IN - Abigail Williams, 13, & Liberty German, 14, Delphi, 13 Feb 2017 #40

[Elley Mae]

Respectfully, what you are talking about has nothing to do with circumstantial vs direct evidence. DNA is, in fact, circumstantial evidence.

True, thanks. Posters should look up, dna circumstantial evidence. Jmo

Some things that are assumed are not quite true. Jmo

 

[xmsmadex]

I think it's still reasonable to think that if LE had a DNA match from a person to the crime scene, there would be an arrest made. Many times charges may be added later, but based on other murder investigations I have followed there would be an arrest. Moo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, this is how investigations work, Im surprised so many people think otherwise. When two girls are found dead with dna on them be it sperm, saliva, blood, dna under fingernails and they find a match. That person without a doubt is brought in questioned and arrested. The case can be further built up after, thats why people spend months in jail before ever going to trial. But they certainly dont let the guy wander around if they have proof he was the perpetrator or involved.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[travelbug]

You never do know. Dirty little secrets have been known to blow whole families out of the water, mine included.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

The possibility of a relative or friend who interacts on a regular basis with one of the girls also complicates the ability to prove the significance of DNA from the crime scene. If the only DNA recovered is touch or hair type that matches someone related to, or familiar to, one of the girls then corroborating evidence will be required for an arrest. LE will need testimony from a witness, or someone with knowledge of the crime, to connect the dots. :moo:

 

[liltexans]

jumping off your post: I have also heard the comment from posters here saying;"They must have DNA why else would they have been taking samples from other people to compare with the suspect". I think thats a big leap to assume that is the case based on the evidence that we have. I think its highly plausible that they were taking samples in hopes that the evidence from the crime scene may have yielded DNA. DNA can't be seen and I'm sure LE originally hoped that they would be able to develop a DNA profile based on swabs that they processed at the crimes scene. But at the time that they were taking samples from people to compare, my belief is that they probably hadn't gotten results from the crime scene back from the lab yet. All is MOO

I agree and said something similar many threads ago. At the beginning of the case they would not have known if they had any DNA from the crime scene.

 

[ninij9]

By the time I finish typing, losing it due to refresh, and retyping it there are often many posts to catch up with.

The OP is entitled to an opinion but I don't think DNA is the only thing they're relying on to build their case. So saying if they had DNA there should've been an arrest is not making sense to me.

I know, but cluciano didn't say that. She was agreeing with you lol.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[xmsmadex]

By the time I finish typing, losing it due to refresh, and retyping it there are often many posts to catch up with.

The OP is entitled to an opinion but I don't think DNA is the only thing they're relying on to build their case. So saying if they had DNA there should've been an arrest is not making sense to me.

You are also entitled to your opinion. I just strongly disagree with you. People sit in jail for months while prosecutor's build their case. If they have dna, such as sperm, blood, saliva LE would arrest the guy it matches, they dont let them wander around so they can possible dissapear or commit another crime. You know how much trouble LE would be in by the public if this guy did disappear or commit another crime and people found out they had his dna all over the crime scene?

Now, this isnt the same in all cases, thats why I keep reiterating "in a case like this" We arent talking about finding a hair from a relative on them and arresting that guy. Were talking about dna that is related to the crime being committed.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[margarita25]

I agree and said something similar many threads ago. At the beginning of the case they would not have known if they had any DNA from the crime scene.

Agreed, had the same thoughts.

 

[Bemused]

Haha I know that now. Thank you[emoji4]

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

I know, but cluciano didn't say that. She was agreeing with you lol.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

I thought I replied to the person who assumes it was sperm or blood. It may well be but we don't know.

Apologies

 

[xmsmadex]

Respectfully, what you are talking about has nothing to do with circumstantial vs direct evidence. DNA is, in fact, circumstantial evidence.

It is and isn't, its not that cut and dry. Its actually considered physical or direct evidence when linked with other curcumstantial evidence. Dna alone is circumstantial but becomes direct when there is other evidence to support it which I believe this case does.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[BoggLed in Ohio]

I just ran up to the gas station and realized I recognized and correctly identified a neighbor I barely know.. out of the corner of my eye from across the parking lot. which got me thinking we really do identify people better than we realize - -even without a face in focus. We unconsciously kind of have the capability like a zebra or a giraffe when they get their mothers stripe or spot pattern imprinted on their brain. .

I did a quick search when I got home found this article rather interesting facts about how humans can identify one another from a distance or w the face obscured. interestingly it said people that participated in the test study were more capable of identifying someone at a distance just looking at their body form with the face completely blocked out.. so that they could only rely on the body form.. maybe LE should put out another flyer with BGs face completely blanked out ( or chop his head off )..I like that analogy better... and maybe they'll have better luck someone identifying him.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ly-analysing-body-NOT-face-reveals-study.html

 

[ninij9]

Maybe someday they will redefine DNA as physical evidence. It certainly is a gray area. But currently it's defined as circumstantial, regardless of it's type. Can we all just agree to disagree? I went over to the Catherine Elizabeth thread to escape the arguing and it's so much worse over there, lol. I'm staying here, but let's talk about something new ok? Please😊

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[xmsmadex]

I thought I replied to the person who assumes it was sperm or blood. It may well be but we don't know.

Apologies

I am sorry. I definitely dont know what kind of dna evidence they have if any.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[Bemused]

You are also entitled to your opinion. I just strongly disagree with you. People sit in jail for months while prosecutor's build their case. If they have dna, such as sperm, blood, saliva LE would arrest the guy it matches, they dont let them wander around so they can possible dissapear or commit another crime. You know how much trouble LE would be in by the public if this guy did disappear or commit another crime and people found out they had his dna all over the crime scene?

Now, this isnt the same in all cases, thats why I keep reiterating "in a case like this" We arent talking about finding a hair from a relative on them and arresting that guy. Were talking about dna that is related to the crime being committed.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

You're missing my point. We can't know what kind of DNA may have been recovered or where it was deposited. I may be mistaken but aren't you assuming it was due to a sexual aspect or that the person's skin or blood was recovered? I may agree with you if that's the assumption, but I will still argue we have no way of knowing until the police say it and they haven't said anything about those details yet.

 

[xmsmadex]

You're missing my point. We can't know what kind of DNA may have been recovered or where it was deposited. I may be mistaken but aren't you assuming it was due to a sexual aspect or that the person's skin or blood was recovered? I may agree with you if that's the sssumption, but I will still argue we have no way of knowing until the police say it and they haven't said anything about those details yet.

I agree, this was purely based on "ifs" and we dont know.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[Elley Mae]

It is and isn't, its not that cut and dry. Its actually considered physical or direct evidence when linked with other curcumstantial evidence. Dna alone is circumstantial but becomes direct when there is other evidence to support it which I believe this case does.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

I am of the opinion that they don't have any dna of a suspect, or the suspect is not in the database. Jmo

 

[liltexans]

I am of the opinion that they don't have any dna of a suspect, or the suspect is not in the database. Jmo

I think those are reasonable inferences given the little we know.

 

[TheOtherChristina]

Maybe someday they will redefine DNA as physical evidence. It certainly is a gray area. But currently it's defined as circumstantial, regardless of it's type. Can we all just agree to disagree? I went over to the Catherine Elizabeth thread to escape the arguing and it's so much worse over there, lol. I'm staying here, but let's talk about something new ok? Please��

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Yeah, I'm bowing out. I gave it the old college try. Back to pareidolia and dog sleuthing, I guess :giggle:

 

[lelandrob]

What if you were regularly in the area or owned the property and your DNA is all over? It doesn't make you guilty of these murders. DNA doesn't tell the whole story and that was my point.

Also, if it is true that the searchers had already searched the area were the girls were later found, it's possible their dna could be present at the site as well.

 

[BoggLed in Ohio]

Maybe someday they will redefine DNA as physical evidence. It certainly is a gray area. But currently it's defined as circumstantial, regardless of it's type. Can we all just agree to disagree? I went over to the Catherine Elizabeth thread to escape the arguing and it's so much worse over there, lol. I'm staying here, but let's talk about something new ok? Please😊

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Im definitely staying out of trouble. go see my post from a few mins ago. Let's all just pretend we are zebras and giraffes 😂

 

[Bemused]

I agree, this was purely based on "ifs" and we dont know.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Hah! I was afraid you were going to ask me to step outside for a round of fisticuffs.

It's not about who is wrong or who is right, but we are all making a number of assumptions, me included, without the police confirming or releasing so many details. I'll gladly be wrong on everything as long as LE gets this guy and makes sure no other children are deprived of a life to fulfill their dreams and potential. I apologize if I came off too strident to you or anyone else.