Sorry to interrupt the recent topic. In all of the 100 plus threads has anyone suggested that the guy in the blue jacket that was photographed has nothing to do with the murders?
LE said he does though...
Sorry to interrupt the recent topic. In all of the 100 plus threads has anyone suggested that the guy in the blue jacket that was photographed has nothing to do with the murders?
Sorry to interrupt the recent topic. In all of the 100 plus threads has anyone suggested that the guy in the blue jacket that was photographed has nothing to do with the murders?
it is the belief of investigators with the Multi-Agency Task Force that the person depicted in the sketch released on April 22nd more accurately represents the person wanted for the murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German.
The sketch released on April 22nd is representative of the face of the person captured in the video on Liberty German’s cell phone as he was walking on the high bridge
We’re releasing additional portions of the audio recording from that day. Please keep in mind the person talking is one person and is the person on the bridge with the girls. This is NOT two different people speaking- please listen to it very, very carefully.
We are also releasing video recovered from Libby’s phone. This video has never before been previously released. The video shows the suspect walking on the bridge. When you see the video, watch the person’s mannerisms as they walk. Watch the mannerisms as he walks. Do you recognize the mannerisms as being someone that you might know? Remember, he is walking on the former railroad bridge. Because of the deteriorated condition of the bridge, the suspect is not walking naturally due to the spacing between the ties.
During the course of this investigation we have concluded the first sketch released will become secondary, as of today. The result of the new information and intelligence over time leads us to believe the sketch, which you will see shortly, IS the person responsible for the murders of these two little girls.
This is what I believe also. An arrest can only come when they have enough evidence to convict. I think LE has a main suspect but not enough evidence to convict...yet.Far too many people think that if LE have DNA that can positively identify someone, that alone will be enough to secure a conviction. That isn’t the case.
Whether your DNA found at the crime scene is enough evidence to convict you was the question in a recent Court of Appeals case. The defendant was convicted of burglarizing a Santa Ana nail salon based solely on DNA evidence. He appealed the judgment, claiming that there wasn’t enough evidence linking him to the crime scene to support his conviction.
Convicting a person on criminal charges requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did in fact commit the crime. DNA evidence found at the crime scene doesn’t necessarily implicate you without other corroborating evidence.
While DNA evidence may be considered the same as a fingerprint, and can link a suspect to a crime, a criminal conviction requires much more. The criminal justice system depends on irrefutable proof that the defendant was not only present when the crime was committed, but also that he or she in fact committed the crime.
The Court in this case was asked to weigh the question of whether DNA is such convincing evidence, that nothing else matters. The court said No.
https://www.southerncaliforniadefenseblog.com/2014/06/dna_evidence_left_at_the_crime.html
Obviously the bar will be significantly higher when the charge is murder. I believe this is the reason why LE keep saying they just need one more piece of the puzzle, and I'm praying that they get it.
Yes that has been suggested more than once.Sorry to interrupt the recent topic. In all of the 100 plus threads has anyone suggested that the guy in the blue jacket that was photographed has nothing to do with the murders?
I don't understand. Are you saying what Kelsi was referring to as lyrics from a song are not? That she was mistaken?"A song lyric by artist Eminem"
But no such lyrics exist !
I don't understand. Are you saying what Kelsi was referring to as lyrics from a song are not? That she was mistaken?
Sorry to interrupt the recent topic. In all of the 100 plus threads has anyone suggested that the guy in the blue jacket that was photographed has nothing to do with the murders?
That "confirmation" was the quote "at every crime scene..." and it is hardly enough to conclude that they have DNA of an assailant.
When he says "at every crime scene, you're going to have DNA", he doesn't mean that every criminal is going to leave behind DNA.
When he says "we are still trying to identify all of the DNA we have..." he doesn't mean that this criminal left DNA we are working to identify.
A crime scene such as this one is going to be huge. They're going to keep every sock, can, empty bag of chips, or cigarette butt they find at that scene just in case its relative to the killer.
So, to clarify, we have no idea if Law Enforcement has DNA of the perpetrator(s) or even DNA they believe could be the perpetrator(s).
Finally, as you mentioned after, DNA works to place a person at a scene. It is evidence of presence, not crime. For example, if a woman is sexually assaulted, they'll have DNA from the assailant - it puts him with that woman. Other evidence, such as victim statements, defensive wounds, etc... along with the DNA, work to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual committed a criminal act.
Now, earlier, you used the word *irrefutably*, to describe the burden of proof in a criminal case. This is not accurate. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not beyond any doubt. Rather, doubt can be (and often is) present in any criminal conviction.
It really comes down to the jury and whether they collectively decide that doubt is reasonable. You'd actually be quite surprised how much doubt is necessary to be beyond reasonable.
Finally, and most importantly, if law enforcement has DNA of the assailant I think we can safely count on a conviction at some point. DNA is excellent evidence to present to a jury - not of a crime, but of a person's presence. Once law enforcement has zeroed in on an individual with DNA, building a circumstantial case is remarkably easy. For example, they could present witnesses to say he frequented the trail, witnesses to attest to his propensity for violence, evidence supporting his behavior after the crime, evidence showing that he wasn't at work that day, a friend remembering he had a 9 mil that they'd shot together on multiple occasions but he denies having now or ever owning, or testimonial evidence from his spouse/friend/roomate that he we threw away knives and bought new ones around the time of the murder.
DNA and circumstantial evidence is more than enough to convict. Rather, circumstantial evidence alone is often all you've got and is often enough to bring a conviction.
Believe it or not, a jury is quicker to convict on a murder than they are on a shoplifting case.
Yes i saw it but Kelsi said they were lyrics. I guess they can't be found though?A post was made on FB by one of Libby's family members. It wasn't just a post, it was a convo between him and a friend. The content was...interesting. It started many rumors. BP, and now Kelsi, have stated that the post was just quoting a song. Nobody's been able to find such song.
ETA: I don't believe the post has any bearing on the case whatsoever. It did spawn rumors, however, and that's probably why Kelsi felt the need to reference it.
LE said he does though...
Assuming there is DNA, is it possible they built the sketch from the DNA? They took a lot of time to come out with that sketch and it isn’t easy. I’ve seen in on a few shows of real crime. Not many people can do it but the resemblance of the sketch matching the suspects is surreal. (I saw 2 or 3 cases but these people have done many more).
I apologize if this has been discussed already or if LE said how the sketch was obtained.
MOO
As I said earlier. I'm in London, UK. Everyone I mention this case to, unless they've seen it mentioned on a forum or here or Reddit, has never heard of it. It was mentioned in a thread on a big forum, Digital Spy, recently, about unsolved crimes. When I tell them that they have a pic taken by one girl of a man on the bridge and audio too, they just can't believe he hasn't been caught. I explain that it's not a clear pic and they've only released 3 words. Wonder if this would have been solved if it had been in a smaller country like here in the UK, with the pic and audio. Not criticising the US investigators at all.
As a man myself, and I don't mean to praise the evil killer in any way, but I think he was very brave to take on TWO girls. People I mention the case to say the same. Why not let them go and wait for just one as one's much easier to overpower? What if one had been selfish and left her friend and got away and could identify him? He must have been armed with a gun or knife to feel that confident. Doubt I'd take on two teenage girls as these weren't little helpless kids, but teens who surely will fight back, but then am not a monster or a rapist or killer. Anything could have gone wrong from his point of view. In fact it did as she got audio and a pic of whom we assume is the killer.
We lost our 22 year-old daughter, only child, last year to SADS, sudden adult death, so we know what those poor parents will be going through. Imagine living in a small town too where you could pass the killer any time and not know it. Think I'd go mad.
I did not use the word "irrefutable". That was a quote from the article. "Our criminal justice system depends on irrefutable proof that the defendant was not only present when the crime was committed, but also that he or she is, in fact committed the crime".
No, I wouldn't be surprised at all. That's quite an assumption on your part as you know nothing of my background.
Neither do I need to have circumstantial evidence explained. I followed the entire Henri van Breda case on WS where he was found guilty of murdering both his parents and brother and was guilty of the attempted murder of his sister. This trial lasted 66 days. DNA evidence alone took one week, but he was found guilty on circumstantial evidence alone.
Sorry to interrupt the recent topic. In all of the 100 plus threads has anyone suggested that the guy in the blue jacket that was photographed has nothing to do with the murders?
Can we ask what was the overall message of the post?The reference is to a FB post. The post did not state that they were referencing song lyrics-it looked like an ordinary posting. However, when people started questioning it with suspicion, BP stated that it wasn't a post, that he was just quoting song lyrics. The post wouldn't be allowed here, but it's a slippery slope since Kelsi referenced it in the video the other day.
Can we ask what was the overall message of the post?