GA - Kendrick Johnson, 17, Suspicious Death, Jan. 10/11, 2013, #2

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If the clothes are missing it's important to know who "lost" them. If it's part of a coverup it needs to be known who is responsible. It appears to me that Crump is the source of the claim that they are missing and that they may contain evidence of a crime.

It would be nice if he backed up his claim with something concrete. His throwing it out to the media without anything to back it up is just inflaming things. He would better serve the family if he only make statements that can be explained with evidence. MOO.

Agreed.

I don't know if he is the only source as he is not named as the source in other articles I read but won't post because they are blogs.

I just feel like if it were not true, Someone would come out and have proof it was not true.

 

[Karmady]

Agreed.

I don't know if he is the only source as he is not named as the source in other articles I read but won't post because they are blogs.

I just feel like if it were not true, Someone would come out and have proof it was not true.

I think it's true that the clothes are gone. I don't know and have no reason sufficient for me to even being to think they are nefariously "missing" when there is a chain of custody ending with the funeral home and a very very good reason why the clothes would not be kept or returned to the family. Seriously. Pretty much the last thing I would want to get returned would be the clothes my deceased child was wearing under these specific circumstances.

There's no question that the GBI got them. So I guess the real question is were they examined or tested and was that even possible or necessary. Are the lawyers claiming that didn't happen either?

jmo

 

[Karmady]

<modsnip>

From your earlier links, the crime lab turned over the clothes to the person who transported the body. And that guy signed for them. So the lab would have no reason to know where the clothes went after that, right?

jmo

eta: not trying to be difficult, but I'm pretty sure I've seen in other threads that the examiner isn't a good source either since it's just any random who feels like writing about something. Sorry in advance if I'm mistaken about that. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can chime in.

 

[Karmady]

So... we still don't know the source of the information.

It has to be the funeral home since the crime lab says it doesn't know where the clothes ended up and the guy who signed them out of the crime lab to take them to the funeral home hasn't spoken to the media. Both of those things are in the links posted.

 

[RANCH]

Agreed.

I don't know if he is the only source as he is not named as the source in other articles I read but won't post because they are blogs.

I just feel like if it were not true, Someone would come out and have proof it was not true.

I don't know if he's the original source for the missing clothes claim but he's been quoted in saying it. If Crumps goal is to get the truth for the family he should only make public statements that can be backed up. Hinting at potential DNA and blood evidence being "lost" is a serious thing. I think that LE losing or destroying the clothes is a totally different thing than if the funeral home did it.

I'm not into complicated conspiracy's that have multiple agency's and large number of people involved. That's the main reason I don't feel that a coverup took place in this case.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I think it's true that the clothes are gone. I don't know and have no reason sufficient for me to even being to think they are nefariously "missing" when there is a chain of custody ending with the funeral home and a very very good reason why the clothes would not be kept or returned to the family. Seriously. Pretty much the last thing I would want to get returned would be the clothes my deceased child was wearing under these specific circumstances.

There's no question that the GBI got them. So I guess the real question is were they examined or tested and was that even possible or necessary. Are the lawyers claiming that didn't happen either?

jmo

I don't think at this point they are nefariously missing either. But It does seem that they are really gone. I think that when you add that up with the second autopsy report it is upsetting his parents further and I understand that.

I don't know how I would feel. I know that some parents want every little thing that touched their child ever, And some don't want to see anything..

I don't see any claims about the clothing other than that they are missing.

I feel so bad for this family. Their loss is great, and there seems to be errors that are upsetting them further.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I don't know if he's the original source for the missing clothes claim but he's been quoted in saying it. If Crumps goal is to get the truth for the family he should only make public statements that can be backed up. Hinting at potential DNA and blood evidence being "lost" is a serious thing. I think that LE losing or destroying the clothes is a totally different thing than if the funeral home did it.

I'm not into complicated conspiracy's that have multiple agency's and large number of people involved. That's the main reason I don't feel that a coverup took place in this case.

It seems to me that the original source is King who got it from personnel at the GBI lab.

I have not seen anything about hinting toward blood and other evidence being lost.. This for me was to find out if indeed he was lying about the clothing. I don't think he is.. Now for other things? I don't know. He is not my favorite person. I don't like how he handled things in the unnamed trial and I think he likes to make waves.. I so wish they had not picked him. But he is what he is..

 

[RANCH]

From your earlier links, the crime lab turned over the clothes to the person who transported the body. And that guy signed for them. So the lab would have no reason to know where the clothes went after that, right?

jmo

eta: not trying to be difficult, but I'm pretty sure I've seen in other threads that the examiner isn't a good source either since it's just any random who feels like writing about something. Sorry in advance if I'm mistaken about that. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can chime in.

BBM

I always thought that only certain Examiner.com authors are allowed here. I know that Chelsea Hoffman isn't because she gets the facts wrong way to often. I don't even see an authors name on the article that Scarlett linked.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

BBM

I always thought that only certain Examiner.com authors are allowed here. I know that Chelsea Hoffman isn't because she gets the facts wrong way to often. I don't even see an authors name on the article that Scarlett linked.

I did not know that.. Is there any where that clears up what is allowed from them and what is not? I have seen links there before, I don't want to use bad links..

 

[RANCH]

I did not know that.. Is there any where that clears up what is allowed from them and what is not? I have seen links there before, I don't want to use bad links..

You have to ask a mod if the article is okay to link. Do you have any idea who wrote it?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Can I take a consensus on what people think at this point?

I don't know. I just don't.

No matter what it was a horrible death. I have questions about the way it was handled, and that is where most of my concern comes in.

I want to know how that blunt force trauma occurred to his neck. I think that is the one thing that keeps me from saying Accident. Well that and the shoes..

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You have to ask a mod if the article is okay to link. Do you have any idea who wrote it?

Looks like Patrick Davis??
I have no idea who that is..

 

[Tawny]

I think it was an accident. I see nothing that points to a crime. I don't even see things as pointing to a cover up so much as mistakes along the way after the fact, but even that is after the death took place, and there is nothing in evidence that shows a violent crime happened.

For me, there has to be a reason to cover something up. What is being hidden, if there is a cover up happening? Why would literally hundreds of people participate in a conspiracy to hide a murder? There is nothing that explains that.

 

[AzPistonsGirl]

IMO - prank gone wrong. No intentional "cover-up".

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Accident grabbing shoes in a hurry for class.

 

[beach]

I did not know that.. Is there any where that clears up what is allowed from them and what is not? I have seen links there before, I don't want to use bad links..

I cleared it up in the edit line where Karmady quoted your post with the link.

Very, very few Examiner articles are permitted to be linked because more often than not, they are not reputable sources.

We do permit links by certain journalists whose articles at times appear on the Examiner but few and rare.

Sorry but that was not one of them.

Thanks for alerting and asking.

 

[Sherp]

I think it is exactly what the Georgia Bureau of Investigation called it - an accident.

 

[RANCH]

Looks like Patrick Davis??
I have no idea who that is..

Thanks. Looks like he's a contributor and not Examiner.com staff. I don't think that qualifies as MSM but you can ask a Mod if he's okay.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Thanks. Looks like he's a contributor and not Examiner.com staff. I don't think that qualifies as MSM but you can ask a Mod if he's okay.

I reported my post and asked..

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I cleared it up in the edit line where Karmady quoted your post with the link.

Very, very few Examiner articles are permitted to be linked because more often than not, they are not reputable sources.

We do permit links by certain journalists whose articles at times appear on the Examiner but few and rare.

Sorry but that was not one of them.

Thanks for alerting and asking.

Thanks for the clarification!!