GUILTY IL - Kimberly Vaughn, 34, & 3 children slain, Channahon Twp, 14 June 2007

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
If he did it, I bet her forgot to take off the mom's seatbelt. They're going to know immediately from the blood spatter whether it was on or off.
 
That is very interesting that he had no license for a gun, so finding out when/who purchased the gun used in this crime shouldn't be too difficult. Again - if he did this and planned this, why leave such an evidence trail?

Hey may just be a computer investigator and I know that's a different arena than this, but he's still an investigator - presumably, he has the mindset to think like a guilty person anf try to cover his tracks. All very curious....
 
Has anyone seen the May 8th episode of Law & Order referenced in the articles? If the wife was getting a degree in criminal investigation, wouldn't it make sense that she might watch that show regularly? Him too perhaps - with his background as a PI and in computer investigations?

One of the articles referenced that he had told his wife about a relationship and another one claimed a source said they were having money problems. So sex and money are definitely part of the motive.....
 
curves said:
Hi Southcitymom,

From memory, no they didn't. I don't think they can do that even if they suspect someone because then it looks they they were biased and could be accused of trying to make the evidence fit their scenario. Modesto LE actually stated a number of times that Scott wasn't a suspect but they did want to speak to or something similar - he lawyerd up so quickley:rolleyes:
Click to expand...




--->>>One of the news links on this thread stated that forensics will show which of THE two was 'the' person who shot the family.

In other murder investigations of other cases, in the past I have heard the words that 'so and so' is a person of interest. Recently the 'media' will say Police are looking for John Jones BECAUSE they feel he may have information that would help the investigation. HECK interpretation from me is "HE IS THE MOST SUSPICIOUS PERSON WE KNOW OF AT THIS TIME - LE and the media just donut say THAT.

Just like laws have removed the ability to question 'suspects' under a bare and dangling light bulb for endless hours - grilling em and a slap across the face every now and again, we are evolving in what verbage we are calling the OBVIOUS and MOST INTERESTING non verbal 'suspect'. Bare lightbulbs hanging in the face of the suspect, and terms like 'he has clammed up - meaning the 'non' suspect is not talking, were activities that were common place in the Who Done It movies of the 1940's.
 
southcitymom said:
That is very interesting that he had no license for a gun, so finding out when/who purchased the gun used in this crime shouldn't be too difficult. Again - if he did this and planned this, why leave such an evidence trail?

Hey may just be a computer investigator and I know that's a different arena than this, but he's still an investigator - presumably, he has the mindset to think like a guilty person anf try to cover his tracks. All very curious....
Click to expand...




--->>>Indeed it could be extremely difficult to find WHO sold Vaughn the gun. IF by the serial number on the gun, it is traced back to a STOLEN report. The date IT was STOLEN from the original owner may have been from so far back, it would take an army of investigators to finds its most recent history. IF IF the stolen gun is sold over and over to various unsavory people without ANY record, then LE could possibly NEVER find out when it was sold to Vaughn. HOWEVER, tracking bank records etc. could be helpful, but not a certainty. WAS the gun used in THIS Murder the same gun that the wife knew about in Washington, WE donut know that either. He could have traded that gun off for the murder weapon used here.

.
 
southcitymom said:
Did the cops in that case ever say Scott was not a suspect, or did they just lay low until evidence was gathered?
I know that case is very different from this case - I was just wondering...
Click to expand...

In the Peterson case, all they would say about the husband was, they 'couldn't (or haven't) ruled him out as a suspect.'

As the case progressed, they said they 'couldn't rule him out as a suspect because he was not cooperating with police.'

They never 'officially' named him as a suspect until the day he was arrested.

JMHO
fran
 
fran said:
LOL, I love your posts Lanie! :)

FWIW, I know a forensic chemist. It doesn't involve 'human' dna though.

For the record, she wanted to do it before any of those shows came on and she watched them once or twice and lost interest. Guess they were too gory.:slap:

fran
Click to expand...

Aww, thanks.:blushing: I always thought a lot of grads were going to get a nasty surprise when they decided to be CSIs and found out what it was really like. I've also heard sometimes jury members have unreal expectations of evidence because of these shows. I still love them, though. Our favorite is Miami, because Horatio has so many stupid little one liners, and we like to reenact his sunglasses moments (which are becoming few and far between these days, :waitasec: )
 
fran said:
I'm glad they took the computers etc., but you know, this is becoming so common, I think this guy might be too smart for any of those items to be of much use.

I don't know how long they spent at the scene with the bodies still in the vehicle, and knowing they've already released the bodies, I would hope they took meticulous notes on the angles of the travel of the projectiles and the locations and positions of the bodies. These facts could be crucial in determining who did this.

I know this is LE 101, but I don't know how long they spent on the scene and how experienced these forensic guys are.

JMHO
fran
Click to expand...

I don't know. I think a lot of the time people get too full of themselves, and overlook basic things. Like the mom's seatbelt someone mentioned. Did he ask her to get out and help him or something so she would be unbuckled, did he remember after the fact, or not at all? There are just so many nitpicky little things like this, maybe not obvious in the moment of the crime, but glaringly out of place in the aftermath. I think it would be very difficult to stage a convincing crime scene like this, with so many victims.
 
Lanie said:
I don't know. I think a lot of the time people get too full of themselves, and overlook basic things. Like the mom's seatbelt someone mentioned. Did he ask her to get out and help him or something so she would be unbuckled, did he remember after the fact, or not at all? There are just so many nitpicky little things like this, maybe not obvious in the moment of the crime, but glaringly out of place in the aftermath. I think it would be very difficult to stage a convincing crime scene like this, with so many victims.
Click to expand...

Me too - if the scene doesn't match his story, I feel like it's going to be pretty obvious.
 
Lanie said:
I don't know. I think a lot of the time people get too full of themselves, and overlook basic things. Like the mom's seatbelt someone mentioned. Did he ask her to get out and help him or something so she would be unbuckled, did he remember after the fact, or not at all? There are just so many nitpicky little things like this, maybe not obvious in the moment of the crime, but glaringly out of place in the aftermath. I think it would be very difficult to stage a convincing crime scene like this, with so many victims.
Click to expand...

After looking around a bit this morning, I saw the video where he had a bandaged left wrist, which would be consistant with him being shot in the left theigh.

Now, I thought he was the driver? So what, he's out fixing the luggage rack and she just blasts off a shot at him and he runs for the hills a leaves her in the car with the three kids?

Actually, I thought the story was he was in the car when she shot him. But, that doesn't make sense because she was on his right and he was shot on the left.

She was AFRAID of guns. So she shoots her entire family and herself too.

Nahhh...........I'm not buyin' it. He did it, he did it, he did it. Just wait and see.:loser:

JMHO
fran
 
I'm suprised they haven't already arrested the husband since it's pretty obvious he did it especially when you consider she hated guns!!

ARREST THE HUSBAND!!!
 
UM&AMWfan said:
I'm suprised they haven't already arrested the husband since it's pretty obvious he did it especially when you consider she hated guns!!

ARREST THE HUSBAND!!!
Click to expand...




--->>>I think LE is just arranging their ducks, and will let the husband go to the funeral, THEN take him out shortly after perhaps later on Saturday!! Let the remaining family have some small quiet time for their loved ones. Arresting him before the funeraL just adds to the family trauma for the family, imop.

.
.
 
I am so tempted to go to the visitation tomorrow but would feel like just a gawker. Would any of you guys go if you lived close?
 
UM&AMWfan said:
I'm suprised they haven't already arrested the husband since it's pretty obvious he did it especially when you consider she hated guns!!

ARREST THE HUSBAND!!!
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Tell me you're not serious with this post!

We arrest people after we have evidence, not after we have theories, ideas or opinions.
 
Camper said:
--->>> Arresting him before the funeraL just adds to the family trauma for the family, imop.

.
.
Click to expand...

While I'm sure this is the case, as a parent I would feel very betrayed if my SIL was at the funeral "greiving" along side me only to find out later that he was the one that did this to my family!!! If he did this to his family, IMO, he has no right to be there to greive and say goodbye to them. I'm sure that by now the evidence is leaning one way or the other in terms of his guilt.
 
Thrs0806 said:
While I'm sure this is the case, as a parent I would feel very betrayed if my SIL was at the funeral "greiving" along side me only to find out later that he was the one that did this to my family!!! If he did this to his family, IMO, he has no right to be there to greive and say goodbye to them. I'm sure that by now the evidence is leaning one way or the other in terms of his guilt.
Click to expand...

I understand your point, but he is a free man today who has the right to grieve and say goodbye to his family. There's no way to change that until all the evidence is in.
 
southcitymom said:
I understand your point, but he is a free man today who has the right to grieve and say goodbye to his family. There's no way to change that until all the evidence is in.
Click to expand...


Oh, I totally agree - at this point he has every right and should be there with his family. IF his story is the true he needs to grieve for his lost family and be with the remaining family members. I was just thinking ahead and how I would feel in that situation, if his story turns out to NOT be the truth.

I was remembering, Sharon Rocha, and how she didn't even want any of Scott's family at Laci and Connor's funeral.

I'm also thinking that the police probably know at this point which way the evidence is leaning and wondering how much is being shared with the family? Probably not much and again that would upset me even more if they let me grieve and comfort my SIL only to find out the police were waiting until after the funeral to arrest him.

That being said, in this situation the true facts of this case will be hard on the families either way they play out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 155 more.
Total: 2,197 (members: 156, guests: 2,041)

Online statistics

Members online
156
Guests online
2,041
Total visitors
2,197
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,631
Messages
18,127,543
Members
231,111
Latest member
Paolo67
Back
Top