The Laptop Computer

[hoppyfrog]

Is there, in fact, a missing laptop?

I've reviewed all the past posts about the laptop computer because I've noticed many posts refer to "the missing laptop" as though it were fact. Yet I haven't located a single piece of solid evidence that the laptop was or is missing. All the posts about the laptop have been speculative.

Can anyone supply some *solid* evidence that a laptop was missing? Not speculation or deduction or rumour, but evidence or first-hand knowledge.

Thanks,

Hoppy

[golfmom]

Is there, in fact, a missing laptop?

I've reviewed all the past posts about the laptop computer because I've noticed many posts refer to "the missing laptop" as though it were fact. Yet I haven't located a single piece of solid evidence that the laptop was or is missing. All the posts about the laptop have been speculative.

Can anyone supply some *solid* evidence that a laptop was missing? Not speculation or deduction or rumour, but evidence or first-hand knowledge.

Thanks,

Hoppy

There has been no mention in the media regarding the laptop. However, numerous posters here have either received tips or reported that Raven has indeed said that his laptop was stolen that night.

Hope that helps.

[Jenifred]

Recall Rooster's posts.

#39 (http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=667494&postcount=39) http://websleuths.com/forums/images/buttons/report.gif (http://websleuths.com/forums/report.php?p=667494)
http://websleuths.com/forums/images/statusicon/post_old.gif 06-04-2005, 04:25 AM
Rooster (http://websleuths.com/forums/member.php?u=6489) http://websleuths.com/forums/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif vbmenu_register("postmenu_667494", true);
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 101


Dude or dudette took a lap top. And probably didn't leave it behind to be fingerprinted.

[JerseyGirl]

Dude or dudette took a lap top. And probably didn't leave it behind to be fingerprinted.
I never realized before how odd that statement is. If dude or dudette took it, obviously they didn't leave it behind for fingerprints. You can't take something but also leave it behind. :waitasec: But I also find it odd how it doesn't seem that any unusual fingerprints were left behind on anything. Not on a window or a door or a piece of electronics equipment or a countertop ...

[golfmom]

You know that is an interesting observation of Rooster's comment.

Let's see, what could have possibly been on that computer that either someone wanted or Raven wanted to hide.

a. Porn
b. Financials
c. Evidence of a life insurance policy
d. All of the above

[JerseyGirl]

Let's see, what could have possibly been on that computer that either someone wanted or Raven wanted to hide.- Evidence of other relationships.
- Evidence of premeditation, (either web sites or writings).

[golfmom]

- Evidence of other relationships.
- Evidence of premeditation, (either web sites or writings).

Interesting ... that little ole google subpoena is going to be verrrryyy verrrryyy interesting!

I wonder if there are other means that the detectives are using to track down what was on the laptop?

[JerseyGirl]

Interesting ... that little ole google subpoena is going to be verrrryyy verrrryyy interesting!

I wonder if there are other means that the detectives are using to track down what was on the laptop?I sure as hell hope so. I have a feeling that the evidence that's probably on that laptop is the mirror of Raven's soul. The true Raven, whomever that might be, is probably completely evident in those files.

[golfmom]

I sure as hell hope so. I have a feeling that the evidence that's probably on that laptop is the mirror of Raven's soul. The true Raven, whomever that might be, is probably completely evident in those files.

Wouldn't it be a kick in the pants if someone got a chance to mirror that harddrive before Janet was murdered? Or if there is a copy floating around of the harddrive?

[JerseyGirl]

Or if there is a copy floating around of the harddrive?Can you imagine??? I'll tell you this much - if Raven was as into that computer as it seems, I would HIGHLY suspect that there is indeed a copy of the hard drive somewhere. I just can't see him tossing his beloved laptop too easily. Unless - like you said - he made a copy of it first.

[Moxie]

Can you imagine??? I'll tell you this much - if Raven was as into that computer as it seems, I would HIGHLY suspect that there is indeed a copy of the hard drive somewhere. I just can't see him tossing his beloved laptop too easily. Unless - like you said - he made a copy of it first.
I don't know if Raven is dumb enough to make a copy of his hard drive if he really ditched his laptop.

[Jenifred]

I don't know if Raven is dumb enough to make a copy of his hard drive if he really ditched his laptop.
What if he needed something that was still on there, like insurance policy numbers or whatever?

[JerseyGirl]

I don't know if Raven is dumb enough to make a copy of his hard drive if he really ditched his laptop.I agree. But if he had the chance, and had a place to keep the copy without it being discovered, why not?

[Jenifred]

I agree. But if he had the chance, and had a place to keep the copy without it being discovered, why not?Do you think that he could trust someone enough to keep it secret, if he passed it on? Or do you think that he placed it somewhere (buried deep in the ground like a time capsule)?

[juliagoulia]

Do you think that he could trust someone enough to keep it secret, if he passed it on? Or do you think that he placed it somewhere (buried deep in the ground like a time capsule)?
Oh Raven has lots of friends that are close and trustworthy. Don't you hear them all shouting from the rooftops that he is innocent? It's deafening!

[JerseyGirl]

Do you think that he could trust someone enough to keep it secret, if he passed it on? Or do you think that he placed it somewhere (buried deep in the ground like a time capsule)?IF he were to have made a copy, I think that he does have people that would keep his secrets. But I suspect that he would rely on himself and his own methods to stash that disk.

[Jenifred]

A guilty conscience would do much for a friend that was guarding something he knew would help find a killer.

[JerseyGirl]

A guilty conscience would do much for a friend that was guarding something he knew would help find a killer.I'm not thinking along the lines of friends ... I'm thinking more along the lines of family. The "us against them" mentality.

[golfmom]

You know, the more I ponder this subject the more certain I am that Raven did in fact make a copy of his hard drive.

If you KNEW your computer was going to be *stolen* tomorrow, wouldn't you copy as much as you possibly could before hand?

I bet if LE looks hard enough, a copy might turn up somewhere of EXACTLY what was on that hard drive.

[Jenifred]

But he'd have to get rid of it quick--you think he'd pass it off to a local friend or mail it out to family? Seems the mailing part might leave a trace.

[JerseyGirl]

But he'd have to get rid of it quick--you think he'd pass it off to a local friend or mail it out to family? Seems the mailing part might leave a trace.He could have stashed it someplace, and then picked it up on his way to Utah. IF he is the perp, then he's already proven that he's good at hiding things.

[Moxie]

You know, the more I ponder this subject the more certain I am that Raven did in fact make a copy of his hard drive.

If you KNEW your computer was going to be *stolen* tomorrow, wouldn't you copy as much as you possibly could before hand?

I bet if LE looks hard enough, a copy might turn up somewhere of EXACTLY what was on that hard drive.
If Raven is the murder, and premeditation is a question, and he backed up his laptop a day before it was "stolen", that would answer the question about premeditation in the affirmitive.

[Moxie]

I'm not thinking along the lines of friends ... I'm thinking more along the lines of family. The "us against them" mentality.
I am agreeing with you. I think his immediate family would do anything to protect him. I hope they understand the consequences of their actions. I don't know that they would feel as protective if they knew their actions might put them on trial or lead them to jail.

[golfmom]

I am agreeing with you. I think his immediate family would do anything to protect him. I hope they understand the consequences of their actions. I don't know that they would feel as protective if they knew their actions might put them on trial or lead them to jail.

Moxie, I hope that they are capable of thinking for themselves instead of just swallowing Raven's stories whole. Time and time again we've caught him out in lies. How many times does it take before they start questioning and researching for themselves the truth.

Just because a felon (NOT misdemeanor) says so, doesn't make it so!

[golfmom]

If Raven is the murder, and premeditation is a question, and he backed up his laptop a day before it was "stolen", that would answer the question about premeditation in the affirmitive.

Sure would be a strange coincidence. Do you think his family will believe it's a coincidence if a copy is found?

[JerseyGirl]

Here's a question. If a copy is ever discovered, will they be able to tell on what date it was created?

[terminatrixator]

Can you imagine??? I'll tell you this much - if Raven was as into that computer as it seems, I would HIGHLY suspect that there is indeed a copy of the hard drive somewhere. I just can't see him tossing his beloved laptop too easily. Unless - like you said - he made a copy of it first.
wonder if there is a thumb drive floating around?

[golfmom]

wonder if there is a thumb drive floating around?

Well, isn't that an interesting possibility . . . :eek:

gotta get those depends out

[golfmom]

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/kimkomando/2005-09-11-thumb-drive_x.htm

Take 4 steps to secure your thumb drive data
USB thumb drives are a handy way to store important files. Lately, they've become a very popular way of transporting data between home computers and work or school. Unless you pay attention to security, they can create big problems.
............

The greatest benefit of thumb drives is their portability. They slip easily into your pocket. But that's also their greatest drawback. They're easily lost or stolen, jeopardizing your sensitive data. Also, they can transfer viruses between computers.

So here are four security tips:

1. Guard it carefully

Many people are careless with thumb drives. People often leave them lying around or attach the drives to key chains. How often have you lost your keys?

Better are ones that you can attach to a cord and wear around your neck. This won't appeal to the fashion-conscious, but it helps prevent loss or theft.

Some thumb drives have cords that connect to the drive's protective removable cap. Forgo these. You want one with a cord that connects to the body of the drive.

[terminatrixator]

I know someone that lost their thumb drive with a huge report on it, found it months later. Raven probably had a thumb drive.

[ewwwinteresting]

:laugh: Oh Raven has lots of friends that are close and trustworthy. Don't you hear them all shouting from the rooftops that he is innocent? It's deafening!
Raven could have put the computer info on a flashdrive.....fast, small and easy to put in the VX glovebox or Acura....ohhhh.....if it was in the Acura, wasn't the Acura driven to Utah by his mother??

[ewwwinteresting]

Opps:doh: posted before reading the rest of the posts....you guys already thought of the flash, thumb, jump drive!

[terminatrixator]

Normally yes, you can tell the "Date Created" on documents by checking the properties. You can also tell the date last modified, even if it is moved to a thumb drive.

[hoppyfrog]

Recall Rooster's posts.

#39 (http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=667494&postcount=39) http://websleuths.com/forums/images/buttons/report.gif (http://websleuths.com/forums/report.php?p=667494)
http://websleuths.com/forums/images/statusicon/post_old.gif 06-04-2005, 04:25 AM
Rooster (http://websleuths.com/forums/member.php?u=6489) http://websleuths.com/forums/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif vbmenu_register("postmenu_667494", true);
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 101


Dude or dudette took a lap top. And probably didn't leave it behind to be fingerprinted.

And who is "Rooster," and why should he/she be believed?

Hoppy

[ewwwinteresting]

And who is "Rooster," and why should he/she be believed?

Hoppy
Hoppy,

Rooster claimed he/she was a friend of Raven's and had confirming information. You are correct and Rooster could have posted lies, but I would question why would a friend of Raven's lie about the laptop being stolen?

[LTUlegal]

And who is "Rooster," and why should he/she be believed?

Hoppy
Honestly, I would've thought you'd read deeply enough into this case to know who Rooster is....supposedly a friend or family member of Raven...some have surmised that it could be Raven himself. And you are correct, why should he/she be believed?

[hoppyfrog]

Honestly, I would've thought you'd read deeply enough into this case to know who Rooster is....supposedly a friend or family member of Raven...some have surmised that it could be Raven himself. And you are correct, why should he/she be believed?
Yes, I know who Rooster "supposedly" is and what some have "surmised" about him/her.

That's not what I'm asking.

I'm asking who Rooster really is. No one has yet (to my knowledge) confirmed who he/she is.

Makes me a skeptical

Hoppy

[hoppyfrog]

Hoppy,

Rooster claimed he/she was a friend of Raven's and had confirming information. You are correct and Rooster could have posted lies, but I would question why would a friend of Raven's lie about the laptop being stolen?
My guess is that RA has friends that are about of the same character he is. That's why.

Hoppy

[ewwwinteresting]

:laugh: My guess is that RA has friends that are about of the same character he is. That's why.

Hoppy
You mean cheating and lying and stealing? With friends like that, who needs enemies!

[terminatrixator]

My guess is that RA has friends that are about of the same character he is. That's why.

Hoppy
Cheating, Lying, Stealing, Cold Blooded Murderers?

[ewwwinteresting]

Cheating, Lying, Stealing, Cold Blooded Murderers?
I don't see how the statement by raven or one of his friends helps raven? I mean the only thing missing is the laptop and the murder weapon?

And if raven or the friend lied and the laptop wasn't stolen, then where is it and why would they lie about it?

[LTUlegal]

Yes, I know who Rooster "supposedly" is and what some have "surmised" about him/her.

That's not what I'm asking.

I'm asking who Rooster really is. No one has yet (to my knowledge) confirmed who he/she is.

Makes me a skeptical

Hoppy
We're all a bit skeptical, here, but we have to adhere to the tos and not "out" anyone. Tempting though it is.

[ewwwinteresting]

Honestly, I would've thought you'd read deeply enough into this case to know who Rooster is....supposedly a friend or family member of Raven...some have surmised that it could be Raven himself. And you are correct, why should he/she be believed?
rooster confirmed several things in this forum. I, for one, would give him/her the benefit of telling the truth. They seemed to know raven, attended the funeral, etc., why would they lie to hurt raven when they are the only poster that has supported his absolute innocence?

[LTUlegal]

rooster confirmed several things in this forum. I, for one, would give him/her the benefit of telling the truth. They seemed to know raven, attended the funeral, etc., why would they lie to hurt raven when they are the only poster that has supported his absolute innocence?
Agreed, but wouldn't he/she lie to "support" him, too? Sorry, Eww, I put my skeptical cap on tonite! :)

[ewwwinteresting]

Agreed, but wouldn't he/she lie to "support" him, too? Sorry, Eww, I put my skeptical cap on tonite! :)
Ok, let's be skeptical together...:blowkiss:

rooster lied about raven trying to save Janet
rooster lied about the laptop being stolen

How does this exactly help raven?

[LTUlegal]

Ok, let's be skeptical together...:blowkiss:

rooster lied about raven trying to save Janet
rooster lied about the laptop being stolen

How does this exactly help raven?
Well, now that we know they're lies, it just doesn't, does it? Hmmm...maybe that's why we haven't seen Rooster around this hen house in quite a while! LOL:liar:

[ewwwinteresting]

Well, now that we know they're lies, it just doesn't, does it? Hmmm...maybe that's why we haven't seen Rooster around this hen house in quite a while! LOL:liar:
I guess I just thought, after the autopsy report's release, rooster found out he/she was crowing on the wrong barn and didn't want to come back and admit it. :silenced:

[LTUlegal]

I guess I just thought, after the autopsy report's release, rooster found out he/she was crowing on the wrong barn and didn't want to come back and admit it. :silenced:
Or his beak was taped shut?:rolleyes:

[ewwwinteresting]

Or his beak was taped shut?:rolleyes:
So the only one consistently speaking out on raven's innocence has been told to keep quiet??? Gee, think there is a reason for that?

[LTUlegal]

So the only one consistently speaking out on raven's innocence has been told to keep quiet??? Gee, think there is a reason for that?Just a lil guess from me, but maybe so as not to dig the hole deeper? :rolleyes:

[golfmom]

Yes, I know who Rooster "supposedly" is and what some have "surmised" about him/her.

That's not what I'm asking.

I'm asking who Rooster really is. No one has yet (to my knowledge) confirmed who he/she is.

Makes me a skeptical

Hoppy

Hoppy, it is a violation of TOS to try to *out* another poster.

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23792

2. Posting of personal information about other posters, or information intended to lead to the discovery of the identity of other posters, is forbidden. Copying and posting Private Messages without the permission of the author is also forbidden.

To my knowledge, Rooster is exactly what he/she presented themselves to be. Someone who knows and loves Raven. I have no reason to believe otherwise. You are free to be suspcious of the information that Rooster shared with us, but basing it on the fact that no one has publicly identified Rooster is not reasonable.

Regarding the laptop, I heard from numerous other sources that confirmed that his "precious laptop" (direct quote) was indeed missing. What I haven't been able to confirm is whether LE confiscated it or someone *stole* it.

LE isn't leaking information to me. :cool:

The only items I can confirm missing are those that could exonerate or implicate Raven.

[hoppyfrog]

Hoppy, it is a violation of TOS to try to *out* another poster.

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23792

2. Posting of personal information about other posters, or information intended to lead to the discovery of the identity of other posters, is forbidden. Copying and posting Private Messages without the permission of the author is also forbidden.

To my knowledge, Rooster is exactly what he/she presented themselves to be. Someone who knows and loves Raven. I have no reason to believe otherwise. You are free to be suspcious of the information that Rooster shared with us, but basing it on the fact that no one has publicly identified Rooster is not reasonable.
I'm not trying to "out" Rooster. My question was intended to provoke thought and discussion about why we choose to believe certain ppl/posters. That's all.

Personally I'm not willing to believe what someone someone posts when I don't know who that person is. There are ppl all over the net who claim to be someone they're not and post things either for kicks or to be malicious. Not saying Rooster is doing that; I just don't know. And I think my position is "reasonable."

Hoppy

[golfmom]

I'm not trying to "out" Rooster. My question was intended to provoke thought and discussion about why we choose to believe certain ppl/posters. That's all.

Personally I'm not willing to believe what someone someone posts when I don't know who that person is. There are ppl all over the net who claim to be someone they're not and post things either for kicks or to be malicious. Not saying Rooster is doing that; I just don't know. And I think my position is "reasonable."

Hoppy

I don't believe that it's reasonable to attach credibility to a poster and the information they provide based on what is a clear violation of TOS. Seriously, you were willing to chunk out the entire investigation of Raven's involvement based on an unconfirmed tip by NCBanker.

You're free to believe whatever you wish, hoppy and I'm free to disagree with you endlessly.

I believe that it is unreasonable for someone to be required to *out* themselves or be *outed* by other sleuthers just to satisfy you.

[hoppyfrog]

I don't believe that it's reasonable to attach credibility to a poster and the information they provide based on what is a clear violation of TOS. Seriously, you were willing to chunk out the entire investigation of Raven's involvement based on an unconfirmed tip by NCBanker.

You're free to believe whatever you wish, hoppy and I'm free to disagree with you endlessly.

I believe that it is unreasonable for someone to be required to *out* themselves or be *outed* by other sleuthers just to satisfy you.
No one is being asked to "out" themself or another poster. Did you even read what I wrote? I'm not trying to "out" Rooster. My question was intended to provoke thought and discussion about why we choose to believe certain ppl/posters. That's all.


IMO, NCBanker has shown himself through what he posts and how he investiagates to be a more reliable amd thoughtful poster than Rooster.

Hoppy

[Jenifred]

No one is being asked to "out" themself or another poster. Did you even read what I wrote? I'm not trying to "out" Rooster. My question was intended to provoke thought and discussion about why we choose to believe certain ppl/posters. That's all.


IMO, NCBanker has shown himself through what he posts and how he investiagates to be a more reliable amd thoughtful poster than Rooster.

Hoppy
IDK, Hoppy. I still find it hard to believe NCBanker's original statement about Raven not being a POI. Going into a crime scene describes like this one, and not even thinking that it could be the husband is beyond belief to me. Especially when after interviewing Raven, LE goes back to search the Durango a second time. That would be suspicious--then to hear someone claim that they've eliminated him as a POI? Odd.

[Jenifred]

Another thing I was just thinking about. What about Raven saying that he'd been home since 10:30pm and the fact that the paramedics tried to resusitate Janet. Timing is a little off. There was some reason why they thought they could resusitate her, right?

[newkid]

Personally I'm not sure what to think about the laptop. I have seen pictures with Raven and a laptop and know that he did have one. There has also been information about computer files but I do not know which computer those files are from. It's not unlikely that Raven had more than one computer. I do think that LE would be interested in any computer used by either Janet or Raven. I believe that either LE or Raven have the laptop. If Raven still has the laptop, it doesn't seem out of character for him to have said it was stolen or missing to prevent LE from going through the files on it.

Obviously not all of the LE documents have been released. LE documents regarding the laptop would be the most convincing evidence for me. Still, hearing the same information from several different sources adds credence to those statements, at least in my mind.

Regarding the trustworthiness of Rooster, he/she appears to be an individual who is close to Raven. He/She may or may not be of the same character as Raven. Raven also married Janet and I don't think anyone here considers her to be of the same character. I think Rooster posted just what he/she was told by Raven. Considering what I believe to be the original source, that information may be faulty but I don't think Rooster was lying.

[golfmom]

Yes, I read what you wrote and I answered both parts of your questions. First to Rooster's identity and second regarding laptop.



That's not what I'm asking.

I'm asking who Rooster really is. No one has yet (to my knowledge) confirmed who he/she is.

Hoppy

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.

[JerseyGirl]

Regarding the trustworthiness of Rooster, he/she appears to be an individual who is close to Raven. He/She may or may not be of the same character as Raven. Raven also married Janet and I don't think anyone here considers her to be of the same character. I think Rooster posted just what he/she was told by Raven. Considering what I believe to be the original source, that information may be faulty but I don't think Rooster was lying.Very good points, newkid. Well said.

[hoppyfrog]

IDK, Hoppy. I still find it hard to believe NCBanker's original statement about Raven not being a POI. Going into a crime scene describes like this one, and not even thinking that it could be the husband is beyond belief to me. Especially when after interviewing Raven, LE goes back to search the Durango a second time. That would be suspicious--then to hear someone claim that they've eliminated him as a POI? Odd.
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

[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.

HoppyIDK=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 (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.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20050825-001/page.asp)

http://www.torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2005/09/24/1233427-sun.html (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 (http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2005/09/22/1229792-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 (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 (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28007&highlight=Alicia+ross)

HTH,

Hoppy

[JerseyGirl]

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.

[JerseyGirl]

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.

[JerseyGirl]

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?

[LTUlegal]

What was the situation with Scott Peterson? Did they have to supoena the accounts in that computer?
No, they just had the computer & there was enough evidence on his hard drive...the maps of the tides, ebay stuff, etc.

[JerseyGirl]

The laptop would certainly be helpful, but I don't think the lack of it'll hurt the results of the investigation.
jmho of courseWhat about any e-mailing he did from another e-mail service or searches that he might have done through different search engines?

[golfmom]

What about any e-mailing he did from another e-mail service or searches that he might have done through different search engines?

JG, they only released the GOOGLE info, there could have been a lot more search warrants, etc. that we don't know about.

[JerseyGirl]

JG, they only released the GOOGLE info, there could have been a lot more search warrants, etc. that we don't know about.I'm hoping so because if he e-mailed from other accounts, etc., without the hard drive we'd have no way of knowing what those things were, correct? Obviously google can only cover google. So hopefully most of his "work" was done there.

[LTUlegal]

I'm hoping so because if he e-mailed from other accounts, etc., without the hard drive we'd have no way of knowing what those things were, correct? Obviously google can only cover google. So hopefully most of his "work" was done there.right...so if he used Yahoo!, for instance, they'd need to subpoena Yahoo! or get the laptop for the hard drive.:(

[JerseyGirl]

From an old post on the media links thread:

http://www.herald-sun.com/orange/10-639249.html

Man whose wife slain pleads to embezzlement

By BETH VELLIQUETTE : The Herald-Sun
bvelliquette@heraldsun.com
Aug 23, 2005 : 9:04 pm ET

Once he became a suspect , he cooperated with police [i]and allowed them to search his computer and home for evidence needed for prosecution, Perez said.
So again, Raven was COMPLETELY aware after the embezzlement that the computer was sometimes used in an investigation as a potential source of clues. After his embezzlement was discovered in December of 2004, Raven cooperated by allowing LE to search his computer. He had just been through this the year prior. Isn't it ironic how that's the one item that was missing from the house after the murder (aka the new investigation in which Raven is involved)?

Barber, unaware that Abaroa's wife was murdered in April and that the case is unsolved, questioned Abaroa about where he worked and why he had moved to Utah. Mack interrupted and told Barber that Abaroa's wife Janet had been murdered and that Abaroa returned to Utah to raise his son and be with his family.
Very interesting how Mack interrupted and spoke for Raven at this point. I know that this is what defense attorneys do but Mack obviously did not want to chance Raven saying something he shouldn't. We saw it in the video outside of the courthouse but I forgot about Mack speaking for Raven regarding the murder inside the courtroom.

Later, Barber asked Abaroa if there was a reason he stole the athletic shoes.

"No," Abaroa replied.

"What did you do with the money?" Barber asked.

"I repaired cars, paid bills," Abaroa said.
I suppose this is where the money came from to get Janet's car fixed on that fateful night? *Sigh* If only that repair could have waited - the driveway wouldn't have been empty that night and perhaps the murderer, realizing that the house wasn't empty and that he wasn't going to have a clean shot at that laptop, would have moved on.

[ewwwinteresting]

From an old post on the media links thread:


So again, Raven was COMPLETELY aware after the embezzlement that the computer was sometimes used in an investigation as a potential source of clues. After his embezzlement was discovered in December of 2004, Raven cooperated by allowing LE to search his computer. He had just been through this the year prior. Isn't it ironic how that's the one item that was missing from the house after the murder (aka the new investigation in which Raven is involved)?


Very interesting how Mack interrupted and spoke for Raven at this point. I know that this is what defense attorneys do but Mack obviously did not want to chance Raven saying something he shouldn't. We saw it in the video outside of the courthouse but I forgot about Mack speaking for Raven regarding the murder inside the courtroom.


I suppose this is where the money came from to get Janet's car fixed on that fateful night? *Sigh* If only that repair could have waited - the driveway wouldn't have been empty that night and perhaps the murderer, realizing that the house wasn't empty and that he wasn't going to have a clean shot at that laptop, would have moved on.
Good points JG. When I read that before, it didn't sink in that he had been through an "investigation" before. Old birds can learn new tricks!

[terminatrixator]

I'd love to know what was on the laptop that was so friggin important, that it would be the only thing missing, besides the weapon.

Raven, I don't think you can even fathom the amount of disgust that is pouring out of my body for you.:slap:

[JerseyGirl]

I'd love to know what was on the laptop that was so friggin important, that it would be the only thing missing, besides the weapon.Security secrets? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[LTUlegal]

Security secrets? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Lots of incriminating evidence??? Should we start a list? ;)

[ewwwinteresting]

Lots of incriminating evidence??? Should we start a list? ;)
Any emails would have showed up on the subpoened info I would think. Maybe there was a plan that raven was following that night, written out in detail on his laptop?

[JerseyGirl]

Any emails would have showed up on the subpoened info I would think.Only those sent through the server that was subpoenaed, correct? If he sent an e-mail through yahoo but only google was subpoenaed, then we'd still have no idea what those e-mails were, right?

[ewwwinteresting]

Only those sent through the server that was subpoenaed, correct? If he sent an e-mail through yahoo but only google was subpoenaed, then we'd still have no idea what those e-mails were, right?
Can we only hope LE received email info from all of raven's email addresses?

[terminatrixator]

There could have been well laid out plans in word form on his hard drive, plans for more embezzlement or stealling plans or plans for muder on there.

Porn, gay porn, beastiality? Love letters to and from someone?

I'm wondering if he looked up informaton on Google, such as Social Security Information, information on Widowers benefits.

Maybe he looked up information or how to get away with murder, how to pass a lie detector test, that would only be considered circumstance evidence, but still evidence.

This is my hope, but we have no clue what they found in the subpoena and since there is no arrest as of yet, maybe nothing was found in that subpoena but we can hope!

Whatever was on there, though is long gone now, and I think the laptop has been destroyed, and it will never be found.

Raven had his laptop searched once before and knows better to leave that sucker laying around and wanted to make sure it was long gone before he finally called LE to report his wife was HURT.

I think it's in a zillion pieces at the bottom of a Lake somewhere in NC or somewhere else. Maybe that's the answer to Smitih Mountain Lake?

[LTUlegal]

There could have been well laid out plans in word form on his hard drive, plans for more embezzlement or stealling plans or plans for muder on there.

Porn, gay porn, beastiality? Love letters to and from someone?

I'm wondering if he looked up informaton on Google, such as Social Security Information, information on Widowers benefits.

Maybe he looked up information or how to get away with murder, how to pass a lie detector test, that would only be considered circumstance evidence, but still evidence.

This is my hope, but we have no clue what they found in the subpoena and since there is no arrest as of yet, maybe nothing was found in that subpoena but we can hope!

Whatever was on there, though is long gone now, and I think the laptop has been destroyed, and it will never be found.

Raven had his laptop searched once before and knows better to leave that sucker laying around and wanted to make sure it was long gone before he finally called LE to report his wife was HURT.

I think it's in a zillion pieces at the bottom of a Lake somewhere in NC or somewhere else. Maybe that's the answer to Smitih Mountain Lake?
Well, you know he did like Franklin Covey...perhaps he had a computer version of it besides his pda. Perhaps he was using Franklin Covey's advice for planning Janet's murder, although I'm pretty sure they don't have that kind of software. He'd have to adapt their organizational software for murder.
Hmmm, do you label ditching the laptop as a priority A, B, C? And then once it's completed, how do you mark it complete if you've ditched the laptop? Hmmmm....makes one wonder, doesn't it?
So, Raven, whatdja' do with the laptop? Does your mommy have it for you?:rolleyes:

[Jess]

Well, you know he did like Franklin Covey...perhaps he had a computer version of it besides his pda. Perhaps he was using Franklin Covey's advice for planning Janet's murder, although I'm pretty sure they don't have that kind of software. He'd have to adapt their organizational software for murder.
Hmmm, do you label ditching the laptop as a priority A, B, C? And then once it's completed, how do you mark it complete if you've ditched the laptop? Hmmmm....makes one wonder, doesn't it?
So, Raven, whatdja' do with the laptop? Does your mommy have it for you?:rolleyes:

Legal, are you thinking he had 7 Steps ? and ticked each one off as he accomplished his deed ?

[LTUlegal]

Legal, are you thinking he had 7 Steps ? and ticked each one off as he accomplished his deed ?LOL! Could be....that is, till he ditched the laptop! Boy, he'd be lost without that organizational system, wouldn't he?

[JerseyGirl]

Legal, are you thinking he had 7 Steps ? and ticked each one off as he accomplished his deed ?Well, IMO, to pull off a murder without getting caught, one must have had some sort of plan in advance. I can't imagine flipping out, murdering someone, and having nothing but CE point back to you.

[SouthEastSleuth]

Have we ever known the specifics of the laptop - the brand, what was on it as far as software, webcam or not, CD drive, etc? Just curious...