PeterTosh
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2014
- Messages
- 495
- Reaction score
- 1
Most likelyMaybe the gray hoodie was left by someone else who was out there fishing or surfing on another occasion.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Most likelyMaybe the gray hoodie was left by someone else who was out there fishing or surfing on another occasion.
So the masking tape used at the workplace is the same as the tape found at the crime scene?
The police came and dusted the windows for fingerprints.
The absence of any viable fingerprints on the window frames did not disprove that my house was burglarized. Clearly, it was.
Similarly, the absence of SC's DNA on clothing items does not prove that he wasn't there or that somebody else was there. As I mentioned before, the clothing could have been pre-owned. Maybe his grandfather or his step-brother gave him some clothes to use when working on cars. Maybe he got some clothes from a thrift store. Maybe the gray hoodie was left by someone else who was out there fishing or surfing on another occasion.
Does anyone know who Ashley Silva is? Was it the person who testified today that used to work with SC? I didn't catch his name.
So matching tape and another comment about killing? I don't see how anyone could believe he's innocent.
Ashley worked at Mana with SC and partied with Cass and SC.
Apo took a page from his ilk, Donald Trump, and tried to say Steven's words are just "stoner talk."
Talking about how to get away with sexual assault is "locker room talk."
Talking about how to get away with murder is "stoner talk."
Amen, Maisiebelle! Medical professionals are taught to "look at the patient, not just the monitors". That's because it's tempting to put your faith in the machines monitoring vital signs and not check the actual patient, who might be doing differently than what the monitors say. I think the same principle applies here: We have a suspect with motive and opportunity who has lied to everyone about his alibi, deliberately misdirected search efforts away from the crime scene, was seen driving her car immediately after she was murdered, had suspicious wounds on his hands...the list goes on and on. Are we going to disregard all of that just because his DNA wasn't found on clothing retrieved near the crime scene? Putting too much weight on laboratory evidence (or lack thereof) and ignoring the enormous stack of other supportive evidence pointing directly at the defendant is exactly what Apo is hoping the jury will do, IMHO.In the olden days when we didn't have DNA evidence cases were tried without it. Is DNA the be all and end all of justice now?
Amen, Maisiebelle! Medical professionals are taught to "look at the patient, not just the monitors". That's because it's tempting to put your faith in the machines monitoring vital signs and not check the actual patient, who might be doing differently than what the monitors say. I think the same principle applies here: We have a suspect with motive and opportunity who has lied to everyone about his alibi, deliberately misdirected search efforts away from the crime scene, was seen driving her car immediately after she was murdered, had suspicious wounds on his hands...the list goes on and on. Are we going to disregard all of that just because his DNA wasn't found on clothing retrieved near the crime scene? Putting too much weight on laboratory evidence (or lack thereof) and ignoring the enormous stack of other supportive evidence pointing directly at the defendant is exactly what Apo is hoping the jury will do, IMHO.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
I was actually responding to Maisiebelle's observation about DNA not being the be all and end all.I'm sorry, MakaniKitty, but can you explain where you're getting this from? I assume your comments are directed toward my trying to figure out the presence of multiple DNA on the clothing, which to me is really fascinating, but I have never suggested any of the things that you're talking about here: Disregarding the other evidence? No way! I believe 100% that Steven is responsible for this crime, I don't understand where you - and some others - are getting this idea that I'm encouraging people to overturn their whole idea of what happened and who did it. We all know who did it.
I wanted people to discuss the new DNA evidence and possibilities of how it was deposited on the clothing, and not retreat from that evidence, but I see now that that's an impossibility. People want to just put it out of mind. I think there are a small number of us here who are just very curious about the crime and understanding EVERYTHING that happened, but most here just want to see that SC gets put away for good and that's it. I understand that now.
I was actually responding to Maisiebelle's observation about DNA not being the be all and end all.