MO - Elizabeth Olten, 9, St Martin's, 21 Oct 2009 #12

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am of the opinion that if the strangulation was first and she died from that, the medical examiner would know by the amount of blood or the blood loss that is the way she would have died. He would determine that she died by strangulation. The charge says she died by all three. I just think AB strangled her, but didn't know if she was unconsious or dead.

It's impossible that she could die by all three. Until the autopsy reports are in the hands of the PA, then they really can't be sure whether it was the stabbing, the strangulation, or the slitting of the throat that was the actual cause of death. In my opinion, that statement was made due to lack of knowledge of cause of death at the point the charges were brought.
 
We do have the fact that the LE arrested her....and the proscecution has put in enough evidence that a judge feels that Allyssa is such a threat that she should be tried as an adult.

The cops are not out looking for someone else...this is not an open "mystery"

Everything we see from her so called friends is weird..."nice"...but confides that she wants to "kill people"

Sick crazy pictures....sick crazy videos...sadistic...pictures of her with the electric fence..videos of her shoving her brothers off a diving board in a jackazz sort of "stunt"...she could have hurt or killed them right there

I imagine we will see a lot more info when this comes to trial. Fact is that this was "solved" pretty quickly and LE seems to be confident. They have even put out the gruesome facts of HOW poor Elizabeth was killed

Circumstantial.

I don't feel the same way about the electric fence vid that others do.

Growing up with lots of brothers, I did lots of masochistic things as rites of passage. If we had an electric fence, I would have been out there grabbing it.
And I have never killed anyone. Neither has my fiance, who actually did the electric fence thing as a teen.

Lots of people, IMO, are taking that as a much bigger sign than it actually was.

Everyone is nitpicking for every little thing about AB now in hindsight.

BBM!
In that case we should only be talking about CLOSED cases here at WS because those are the only cases that we know 100% facts about. RIGHT?

I am off to see how many of those I can find around!

Talk about whatever you would like to talk about and I will do the same.

If the case is solved, then what's the point of continuing to discuss it?

THIS.

Agreed. It isn't solved until she goes to trial and is found guilty or not guilty by a jury of her peers. PERIOD.

KUDOS! You have a good head on your shoulders.

lol, yep, lets all pack it in and go home. Case closed :) Good morning to you.

Morning to you too!

I also agree. I don't think her stunts, clothing, music were red flags. If so, 1/2 the teens in the country would be potential murderers.

I tend to think (MY OPINION) it had more to do with her upbringing, and sadly, her family. I'm not blaming them, or at least not the grandparents. You do what you have to do, and what you think is best at the time, and the best you can under any given circumstances. This family was presented with a combination of circumstances, some based on poor judgement of some family members, some outside their control, that I certainly would not want to have to deal with myself, and would not wish on my worst enemy. No family is perfect. We all make mistakes and poor decisions along the way. Some of us are lucky enough to get through without serious consequences and some aren't. Some of us have superb support systems, others have little to none. I doubt anyone consciously set out to damage Alyssa. Unfortunately, they also didn't find the right help to fix Alyssa before it was too late, although there's evidence that they tried pretty hard.

We see that there wasn't a whole lot of activity on her various web pages over the last couple of years. Some, but not as much as some other teens I know, i.e. several updates per day. Maybe the gp's DID know about her videos and MS, FB, etc. Maybe they were dealing with it. That may be why she had her phone taken away. I don't think the stunts indicated any huge problem. I don't think the pics with clown makeup & blood were that shocking, because they WERE taken at Halloween. I admit, the scars on her wrist were scary, but she was already in therapy for "cutting". The meat cleaver necklace is scary, too, but may have been passed off as part of a costume, since we don't see it in any other photos. They may not have seen the hobby="killing" comment. The "dark" comments on that other site were almost all song lyrics, not original thoughts of her own. And the dark "emo" clothing is exactly what every other teen at her school was wearing, mainly because it's about all you could buy in stores in JC last year. I'd have made a big deal of the fake stabbing pic, if I were her guardian and had seen it, but you can't see her in it, so she could have lied and said it was someone else.

Idk, I just tend to think that her gp's had their hands full and deserve some slack, and some sympathy. Unless we hear that they knew she had this planned and didn't do anything about it, but that's not at all likely to be the case.


I absolutely blame her parents and if I were her defense atty I would put them and the GPs on trial.
 
Or maybe just MAYBE she knew no one was watching her or ever watched her enough and she knew she could get in and out of the house no matter what she looked like and no one would be the wiser. Allowing her to go home clean up and do what she had to do.

No one knew where she was for at least a couple hours prior to the murder why would they be interested in what was going on during or after the murder during the time she came home.


Question for AndresEscobar,
What would be a reason that they would not allow testimony in court from a highway partol investigator stating what the other grave was dug for? They allowed the information that she had dug the graves the Friday before while out of school because of parent teacher meatings, and they allowed that Elizabeth's body was found in one of these graves, but the investigator was cut off right before stating what the other grave was for.
WHY? Care to give your opinion?
 
Anyone have any insight? If EO were cut post-mortem, wouldn't blood still "leak" from the body? I realize that without blood pressure there would not be a large amount of blood coming from the wounds. I still think AB would have blood on her. Even if she was wearing coveralls or changed before going home, I would think there has to be some sort of blood evidence connecting AB to the murder.

If she were moved, there would be leakage. But not that much blood, most of the fluids would be waste products.
The blood settles to the lowest point after the blood pressure is gone. If the body is not moved to where a open vein or artery is at the lowest point, there will be no leakage.

I hope that made sense. As Always, MOO.
 
I will add that there could still be blood evidence, just the other way around. In many many cases, the person that commits a stabbing cuts themselves in the process, not anticipating the grip they need to have to cut through muscle and ligament.
Moo, but I know that is supported by science.
 
It's impossible that she could die by all three. Until the autopsy reports are in the hands of the PA, then they really can't be sure whether it was the stabbing, the strangulation, or the slitting of the throat that was the actual cause of death. In my opinion, that statement was made due to lack of knowledge of cause of death at the point the charges were brought.

This is the charge that came from the prosecution. The autopsy was done the sat. after her death. The results of that would have been given to LE. So if death was by strangulation the ME would have figured that out. The ME would have known the cuts were deep enough to cause death. If they were not deep enough, it seems to me the charge would have been Alyssa Bustamante caused the death of Elizabeth Olten by strangulation. jmo
 
(respectfully snipped)

Question for AndresEscobar,
What would be a reason that they would not allow testimony in court from a highway partol investigator stating what the other grave was dug for? They allowed the information that she had dug the graves the Friday before while out of school because of parent teacher meatings, and they allowed that Elizabeth's body was found in one of these graves, but the investigator was cut off right before stating what the other grave was for.
WHY? Care to give your opinion?

There are a lot of reasons. How was he cut off (eta: and who cut him off) ? Whatever he was about to say was probably not admissible at that hearing.
 
There are a lot of reasons. How was he cut off (eta: and who cut him off) ? Whatever he was about to say was probably not admissible at that hearing.

It's amazing how many members of LE don't know what they can say at what hearing. MOO.
 
Question for AndresEscobar,
What would be a reason that they would not allow testimony in court from a highway partol investigator stating what the other grave was dug for? They allowed the information that she had dug the graves the Friday before while out of school because of parent teacher meatings, and they allowed that Elizabeth's body was found in one of these graves, but the investigator was cut off right before stating what the other grave was for.
WHY? Care to give your opinion?

I know this one was for Andres but my own two cents is that he cannot be allowed to testify about who the second grave was for. Any opinion he has would be just that - an opinion. He can testify that one grave is for Elizabeth as she was found in it, but the second? Only AB knows why she dug two graves or who (if anyone) she meant the second for.
 
Or maybe just MAYBE she knew no one was watching her or ever watched her enough and she knew she could get in and out of the house no matter what she looked like and no one would be the wiser. Allowing her to go home clean up and do what she had to do.

No one knew where she was for at least a couple hours prior to the murder why would they be interested in what was going on during or after the murder during the time she came home.


Question for AndresEscobar,
What would be a reason that they would not allow testimony in court from a highway partol investigator stating what the other grave was dug for? They allowed the information that she had dug the graves the Friday before while out of school because of parent teacher meatings, and they allowed that Elizabeth's body was found in one of these graves, but the investigator was cut off right before stating what the other grave was for.
WHY? Care to give your opinion?

It is possible that such testimony was considered prejudicial or inflammatory. There are any number reasons so it is hard to say without knowing what the basis of the objection was.

The fact that she may have dug another grave is irrelevant really, digging a hole is not illegal and you cant testify as to what her state of mind was when she dug it, she is being tried for the murder of EO and thats it, trying to suggest she dug another grave to further suggest there may have been other victims in mind would be imflammatory and prejudical to the jury.
 
It could have been an opinion, or it could have also been outside the scope of the hearing.
 
To be fair, Evidence is one of the hardest classes I had in law school.

Oh, I agree. Don't get me wrong. But even in these high profile cases, they seem to do little to help the officers prep for the court room. That has always bothered me a little. Most cops aren't comfortable in a courtroom, and it would be nice if they could have a little support ahead of time.

Wasn't bashing the officer, just the way things are handled in general.
 
Or may have been speculation on the part of the officer?

That too. He cannot testify as to what her state of mind or intention was when she dug the hole therefore such testimony is rightly inadmissable.
 
There are a lot of reasons. How was he cut off (eta: and who cut him off) ? Whatever he was about to say was probably not admissible at that hearing.

He was cut off by an objection from Alyssa's attorney. He said that the hearing was not to discuss the who/what/how/why of the case, r the physical evidence, etc, but to determine if she should be tried as an adult or not.

The state's attorney argued that one of the points she needed to support, involved the severity, or cruelty, of the crime, so she was trying to ask the highway patrolman questions about the actual crime, crime scene, motive, method, etc. After each question was answered, or sometimes DURING an answer, Alyssa's attorney would again object.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
109
Guests online
2,469
Total visitors
2,578

Forum statistics

Threads
601,791
Messages
18,129,906
Members
231,145
Latest member
alicat3
Back
Top