Cool Cats
I EXPECT DOUGHNUTS
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 12,398
- Reaction score
- 95,569
This is interesting because I'm always thinking about DNA in general terms. Like did they find any or not?I suppose that depends on where they find it and the type or source of the DNA. If it's DNA found in one of the killers' blood left at a crime scene, for example, that could be very incriminating. I've always wondered if any of the killers were injured that night, especially in the fight with CR1. If they find a victim and killer's DNA on an article of clothing or a weapon, etc. - also very incriminating. If they find some blood dropped in an area where the killers were allegedly seen on one of the hunting cams on the Rhoden property, also problematic. Check the evidence list.
These are just alternatives to the most popular theory, which is DNA found on the weapon, shells recovered at the scene or silencer parts possibly found in the old well.
But you are correct, the source of the DNA matters and the location.
When Jake lived with the Rhodens it was in the trailer where HG and Frankie lived ( I'm sure but can't prove it with a MSM link) and so we know his DNA could be in that home and in Dana's new house.
So if they find his DNA in those 2 homes it will really matter where and from what source. Like was it touch DNA from a door handle or DNA on a victim's clothing from a hair follical?
The door handle can be explained but not the clothes.
So let's say they found a dog hair in CR1's home (from falling off a killer) and it matches Jake's dog but not CR1's dogs but Jake doesn't know this. So in his interviews they ask him if he had any of his dogs in any of the homes and he says yes in Dana's and yes in Frankie's when he lived there but no not at CR1's. He doesn't have time to think it through.
So this evidence comes up in court and Jake's attorney says that Jake just couldn't remember but yes he really did bring his dog over to CR1's. But when the prosecution plays back the interview it will make a strong impression that Jake is probably lying to cover up his tracks.
I'm getting a bit ahead of myself here but the source and place of finding DNA from the killers, along with what the killers said to LE in their interviews, will matter to the jury in my opinion. Remember they were caught in a web of lies and I bet those lies will be played for the jury.
Last edited: