Why would they when DNA matching Kathy's came back from behind the licence plate?
Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk
I seem to be making it a habit tonight of posting the exact same thing as other posters at the same time!
Why would they when DNA matching Kathy's came back from behind the licence plate?
Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk
Also I hope the jury doesn't forget about this little nugget of info....truck drove in the alley way. Easily could have dropped off his capture kit and suit to retrieve after walking back to the residence. Again since defense wanted to point out the figure wasn't carrying anything. Likely another thing DG wrote down. "Notice how I'm not carrying anything because I previously stashed it" all smug like. Imo.
Could you please post the link for that fact? I must have missed it. TIA
No I was totally the same way when I read about the metal shavings! It was the one thing defense said that made me stop and think! And then I was like "hey he got me" because there I am questioning my husband about metal shavings when it doesn't even matter!
I agree it wasnt needed and was just saying the prosecution should not have tried to claim it was proven. It wasnt needed to be proven. Plenty of other evidence.
Really?! Don't drink the water! All of the gaps the defense were trying to point out were pointing out to me the exact precautions or clean up that DG took. The evidence that DG researched that exact lock, and the expert testimony that it was tampered with is more credible to me than the lack of shavings. It was obviously tampered with. I can't discount that because no metal shavings were found. All MOO.
Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk
Exactly. The absurdity of some of this stuff just makes you want to release the tension with a little humour. We all knew that his defence team were going to have to say something, but some of the stuff they were throwing out there was...well absurd. Almost as if they got some of it from their rather "odd" client.
MOO
JMO
There is no doubt that the totality of the evidence should allow the jury to render a verdict of guilty for DG in this case.
With that said, I feel its important to always review how both sides present their evidence and their cases because sometimes all it takes is one thing to have a mistrial or cause some other problem. Just look what is happening today that the judge is having to review some issues from yesterday.
My guess as to what one of the issues they are talking about is when the Crown brought up DG's college education that was mentioned. I dont recall there being any evidence presented as to his formal education. Its probably something relatively minor that the judge will be able to instruct the jury to ignore some testimony to get around the issue.
This case seems so overwhelming with the evidence that I dont think there was anything too major that would cause it to be derailed.
Yes, I don't think anyone wants to reward DG for his meticulous planning.I'm expecting a quick verdict. The defence has essentially claimed that because the evidence is circumstantial, it's meaningless. I don't think the jury will agree.
Photo distortion -
For folks who are fascinated by websleuthing but have never heard of photo distortion, it's extremely common therefore always an important factor to consider.
Here's a link that illustrates why what we think we see in a photo is not always accurate.
https://photographylife.com/what-is-distortion
Anyone who still chooses to believe there's two different sizes of shoe prints found in the Liknes residence, you'd need to also conclude the CPS is inept and the Prosecution is corrupt and the defence is incompetent. Not one of the above, but all three.
I agree with Abro, this is exactly how misinformation about a case spreads. Let's be smarter than that.
This is JMO
I agree distortion exists in photography but when looking at just 13 and 14 and looking at the angle of the camera and the doorway. The two shoe prints are right beside each other and only inches thick so I just dont think the distortion angle would cause 13 to look so much smaller than 14 in this particular shot.
Ive taken a photography 101 course and have some basic experience with photography. If distortion alone caused that big a difference then I would lose money in a bar bet. LOL
My guess is for whatever reason DG wore two different shoe sizes. I have to think one is a womens 13 and one is a mans 13. He may have had a bum foot and needed a larger size for one of them. He is quirky enough to do something like this. LOL
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=109868&stc=1
This is JMO
I agree distortion exists in photography but when looking at just 13 and 14 and looking at the angle of the camera and the doorway. The two shoe prints are right beside each other and only inches thick so I just dont think the distortion angle would cause 14 to look so much smaller than 13 in this particular shot.
Ive taken a photography 101 course and have some basic experience with photography. If distortion alone caused that big a difference then I would lose money in a bar bet. LOL
My guess is for whatever reason DG wore two different shoe sizes. I have to think one is a womens 13 and one is a mans 13. He may have had a bum foot and needed a larger size for one of them. He is quirky enough to do something like this. LOL
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=109868&stc=1
We've known throughout the trial that there is something off about the shoes. Jason Young (NC) wore shoes that were two sizes smaller when he murder his wife, so it wouldn't be the first time a murderer made plans to disguise footprints at a crime scene. If the measurement strips in the photos are all of equal length, then I would agree that the footprints are of different sizes.