Ok when i saw that thing about a ** yr old girl on FB I did not interpret that they were saying a girl was involved. The way i understood it someone said something was on someones page and then somone else said something like dont get her involved shes only ** yrs old or something but then i could see how some people were interpreting that there was a girl involved, but i didnt interpret it that way at all. Anyway im not sure we can look much into that if we no longer have the screen caps from the 'Kupunda murders' site or was it on the tribute site??
It would be pretty damming i would say. They aint gonna charge someone if they find their blood on a tissue in the bin from a blood nose or sweat on the fridge door handle from a party the night before. It would be more like the accuseds blood found on one of the dead bodies and the accuseds bloody finger prints found with the desceasds blood on them. dont know how you would talk you way out of that one!.
If the DNA at the scene didnt match the accuseds i dont see how they would arrest him, basically pack up and go home if they thought there was only a slight chance he was the guy. They would'nt just arrest someone on light evidence. There have been no fresh calls for witnesses' or information from the police indicating they are lookig for someone else, so im sure that they are sure they got the right guy.
Ok lets say say the only DNA they have of the accused is some blood on a tissue which could be claimed it was from the night of the party when he had a blood nose for example. Now remember that the forensics only found one lot of unknown DNA. That must of ment that who ever killed the family didnt leave ANY DNA AT ALL! because the police only found one lot. So in that scenario it would have ment that the murderer was a highly experienced killer and knew how to leave no traces of himself/herself behind, oh but they were still inexperienced enough to leave a trail of bloody foot prints from the door leading outside to the foot path!. That doesnt make sense to me.
Which returns us to the question, if it wasnt the accused whos responsible then who hated CR enough to do this or hire a semi pro killer to this??? Its so far fetched its not funny.
We keep getting back to DNA evidence. Unfortunately we have no idea what sort and how much and how damning it is.
It would be pretty damming i would say. They aint gonna charge someone if they find their blood on a tissue in the bin from a blood nose or sweat on the fridge door handle from a party the night before. It would be more like the accuseds blood found on one of the dead bodies and the accuseds bloody finger prints found with the desceasds blood on them. dont know how you would talk you way out of that one!.
If the DNA at the scene didnt match the accuseds i dont see how they would arrest him, basically pack up and go home if they thought there was only a slight chance he was the guy. They would'nt just arrest someone on light evidence. There have been no fresh calls for witnesses' or information from the police indicating they are lookig for someone else, so im sure that they are sure they got the right guy.
Ok lets say say the only DNA they have of the accused is some blood on a tissue which could be claimed it was from the night of the party when he had a blood nose for example. Now remember that the forensics only found one lot of unknown DNA. That must of ment that who ever killed the family didnt leave ANY DNA AT ALL! because the police only found one lot. So in that scenario it would have ment that the murderer was a highly experienced killer and knew how to leave no traces of himself/herself behind, oh but they were still inexperienced enough to leave a trail of bloody foot prints from the door leading outside to the foot path!. That doesnt make sense to me.
Which returns us to the question, if it wasnt the accused whos responsible then who hated CR enough to do this or hire a semi pro killer to this??? Its so far fetched its not funny.