1259 users online (253 members and 1006 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 46 to 54 of 54
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    3,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Sarah View Post
    Hi Hoosen_Fenger,

    I'm not sure that you're in that much of a minority.
    FWIW I also believe in SA's guilt, although with so many people convinced of his innocence I find myself compelled to look at the other side and make my own mind up.
    To date I haven't seen anything to persuade me otherwise, but I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong if and when something new comes to light.
    As for BD - I don't know. I believe that he helped SA in some shape or form but I'm not completely sure of exactly [B]how[B] involved he was.

    The nice thing about this forum though, is that people from both sides of the fence are able to have a sensible, constructive discussion without the personal insults that you see elsewhere - and I have to say that I do enjoy debating the evidence and hearing different perspectives.

    Anyway back to the DNA question
    I know it's not an exact science, but I can't help thinking that if the result was inconclusive or there was insufficient quantity to fully test, the prosecution still wouldn't have missed an opportunity to go down the road of "There was female DNA on the cuffs and we can't rule out that it belonged to TH".
    Either way, I'm starting to think that these weren't the new cuffs purchased a couple of weeks before so I guess that becomes a moot point.
    Well said!

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    NSW, Australia
    Posts
    1,234
    Just because the handcuffs/leg cuffs didn't show Teresa's DNA, does not mean they were not used to restrict her ability to fight off her attacker.

    SA's DNA, along with the unknown female's, would be there because they all handled them at one stage. Much like SA's DNA on both the key and the hood latch.

    I highly doubt Teresa asked to hold them prior to them being used on her.

    There is also the fact that the ones purchased by SA along with BJ's pink ones, were animal print ones. I have not come across any documents stating that the animal print covers were found. Perhaps they went in the fire also, along with any trace evidence from Teresa's socks.

    Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SK, Canada
    Posts
    3,941
    If Kratz had any hint at possible evidence that there were animal print handcuffs that were never recovered, he would have been repeating that and we would still be hearing it. Instead he introduced handcuffs that had zero connection to TH.

    In the report of Barbs statement, it says:

    I informed her [of] a receipt from the store indicating a pair of pink cuffs were purchased along with an animal print of some sort.

    I think it's more reasonable to think that Barb bought an article of clothing that was animal print. JMO

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    NSW, Australia
    Posts
    1,234
    She stated the pink ones were hers and didn't know what colour SA got and never mentioned articles of clothing to clarify the animal print description. It is also reasonable to think the animal print was in reference to the other set of handcuffs.



    Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SK, Canada
    Posts
    3,941
    Quote Originally Posted by Limaes View Post
    She stated the pink ones were hers and didn't know what colour SA got and never mentioned articles of clothing to clarify the animal print description. It is also reasonable to think the animal print was in reference to the other set of handcuffs.



    Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
    They did take 2 receipts from Intimate Treasure's and put them into evidence, too bad they didn't enter them as an exhibit, we would probably have a better idea.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    The other side of the rainbow
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by missy1974 View Post
    They did take 2 receipts from Intimate Treasure's and put them into evidence, too bad they didn't enter them as an exhibit, we would probably have a better idea.
    This likely means one is Barb's and one is SA's... And the leopard print whatever isn't SA's.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    596
    Quote Originally Posted by Hippiemomof5 View Post
    This likely means one is Barb's and one is SA's... And the leopard print whatever isn't SA's.
    Hippiemom..."leopard print"? Are you sure about that? There is mention in the list of items found in the trailer near the "blue building" (during the license plate discovery) of some women's leopard panties. Fascinating junk yard stuff, isn't it? Sounds more like a waltz into Sodom and Gomorrah...

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    The other side of the rainbow
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by ZOOL View Post
    Hippiemom..."leopard print"? Are you sure about that? There is mention in the list of items found in the trailer near the "blue building" (during the license plate discovery) of some women's leopard panties. Fascinating junk yard stuff, isn't it? Sounds more like a waltz into Sodom and Gomorrah...
    I meant to say animal print!!

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    4,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Limaes View Post
    Just because the handcuffs/leg cuffs didn't show Teresa's DNA, does not mean they were not used to restrict her ability to fight off her attacker.

    SA's DNA, along with the unknown female's, would be there because they all handled them at one stage. Much like SA's DNA on both the key and the hood latch.

    I highly doubt Teresa asked to hold them prior to them being used on her.

    There is also the fact that the ones purchased by SA along with BJ's pink ones, were animal print ones. I have not come across any documents stating that the animal print covers were found. Perhaps they went in the fire also, along with any trace evidence from Teresa's socks.

    Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
    It takes a lot of speculation to come to these conclusions about the cuffs. I don't think jurors are supposed to speculate like that. If we speculate the guilty way, we can do it in the other direction, saying that we have no idea where this animal print is or when it was removed. Maybe SA never liked the print and took it off before the first time he even used them. If the DNA found is located on the metal, that might support this idea.

    I would find it hard to believe that SA can touch the key and get DNA on it (But TH's isn't) but she can be shackled long enough to get raped and shot and slit throat, but her DNA didn't get on the cuffs. Seems like she'd be struggling and moving a lot more in those cuffs than SA was with the key. But there's always several ways to look at evidence.

    I find interesting that, while Jodi was in jail, DNA from two other women wound up on these cuffs.
    "If Jodi's lips are moving...if her pen is moving...then she lie, lie, lies!"

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4


Similar Threads

  1. Handcuffs on 13-year-old 'excessive,' parents say
    By Casshew in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-06-2005, 01:38 AM
  2. Elmo* learns H is for Handcuffs
    By Norma in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-25-2005, 11:42 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-21-2004, 05:58 PM

Tags for this Thread