GUILTY HI - Carly Joann 'Charli' Scott, 27, pregnant, Makawao, 9 Feb 2014 - #6

[PeterTosh]

Maybe the gray hoodie was left by someone else who was out there fishing or surfing on another occasion.

Most likely

 

[Maisiebelle]

Why aren't they allowed to discuss the knife going missing from SC's workplace?

 

[Maisiebelle]

So the masking tape used at the workplace is the same as the tape found at the crime scene?

 

[PeterTosh]

So the masking tape used at the workplace is the same as the tape found at the crime scene?

Could you recap todays events?

 

[EstrellaEspectral]

[h=1]Capobianco Trial: Ultrasound Shows Fetal Heart Rate, Age:[/h]http://mauinow.com/2016/10/24/capobianco-trial-ultrasound-shows-fetal-heart-rate-age/

 

[EstrellaEspectral]

Does anyone know who Ashley Silva is? Was it the person who testified today that used to work with SC? I didn't catch his name.

So matching tape and another comment about killing? I don't see how anyone could believe he's innocent.

 

[Moxie_McTavish]

The police came and dusted the windows for fingerprints.

The absence of any viable fingerprints on the window frames did not disprove that my house was burglarized. Clearly, it was.

It's not really an apt comparison, there's no doubt whatsoever that a murder occurred in this case, and that has nothing to do with the DNA evidence.

Similarly, the absence of SC's DNA on clothing items does not prove that he wasn't there or that somebody else was there. As I mentioned before, the clothing could have been pre-owned. Maybe his grandfather or his step-brother gave him some clothes to use when working on cars. Maybe he got some clothes from a thrift store. Maybe the gray hoodie was left by someone else who was out there fishing or surfing on another occasion.

I appreciate you (or anyone at all...) doing a bit of brainstorming as to how so much other DNA got on the clothes. I am bothered when people minimize hard evidence just because it conflicts with their preconceived ideas. I would have thought people would discuss the DNA evidence and try to fit it into the puzzle just as people eagerly discussed Dr. Taylor's forensic testimony, the cell phone data, the maggot testimony, etc. But because the DNA results might conflict with what we've all assumed is true, people turn away from it and kick it under the carpet like it's an Apo-planted embarrassement. But it's not. The DNA evidence needs to be integrated into theories about this case.

Finally, in reading people's responses about the DNA, it's clear that most people just don't understand it. Because if people understood it, they wouldn't be saying that the hoodie was left by surfers/fishermen:
-The site where they were found is nearly a quarter mile upstream in thick jungle, far from the bay, near the crime scene.
-The black jeans that the hoodie was found with are 32 x 30, just like the other pants found at Kaumahina w/ Charli's blood on it.
-And for the third time, the gray hoodie from Nua'ailua and the blue jeans found at Kaumahina both have DNA from someone that shows code 29 at the exact same position on the DNA: Steven & Charli do not.
So no, it's not likely that the hoodie was just randomly left there and is unrelated to the crime.

The DNA evidence is clearly not a fruitful discussion at all, because people don't want to think about it or understand it. So let's just move on. I won't bring it up again. :scared:

 

[PeterTosh]

Does anyone know who Ashley Silva is? Was it the person who testified today that used to work with SC? I didn't catch his name.

So matching tape and another comment about killing? I don't see how anyone could believe he's innocent.

Confirmed Bias. Some folks have an opinion knowing what they want you or I to believe and try and fit facts around it to confirm it.

 

[RunDaSurf]

Ashley worked at Mana with SC and partied with Cass and SC.

 

[RunDaSurf]

Ashley worked at Mana all the same years as SC.
AS: I considered him to be one of my best friends. We occasionally met out on the weekends.
RR: Were you ever romatically involved with the defendant?
AS: No.

 

[RunDaSurf]

According to Ashley, Ashley and SC discussed the disappearance of Mo Monsalve on multiple occasions.

AS: I had asked him somewhere down the line of "what do you think happened to her?" And he said if it was him he would just throw her off the side of a cliff.

RR: Did he say why he would do that?

AS: Because no one would ever find her.

 

[EstrellaEspectral]

Ashley worked at Mana with SC and partied with Cass and SC.

Thank you. I tuned in late today and I'm now watching the video from the beginning. She testified first. When Mo Monslave went missing they discussed it on breaks a few times. She once asked what he thought happened to her and he responded saying that if it was him he would throw him over the side of a cliff because no one would find her.

 

[RunDaSurf]

Apo took a page from his ilk, Donald Trump, and tried to say Steven's words are just "stoner talk."

Talking about how to get away with sexual assault is "locker room talk."
Talking about how to get away with murder is "stoner talk."

 

[EstrellaEspectral]

Apo took a page from his ilk, Donald Trump, and tried to say Steven's words are just "stoner talk."

Talking about how to get away with sexual assault is "locker room talk."
Talking about how to get away with murder is "stoner talk."

Apo's question was ridiculous. How would being under the influence of cannabis have ANYTHING to do with that comment?

 

[RunDaSurf]

Apo is ridiculous.

 

[MakaniKitty]

In the olden days when we didn't have DNA evidence cases were tried without it. Is DNA the be all and end all of justice now?

Amen, Maisiebelle! Medical professionals are taught to "look at the patient, not just the monitors". That's because it's tempting to put your faith in the machines monitoring vital signs and not check the actual patient, who might be doing differently than what the monitors say. I think the same principle applies here: We have a suspect with motive and opportunity who has lied to everyone about his alibi, deliberately misdirected search efforts away from the crime scene, was seen driving her car immediately after she was murdered, had suspicious wounds on his hands...the list goes on and on. Are we going to disregard all of that just because his DNA wasn't found on clothing retrieved near the crime scene? Putting too much weight on laboratory evidence (or lack thereof) and ignoring the enormous stack of other supportive evidence pointing directly at the defendant is exactly what Apo is hoping the jury will do, IMHO.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Moxie_McTavish]

Amen, Maisiebelle! Medical professionals are taught to "look at the patient, not just the monitors". That's because it's tempting to put your faith in the machines monitoring vital signs and not check the actual patient, who might be doing differently than what the monitors say. I think the same principle applies here: We have a suspect with motive and opportunity who has lied to everyone about his alibi, deliberately misdirected search efforts away from the crime scene, was seen driving her car immediately after she was murdered, had suspicious wounds on his hands...the list goes on and on. Are we going to disregard all of that just because his DNA wasn't found on clothing retrieved near the crime scene? Putting too much weight on laboratory evidence (or lack thereof) and ignoring the enormous stack of other supportive evidence pointing directly at the defendant is exactly what Apo is hoping the jury will do, IMHO.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I'm sorry, MakaniKitty, but can you explain where you're getting this from? I assume your comments are directed toward my trying to figure out the presence of multiple DNA on the clothing, which to me is really fascinating, but I have never suggested any of the things that you're talking about here: Disregarding the other evidence? No way! I believe 100% that Steven is responsible for this crime, I don't understand where you - and some others - are getting this idea that I'm encouraging people to overturn their whole idea of what happened and who did it. We all know who did it.

I wanted people to discuss the new DNA evidence and possibilities of how it was deposited on the clothing, and not retreat from that evidence, but I see now that that's an impossibility. People want to just put it out of mind. I think there are a small number of us here who are just very curious about the crime and understanding EVERYTHING that happened, but most here just want to see that SC gets put away for good and that's it. I understand that now.

 

[MakaniKitty]

I'm sorry, MakaniKitty, but can you explain where you're getting this from? I assume your comments are directed toward my trying to figure out the presence of multiple DNA on the clothing, which to me is really fascinating, but I have never suggested any of the things that you're talking about here: Disregarding the other evidence? No way! I believe 100% that Steven is responsible for this crime, I don't understand where you - and some others - are getting this idea that I'm encouraging people to overturn their whole idea of what happened and who did it. We all know who did it.

I wanted people to discuss the new DNA evidence and possibilities of how it was deposited on the clothing, and not retreat from that evidence, but I see now that that's an impossibility. People want to just put it out of mind. I think there are a small number of us here who are just very curious about the crime and understanding EVERYTHING that happened, but most here just want to see that SC gets put away for good and that's it. I understand that now.

I was actually responding to Maisiebelle's observation about DNA not being the be all and end all.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[heartgoesout]

Moxie, I get you.
I was going to post before I saw your post, that I have not fully wrapped my head around the DNA evidence. It's exhausting to take it all in when I don't fully understand the ins and outs of DNA. Thus, my exclusion from that topic.
I too feel this is a forum that should respectfully allow all respectful thought processes and thinking things through.
There is nothing wrong with asking questions and digging for the truth and to have that raveling in your head.
There are factual people, there are visual people, there are those who seek and then the minions. Not one is right or wrong. I agree the DNA could be analyzed a bit more. Some people find it relevant while others just don't.

At this point there is not an establishment of who the clothes even belong to. So it can work either way.
I do ask why the clothing seemed relevant to the investigators but the fanny bag did not. It had to have had some significance for investigators to pay attention to it.

We have tossed around the accomplice idea for awhile now. The DNA at this point neither confirms or denies this possibility.
Like I said awhile ago, LE may just think he had help but can't prove it so they are going right to the source of their best evidence, Steven. We don't know what the attorneys have discussed.

 

[Moxie_McTavish]

I was actually responding to Maisiebelle's observation about DNA not being the be all and end all.

Then I will direct that post to other posters who do seem to be attributing those leaps in logic to me, like RunDaSurf, Kapua, PeterTosh, and whoever else.
I have NEVER suggested that SC is not responsible for this crime, and as of right now, I believe he did EVERYTHING on his own. I believe in looking at the totality of evidence. All of it. Everything. Like fitting ALL of the pieces into a puzzle.