe to assume that he was a suspect within a day of the murders? the first thing police will do other than search the scene and surroundings for evidence is to go through the victims belongings..her phone would have been molested by msgs by him you would assume.

also, can someone tell me why he is appearing via video link on feb 2 for the case.

Where has it been stated that he is appearing via video link in February? He appeared or was scheduled to appear by video link yesterday (for further legal discussion re the suppression order), but as they has been absolutely no comment anywhere re yesterday, we don't know what happened. I doubt that it will be a video link in February, but who knows?

 

[nobody11]

The driver (17yr old male) allegidly came forward to police within days after the murders. his identity and evidence given would not be released to the public as they would see him as an accomplise to the suspect for driving him there. i remember the police saying they are no longer looking for this vehicle, which to me indicates they are worried that the public would attack anyone driving a matching vehicle, or the driver had already come forward. apparently the driver expressed his guilt through facebook status updates.

You seen the status or just heard?

Ok here is a question for everyone, I have asked this before but didn't get a response that made sense to me

If you were a police officer in this case, you had an inkling that maybe this kid may have done it, at some point when you were questioning him, would you ask to see his arms for injuries?

Remember he is a mechanic so he has injuries caused from work on his hands so you can visually see these

 

[singers]

Lots of good posts above, I had forgotten about the door!

One thing in defense of the person who drove him there is that one things rings true for every rumor we have heard, people were shocked when they heard who it was. Whoever drove him there would not have thought he was about to kill 3 ppl

 

[nobody11]

remember the door that they took away - had bloody hand print on it - and a fair guess would be that the print belonged to the perp

Was it released there was a hand print on it? That had me stumped why they took that away!

 

[anjay]

The driver (17yr old male) allegidly came forward to police within days after the murders. his identity and evidence given would not be released to the public as they would see him as an accomplise to the suspect for driving him there. i remember the police saying they are no longer looking for this vehicle, which to me indicates they are worried that the public would attack anyone driving a matching vehicle, or the driver had already come forward. apparently the driver expressed his guilt through facebook status updates.

Okay- something doesn't add with that: DSGM video footage of the statement made by him appealing the occupants of the vehicle was only made on the 15 & morning of the 16th if they had already spoken to him why would he draw attention to them again just before the arrest?

 

[anjay]

Lots of good posts above, I had forgotten about the door!

One thing in defense of the person who drove him there is that one things rings true for every rumor we have heard, people were shocked when they heard who it was. Whoever drove him there would not have thought he was about to kill 3 ppl

Exactly which is why I believe the police were so adament to include in their statements that any involvement by other person(s) would have been more than likely unintentional.

 

[nobody11]

Okay- something doesn't add with that: DSGM video footage of the statement made by him appealing the occupants of the vehicle was only made on the 15 & morning of the 16th if they had already spoken to him why would he draw attention to them again just before the arrest?

To be honest I am sure they were still seeking the owner of the Toyota after the arrest

 

[midsommer]

The driver (17yr old male) allegidly came forward to police within days after the murders. his identity and evidence given would not be released to the public as they would see him as an accomplise to the suspect for driving him there. i remember the police saying they are no longer looking for this vehicle, which to me indicates they are worried that the public would attack anyone driving a matching vehicle, or the driver had already come forward. apparently the driver expressed his guilt through facebook status updates.

The person who expressed their guilt in a post on FB was the neighbour diagonally behind. He was expressing his guilt about not calling the police as he was the neighbour who heard the screams.

The last police request for info re the white Toyota was on the day before the arrest.

REF:http://www.sapolice.sa.gov.au/public/download.jsp?id=49922

16/11/10 Kapunda murders – vehicle of interest
South Australia Police Major Crime Detectives investigating the
murder of Andrew, Rose and Chantelle Rowe are asking the public’s
help to identify a vehicle. The vehicle of interest is a white Toyota
4WD landcruiser tray top. The vehicle with two people in it was seen
in Harriet Street around midnight on Sunday 7 November. Police
would like to identify the vehicle’s owner. If anyone saw the vehicle in
Harriet Street, knows the vehicle owner of knows the whereabouts of
the vehicle, they are asked to call BankSA Crime Stoppers on 1800
333 000 or report online at www.sa.crimestoppers.com.au

 

[midsommer]

You seen the status or just heard?

Ok here is a question for everyone, I have asked this before but didn't get a response that made sense to me

If you were a police officer in this case, you had an inkling that maybe this kid may have done it, at some point when you were questioning him, would you ask to see his arms for injuries?

Remember he is a mechanic so he has injuries caused from work on his hands so you can visually see these

Yes

 

[chaser33]

Okay- something doesn't add with that: DSGM video footage of the statement made by him appealing the occupants of the vehicle was only made on the 15 & morning of the 16th if they had already spoken to him why would he draw attention to them again just before the arrest?

as the suspect wasnt arrested at this stage, the police would have said that so the suspect didnt think that the driver dobbed him in, therefore making it aware that they are coming for him.

the drivers statement was hidden, as was his identity, id say for protection from the public, but more so, protection from the suspect.

 

[singers]

Was it released there was a hand print on it? That had me stumped why they took that away!

Good question - what was on the door? Blood evidence, handprints, fingerprints, knife marks? (could help identify the knife? )
What else could have been on the door? You'd think it would have to be something you can't scrape off, so prints or knife marks?

A hole punched by hand so may have dna from skin?

Actually I think we did ask about the door before, and came up with the same answers. Anyone else think of what could be on the door?

 

[nobody11]

Yes

I am so with you there and I would have arrested him without DNA if he had them so called slashes!

 

[chaser33]

The person who expressed their guilt in a post on FB was the neighbour diagonally behind. He was expressing his guilt about not calling the police as he was the neighbour who heard the screams.

The last police request for info re the white Toyota was on the day before the arrest.

REF:http://www.sapolice.sa.gov.au/public/download.jsp?id=49922

16/11/10 Kapunda murders – vehicle of interest
South Australia Police Major Crime Detectives investigating the
murder of Andrew, Rose and Chantelle Rowe are asking the public’s
help to identify a vehicle. The vehicle of interest is a white Toyota
4WD landcruiser tray top. The vehicle with two people in it was seen
in Harriet Street around midnight on Sunday 7 November. Police
would like to identify the vehicle’s owner. If anyone saw the vehicle in
Harriet Street, knows the vehicle owner of knows the whereabouts of
the vehicle, they are asked to call BankSA Crime Stoppers on 1800
333 000 or report online at www.sa.crimestoppers.com.au

like i said apparently the driver posted up status's. one said "i use to play fight with him and he would give me this look, i knew he had it in him"
it was on a site called gabbermouth, but has since been removed