1187 users online (232 members and 955 guests)  



Websleuths News


Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 33
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    6,538

    Why was Stevie's Blood on the Pendant?

    If the WM3 claim that they did not kill Stevie, Micheal or Chris?

    His blood should not even be on that pendant in the first place , if in fact, they are telling the truth.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,284
    From where are you getting the information Stevie's blood was on the pendant? Jason Baldwin and Stevie Branch share the same blood group, and the blood on the pendant was only ever tested for blood group. Jason Baldwin often wore that necklace, and its not unusual for 16 yr old boys to nick themselves while shaving, so the most likely ecplanation is that its Jason's blood.

    Certainly far more likely than the pendant being worn as part of a bloody and violent triple homicide after which no blood ends up on anybody's clothes at all, just one tiny spot on the back of a pendant.

  3. #3
    iluvmua,

    There are a limited number of blood types in humans. Hundreds of thousands (in some cases, millions) of people share the same blood type. The blood, as Cappuccino pointed out, is just as likely to be Jason's as Stevie's. Matching blood type is not sufficient to say that it was Stevie's blood and further testing is not possible because of the very small amount of blood in the sample. Hardly indicative of the bloody scene Jessie described, is it?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    111
    I would suspect they got rid of the clothes that they were wearing afterwards, most killers do, they don't keep it around. Where is Damien's trench coat that he always wore ? Yeah, I know his sister said it was there when police searched the house but I just don't believe her. Think about it for a minute, if my brother, son were accused of such a horrendous crime as this, and people were asking where the trench coat was, I would produce it in a heart beat but still to this day, no one knows what happened to Damien's coat, it's just missing. I highly doubt his sister or mother threw it away as it was his favorite coat that he wore all the time and if they did, why not just say so.

    Blood on a t-shirt of Jessie's was consistent with Moores, who he described as his victim, blood consistent with Branch/Baldwin on a pendant owned by Damien but sometimes worn by Jason. Jessie said Damien cut Branch and Branch was Jason's victim also.

    I am not sure if there is enough blood left to test on the pendant or not, depends on who is doing the talking. I do know they still have it.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,284
    The blood on the T shirt was also consistent with Jessie's own blood, and like the blood on the pendant, was only ever tested for blood group.

    According to more than one witness who testified under oath at Damien's rule 37 hearing, the state's original tests on the pendant ruined it for any further testing. As to the T shirt and the trench coat, I don't know where they are now, or if they could still be tested for evidence.
    Last edited by Cappuccino; 08-05-2011 at 01:53 PM. Reason: typo

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,224
    Quote Originally Posted by southerngal View Post
    I would suspect they got rid of the clothes that they were wearing afterwards, most killers do, they don't keep it around. Where is Damien's trench coat that he always wore ? Yeah, I know his sister said it was there when police searched the house but I just don't believe her. Think about it for a minute, if my brother, son were accused of such a horrendous crime as this, and people were asking where the trench coat was, I would produce it in a heart beat but still to this day, no one knows what happened to Damien's coat, it's just missing. I highly doubt his sister or mother threw it away as it was his favorite coat that he wore all the time and if they did, why not just say so.

    Blood on a t-shirt of Jessie's was consistent with Moores, who he described as his victim, blood consistent with Branch/Baldwin on a pendant owned by Damien but sometimes worn by Jason. Jessie said Damien cut Branch and Branch was Jason's victim also.

    I am not sure if there is enough blood left to test on the pendant or not, depends on who is doing the talking. I do know they still have it.

    Blood on a pendant consistent with both a victim and a perp, IMO, the odds are 60/40 the blood belongs to the victim since we know a crime was committed. Add to that, blood on a t-shirt consistent with both another victim and another perp, the odds are significantly raised that both samples are blood belonging to the victims.

    Even if the odds are reduced to 50/50 on the initial sample, the odds greatly favor both samples being the blood of the victims when considered in light of each other.

    IOW, 1 sample = coincidence
    2 samples = not coincidence, and point towards guilt, but are not conclusive of guilt

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Eastern Washington
    Posts
    1,416
    Do you have a link to tests that prove it was Stevie's blood on that pendant?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,284
    Quote Originally Posted by justthinkin View Post
    Blood on a pendant consistent with both a victim and a perp, IMO, the odds are 60/40 the blood belongs to the victim since we know a crime was committed. Add to that, blood on a t-shirt consistent with both another victim and another perp, the odds are significantly raised that both samples are blood belonging to the victims.

    Even if the odds are reduced to 50/50 on the initial sample, the odds greatly favor both samples being the blood of the victims when considered in light of each other.

    IOW, 1 sample = coincidence
    2 samples = not coincidence, and point towards guilt, but are not conclusive of guilt
    This is circular reasoning. We know the wm3 committed the crime therefore its the victim's blood, and we know its the victim's blood because the wm3 committed the crime.

    All that can honestly be claimed about the blood on that pendant is that neither Jason Baldwin nor Stevie Branch can be conclusively excluded as the source, and nor can thousands of other people. To claim anything more than that is grossly overstating the case.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaxson View Post
    Do you have a link to tests that prove it was Stevie's blood on that pendant?
    Hi newbie here. But, yes, please where is the proof it was Stevie's blood and not just the same blood type? Perhaps I have the same blood type...could it then be mine?

  10. #10
    Sorry, jt, but knowing a crime was committed doesn't increase the odds that blood matching the type of the owner (or possessor) of an item and a victim of said crime being the victim's instead of the owner/possessor's of the item. IOW, just because Jessie and Michael have the same blood type doesn't mean that the blood on Jessie's shirt is more likely to be Michael's than Jessie's. Occam's Razor would indicate that the blood is most likely to be Jessie's. The same is true about Jason vs. Stevie's blood on the pendant.

    The American Red Cross provides information about blood types on their website: http://www.redcrossblood.org/learn-a...od/blood-types

    Since all of the victims and all of the WM3 are Caucasian, let's focus on that race's breakdown for blood types. As it so happens, according to the autopsy report on Callahan's, all four of the people we're concerned with have blood type A+, which they share with 33% of the Caucasian population. If the Hobbs' mtDNA is not reliable enough to consider him as the donor of the ligature hair (which excludes 97.5% of the population but includes TH), how can you consider the blood type matching in this case (which includes 33% of the Caucasian population) to be any kind of proof that the blood belonged to the victims rather than the person who owned or was wearing the item containing the sample of blood?

    All blood typing can do is exclude someone as the source. Blood type alone cannot determine conclusively the source of said blood without further testing. The sample from the pendant was destroyed. I don't know if the blood on the T-shirt was retested, but it could have been as part of the State's "secret" testing. As they didn't release the results of that testing (which occurred well before Judge Laser put the gag order in place), we don't really know about it. However, logic tells me that, if said testing had been conducted by the State, and said testing had produced results stating that the blood on the T-shirt was a match to Michael instead of Jessie, the State would have released that information.

    BTW, since Michael and Stevie have the same blood type, does anyone know why the blood on the pendant has always been said to be either Jason's or Stevie's and the blood on the T-shirt has always been said to be either Jessie's or Michael's? I understand the Jason and Jessie connections as they were the owner/possessor of said items. But the Stevie and Michael connections, IMO, were simply the prosecution's attempt to prop up their case because Jessie had claimed that he chased Michael down and that Jason had been the one to attack "the Branch" boy. Since Chris' blood (which would be much more likely to have been on things, had Jessie's story been true) is O+, none of the blood could have been his. Another very strange circumstance, don't you think?


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,224
    No the crime is not what increases the odds. What increases the odds is the addition of a 2nd. suspect, though now convicted, with blood on him that also matches that of one of the victims. I'm not saying there's proof of anything here. I am simply stating that the Odds Are reduced that all blood belongs to the suspects and not the victims by the addition of the 2nd. suspect with blood on his shirt. The victims are dead. We know their blood was spilled. We do not have any information on any of the convicted as regards any injuries they may have sustained at a crime scene or elsewhere.

    As to why Jessie and Michael, and Jason and Stevie, I believe it has to do with their HLA-DQ2 matching in each instance. Is there a report out there where we can determine any subsets (if that's the correct terminology) of the HLA-DQ2 matching? I'm curious about this myself, and that is the only thing I think might offer clarification to the matter.
    Last edited by justthinkin; 08-07-2011 at 09:11 PM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Cappuccino View Post
    This is circular reasoning. We know the wm3 committed the crime therefore its the victim's blood, and we know its the victim's blood because the wm3 committed the crime.

    All that can honestly be claimed about the blood on that pendant is that neither Jason Baldwin nor Stevie Branch can be conclusively excluded as the source, and nor can thousands of other people. To claim anything more than that is grossly overstating the case.

    Where are you getting that which I've bolded? Certainly, not from me, and so what anyway? I am free to believe what I want. However, I think my further post to CR, invalidates what you stated.
    Last edited by justthinkin; 08-07-2011 at 09:33 PM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Cappuccino View Post
    From where are you getting the information Stevie's blood was on the pendant? Jason Baldwin and Stevie Branch share the same blood group, and the blood on the pendant was only ever tested for blood group. Jason Baldwin often wore that necklace, and its not unusual for 16 yr old boys to nick themselves while shaving, so the most likely ecplanation is that its Jason's blood.

    Certainly far more likely than the pendant being worn as part of a bloody and violent triple homicide after which no blood ends up on anybody's clothes at all, just one tiny spot on the back of a pendant.
    Except that razor cuts don't spatter, they bleed out on the skin in the immediate area of the cut.
    Last edited by justthinkin; 08-07-2011 at 09:39 PM. Reason: diplomacy

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by justthinkin View Post
    No the crime is not what increases the odds. What increases the odds is the addition of a 2nd. suspect, though now convicted, with blood on him that also matches that of one of the victims. I'm not saying there's proof of anything here. I am simply stating that the Odds Are reduced that all blood belongs to the suspects and not the victims by the addition of the 2nd. suspect with blood on his shirt. The victims are dead. We know their blood was spilled. We do not have any information on any of the convicted as regards any injuries they may have sustained at a crime scene or elsewhere.

    As to why Jessie and Michael, and Jason and Stevie, I believe it has to do with their HLA-DQ2 matching in each instance. Is there a report out there where we can determine any subsets (if that's the correct terminology) of the HLA-DQ2 matching? I'm curious about this myself, and that is the only thing I think might offer clarification to the matter.
    Since all four of the people involved had blood type A+, the addition of a second suspect did nothing to increase the odds that the blood was the victim's.

    In researching about the DQ-Alpha thing, I found this article:

    http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/...ley/riley.html

    From what I can gather, DQ-Alpha is merely the type of testing the lab used to determine blood type.

    I believe that the blood on the pendant was referred to as "drops" (maybe "drops or spatters") of blood. I'm not saying that it was from shaving, it could have been from squeezing a pimple or from some sort of minor injury. However, the amount of blood on the pendant was extremely small and was destroyed by the original testing. I simply don't see this as indicative of the battle Jessie described.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,284
    No the crime is not what increases the odds. What increases the odds is the addition of a 2nd. suspect, though now convicted, with blood on him that also matches that of one of the victims. I'm not saying there's proof of anything here. I am simply stating that the Odds Are reduced that all blood belongs to the suspects and not the victims by the addition of the 2nd. suspect with blood on his shirt. The victims are dead. We know their blood was spilled. We do not have any information on any of the convicted as regards any injuries they may have sustained at a crime scene or elsewhere.
    Except we do - Jessie said he cut himself on a coke bottle.]

    Except that razor cuts don't spatter, they bleed out on the skin in the immediate area of the cut.
    I'm not talking about spatter, I'm talking about a razor nick on or under the chin. Gravity makes things travel downwards, which is why its not unusual to find the odd spot of blood on anything worn round the neck of a teenage boy.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 10-08-2016, 02:21 AM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-07-2015, 10:58 PM
  3. NV NV - Beatty, WhtMale 561UMNV, gold chain w/ '$1.98' pendant, Oct'80
    By anthrobones in forum The Unidentified
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 11-03-2014, 11:03 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-11-2013, 12:20 PM
  5. Replies: 29
    Last Post: 11-05-2012, 03:09 PM

Tags for this Thread