Evidence

[OriginalJerseyGirl]

I thought that too at first, but I know a lot of people that forget.

I guess that's possible but with a baby in a fairly high-crime area?

 

[OriginalJerseyGirl]

She had one. CONFIRMED

Thanks for confirming that Janet did have her own cell phone.

 

[newkid]

Yeah, like I said, it's not very smart, but I know people who do it.

I also know people who live in high crime areas who only lock the door at night, amazingly they have not yet been victims of crime themselves. Anyway, maybe he was planning to go back downstairs before going to bed.

 

[Jesstexas]

Ya'll are forgetting ... if someone else did this crime, there might not have been blood on the door when Raven entered. Raven could have transferred the blood when he left the house to go to the car for some mysterious reason.

I wonder why no swabbings were taken on the staircase railing? I mean, if Raven tried to help Janet and his hands were bloody and then he goes outside, why isn't there blood on the staircase railing? Of course, there might have been, but there are no such swabbings listed on the search warrant.

 

[golfmom]

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y288/Golfmom/snap0014.jpg

photo of stair railing!

 

[Timex]

Seems to me if he went into the house through the door that had blood on it, there really wont be anyway of explaining why he wasnt concerned. Ive spent the last hour trying to find a way to explain not seeing the blood, and I havent come up with a single reasonable explanation. This alone would make him a dead man walking if I were a jury member, assuming this will be a death penalty case, which I would hope it would be.

 

[golfmom]

Seems to me if he went into the house through the door that had blood on it, there really wont be anyway of explaining why he wasnt concerned. Ive spent the last hour trying to find a way to explain not seeing the blood, and I havent come up with a single reasonable explanation. This alone would make him a dead man walking if I were a jury member, assuming this will be a death penalty case, which I would hope it would be.

Timex, if SODDI, then there may not have been blood on the door, the blood could have been transfered there IF Raven tried to revive Janet. I have a harder time explaining how the blood would get in the SUV ... that just makes no sense to me, none.

 

[Timex]

Timex, if SODDI, then there may not have been blood on the door, the blood could have been transfered there IF Raven tried to revive Janet. I have a harder time explaining how the blood would get in the SUV ... that just makes no sense to me, none.

I just couldnt buy the "Raven transferred it" idea. If thats what happened, he dont stand a chance in hell of getting a jury to believe it. No way...no how. If he could transfer it to the door, he could transfer it to the SUV. Nope, just cant buy it. If he had blood on him, he did it IMO.

 

[golfmom]

I just couldnt buy the "Raven transferred it" idea. If thats what happened, he dont stand a chance in hell of getting a jury to believe it. No way...no how. If he could transfer it to the door, he could transfer it to the SUV. Nope, just cant buy it. If he had blood on him, he did it IMO.

LOL Timex, the things that you can explain away, I've been having a heart attack over. But the things I can explain away, you take exception too.

We would have a heck of a lot of fun on a jury together! We'd be the attorney's, judges, and defendant's worst nightmares come true!

 

[golfmom]

If he could transfer it to the door, he could transfer it to the SUV. Nope, just cant buy it. If he had blood on him, he did it IMO.

I know he could transfer it to the SUV, but for the life of me I can't come up with a reasonable explaination for him to go anywhere near that vehicle.

 

[SouthEastSleuth]

There are two other relatively "swabbing/control" entries on the search warrant as well -

#19 - the kitchen counter. Not SO odd I don't guess, as it's right beside THE door.

#20 - the master bathroom floor. This one is a little more curious, as it is the only swabbing, etc., taken from the master bedroom or bathroom.

http://www.wral.com/slideshow/4444879/detail.html?qs=;s=10;w=800

 

[Timex]

if he had blood on him...then Kaiden should have also had blood on him. no way he could transfer blood to the door and the SUV, yet not get any on Kaiden.

All the message board stuff means nothing to me. Blood is real evidence, cant be explained away. We see this is many cases. The perp will try to use the "oh I tried to save her" defense. Ive yet to see it work. Ive been following trials for over 6 years, and cant think of a single trial where the defendant had blood on them and was not convicted. Jury's just dont buy transfer.

 

[golfmom]

if he had blood on him...then Kaiden should have also had blood on him. no way he could transfer blood to the door and the SUV, yet not get any on Kaiden.
.

and B-I-N-G-O was his name Oh!

 

[Jesstexas]

Outside of the room where Janet was found, "swabbings" were taken from:

- the left front door of the Durango
- the left front window of the Durango
- the interior side storm door
- the interior side door frame
- the kitchen counter
- the master bathroom floor

"Samples" were taken from the Durango:

- interior driver door at lock
- driver seat
- driver door handle

"Trace" was taken from:

- each of Janet's hands
- the driver's side floorboard of the Durango
- the driver's seat of the Durango


I think I know what "trace" is - fibers, tissues, hair, etc. But what's the difference between doing a "swabbing" and taking a "sample?" "Swabbing" means "swabbed for blood?" What kind of stuff do you take a "sample" of?

 

[SouthEastSleuth]

Timex -

Can you explain something to me as far as the "swabbing?" Is it ONLY used for liquids, or at least for something that could be picked up/absorbed by an actual swab? I guess I just thought of grease as I wrote that... it could be swabbed, but is not really a liquid. But generally speaking, is that a correct assumption, more or less?

 

[newkid]

#20 - the master bathroom floor. This one is a little more curious, as it is the only swabbing, etc., taken from the master bedroom or bathroom.

http://www.wral.com/slideshow/4444879/detail.html?qs=;s=10;w=800

Maybe the police were thinking they could find evidence of blood after someone tried to clean up? Then again, maybe there was visible blood or something that looked like blood.

 

[Timex]

Timex -

Can you explain something to me as far as the "swabbing?" Is it ONLY used for liquids, or at least for something that could be picked up/absorbed by an actual swab? I guess I just thought of grease as I wrote that... it could be swabbed, but is not really a liquid. But generally speaking, is that a correct assumption, more or less?

Well, technically, even if the blood was dry, they would "swab" it. There are chemicals they can put on the swabs to help swab some dry things, but overall I think you are thinking along the right lines. Dry evidence, such as hair etc, would not be swabbed. However, say there was no visible blood in the SUV, they could add a chemical to a swab, swab the area, and get a preliminary positive result for blood. Am I making sense?


I was somewhat surprised by the taking of trace evidence from the hands at the crime scene. Usually the hands are simply bagged, then trace collected at the morgue in a sterile environment to eliminate any chance of contamination etc.

 

[SouthEastSleuth]

Well, technically, even if the blood was dry, they would "swab" it. There are chemicals they can put on the swabs to help swab some dry things, but overall I think you are thinking along the right lines. Dry evidence, such as hair etc, would not be swabbed. However, say there was no visible blood in the SUV, they could add a chemical to a swab, swab the area, and get a preliminary positive result for blood. Am I making sense?


I was somewhat surprised by the taking of trace evidence from the hands at the crime scene. Usually the hands are simply bagged, then trace collected at the morgue in a sterile environment to eliminate any chance of contamination etc.

OK, that makes sense to me now. Especially the procedure used to swab even an area with nothing visible.

And just to clarify for myself, a swab is just that, not unlike a Q-tip, right?

I know some of these question may seem truly ignorant and obvious... but, I'd rather clarify than make a wrong assumption I guess...

 

[Timex]

yes, a swab is just that.

 

[Timex]

LOL Timex, the things that you can explain away, I've been having a heart attack over. But the things I can explain away, you take exception too.

We would have a heck of a lot of fun on a jury together! We'd be the attorney's, judges, and defendant's worst nightmares come true!

They way I do these cases...

It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment.

Do not allow the theories to dictate the facts, allow the facts to dictate the theories.

When one eliminates the impossible, the improbable remains.