Fatal Friends, Deadly Neighbors: Ann Rule's Crime Files

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Betty P said:
<snip>
Taking the information she does have to them allows her to get a fresh, objective, third party perspective on the handling of the two cases. Her experts don't have an axe to grind, nor do they fear any negative repercussions from those parties connected to the cases. Based on experts she's consulted on previous cases, they're likely to be highly skilled in murder investigations, perhaps even moreso than anyone she could have spoken with in Coronado.
Click to expand...


It's my experience that every time a qualified expert immerses themselves in the evidence of a case, they will see something new and help validate what is known or theorized. When they see something new or in a different light, then it's possible it leads to a new avenue for investigation. I think in this case, whether Rule found something astounding or not, a smoking gun or not, it has grabbed her attention and I'll bet she sticks with it long after the book is available. Additionally, I bet she has some great resources and connections in the forensic world.
 
time said:
It is NOT a fact that Dina was not at the mansion. She has no alibi, only her phone does. It IS a fact that a witness claims they saw her. Whether it was her or not, it's interesting given the description and Nina's description who confessed she was at the mansion late at night. Not only there, but turning the door knob, looking in windows, and going around back.

Also, I don't think we know if there is actually enough DNA to type via new methods do we?

Lack of enough DNA to type under Rebecca's fingernails or anywhere else does NOT prove she committed suicide. Oy Vey! :waitasec:
Click to expand...



Dina had witnesses to where she was. Nurses. Doctors. Friends. You can say that she was at the mansion all you want to but it just is not true. SDSO would have checked both Dina and Nina's stories with WITNESSES.

As far as the DNA goes, I have been a juror on a three-strikes rape case. I am happy to say we put the away for life.

DNA was used in the case and we had a very long and detailed lesson by both of the lawyers. TRACE DNA usually means the DNA is old. It means there is not DNA in any level high enough to read.

Gloves would NOT keep someone's DNA from being SOMEWHERE around Rebecca or the ropes that she hung herself with. You can leave DNA by simply breathing.
 
time said:
This was all discussed in another thread (maybe it is gone now), but the stated goals included a lot of intervention from third parties and more legal mess for blended families - that is not the way to go.
Click to expand...

Why do you say that is not the way to go when intervention from third parties and more legal "mess" may have been just the thing to save the life of little 6-year old Max Shacknai?
 
CuriousGeorgia said:
Why do you say that is not the way to go when intervention from third parties and more legal "mess" may have been just the thing to save the life of little 6-year old Max Shacknai?
Click to expand...


Huh? You're kidding right? That appears to be several giant leaps of judgment. There is no evidence that Rebecca was any danger to children. There is no evidence that Max's death was anything more than a tragic accident. I think there is someone or two dangerous folks still freely walking around and a couple of folks who played some dangerous domestic violence games with each other though. Instead of getting control of themselves they got to the point where the police were even called several times - in my mind that probably most definitely means it went on a lot more than that. That situation is not healthy for a child. Once you get divorced and a new partner or spouse is found, you have to try and treat that person with some respect and the relationship with respect. Keeping them from being a normal part of a blended family is not creating a healthy environment.
 
CuriousGeorgia said:
Dina had witnesses to where she was. Nurses. Doctors. Friends. You can say that she was at the mansion all you want to but it just is not true. SDSO would have checked both Dina and Nina's stories with WITNESSES.

As far as the DNA goes, I have been a juror on a three-strikes rape case. I am happy to say we put the away for life.

DNA was used in the case and we had a very long and detailed lesson by both of the lawyers. TRACE DNA usually means the DNA is old. It means there is not DNA in any level high enough to read.

Gloves would NOT keep someone's DNA from being SOMEWHERE around Rebecca or the ropes that she hung herself with. You can leave DNA by simply breathing.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of touch DNA? It requires only very small samples. The point being that there really should not be stranger DNA under Rebecca's fingernails nor in some other places.

I do not think they have yet to get a DNA sample by someone breathing. Gloves would most probably keep DNA from the hands from being left, but of course, not from other areas of a perpetrators body that touched something (like their arms touching the bed posts), or if someone sneezed, or spit, flaked off skin cells, etc. on some object. Trace evidence can be transferred from a person to an object or an object to an object (fibers, hair)

Calling something "trace DNA" does not mean it is old DNA anymore than trace evidence means it is old evidence. I know there are some really good DNA primers online if you look them up.
 
time said:
Ever heard of touch DNA? It requires only very small samples. The point being that there really should not be stranger DNA under Rebecca's fingernails nor in some other places.

I do not think they have yet to get a DNA sample by someone breathing. Gloves would most probably keep DNA from the hands from being left, but of course, not from other areas of a perpetrators body that touched something (like their arms touching the bed posts), or if someone sneezed, or spit, flaked off skin cells, etc. on some object. Trace evidence can be transferred from a person to an object or an object to an object (fibers, hair)

Calling something "trace DNA" does not mean it is old DNA anymore than trace evidence means it is old evidence. I know there are some really good DNA primers online if you look them up.
Click to expand...


As I stated, I KNOW about DNA. I was on a three-stirikes case in California that put a rapist away for life. He is now in Susanville prison rotting. So yes, I know about DNA. I put a man away for LIFE because of DNA and other REAL evidence.

So I am WELL aware that juries want real EVIDENCE. Like DNA and FINGERPRINTS. All the things that prove that Rebecca Zahau hung herself.
 
CuriousGeorgia said:
As I stated, I KNOW about DNA. I was on a three-stirikes case in California that put a rapist away for life. He is now in Susanville prison rotting. So yes, I know about DNA. I put a man away for LIFE because of DNA and other REAL evidence.

So I am WELL aware that juries want real EVIDENCE. Like DNA and FINGERPRINTS. All the things that prove that Rebecca Zahau hung herself.
Click to expand...

Since a glove was found on the scene and taken into evidence, I don't find it reasonable to argue that lack of DNA translates into evidence that no others were involved.
 
CuriousGeorgia said:
Dina had witnesses to where she was. Nurses. Doctors. Friends. You can say that she was at the mansion all you want to but it just is not true. SDSO would have checked both Dina and Nina's stories with WITNESSES.<snip for brevity>
Click to expand...


Can you provide anything, anywhere that validates Dina had witnesses while she was in the hospital for the entire Tuesday after 6 pm until 7 am the next morning? Or at least from 10pm until 7 am?

Dina was not captured on hospital surveillance or we would have heard about it. I have seen no one come forward and say they can verify her whereabouts all those hours.
 
elfie said:
Since a glove was found on the scene and taken into evidence, I don't find it reasonable to argue that lack of DNA translates into evidence that no others were involved.
Click to expand...

It's unfortunate LE didn't find it necessary to test the blood in the hallway outside the guestroom door. Ditto for the clump of hair found in the shower and the underwear in the guesthouse wastebasket. I'm also confused as to how only Rebecca's DNA could have been found in a home where multiple occupants resided. Or did they discount DNA from residents of the home as not relevant? Does anyone know?

Furthermore, I wish they would've checked out Rebecca's phone within a month of her death instead of waiting until a day or two after the supposed trigger voice mail was purged from servers. And why haven't they returned the phone to Rebecca's family? Does anyone know? Has an explanation been provided?

As for DS's whereabouts, I believe Gore said they established this by cell phone pings in the vicinity of the hospital (how close I don't know) and he specifically stated she was not captured on videotape at the hospital that evening.

I'm not sure these comments belong on this thread, but I'm responding to postings on this thread. Moderators should feel free to move them.
 
CuriousGeorgia said:
As I stated, I KNOW about DNA. I was on a three-stirikes case in California that put a rapist away for life. He is now in Susanville prison rotting. So yes, I know about DNA. I put a man away for LIFE because of DNA and other REAL evidence.

So I am WELL aware that juries want real EVIDENCE. Like DNA and FINGERPRINTS. All the things that prove that Rebecca Zahau hung herself.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I find that scary given what you have said about DNA evidence. I don't know what REAL evidence h as to do with it. All evidence is real unless it was planted.

Lack of DNA evidence does not prove Rebecca hung herself. I don't even know how you can say that. Besides, I also pointed out it could be lack of more sensitive testing employed. It could also be just a lack of testing in this case! They didn't even test the blood in the bathroom.

Any DNA, even mixed, on the inside door, bedframe, the outside doors, and balcony rail for DNA could possibly show a profile given advanced testing.

And, again Trace DNA is not old DNA. Touch DNA is more a technique than the evidence itself.
 
Just so no one gets confused on what it IS:

"Trace DNA samples may be defined as any sample which falls below recommended thresholds at any stage of the analysis, from sample detection through to profile interpretation, and can not be defined by a precise picogram amount. Here we review aspects associated with the collection, DNA extraction, amplification, profiling and interpretation of trace DNA samples."

http://www.investigativegenetics.com/content/1/1/14
 
You can't measure trace DNA. That's really all you need to know it in this case. Regardless of what any of us think about the DNA, the investigators that took the samples and saw the results had no question that Rebecca hung herself.
 
elfie said:
Since a glove was found on the scene and taken into evidence, I don't find it reasonable to argue that lack of DNA translates into evidence that no others were involved.
Click to expand...

all LE can follow is evidence that leads them to a conclusion. Trace DNA isn't necessarily evidence of a crime.

Lack of evidence that anyone else stood on the balcony or touched the railing does point to a suicide.

JMO
 
CuriousGeorgia said:
You can't measure trace DNA. That's really all you need to know it in this case. Regardless of what any of us think about the DNA, the investigators that took the samples and saw the results had no question that Rebecca hung herself.
Click to expand...

I agree. They looked and found nothing. If somebody else had been there, there would be some type of evidence such as shoeprints in the thick dust.
 
CuriousGeorgia said:
You can't measure trace DNA. That's really all you need to know it in this case. Regardless of what any of us think about the DNA, the investigators that took the samples and saw the results had no question that Rebecca hung herself.
Click to expand...

<modsnip>?

You must be behind in your science because even way back in 2002 there have been research that indicate that trace evidence such as trace DNA can be used for investigative analysis. Here is one such article: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/oct2001/stouder.htm

There have been many many advancements in DNA technology in the past decade including the ability to amplify trace, minute DNA. <modsnip>.

Here is a more recent 2012 article: http://forensicarchaeology.org/archives/313
 
MyBelle said:
all LE can follow is evidence that leads them to a conclusion. Trace DNA isn't necessarily evidence of a crime.

Lack of evidence that anyone else stood on the balcony or touched the railing does point to a suicide.

JMO
Click to expand...

The glove itself is evidence. Certainly it should have been tested for DNA and fingerprints.

Ignoring evidence of anyone else on the balcony is not lack of evidence.
 
bourne said:
<modsnip>?

You must be behind in your science because even way back in 2002 there have been research that indicate that trace evidence such as trace DNA can be used for investigative analysis. Here is one such article: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/oct2001/stouder.htm

There have been many many advancements in DNA technology in the past decade including the ability to amplify trace, minute DNA. <modsnip>.

Here is a more recent 2012 article: http://forensicarchaeology.org/archives/313
Click to expand...



Please enlighten me. If you can't measure DNA, how do you tell whose it is?

I did not say I was an expert. I said I served on a jury that put someone away for LIFE because of DNA. In 2005. And all 12 jurors convicted the man because of DNA.

But I truly am interested in hearing how DNA is measure when there is not enough to measure...
 
BTW, the first link was useless. It is about a study of measurable DNA.

The second link said, "It is sometimes possible to gain viable DNA profiles from highly degraded samples that may be old or may have been subjected to outside interference."

So that much different that what I said.


The DNA at the scene that was NOT Rebecca's was not even enough to MEASURE. So please tell me, if the DNA cannot be MEASURED, which is how you get a genetic profile, HOW are you going to get that information from it?

Answer: Can't be done.
 
bourne said:
<modsnip>?

You must be behind in your science because even way back in 2002 there have been research that indicate that trace evidence such as trace DNA can be used for investigative analysis. Here is one such article: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/oct2001/stouder.htm

There have been many many advancements in DNA technology in the past decade including the ability to amplify trace, minute DNA. You need to catch up with the science.

Here is a more recent 2012 article: http://forensicarchaeology.org/archives/313
Click to expand...

Thank ypu for bringing today into the equation.
 
bourne said:
<modsnip>
You must be behind in your science because even way back in 2002 there have been research that indicate that trace evidence such as trace DNA can be used for investigative analysis. Here is one such article: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/oct2001/stouder.htm

There have been many many advancements in DNA technology in the past decade including the ability to amplify trace, minute DNA. <modsnip>

Here is a more recent 2012 article: http://forensicarchaeology.org/archives/313
Click to expand...
Well, we do know that Dina is a "scientist" because she said so herself...........
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 123 more.
Total: 1,468 (members: 124, guests: 1,344)

Online statistics

Members online
124
Guests online
1,344
Total visitors
1,468
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,797
Messages
17,959,019
Members
228,607
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top