GUILTY Australia - Andrew, 45, Rose, 44, & Chantelle Rowe, 16, slain, Kapunda, 8 Nov 2010 #5

[patroler]

SPECULATION - FEEL FREE TO SHOOT DOWN IN FLAMES

I was thinking about what I posted above.
The accused has been described as a loyal friend.
CR's b/f was his best friend and had been since they were 12.

WHAT IF....

When he initially heard about the murder, the accused panicked, wondering if the b/f was involved (I'm not saying the b/f was involved, bear with me).

Maybe, in the easliest part of the investigation, the accused didn't tell the entire truth, or perhaps seemed to be holding something back, out of some sort of loyalty to his best friend.

Maybe this lead to some confusion and conflicting stories that led the police to think HE might be guilty?

I am just thinking out lou here- nothing substantial, just a beginning of an idea, maybe.

last night we were only speculating about the type of person that would commit a crime like this - just like you are speculating right now - just rember that it is the accused that has been arrested on DNA evidence that is fact and that is not speculation

 

[Mrs G Norris]

OK I have a question too, why are you so convinced they have the wrong person and put up numerous theories which suggest the police made an error, are you just playing devils advocate for the sake of argument?

 

[KG1]

SPECULATION - FEEL FREE TO SHOOT DOWN IN FLAMES

I was thinking about what I posted above.
The accused has been described as a loyal friend.
CR's b/f was his best friend and had been since they were 12.

WHAT IF....

When he initially heard about the murder, the accused panicked, wondering if the b/f was involved (I'm not saying the b/f was involved, bear with me).

Maybe, in the easliest part of the investigation, the accused didn't tell the entire truth, or perhaps seemed to be holding something back, out of some sort of loyalty to his best friend.

Maybe this lead to some confusion and conflicting stories that led the police to think HE might be guilty?

I am just thinking out lou here- nothing substantial, just a beginning of an idea, maybe.

The DNA profile of an unknown male went from being unknown to a match with the accused. It was probably very strong evidence found inside the house, such as blood on a door from a slash or a cut on the arm of the accused. That type of evidence could not be casually explained away unless he had bled in the house previously, but then again forensics would be able to tell the age of the blood from blood properties. Further there was only one unknown male profile reported. We had not heard of any other unknown DNA profiles.

From the time of his entry into the police station (after he finished work for the day, plus a 20 minutes drive to the police station), to the announcement by police outside of the 3 murder charges was a relatively short time.

We may find that when this comes to court for trial, that there will be a guilty plea, and the details of the crimes will not emerge. That is asuming that there is no alibi etc, but I think the DNA is too strong to be rebutted.

 

[midsommer]

last night we were only speculating about the type of person that would commit a crime like this - just like you are speculating right now - just rember that it is the accused that has been arrested on DNA evidence that is fact and that is not speculation

Fair enough, but sorry, it was not clear to me people were only speculating.

Patroller - can you show me anhy link where the police, or even just the medi,a actually say the arrest was based on DNA. please?

I have looked but not found it stated anywhere that his arrest was due to DNA evidence.

People are, imo, tying together 2 bits of information that may or may not be related:
1. police announced they had DNA of an unknown male
and
2. man was arrested.

I know I have asked this before, several times, but so far nobody has shown me a link stating that. Mostly people have just said "well of course they have DNA evidence or the police would not have arrested him", which I find to be an ver unsatisfactory answer.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Due to the suppression order we are all aware of I doubt there is such a link. However a realistic view of events, with the suspect remanded in custody until Feb, long after police have had time to obtain and compare his DNA to that collected from the crime scene allows us to make this simple deduction. Halting the conversation at this point and over this detail is somewhat frustrating and unnecessary.

 

[Cyclone82]

If they haven't arrested him on DNA evidence then what could be so strong that they could arrest and charge someone for 3 murders and then not have to worry about finding the person who does match the DNA? Ok lets say they have arrested someone who doesn't match the DNA. Wouldnt you think that they would still be concerned and really want to find the person that did match the DNA? If they were still looking for somone to match the DNA they found i dont think they would just let the case fade away from the news and every so often there would be news flashes reminding people to contact police if they have any bit of information that can help them.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

^ and I am sure if the above was the case his high powered attorney would have brought the matter before the courts and asked for a dismissal of charges, or at the very least bail pending a hearing on the matter.

 

[Myserty64]

Well this thread has grown considerably since I last posted here.

My main interest is unsolved abductions and cold cases.
One case in Orlando is almost five years old and there is no crime scene, no body, no physical evidence and no witnesses.
This is one tough case to crack and now the FBI is involved.

The Rowe family murders, on the other hand, has a crime scene. It has been reported as a horrendous crime scene.
There are three bodies. It has been reported they have multiple wounds.
It has been reported witnesses heard screams and saw a vehicle parked out in the front of the Rowe’s house.
The police may have other witnesses.

They have physical evidence in the form of DNA.
Do they have other physical evidence such as footprints, finger prints or even the attackers skin from the victims fingernails?
We simply don’t know.
But be assured the police will be building a strong case, bit by bit, day by day.
Remember the detectives operate in the present time.
They examined the crime scene, attended the autopsies, found and examined physical evidence and the have interviewed untold numbers of people.
We here are left with media reports and tidbits from those who claim to be 'in the know.'

I would think a lot of young people are having difficulty accepting the very real possibility one of their peers committed this awful crime.
There is, however, no ‘one size fits all’ with murderers.
Killers can be young, old, either gender and come from any background. Doctors, nurses, rubbish collectors, policemen and women, celebrities, politicians and people from any other walk of life have committed murder.

As for the reason the three Rowe family members were murdered; possibly we will never know. Perhaps the perpetrator doesn’t know.
Or, the reason might come out at the trial.

When one notorious serial killer was asked ‘why’ he replied:

‘it was an urge…….a strong urge, and the longer I let it go the stronger it got, to where I was taking risks to go out and kill people……………………’

So that was his reasoning. Will the Rowe’s killer have his reason?

The only mystery about this case is: why.

 

[midsommer]

OK I have a question too, why are you so convinced they have the wrong person and put up numerous theories which suggest the police made an error, are you just playing devils advocate for the sake of argument?

I am not convinced that the police have the wrong person. I am simply wondering if they do, if they have made a mistake, and if there could be another explanation.

Initially I was stuck by 2 things that I cannot understand and that make me wonder about his guilt. One is that people who do personally know him seem united in believing that this crime is not in his nature or character. The second is that, despite a lot of unfounded speculation about jealousy and obsession, nobody seems able to come up with a motive for him in relation to the crime.

More recently, my scepticism has increase because of the 2 suppression orders.

I can understand the one about the second charge, if it is sexual, but I cannot understand the suppression order, requested by the prosecutor (not the defence) suppressing his name and image.

I have not put this here before because I cannot find an Australian case to use as an example, but I have looked at US and British cases where the prosecution has asked for a suppression order.

In those overseas cases, the only times the prosecution has requested a supression order to prevent the accused being identified, it has been because the prosecution does not believe there is a strong enough case to take it to court.

You will remember that when the suppression order on his name was first announced, the police report said it was to enable them to investigate his alibi.

As I see it, this means the prosecution were concerend that the alibi might exonerate the accused before the case went to trial.

I probably never would have posted my thoughts on this forum if it seemed to me people were accepting the rule of "presumed innocence" or "innocent until proven guilty", but that was not the case.

When I first started reading this forum I was distressed by how many people had decided he was guilty, simply because he had been charged.

I will admit that this attitude made me extremely upset, so I decided to begin posting my own thoughts here, in the hope that other people would also be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[midsommer]

For anyone who believes that forensic DNA testing is infallable, it might be interesting to read this article.

The Potential for Error in Forensic DNA Testing (and How That
Complicates the Use of DNA Databases for Criminal Identification)
by William C. Thompson, Department of Criminology, Law & Society, University of California, Irvine, August 12, 2008

This paper discusses how DNA profiling can be in error due to:

• coincidental DNA profile matches between different people
• inadvertent or accidental transfer of cellular material or DNA from one item to another
• errors in identification or labelling of samples
• misinterpretation of test results
• intentional planting of biological evidence

http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/pageDocuments/H4T5EOYUZI.pdf

If you read through that entire paper, you will read how the investigation of the murder of the toddler, Jayden Leske, in Victoria was complicated and confused by disasterous errors in DNA profiling and DNA based evidence.

It can happen, it does happen, and it happend very recently in Victoria.

 

[aimeli]

If they haven't arrested him on DNA evidence then what could be so strong that they could arrest and charge someone for 3 murders and then not have to worry about finding the person who does match the DNA? Ok lets say they have arrested someone who doesn't match the DNA. Wouldnt you think that they would still be concerned and really want to find the person that did match the DNA? If they were still looking for somone to match the DNA they found i dont think they would just let the case fade away from the news and every so often there would be news flashes reminding people to contact police if they have any bit of information that can help them.

He apparently may have left behind his boots - blood soaked boots, bloody foot prints maybe thats part of it?

 

[midsommer]

Just as an aside, because I found it amusing, in a bizarre way, if you read that article in its entirity you will come across this gem.

Semen samples are not difficult to obtain. In a park on the campus where I teach semen samples in discarded condoms can be found regularly (particularly in Springtime). Perhaps I have been studying DNA testing too long, but I cannot pass that area without wondering whether the young men who leave those biological specimens could be putting their futures at risk.

It has nothing to do with the case, but is an interesting perspective and might make a great basis for a crime novel

 

[midsommer]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/06/2891914.htm

This is an article from ABC News explaining using DNA evidence to convict people. It is about a 2010 Victorian report on DNA errors written by retired judge Vincent.

Attorney-General Rob Hulls has accepted all of the recommendations contained in the Vincent report.
He says DNA evidence alone will no longer be used to convict people.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

So even if the DNA does come in it will be dismissed? That's good to know up front I guess....

 

[midsommer]

Not exactly Mrs G.
It is a Victorian decision, not SA, and it applies if the ONLY evidence is based on DNA.

Thing is, and I know I have said this lots of times before, the accused was a reglar visitor to the house. There have been many opportunities for his DNA to be left at the house and we don't know what sort of DNA was found.

I read another case recently where a bomb in Ireland showed traces of DNA from a schoolboy in the UK. It was proven to have been impossible for him to be involved, so the final resolution was that he had touched something that was later touched by the real bomb maker, transferring his DNA to the bomb maker's hands, who then transferred it to the bomb.

REF: http://www.thepost.ie/archives/2006...-schoolboy-as-part-of-omagh-attack-18791.html

Just pointing out how DNA can be at a crime scene but may not be the killer's DNA.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

It depends on the circumstances surrounding the DNA, what was it, how was it deposited etc....his blood / semen on victims for instance, their blood mixed with his perhaps, a trail of his blood leaving the house etc.

 

[midsommer]

Yep.
I do wish we knew what it was and how it was interpreted.

 

[rl85]

I think we need to accept he fact that some things to do with this case may never make sense. They may not even make sense to the accused, or we may, simply, never hear the real truth. Whatever the truth may be....whether the investigators/cops sometimes make mistakes....the one thing I can't believe is that the police would have the wrong person in custody. Even if they thought he had an accomplice, why are they not out there looking for him/her? I don't see them leaving the public in danger like that. IMO anyways.

I also wonder about the actual owners of the house. They rented this house....can you imagine the poor people who own it? No one would ever want to rent it again, and no one would want to buy it! If I owned it, I wouldnt even want to enter the house again!

 

[patroler]

I'm sure the police believe they have arrested the right person, just not sure I believe it

i read your links about dna - it deals with how dna is collected and samples not being contaminated or compromised when collecting those samples - it doesn't say that dna can not be used as evidence if it is collected as in the guidelines - you know you better prey that they have arrested the right person - otherwise lock up your doors in little old (as the perp calls it Krapunda)

 

[asha1972]

Midsommer perhaps the reason the prosecution want a suppression order is so he receives a fair and just trial from an unbiased jury. If everyone in SAKnows about this case it would prolong the trial make jury selection a nightmare and just delay delay delay!! I would think the prosecution want him to be served the full extent of the law fairly rapidly. <modsnip> Just my opinion.