I’m copying my two last posts below. I think my points are being misunderstood.
From the first post, I am questioning the veracity of this entire event, as it has been reported in the Courant. Has this information been corroborated by any other entity? Maybe I missed it. Maybe it’s just too vague of reporting, I tend to doubt anything that begins w “sources”, or maybe it’s just bad reporting. Why make a point of saying when ‘finder’ was interviewed in relation to the search if the order changes in one paragraph to the next? These issues make it hard for me to believe the report is factually correct .
Their words,
man may have found a knife , Sources, the mans statement was taken BEFORE the search, then , before they interviewed him that had found evidence...
My first post:
“The excerpt below is from the Hartford Courant article :
A Hartford man may have found a knife linked to the disappearance of New Canaan mother Jennifer Farber Dulos in the trash — and then traded it away
“
Sources have verified that there is
video surveillance of the man reaching into the garbage can and removing items the weekend Farber Dulos disappeared. They also confirmed a
statement was taken from him before state police conducted a massive search on May 31 with dogs and troopers in the Albany Avenue area.“
The article continues:
“Before interviewing the man who said he found the knife, state police had already recovered some of the items allegedly dumped on Albany Avenue, including the Vineyard Vines shirt stained in blood that they believe Farber Dulos was wearing the day she disappeared.”
Just a few things to think about. 1. “Sources” are telling this reporter details about the surveillance video. Details about a just released from prison drug addict, but these sources didnt also answer how many bags? Or what color bags??? Ie- other pressing details ?
2. Source also says, LE didn’t do their search immediately, but FIRST interviewed this guy BEFORE checking to see what FD was dumping. So they used precious time to track down this guy before they dig into the trash cans themselves.
3. Oh no wait, LE did do their search, then they interviewed this guy....
Me thinks something is not right here.
And there is no way in hell even Doofus put an unconcealed soaking bloody pillow in the trash. With the knife underneath. Umm he just put a boxed package in a storm drain... guess he forgot to throw the knife in there, let alone wipe it off.”
After my second post, I have gotten a few replies hitting hard on the fact that it shouldn’t matter if the ‘finder’ was a drug addict and how peeps have been on juries and believed their statements etc.., I never made any comment about this guys status making him less credible. Drug addict, dealer or King of England, I don’t care. ( in my first comment I stated the deets abt this guy in the article , from the “source” because their detail and specificity, from personal habits to color of clothes, seemed ridiculously not balanced to the lack of other missing details( # of bags, color?) from the “source.”
My main point is
IF LE doesn’t have pillow, knife, pants, and therefore NO DNA, IMO, unless they have almost hand to hand transfer from Foolus to dumpster man on CCTV, they have a “story” with no evidentiary value. I don’t care if the guy says it was 2 qts of blood, LE needs to pillow so they can verify it is JDs blood.
My second post:
“And talk about circumstantial NON -evidence. If LE doesn’t have the pillow, the knife, the pants-so what? It is meaningless IMO.
Unless they have FD on tape putting that pillow in, and dumpster diver pulling exact same pillow out, [and no one else went anywhere near the trash receptacle], maybe the finder could testify as to what he believed was on it....LE has the tapes showing FD dumping bags, along with the countless others who put their trash out that weekend. I just don’t see any additional, if any at all, evidentiary value here...so far.”
Hope that clarifies my meaning.