IN - Amanda Blackburn, 28, pregnant, murdered, Indianapolis, 10 Nov 2015 - #3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
DexterMorgan said:
The main point is stuff happens during invasions even if all invaders don't want to hurt anyone.

So in order to deter home invasions. We must charge them all with murder if it occurs while they are invading homes.

Just like a business is held accountable if an employee screws up. Home invaders are held accountable if their partner screws up. Jmo
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Just saying if you are gordon, watson, and ABull -- what's your plan to manipulate the narrative to avoid conviction for murder ? So I find it highly plausible that they are manipulating the story to minimize their involvement and try any possible defense. That's all.
 
DexterMorgan said:
Even most gang bangers don't condone rape. Like most mobsters didn't condone sleeping with another mobsters wife.
Click to expand...

And there is no rape on any of these other guys records. Taylor is the only one with a sexual related prior.
 
SurfieTX said:
I think that the scratch concern wasn't borne out of concern for DNA as evidenced by the package of Swisher Sweets left behind. I think it had more to do with him being asked by LE/someone how he got the scratches. He didn't want evidence left on HIS body. I don't think he cared one iota about Amanda. The last line of the PC document is chilling to the core.

**P.S. I love your username**
Click to expand...

You have to remember that after you have killed someone, presumably the first time, you might not be sweeping the house with a calm mind for everything you brought in. Quite common for someone to leave something in situations where there was a struggle. Plus if he wasn't smoking the cigars , maybe he didn't care. I did see photos on social media with Jalen smoking them, not that they all couldn't have been.

If he did get scratched, wouldn't that be in the fingernail evidence ? I thought I read that they didn't find anything.

If anything did get on his body, he could just wash it off. They didn't find this guy for several days. So I think it's more plausible to be worried about her scratching some of his skin off.

I have to believe that if there was scratches on taylor, we'd have heard about it and it would be listed. It's something observable that could be linked to the murder - maybe they are waiting still on fingernail analysis ? not sure.
 
DexterMorgan said:
At 6am. I'm sure she wasn't bundled up since she was barely waking up.

So are they saying she was raped. Or did Taylor tried to scare her as if he wanted to rape her or what?

I'm out of town and my access to slueth is limited.
Click to expand...

It's possible that he left her that way to humiliate her (as if murder wasn't enough). Also, perhaps at age 18, he hasn't seen very many female bodies and merely wanted a pervy ogle.
 
verbonica said:
It's possible that he left her that way to humiliate her (as if murder wasn't enough). Also, perhaps at age 18, he hasn't seen very many female bodies and merely wanted a pervy ogle.
Click to expand...
Or maybe he's just a perv, which his history might suggest. Also, his phone number was traced to Backpage.
 
MaxManning said:
How do you get a bullet going in your lower arm going upward to the bicep ? I think that's consistent with possibly taylor being over someone on their back on the ground or maybe standing up and then extending their arm at the gun.
Click to expand...

They both could have been standing, she could have had her hands up to keep him away from her sort of like this:

black-white-portrait-frightened-woman-extending-her-hand-trying-to-stop-any-coming-danger-black-background-29894425.jpg


Another possibility is that the bullet bounced around after hitting tendon/bone.
 
MaxManning said:
Wow, great to see I'm not a complete nut in mentioning so many of these same things being odd. All this communication with ABull during the course of the blackburn robbery feels like an attempt to create a narrative about what happened. I don't remember seeing it in the report, but were the calls to ABull confirmed ? As well as who called who ? narrative being -- Taylor is a crazy train who wants to murder at every turn and they are uncomfortable with that, and they were trying to get off the crazy train.

The report even mentions Gordon and Watson having to talk Taylor down from murdering the woman from first burglary because he felt he was caught on camera.
Click to expand...

Just FYI, being in agreement with me on these things may not disqualify you from being a complete nut. :)
 
MaxManning said:
It's not about taylor, it's about Watson and Gordon creating a narrative that THEY weren't looking to murder. Unless I am reading the PC document wrong, it was noted that Taylor wanted to kill the woman at the San Clemente residence earlier in the morning.

Go to page 11 of the PC document : http://ftpcontent2.worldnow.com/wthr/PDF/blackburnpc.pdf

"They discovered they were on video and disconnected the camera. Taylor wanted to kill the occupant because he was seen on camera. Watson and Gordon convinced Taylor to leave. "

Again, nothing I am saying is going to mean anything to Taylor. Much of what I am talking about is that IF ABull is involved more in this, and possibly even the ringleader calling shots, I would prefer that he gets charged.
Click to expand...

Okay, thank you for the link to PC document. Yes, ABull should definitely be charged. The PC document sounds like he was calling the shots. I imagine the real narrative was more like leave no witnesses. They should all go down as a "family."
 
Sonya610 said:
Dogs inside the home are known to be one of the best deterrents against burglary/home invasion. These guys were creeping into houses and stealing a phone off a night stand with the victim sleeping right there! They wouldn't have tried that if they knew there was a dog inside the home, if the dog alerts the humans then the humans can become a deadly threat to the intruder.

It is true that the vast majority of dogs won't actually attack intruders (unless trained to) and they shouldn't be expected too, dogs are not bullet proof. Regardless criminals almost always look for the path of least resistance, when there are several houses on a street and they are choosing one to rob a barking dog at the window is a reason to pass by that house and go to the next one.
Click to expand...

I still stand by my opinion based on the other multiple cases of home invasions where the victims' did have inside dogs or dogs. It didn't stop any one of them nor deter them. I don't see why these criminals would be any different. Any criminal that is bold enough to stand on a victim's front porch, invade that home, and most likely brutally raped her, and then shoot her in the head certainly wouldn't be deterred by dogs. IMO

From the crimes I have read in recent years it seems many no longer try to avoid high risk taking nor do they care if animals or humans are inside the home. They come prepared for whatever just like these jerks did. They would have shot and killed the other lady too if she had woken up when he was stealing her cell phone by her head. It shows they have become ruthless and possess very little normalcy or logical thinking. If they 'almost always' as you say, avoided dogs there wouldn't be so many break-ins because there are millions upon millions of dogs inside homes all across this country. I don't see it as a deterrent to anything actually when it comes down to it. All the dog may be able to do is alert fast enough hopefully to let those inside know something is happening. If all it takes is to have an inside dog to prevent violent break-ins every home in America would have an inside dog and then this type of crime would plummet instead of home invasions being on the rise.

Their dog came right up to the police officers so I don't see him/her doing anything but coming up to the jerks who did this wanting to be petted just like the crooks did in FB video I mentioned earlier. So whether he was inside or out it would not have prevented it from happening. IMO
 
MaxManning said:
Totally agree. Just saying if you are gordon, watson, and ABull -- what's your plan to manipulate the narrative to avoid conviction for murder ? So I find it highly plausible that they are manipulating the story to minimize their involvement and try any possible defense. That's all.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt those three are manipulating the narrative, as you say, to mitigate their own involvement, particularly Gordon and ABu. As I said last night, the fact that Gordon got out of the Sebring and waited while Watson went back into the "addition" to pick up Taylor suggests that he wanted no part of murder, and he would take measures to distance himself from it. That goes along with him as the "cooperating individual" mentioned in the affidavit. So naturally, he has attempted to show himself in a favorable light.

The affidavit also says that Gordon stayed outside with the Sebring when the other two entered AB's home. Why was that? To keep an eye on the four televisions? (I'm still trying to wrap my head around that small car holding three men and four televisions, one of which might have been a 52" flat screen.) For now, I'll presume that he did remain outside, and keep in mind that we haven't heard Taylor's account yet. If true, did Gordon have an idea what might happen at AB's house? Could they have known AB was inside?

I'll also have to presume that the televisions were loaded in the Sebring. Initially, I thought ABu might have taken them off in the SUV mentioned previously. The phone records seem to suggest he was at the area of the "cottages" for the duration.

As for Taylor, according to what we know so far, he was a loose cannon, a neophyte who wouldn't go along with the program. The others were thieves; Taylor had different interests. There was a reason why he chose to stay behind when the others went to the ATM's. It could well be that he deliberately threw the cards in the car so they'd get lost for awhile. And they did, instead of trying to stop Taylor from harming AB. They knew he'd hit her with the gun. They knew he wanted to kill the first woman. And I think they knew about his other proclivities, as well.

JMO
 
sumzero said:
What do you make of Taylor's alleged concern that Amanda would scratch him? That was the reason for firing the first shot(s). If true, it makes me doubt he intended to sexually assault her. He seemed to want to keep distance between himself and Amanda.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt Taylor was aroused during the burglary. Rape is about control and he definitely wanted to be in control of the situation. I just think when he leaned over and saw what was going to be a large amount of blood, he suddenly lost that urge to rape her. Her DNA would have been all over him and his clothing and I don't think ABull would be particularly thrilled to have blood on his Pelle Pelle jacket when Taylor returned it to him.
 
This other guy called AB he probably want be breathing much longer. He snitched and in gang life you might as well sign your death.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 68 more.
Total: 3,197 (members: 69, guests: 3,128)

Online statistics

Members online
69
Guests online
3,128
Total visitors
3,197
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,446
Messages
18,156,742
Members
231,734
Latest member
Ava l
Back
Top