I think everyone was assuming that compared to the other shoes in his closet they were on low end. u can pick them up at dollar stores and walmart. just guessing. moo
The price range, without knowing the exact shoe, is $100 - $300.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think everyone was assuming that compared to the other shoes in his closet they were on low end. u can pick them up at dollar stores and walmart. just guessing. moo
There is one at the corner of Lake Wheeler and Tryon Road. Didn't they live off of Lake Wheeler?
The price range, without knowing the exact shoe, is $100 - $300.
The price range, without knowing the exact shoe, is $100 - $300.
I have read that men that murder their wives often do so because of the pressures of the marriage and that immediately after the murder, they feel a complete sense of relaxed relief - along the lines of having solved the problem. Neil Entwhistle is a good example of this.
I have read that men that murder their wives often do so because of the pressures of the marriage and that immediately after the murder, they feel a complete sense of relaxed relief - along the lines of having solved the problem. Neil Entwhistle is a good example of this.
Could be, but not sure he thought about leaving bloody foot prints at all.
(assumed he planned a knockout blow and strangulation).
Price range for what???
Franklin shoes are in the $15-$20 range at Dollar General.
We know exactly what he paid for many of his shoes, because he bought several of them at DSW and the prices paid are in evidence.
Good point. They do react differently; depends on the person. I've been around more murderers than I'd like (prefer 0) and been around enough scenes and investigations of violence and murders to have the opinion that post murder behavior can vary considerably.
Exactly, maybe evidence on the moulding was there well before the murder ... so if he was wearing gloves, to explain some evidence, we can't have him not wearing gloves to explain other evidence. We either have to exclude the print on the moulding, or exclude him wearing gloves.
I don't understand what you are getting at.
Are the prints on the molding JY's that you are speaking of?
If so, being there before the crime doesn't have anything to do with gloves on during the crime.
So you are criminal lawyer? I'm curious ... weren't you already verified as a lawyer in the Cooper case, or was I making assumptions.
Could be, but not sure he thought about leaving bloody foot prints at all.
(assumed he planned a knockout blow and strangulation).
My daughter who's a forensic chemist said that contrary to what most people think, there's more times that prints are not detected at crime scene than are.
Having said that, this testimony is showing the prints you would expect, JY and MY, one set of MF on the door, but then prints of MY's dad, yet he hadn't been in the home for 6 months. The witness said that's not unusual, because the interior of the home is 'protected environment.' Having said that, there were 6 prints that were not identified. But as the dad's prints were still there after 6 months, it's understandable that there may be unid'd prints, and they could have been there for months, from workman who'd previously entered the home.
JMHO
fran
ETA...Oh, some unidentified prints were 'partial,' and stated as 'unidentified.' But they were enough to determine, JY couldn't be EXCLUDED as the person who made the print, but not enough to actually id him. So, it appears some of the 'unidentified prints COULD be JY's.
Otto is saying that if you believe JY was wearing gloves at the scene, the print on the frame is a non-issue. Because he wouldn't take off his gloves in the middle of the murder, put a print on the wall, and then put them back on. And it's not like there is a splatter of blood with the outline of a hand in the middle.