The Laptop Computer

[hoppyfrog]

That clearly is asking WHO ROOSTER REALLY IS. Everything else has been backpeddling off that statement. It is not some esoteric question pondering the fate of the universe and causing us all to go into deep think mode.

You're right. It is not some esoteric question pondering the fate of the universe and causing us all to go into deep think mode.

It's like what you do when you sit around talking and I say, "But, hey! Who is Rooster really? Think about it. Do we really know who he/she is? How do we know? Why do we or not have confidence in what he/she says?"

No backpeddling. I can't force anyone to "get" it, but I know what I meant.

Hoppy

 

[Jenifred]

What does IDK mean? Haven't heard that one before.

And you said, "not even thinking that it could be the husband." To whom do you refer? Not even I have gone that far! I'm just a bit more hesitant to indict RA at this point than many here are.

Hoppy

IDK=I Don't Know And I refer to LE (law enforcement), since they and Raven are the only ones who actually witnessed the murder scene.

I want to do a little role swapping. Instead of us just sitting at our computers, let's put ourselves in LE's shoes for a minute. We get a call telling us that a husband has dialed 911 saying that his wife's been injured. When we, the police officer, arrive on the scene we start questioning the husband. He tells us that he left to play soccer that night and came home found his wife in an office upstairs with a lot of blood.

Flashing RED LIGHTS would be going off in my head and I would be thinking, "that's a little convenient--a husband out all night and came home to a wife that's been stabbed to death." Then to uncover all the things associated with this case--TOD (time of death) being narrowed down to within 5 minutes of the husband calling 911, financial problems, pending embezzlement court date, knife collecting husband, child unharmed in the next room, no evidence of rape, a computer convenietnly missing, ETC.

Now those RED LIGHTS,to me, would have turned into a bright spotlight on one person---the husband. Being a police officer, I don't have to be impartial, like a lawyer would have to be, I can go off of my instinct and all the many cases with similarities over the years, and after I have eliminated all other persons of interest, I can focus in on one the man who found her dead--her husband.

 

[hoppyfrog]

IDK=I Don't Know And I refer to LE (law enforcement), since they and Raven are the only ones who actually witnessed the murder scene.

I want to do a little role swapping. Instead of us just sitting at our computers, let's put ourselves in LE's shoes for a minute. We get a call telling us that a husband has dialed 911 saying that his wife's been injured. When we, the police officer, arrive on the scene we start questioning the husband. He tells us that he left to play soccer that night and came home found his wife in an office upstairs with a lot of blood.

Flashing RED LIGHTS would be going off in my head and I would be thinking, "that's a little convenient--a husband out all night and came home to a wife that's been stabbed to death." Then to uncover all the things associated with this case--TOD (time of death) being narrowed down to within 5 minutes of the husband calling 911, financial problems, pending embezzlement court date, knife collecting husband, child unharmed in the next room, no evidence of rape, a computer convenietnly missing, ETC.

Now those RED LIGHTS,to me, would have turned into a bright spotlight on one person---the husband. Being a police officer, I don't have to be impartial, like a lawyer would have to be, I can go off of my instinct and all the many cases with similarities over the years, and after I have eliminated all other persons of interest, I can focus in on one the man who found her dead--her husband.

Oh, I agree, now that you've explained that you are referring to LE when you said, "Going into a crime scene describes like this one, and not even thinking that it could be the husband is beyond belief to me." It's beyond belief to me too. Of course the husband needs consideration.

I'm not in LE and never plan to be, yet I *hope* that if I were in LE's shoes I would also keep an open mind and do a thorough investigation without jumping to the conclusion that the husband is responsible. I'm thinking at the moment of the Alicia Ross case in Ontario. Just a couple days ago a neighbor very unexpectedly confessed to her murder after weeks of speculation that her boyfriend, the last person known to have seen her alive, was responsible. In Alicia's case I don't know if LE was so tightly focused on the boyfriend that investigating the neighbor was neglected, but I hope not. That's a discouraging thought.

This was interesting when you said, "Being a police officer, I don't have to be impartial, like a lawyer would have to be, I can go off of my instinct and all the many cases with similarities over the years..."

I would have said the opposite, i.e. that being a police officer I have to be as impartial and broad-minded as possible lest I miss a piece of evidence because I rely too much on my instinct and on my past cases." There's surely a lot to be said for good instinct and experience, but there's also much to be said for methodical, solid police work and openmindedness as well. It seems to me that the lawyers are the ones who aren't impartial.

Thanks for your reply,

Hoppy

 

[LTUlegal]

<snipped for space>
This was interesting when you said, "Being a police officer, I don't have to be impartial, like a lawyer would have to be, I can go off of my instinct and all the many cases with similarities over the years..."

I would have said the opposite, i.e. that being a police officer I have to be as impartial and broad-minded as possible lest I miss a piece of evidence because I rely too much on my instinct and on my past cases." There's surely a lot to be said for good instinct and experience, but there's also much to be said for methodical, solid police work and openmindedness as well. It seems to me that the lawyers are the ones who aren't impartial.

Thanks for your reply,

Hoppy

I would have to agree with you in that the police officers do need to be impartial so they can perform methodical, solid police work. When there is a murder circumstance such as this, le works from the closest people to the victim out, eliminating their guilt. LE still has not eliminated Raven as a suspect. That speaks volumes to me. I believe that the Durham le are acting impartially by not naming Raven as a suspect, although his guilt seems blaringly obvious to so many. I'm sure they're getting the evidence lined up so it's a slam dunk guilty verdict.
And, yes, it's the lawyers who are much less impartial, in fact, don't they typically NOT want to know the truth about their client's guilt? They just want to look at the case that's laid out for them & play defense.

Thanks for the lively debate...it's been very interesting. My hope is that very soon, there will be Justice for Janet.

 

[hoppyfrog]

I would have to agree with you in that the police officers do need to be impartial so they can perform methodical, solid police work. When there is a murder circumstance such as this, le works from the closest people to the victim out, eliminating their guilt. LE still has not eliminated Raven as a suspect. That speaks volumes to me. I believe that the Durham le are acting impartially by not naming Raven as a suspect, although his guilt seems blaringly obvious to so many. I'm sure they're getting the evidence lined up so it's a slam dunk guilty verdict.
And, yes, it's the lawyers who are much less impartial, in fact, don't they typically NOT want to know the truth about their client's guilt? They just want to look at the case that's laid out for them & play defense.

Thanks for the lively debate...it's been very interesting. My hope is that very soon, there will be Justice for Janet.

I agree with your post completely.

You asked, "And, yes, it's the lawyers who are much less impartial, in fact, don't they typically NOT want to know the truth about their client's guilt?"

I don't know, though I've often wondered the same thing. I've often wondered if I were a defense lawyer, would I want to know if my client is guilty or not. Seem to be both pros and cons to knowing. Any lawyers who want to answer?

Thanks,

Hoppy

 

[snapple]

I'm thinking at the moment of the Alicia Ross case in Ontario. Just a couple days ago a neighbor very unexpectedly confessed to her murder after weeks of speculation that her boyfriend, the last person known to have seen her alive, was responsible. In Alicia's case I don't know if LE was so tightly focused on the boyfriend that investigating the neighbor was neglected, but I hope not. That's a discouraging thought.

Hoppy

OK, but raven just wasn't the last person to see Janet alive.... by his own words, HE put himself there AT THE TIME OF DEATH...what else is there? I know I keep pounding on this point but,... when someone is alive and then they are dead and only one person is around, what other conclusion can there be other than THAT'S the person who committed the murder???

 

[golfmom]

OK, but raven just wasn't the last person to see Janet alive.... by his own words, HE put himself there AT THE TIME OF DEATH...what else is there? I know I keep pounding on this point but,... when someone is alive and then they are dead and only one person is around, what other conclusion can there be other than THAT'S the person who committed the murder???

oh, AGAIN Snaps to Snapple! You've been on a roll Darlin'!

 

[Jenifred]

I'm not in LE and never plan to be, yet I *hope* that if I were in LE's shoes I would also keep an open mind and do a thorough investigation without jumping to the conclusion that the husband is responsible. I'm thinking at the moment of the Alicia Ross case in Ontario. Just a couple days ago a neighbor very unexpectedly confessed to her murder after weeks of speculation that her boyfriend, the last person known to have seen her alive, was responsible. In Alicia's case I don't know if LE was so tightly focused on the boyfriend that investigating the neighbor was neglected, but I hope not. That's a discouraging thought.

Curious to know hoppy more about this case in Ontario. Did the boyfriend ever come out and say anything to the media? Were there any blaring indications that this might be the boyfriend?

And I too hope that LE did a thorough investigation without jumping to conclusions and collected every piece of anything that seemed to be related to building a case against the perp. But they obviously had to rule out certain theories since there is no indication of a lot of things--forced entry? rape? burglary (since only the laptop seems to be missing)?

 

[Jenifred]

BTW (by the way) Hoppy, I enjoy reading your opinions and views even if we don't see eye to eye. It keeps the forum lively.

 

[hoppyfrog]

BTW (by the way) Hoppy, I enjoy reading your opinions and views even if we don't see eye to eye. It keeps the forum lively.

<blushes> Well, thank you!

Hoppy

 

[hoppyfrog]

Curious to know hoppy more about this case in Ontario. Did the boyfriend ever come out and say anything to the media? Were there any blaring indications that this might be the boyfriend?

And I too hope that LE did a thorough investigation without jumping to conclusions and collected every piece of anything that seemed to be related to building a case against the perp. But they obviously had to rule out certain theories since there is no indication of a lot of things--forced entry? rape? burglary (since only the laptop seems to be missing)?

Let me pull together some info. I'll get back here with a post sometime tonight.

Hoppy

 

[hoppyfrog]

Curious to know hoppy more about this case in Ontario. Did the boyfriend ever come out and say anything to the media? Were there any blaring indications that this might be the boyfriend?

Here is the info you wanted:

Alicia is missing:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1124401814860&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes



About the boyfriend being a POI:

http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20050825-001/page.asp

http://www.torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2005/09/24/1233427-sun.html

Neighbor turns himself in:

http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/Nationa...229792-sun.html



A thread here at WS about Alicia, incl finger pointing at the BF and later apologies to him

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27924&page=1&pp=25

The thread incl many other links to media reports, incl ones where LE asks residents of the Richmond Hill area (where the BF lives) to search their property for Alicia. (Alicia was from Markham.)

And here’s another (shorter)thread here at WS

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28007&highlight=Alicia+ross

HTH,

Hoppy

 

[OriginalJerseyGirl]

Interesting and very sad case, hoppy.

I agree that we tend to focus on those closest to the victim. I've done it myself. But IMO, Alicia's case is completely different than Janet's in many ways. Most obvious is the fact that Janet's body was on the scene, and 911 was called soon enough that Janet's TOD was able to be pinpointed to a specific time. And also that her husband's story placed him at the scene prior to the time of death AND the onset of injury.

In any case, here's hoping that Janet's murderer has a rush of conscience and decides to end this stage of pain for Janet's family just as Alicia's killer has done for hers.

 

[hoppyfrog]

Interesting and very sad case, hoppy.

I agree that we tend to focus on those closest to the victim. I've done it myself. But IMO, Alicia's case is completely different than Janet's in many ways. Most obvious is the fact that Janet's body was on the scene, and 911 was called soon enough that Janet's TOD was able to be pinpointed to a specific time. And also that her husband's story placed him at the scene prior to the time of death AND the onset of injury.

In any case, here's hoping that Janet's murderer has a rush of conscience and decides to end this stage of pain for Janet's family just as Alicia's killer has done for hers.

Completely agree with you.

Hoppy

 

[Jenifred]

Just re-reading the beginning of this thread and JG brought up a good point. Now I know that a lot of things haven't been publicized, but there haven't been any reports on foreign fingerprints in the house. Nothing noted on knives, countertops, doors, windows, anything. Even if a someone was wearing gloves, wouldn't there be a smudge of some kind? I just say this because once when our house was burglarized, the burglar left a gloved handprint on top of the stereo that he chose not to take.

 

[OriginalJerseyGirl]

I believe that either LE or Raven have the laptop.

This thought just jumped out at me. If LE had the laptop, would they have subpoenaed Google or would his hard drive have been enough? Or was it to see what kind of activity there was from ANY computer that might have been used?

 

[Jenifred]

This thought just jumped out at me. If LE had the laptop, would they have subpoenaed Google or would his hard drive have been enough? Or was it to see what kind of activity there was from ANY computer that might have been used?

I bet they would need any an all correspondance--I mean that if something was emailed from work on a google account, you couldn't find that on a home computer. Well, as I'm typing this I remember that I've got a sent box on my yahoo account that records everything going out.

Back to the drawing board.

 

[OriginalJerseyGirl]

I bet they would need any an all correspondance--I mean that if something was emailed from work on a google account, you couldn't find that on a home computer. Well, as I'm typing this I remember that I've got a sent box on my yahoo account that records everything going out.

Back to the drawing board.

No, I think that you're right. I think that in order to turn over every stone, you'd have to subpoena the account and not just rely on the hard drive. There's nothing to say that Raven couldn't have been corresponding with someone or researching something from another computer.

 

[LTUlegal]

No, I think that you're right. I think that in order to turn over every stone, you'd have to subpoena the account and not just rely on the hard drive. There's nothing to say that Raven couldn't have been corresponding with someone or researching something from another computer.

Now, from what I understand and recall...they subpoena'ed GOOGLE for the records. (internet search sites, gmail,) I would think that his hard drive from ANY computer he used would be darned helpful, but the Google records should help them a lot. (we discussed this earlier in this thread, I believe) I would assume that there's a ton of stuff for them to go through, and other than waiting on the dna to be matched, we're probably waiting on the information to be gathered from those records. The laptop would certainly be helpful, but I don't think the lack of it'll hurt the results of the investigation.
jmho of course

 

[Justgimmethetruth]

What was the situation with Scott Peterson? Did they have to supoena the accounts in that computer?