It's a preliminary test where a blood substance or pathogen is deemed present. MOOPresumptive positive results means what? I Google it but run amuck.
Yes, I totally agree!!! Bam!!I think PM likely had his phone in his hand when he was blasted and AM started to panic about what might be on the phone and had an idea of how he was going to disappear the phone but had second thoughts. JMO
"A presumed blood sample is first collected with a swab. A drop of phenolphthalein reagent is added to the sample, and after a few seconds, a drop of hydrogen peroxide is applied to the swab. If the swab turns pink rapidly, it is said to test presumptive positive for blood."Presumptive positive results means what? I Google it but run amuck.
Underhanded tactics. MooWhy did DH ask the judge to recess for the weekend when the state was still in the process of interviewing a witness? Or did I miss something?
Her car was still at the house. The house was empty. She's not answering the phone. So it's logical to start looking on the property in the last place you saw them.
As of the end of today, I am still not convinced of AM’s guilt. However, I don’t know any of the back story or rumours. But, just listening to the few days of the trial so far, there isn’t anything that suggests otherwise. In the court of public opinion, yes he is guilty but in a court of law, it doesn’t appear so as of yet. Please don’t dex me…jmo
Edited to add: I think there were some mistakes made when investigating that does not help the state.
How?If the phone "popped out" when AM tried to turn the body, that wouldn't explain the bloodstains inside the back pocket, correct? Or did I miss something?
How what? Sorry, confused by your question. AM claimed the phone popped out when he tried to turn the body. IF he was telling the truth, how would the bloodstains inside the pocket be explained? Asking if anyone has info on that, that I missed.How?
Yes, I totally agree! I am just saying up until the end of today…There's still a lot of evidence to be revealed, I assume. They're still in the midst of revealing it.
The investigators placed their arms on his shoulder trying to console AM as he was crying in that car interview at Moselle
I agree with you. If he was telling the truth, how in the world would there be bloodstaines inside the pocket?How what? Sorry, confused by your question. AM claimed the phone popped out when he tried to turn the body. IF he was telling the truth, how would the bloodstains inside the pocket be explained? Asking if anyone has info on that, that I missed.
The back of Paul's head is gone. Why would he turn him over.? There would be no reason. He is telling lies at to why he messed with Paul's phone. A phone that was just used to video a dog. Thank God it was already sent.
He can't say "I dug it out of his pocket cause I wanted to look inside it."
So he created a scenario of him turning Paul over and the phone just happen to "pop" out. (And no way is that phone just going to pop out of some pocket).
There could be a murderer on the lose and he decides to check out his son's phone. Ugh! What a liar.
Maybe she brought fast food?The damage to Paul's body is staggering. Trying to imagine the type of father who could blow his own young son's brains into the air where his brains land on his ankle. Then, have the audacity to reach inside that child's pocket, where blood was detected, to remove his phone. Just like MM's, I assume it was locked and AM could not open it.
These murders were incredibly evil. Cold and calculated. 100% I believe the state has the right person accused of their horrendous deaths.
Their final meal has found me a dash perplexed over the similar stomach contents of the victims indicating that, indeed, the victims had recently eaten. Where did this food for their meal come from?
<modsnip - no link>
I'm still waiting to hear how she ended up down there at that time of night, after a busy day driving all over the place, visiting, etc. Is AM alleging that she prepared the "family dinner" they enjoyed? None of his story fits, JMO.