GUILTY Australia - Andrew, 45, Rose, 44, & Chantelle Rowe, 16, slain, Kapunda, 8 Nov 2010 #4

[Cyclone82]

If that theory is right wouldn't there have to be some kind of major unstable actions prior?

Midsommer is right, you can not get through your adolescent period without having an undying attraction to at least one person.

To go to such extreme to not only kill the one you love but the parents too? Those actions are extremely unstable and would find it hard to conceive someone would just wake up one day and do that! In my opinion there would have to be some prior instability signs.

The thing is that everyone here has a different idea of what someone would/could do in that situation. Yes 99% of people in that situation would just get 'over it' realise they are never gonna have a chance with the girl/guy of their dreams that doesnt share the same feelings but then there is the 1% that wont take no for an answer.

Im not suggesting that people all of sudden wake up and decide thats it, they cant take it any longer and want to kill the person they cant be with. My theory for this case is that he had thought about it for a long time, well maybe not a long time as in years, but at least several months. It became a fantasy, he had a lot of stuff bottled up he had previously kept hidden inside and then he finally decided to follow through with his fantasy. I can 100% with no doubt in my mind understand/believe how he could have not shown shown ANY signs of instabilty before hand. People think 'oh if only we saw the signs and could have interviened and helped him' but i understand that you can not expect to see the warning signs in people who keep this all inside which is what i believe he did and then he let it ALL out on that ONE night and thats what has blown everyone away on this case, as they just cant understand how that could happen. Well i am one of the people who can understand that happening. The only way that anyone could have maybe possibly known this was comming was if he had a professional pshycological evaluation, then yeah possibly they could pick up on what he had hidden inside, but i wouldnt bet on it. Anyway thats my thoughts, if you dont agree that is fine we can all share differing opinions/threories here.

Surely there has been another case similar to this in the US or somewhere?

 

[sbr]

how can a supression be in place when the FEDERAL police alongside the FEDERAL government gave interstate media the "ok" the identify the accused on footage shown in SA? contradictory.

the suppression was to ensure his address, number, relatives details, social network pages not be available for the media or public to stop potential retaliation against his family and friends.

and that's from a very reputable, trusted source

Yes I think you're right and I think that's why they tried to keep his place of employment out of it also.

 

[midsommer]

But my post said they mentioned that the police said they had a match on the day the perp was arrested. I do not understand how if they didn't have a match two days before this changes anything? He remains in custody. The suppression order will not last forever either, and the truth will come out.

Oh, I see (I think).
Are you saying that on the day they arrested the suspect they said they had a DNA match?
Do you remember where you read that?

 

[Cyclone82]

kimmy, make sure when you log in you click 'remember me' as it sounds like your session is timing out and thats why you dont see the edit button as your not logged in.

Are you saying that on the day they arrested the suspect they said they had a DNA match?

yeah they wouldnt have arrested him without a DNA match, that would have been foolish.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Oh, I see (I think).
Are you saying that on the day they arrested the suspect they said they had a DNA match?
Do you remember where you read that?

Here is one example there are others.

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...-kapunda-murders/story-e6frfku0-1225953944887

A LATE-night visitor and DNA may be the keys to finding the Kapunda triple murderer, police say.

Police have obtained a DNA profile from the crime scene, a week after Andrew and Rose Rowe and their 16-year-old daughter Chantelle were stabbed to death in their home in the South Australian town.
Forensic results from the crime scene were still coming in but police now had a DNA profile, Superintendent Grant Moyle said.
"I am able to reveal today that we have obtained the DNA profile of an unknown male person from the crime scene," Supt Moyle said.

ETA I should have said profile not match.....however since this time he has been in custody long enough for him to be excluded if he could be. He has not. He remains in custody remanded until Feb next year.....
​

 

[sbr]

This is just my opinion!!

Here is how the gossip goes

The night he was arrested and the police had the conference out front of the police station. supposedly the person who claimed to have driven him there shouted out I took him to the house that night.

In all honesty there are flaws in that! That night there was no suppression order what so ever, and in fact the suppression order did not come into effect until around 1pm the next day. They say the media chased him? why is it that this had not been published, it sounds nice and juicy, you know the kinds of things that jurnos love? But that's just my opinion so I really don't think it can be taken as fact but only gossip

On the suppression order, the media could've also released who the accused was that night here in SA but they didn't so it's certainly possible.

 

[sbr]

We hear that people gave DNA samples willingly.
There was a rumour that the acussed did not give DNA.
But surely if a close friend of the family had refused a DNA sample then alarm bells would have rung for the police.
They would have insisted or, if necessary, got a court order, or dragged him off for extensive questioning, none of which happened.
I cannot imagine the police just shrugging their shoulders and moving on if a friend who was at the Saturday night party would not give a DNA swab.
Yet 4 days later the police announced that they did not have a DNA match.

But did they shrug their shoulders? (let's assume, what comes next is true) perhaps that's why they took his shoes, then clothing and then car, and why they took whatever he placed on the shrine?

 

[Mrs G Norris]

That is ok. It has been mentioned that CR only viewed the accused as a 'friend' and nothing more. He wanted more and she just wanted to keep the relationship as friends. To me it makes sense if he killed her because he may have thought, if i cant have her, then i dont want anyone else to. Maybe it was too painful for him to see her in a relationship with someone else? So thats why i dont think it would make more sense for him to have killed the boyfriend because that would not necessarily make her want to be with him afterwards even if he got away with it. He would be in the same situation as he was before hand, with the girl he likes still only wanting to be 'just friends' but with the addition of the fact that he had killed her B/F

Just want to confirm this is my thoughts and speculations only

Exactly ... it is a common motive for murder, we see it over and over again..

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/story.html?id=d438d5e0-7573-4e93-a190-0c33847a2bdd
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/item_CQoEDA3BvSQbaF1LisQ8cP

 

[midsommer]

Yep, that is the same content that I posted earlier, except I posted the stoyr from The Australian.

It is also the article I used to illustrate my point.

The article says:

Forensic results from the crime scene were still coming in but police now had a DNA profile, Superintendent Grant Moyle said.

"I am able to reveal today that we have obtained the DNA profile of an unknown male person from the crime scene," Supt Moyle said.

Youths known to the slain family had voluntarily given DNA swabs to help eliminate suspects and police might consider an extension of the testing, he said.

My point was that, if they had tested all the youths, and if the DNA was from "an unknown male", how was it that 2 days later they decided to arrest one of the youths they had earlier tested and dismissed.

I have not read a report anywhere that says he was arrested "based on DNA evidence".
Is anyone aware of such a report?

 

[Mrs G Norris]

^ my point is by now he would have been tested either way against the DNA profile they put together in the above article. And he remains in custody. If his DNA did not match he would have been cleared. He has not.

 

[Cyclone82]

Yeah, its been a week or more, if the DNA didnt match they would have let him go i reckon.

Why hold somone who doesn't match the DNA found at the scene?

My point was that, if they had tested all the youths, and if the DNA was from "an unknown male", how was it that 2 days later they decided to arrest one of the youths they had earlier tested and dismissed.

Didn't 'unknown' mean that it didnt match anyone known on the national database?

Midsommer - might be an article here?
http://www.crimecasefiles.com/forum/australian-crime-news/22843-three-bodies-found-at-kapunda-4.html

 

[sbr]

They allegedly took whatever he placed on the shrine for DNA. Perhaps this was a match and they used that plus other evidence to enable an arrest and then they took his DNA again since.

 

[patroler]

Yep, that is the same content that I posted earlier, except I posted the stoyr from The Australian.

It is also the article I used to illustrate my point.

The article says:

Forensic results from the crime scene were still coming in but police now had a DNA profile, Superintendent Grant Moyle said.

"I am able to reveal today that we have obtained the DNA profile of an unknown male person from the crime scene," Supt Moyle said.

Youths known to the slain family had voluntarily given DNA swabs to help eliminate suspects and police might consider an extension of the testing, he said.

My point was that, if they had tested all the youths, and if the DNA was from "an unknown male", how was it that 2 days later they decided to arrest one of the youths they had earlier tested and dismissed.

I have not read a report anywhere that says he was arrested "based on DNA evidence".
Is anyone aware of such a report?

the article appeared in the australian on the 15th, accused arrested on 16th, appeared in court on the 17th - this tells me that they had him in their sights as early as the 14th

 

[nobody11]

On the suppression order, the media could've also released who the accused was that night here in SA but they didn't so it's certainly possible.

The police didn't release his name that night, it was only known from town gossip. They can not release it from gossip. But the time it was confirmed it was suppresses

 

[midsommer]

Exactly ... it is a common motive for murder, we see it over and over again..

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/story.html?id=d438d5e0-7573-4e93-a190-0c33847a2bdd
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/item_CQoEDA3BvSQbaF1LisQ8cP

Very interesting - thanks for those links.

Here is an interesting artcle about obsessive love that I found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive_love

It makes interesting reading, but I'm not sure it fits this person.
I only have the FB posts to go on, before they were removed or closed, but in my opinion his posts to CR never seemed obsessive and were not especially frequent, compared to other friends.

 

[MissedCalling]

I'd like to know what kind of DNA they took from whatever they removed from the shrine....what could he have left? ...Paper? (a note)....flowers??...a teddy bear??...And wouldn't it have been contaminated by everything else left there?

Thoughts??

 

[midsommer]

They allegedly took whatever he placed on the shrine for DNA. Perhaps this was a match and they used that plus other evidence to enable an arrest and then they took his DNA again since.

I cannot find the article, but I think they took ev erything from the shrine, not just his tribute.

 

[nobody11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive_love[/url]

That's what I was talking about, there would be many signs in the lead up that would have made the victim feel uncomfortable. She would have expressed this to someone

 

[nobody11]

I cannot find the article, but I think they took ev erything from the shrine, not just his tribute.

You're correct, they took everything not just specific things

 

[nobody11]

I'd like to know what kind of DNA they took from whatever they removed from the shrine....what could he have left? ...Paper? (a note)....flowers??...a teddy bear??...And wouldn't it have been contaminated by everything else left there?

Thoughts??

Would be so very easy to have cross contamination......unless......maybe an envelope that was licked?