Michelle Young, pregnant mom, murdered Part 15.

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks, Samiya.
May the rest of this week bring an arrest or at least some news.
RIP Michelle Young and babes.
 
I have reason to believe to this day LE is still trying to match fingerprints in the house. Is it really necessary for a good case to have known matches for all prints in a large home? We know lE printed all the "inter circle" that have been in the home. In addition, LE went to Brevard to obtain prints from those friends and family. If they still have some "phantom prints" could that be a big defense issue the DA would want to over come before an arrest is made ?
 
Sami,
My apologies, I posted on Part #14 this morning, and I don't know how to move it over to here.

Sooooo...just bumping this thread up this morning!

DD
 
Barney Fife said:
I have reason to believe to this day LE is still trying to match fingerprints in the house. Is it really necessary for a good case to have known matches for all prints in a large home? We know lE printed all the "inter circle" that have been in the home. In addition, LE went to Brevard to obtain prints from those friends and family. If they still have some "phantom prints" could that be a big defense issue the DA would want to over come before an arrest is made ?
Click to expand...

Oh, absolutely. The DA is going to want those prints ID'd before a trial, because that just leaves a huge hole for any defense attorney to say - "the mystery prints are your killer, not my client."
 
Is Jake still a registered member here? If so, I'd like to ask him a question regarding Jason's Ford Explorer.

When the Explorer was handed over by LE to Jason's attorney, was all original equipment still intact? Specifically, was the rear seat in the vehicle? Had any upholstery been cut away? TIA
 
Hey Scout! I solved your riddle...I hope I made your day!

Have a good one.

Utopia

ETA: I put the answer in the comments but now I'm wondering if I should have as I don't want to spoil it for others. Feel free to remove it if you like. And it wasn't that easy, I thought you did a great job! Very creative.
 
less0305 said:
Oh, absolutely. The DA is going to want those prints ID'd before a trial, because that just leaves a huge hole for any defense attorney to say - "the mystery prints are your killer, not my client."
Click to expand...


Since there are "unmatched" prints in the home to this day, it may be a while before there is an arrest. Sure hope they have a pile more to make this a moot point at trial.
 
Barney Fife said:
Since there are "unmatched" prints in the home to this day, it may be a while before there is an arrest. Sure hope they have a pile more to make this a moot point at trial.
Click to expand...

IMO,

Depends where these unmatched prints were found and collected. Do they appear to be relevant to where the crime scene was? I.e., if there's unmatched prints in the kitchen, and there didn't appear to be a struggle downstairs, they may not be as critical to the investigation as if they were found in the MB or close proximity to MY's body. LE would want them all tested and on file, but the different prints will have varying degrees of importance.

Yes, they'll need more than just fingerprints to take a case forward. But the finding of unknown prints near MY or in critical areas of the determined crime scene would be more disturbing to investigators, which would mean more time. Versus, not finding unknown prints near MY or the actual crime scene.

ETA: Oops, just reread your post, and I'm assuming you already knew what I posted. You were making a statement rather than asking a question. Sorry, I should probably just delete my words, but didn't want you to have read it and thought I was talking beneath you or anything. Sorry. Soooo, yes, agree it takes longer to run all the prints through AFIS, etc.
 
Barney Fife said:
Since there are "unmatched" prints in the home to this day, it may be a while before there is an arrest. Sure hope they have a pile more to make this a moot point at trial.
Click to expand...


Well like someone suggested at CTV - how many foreign fingerprints would you expect in the master bedroom and master bath.
 
DD my dear! Looks like we were thinking at the same time - only you of course have put more detail into your thoughts, hehe. Hey you're really rockin' on this forum! I don't think I've been on a forum with you before and I am really enjoying your insight and contribution!!:)
 
jilly said:
DD my dear! Looks like we were thinking at the same time - only you of course have put more detail into your thoughts, hehe. Hey you're really rockin' on this forum! I don't think I've been on a forum with you before and I am really enjoying your insight and contribution!!:)
Click to expand...

Hey Miss Jilly :woohoo:

Really, we've never really been on the same forum? I know we posted "elsewhere" together, but I guess I just assumed we did other WS forums together, as well. It feels like it, I'm always so glad to "see you around :crazy: "

Yes, we were thinking alike on fingerprints.
 
jilly said:
Well like someone suggested at CTV - how many foreign fingerprints would you expect in the master bedroom and master bath.
Click to expand...

I know WCSO is very interested in talking to anyone who has been in the house so they can look at prints. The investigator was not specific as to "unmatched" print locations. I guess we should assume the prints are in the area of the actual crime scene.
 
Barney Fife said:
I know WCSO is very interested in talking to anyone who has been in the house so they can look at prints. The investigator was not specific as to "unmatched" print locations. I guess we should assume the prints are in the area of the actual crime scene.
Click to expand...

I find that very interesting.
 
DEPUTYDAWG said:
I find that very interesting.
Click to expand...

I did too. This investigator trolls CTV and asked about someone's identity that had been in the Young's home. He jumped right on it Saturday and said "We are also in a process of identifying anybody who has been in the house so we can obtain what are called elimination fingerprints to try to account for all fingerprint impressions located in the house"
 
Barney Fife said:
I did too. This investigator trolls CTV and asked about someone's identity that had been in the Young's home. He jumped right on it Saturday and said "We are also in a process of identifying anybody who has been in the house so we can obtain what are called elimination fingerprints to try to account for all fingerprint impressions located in the house"
Click to expand...

Well, although that takes a long time, good for them! Glad to hear they're being thorough.

I don't post over at CTV, but I sometimes sit back and watch as the different factions fight it out as to whether LE scours the message boards, etc. as part of investigations. Certainly, I don't personally know about WCSO or this specific case...but with absolute 100% conviction, I can say I know many in LE that do indeed, including follow-up in traffic fatality accidents. The spider webs from myspace, etc. can be wonderful investigative leads. ;)
 
Barney Fife said:
I did too. This investigator trolls CTV and asked about someone's identity that had been in the Young's home. He jumped right on it Saturday and said "We are also in a process of identifying anybody who has been in the house so we can obtain what are called elimination fingerprints to try to account for all fingerprint impressions located in the house"
Click to expand...

And following up...were you implying that someone had posted at CTV that they had personally been in the home? I don't venture over there on a consistent basis. So, I don't know who said that. (Should I guess? PM me, if you'd rather.) I just wanted to make sure I understood that correctly.

Who the he!!, who would be so intrinsically (sp?) involved in the case, would actually post such a thing? That's what I don't get. Too much at risk. Once an individual might be called as a witness in such an important case, the less said the better. Why post it on the internet? I don't think there's a positive to that, just a possible negative. JMHO

DD
 
DEPUTYDAWG said:
And following up...were you implying that someone had posted at CTV that they had personally been in the home? I don't venture over there on a consistent basis. So, I don't know who said that. (Should I guess? PM me, if you'd rather.) I just wanted to make sure I understood that correctly.

Who the he!!, who would be so intrinsically (sp?) involved in the case, would actually post such a thing? That's what I don't get. Too much at risk. Once an individual might be called as a witness in such an important case, the less said the better. Why post it on the internet? I don't think there's a positive to that, just a possible negative. JMHO

DD
Click to expand...

I feel more comfortable PM the details Deputy
 
One person over there that originally claimed to be in the house before the murder was JTF. Can't remember for sure about the one that dismissed the babygate idea because they were in the house many times they said but I'm thinking that was Concerned Citizen and that was a long time ago. The friend that said she was there with her dogs that kept barking at something a few weeks before the murder. I know some morphed that info into it being the GA friend who was there that night and felt like they were being watched.

BF, are you saying that investigator posted what you wrote at ctv on Saturday?

ETA: Also someone contacted a poster on that board that reads but doesn't want to post there that said she had been in the house. That was posted on the first page of Saturday's thread by Springflowers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 207 more.
Total: 3,527 (members: 208, guests: 3,319)

Online statistics

Members online
208
Guests online
3,319
Total visitors
3,527
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,828
Messages
17,959,741
Members
228,621
Latest member
Greer∆
Back
Top