Found Deceased WA - Jenise Wright, 6, Bremerton, 2 Aug 2014 - #9 *Arrest*

[musicaljoke]

In some odd way, was killing her a merciful thing after what she had been through with the rape, in his mind?? I never considered that until typing just now. Did he want her suffering to just stop? Did he know how horrible the rape was and did not want her to live?
Just speculating.

No, I can't agree that he showed any mercy whatsoever. The violent way he killed her was remorseless, self-interested and evil. He was utterly indifferent to her suffering.

 

[Aud1]

Warning: A little graphic



Since they have his DNA, why would they need his confession? Particularly if his semen was found inside that poor little girl (RAGING just typing that)?

 

[CrazyKat]

Warning: A little graphic



Since they have his DNA, why would they need his confession? Particularly if his semen was found inside that poor little girl (RAGING just typing that)?

We don't know if it was found inside her, I don't think. That is, I don't think it said that in the probable cause report that they found it inside her. They did say semen was on her underwear. We can assume it was found in her but we don't know because it is probably info on the autopsy report itself. I will look at the prob cause statement again.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

But what if his mother refused to provide DNA? And he refused? Could they get search warrants? Someone said they could but wouldn't they have to have more probable cause than just that they live there in the mhp and knew her??

This didn't happen. Don't understand how this question moves us forward?

 

[CrazyKat]

We don't know if it was found inside her, I don't think. That is, I don't think it said that in the probable cause report that they found it inside her. They did say semen was on her underwear. We can assume it was found in her but we don't know because it is probably info on the autopsy report itself. I will look at the prob cause statement again.

Just looked at prob cause statement. It says evidence of sexual assault (and mentions the pre death tearing and trauma to the genital area) but it does not specify whether his dna or anyone else's was found inside her. Just no mention of that subject at all.
Again, I suspect the autopsy report is probably very detailed and would address it in there.

 

[newone]

Warning: A little graphic



Since they have his DNA, why would they need his confession? Particularly if his semen was found inside that poor little girl (RAGING just typing that)?

bbu

I don't believe that ''issue'' has been revealed == there was damage done to her in that area
but semen ''there'' has yet to be revealed --- has been revealed on clothing etc from what was told to us so far IIRC

 

[CrazyKat]

This didn't happen. Don't understand how this question moves us forward?

It doesn't, but I think we are just trying to learn more about how things are done, how things work in an investigation...especially since there are no new developments in the case facts just yet.

 

[Aud1]

Just looked at prob cause statement. It says evidence of sexual assault (and mentions the pre death tearing and trauma to the genital area) but it does not specify whether his dna or anyone else's was found inside her. Just no mention of that subject at all.
Again, I suspect the autopsy report is probably very detailed and would address it in there.

Thanks for checking.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

This made me think, isn't there usually some kind of signed confession? Did he have to sign something. . .some kind of statement? IDK. . .maybe just on tv. :dunno:

I'm thinking all they had was the nod and the dna. The dna screams guilty (imo) but the nod is worthless.

Read a goofy book while ago ~ the head prosecutor kept saying "Ya-No" about everything. Not yes, not no. Believe it applies here! :0)

 

[newone]

You're welcome. I watch way to many Investigation Discovery shows, I saw all the Forensic Files, and all the New Detectives episodes.

The Grim Sleeper was local to me and I was fascinated in how they caught him. Had his kid kept his nose clean, the GS would have gotten away with it.

Once LE got DNA from any of GG's biological family members, it was just a matter of time before they narrowed it down to the right one. Once they realized the connection, even if GG had refused to give a DNA sample, LE could have gotten a court order for GG to have to give them his DNA for their investigation.

it is satisfying to know that LE has the ability to cross match, now with GG's let's hope there are no more ''matches'' for him....

 

[CrazyKat]

Hmm, just noticed on page 5 of the probable cause statement that when they are giving the quote from forensics, they refer to GG first as "Individual B".

A comes before B,
So who was their Individual A??

https://tribkcpq.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/gaeta_gabriel_141007866_prelim.pdf

 

[Honey_West]

Hypothetically, GG could say he raped her and left her somewhere,
but didn't kill her. Then what? The DNA only proves he raped her.

Here is an example of a perp that tried to claim that defence, and the outcome.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Parrott

 

[BelleIsle]

Hmm, just noticed on page 5 of the probable cause statement that when they are giving the quote from forensics, they refer to GG first as "Individual B".

A comes before B,
So who was their Individual A??




https://tribkcpq.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/gaeta_gabriel_141007866_prelim.pdf

Jenise?

ETA I cannot c&p from that link, but check out page 4, 2nd to last paragraph. Trying to add a screen shot. Mods, feel free to remove if screen shots are not allowed. (took it down, I don't want to go in time out)

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Graphic warning.

The probable cause statement just mentions the semen on the underwear but not from or inside her body. I would bet that the autopsy report documents whether there was semen inside her. Since she was found in the mud, that would be the only other way to find his dna, by looking inside.

Not sure what you mean by two pairs of underwear. They found hers and her shorts in the wooded area. They found his underwear in his room.

Why put the clothes back on?
I posted a couple days ago that I think the rape happened in a car. I think that she put the underwear and shorts back on because he said they would go home. Maybe he meant it. But then the blood got on them that way. She was probably crying and freaking out and he realized that there would be no way in heck that she could keep this a secret, he became enraged and decided he must kill her. Or he just started hitting her in rage to shut her up and just did not stop, and felt he had to kill her at that point.

In some odd way, was killing her a merciful thing after what she had been through with the rape, in his mind?? I never considered that until typing just now. Did he want her suffering to just stop? Did he know how horrible the rape was and did not want her to live?
Just speculating.

Interesting theory about mercy. I read the probable cause and then must have pushed it right out. The timeline on the first page says second pair of underwear found and I wasn't clear on whose but that makes sense, thank you.

I guess my concern is why put them back on and them take them off again. They found them and her shorts separate from her body. Dressing her, killing her, undressing her again? I get sick thinking about the possible reasoning behind it. I feel like this kid had a dark side that wasn't as public or, at least, no one is talking about. I so hope they find him competent.

OMGosh. This makes me so sad as it has been what I've been struggling about. Either he did it and she got dressed and tried to be returned to her family and she kept crying so he killed her because he knew she couldn't keep "the secret" or she just plain fought so hard that she died of the trauma.

Either way, what a horror. God bless her and her suffering family and friends!

 

[CrazyKat]

Jenise?

Hmm, could be that she was individual A. I was thinking maybe another male. I would bet they ran her Dad's, but also speculating if they had DNA from the other two teen friends of GG's.

 

[hambirg]

Here is an example of a perp that tried to claim that defence, and the outcome.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Parrott

Why am I not surprised that someone actually tried that as a defense? I didn't mean to imply it was a good defense, but it could possibly raise doubt in a juror's mind, kwim?

 

[newone]

Hmm, just noticed on page 5 of the probable cause statement that when they are giving the quote from forensics, they refer to GG first as "Individual B".

A comes before B,
So who was their Individual A??




https://tribkcpq.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/gaeta_gabriel_141007866_prelim.pdf

I don't recall the case, better minds at WS probably remember (a case where victim had two samples and one was from her real boyfriend and of course the perp )
but if he had intercourse with someone who had had intercourse with someone else that persons dna could contaminate his sample OR he had ''dealings'' intimately with a male (MOO)

 

[newone]

From reading the documents, it's clear that they offered the possibility of involvement with his friend or anyone else being involved and he denied that. there's a reason:

(a) embarrassed or
(b) he acted alone

moo

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

From reading the documents, it's clear that they offered the possibility of involvement with his friend or anyone else being involved and he denied that. there's a reason:

(a) embarrassed or
(b) he acted alone

moo

or
(c) protecting/covering for a accomplice (IMO highly unlikely!)

 

[jjenny]

I don't recall the case, better minds at WS probably remember (a case where victim had two samples and one was from her real boyfriend and of course the perp )
but if he had intercourse with someone who had had intercourse with someone else that persons dna could contaminate his sample OR he had ''dealings'' intimately with a male (MOO)

I don't think it's anything like this. Individual B appears to be what police called him when they send his sample for testing. Must have been another suspect they called individual A (and obviously who turned out not to be the perp).