CA CA - Stephanie Crowe, 12, Escondido, 21 January 1998

New Posts

Not to mention the fact that if an insider was going to commit this crime, why was her body left there in a bloody mess on the floor with her obviously in a final state of crawling on the floor towards her bedroom door before she died? Would an insider have left her still struggling towards the door so as to possibly alert the other family members? I think not. Wouldn't an insider have tried to remove all traces of the crime, including the body itself from the home so as to draw attention AWAY from the scene of the crime? I think so. If we are to assume that two of Michael's friends who had nothing to gain but everything to lose assisted him, then why didn't they do more in assisting him to get rid of the body, hide the crime, etc? How did none of Stephanie's blood end up on any of them? How did they manage to walk away without leaving a trace anywhere else in their own homes or Michael's room or in a bathroom, assuming they'd be washing all that blood off of them? There was no evidence of blood in the drains of that house, so where did it all go? The blood went out the door because the person who commited the crime was not from there, didn't belong there, and the traces of blood left with them, on clothing if not anywhere else. The way that crime was commited screams deranged, disorderly chaos and Tuite is one sick mentally ill individual.
 
And the most bizarre part of the whole thing was that police based their stupid assumption that Michael killed his sister on the premise that there was no signs of anyone but the family being in the house. But... by the time they got done bungling this case they had placed not one "intruder" in the house, but at least two! They had this house teaming with clumsy fourteen and fifteen year-old kids while everyone else slept. And they saw nothing wrong with the logic that two other teenagers had to enter that house without waking anyone, yet they based their "insider theory" on the fact that ONE intruder could not have entered.
 
Ghostwheel said:
Can you help me out with a link? I cannot find ANYTHING on the Internet regarding this, but maybe I'm using the wrong search criteria. Was this just something you saw at the trial?
Thanks for the help.
Click to expand...


Yes. It was also on tv, you might find something about it in the archives from the San Diego TV news stations.

You must all remember that no blood was found on Richard Tuite's shirts when originally turned in. I have not made up my mind yet as I want to learn about all the evidence, but I do have to tell you, that an acquittal is NOT an impossibility. Right now, I have ALOT of reasonable doubt! (and I am usually pro prosecution) Most everyone I have spoken to in the legal and l.e. community is not convinced Tuite did it, and many think he is being made a scapegoat.
 
Sabrina said:
Yes. It was also on tv, you might find something about it in the archives from the San Diego TV news stations.

You must all remember that no blood was found on Richard Tuite's shirts when originally turned in.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I'll give that a try. I have scoured Signonsandiego, but nothing is there. I'll try the others.

Was the bit about the shirt on trial news? Because I have an old article that says the blood WAS there when originally turned in, but they didn't bother to test it. They assumed it was his. That was before they considered him a suspect.
 
Ghostwheel said:
Thanks, I'll give that a try. I have scoured Signonsandiego, but nothing is there. I'll try the others.

Was the bit about the shirt on trial news? Because I have an old article that says the blood WAS there when originally turned in, but they didn't bother to test it. They assumed it was his. That was before they considered him a suspect.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant to say Stephanie's blood. There also was the tee shirt issue.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/crowe/20031212-9999_1n12tuite.html
 
Thanks for the link. That one says that
"Tuite, 34, was wearing the T-shirt under a red sweat shirt, which also had the victim's blood on it, according to earlier testing. Both shirts were taken from him by Escondido police Jan. 21, 1998, the day the girl's body was found."

It doesn't say WHEN the earlier testing was, though.
 
A woman a transient was looking for the night Stephanie Crowe was killed testified today that she asked Richard Tuite if he was the perpetrator during a phone call after the murder – then the line went dead.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/crowe/20040223-2236-tuite-staff.html

Responding to a 911 call about a suspicious person in the area, Escondido police Officer Scott Walters drove up to the Crowe house off Valley Center Road shortly before 10 p.m. on Jan. 20, 1998
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/crowe/20040223-2236-tuite-staff.html
 
I know the reason why you brought up the Crowes and meth. I didn't say I didn't know why it came up in conversation. My point was that even if the police were trying to bring up the parents' recreational drug use to paint them in a bad light and to possibly even include Michael as having some access to their stash, it's still leaving two people who were in the home that night completely out of that picture. How do they explain the fact that both Shannon and Grandma didn't hear anything either? We're to believe the whole multi-generational family was under some drug-induced haze? Somehow I doubt that. Otherwise what is the point of mentioning the parents and meth? To say they're irresponsible and had no control over their children? All of that is really no different than when the Van Dams swinging lifestyle was brought up by the defense, now is it?

Also, regarding something else you said about LE doing the family a favor by not doing anything about the meth found, are you aware that both Michael and the younger sister Shannon were taken out of the home and put into some children's home away from the parents immediately after the investigation?
He had been at the Polinsky Children's Center in Kearny Mesa, where he and his other sister, Shannon, 10, were being kept under protective order, away from their parents http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/reports/crowe/crowe2.html
Click to expand...
Now, while they claim that is routine in in-home murder cases (which I'm not too sure I've seen happen in most cases), I don't see how anyone can say that the police did this family a favor after the investigation. They were trying to tear this family apart right from the get go whether or not they pursued official drug charges, of course presuming the gossip was true and that there were actually drugs in the house.

To read the events that were going on in the house that night, I don't think they exactly sound like a wild bunch. Not to say that they were perfect but I also didn't see any indication that Michael despised his sister either. He had helped her with homework and they had sat watching tv together eating snacks, giggly, joking around with each other so loudly that their grandmother who was trying to get to sleep came out to ask them to quiet down. That hardly sounds like a brother and sister who hate each other, to me. Secondly, Michael had been sick, home from school that day and a couple of days before and his friends (actually only one of them) did not even talk to him until they called to find out where he had been since he wasn't in school those last few days. It's not like he had been in school that day or even for the previous few days where they could have talked about it while they were away from the family. So when exactly did they concoct this elaborate plan to tear Michael's sister to shreds? During the very brief conversation where he called to see why he hadn't been in school, Michael told him he was sick but that he should be back the next day, buh bye? Somehow I don't see the conversation about, oh yeah come over tonight and help me kill my sister having time in there.

Sabrina, Could you fix the quote in your post please? Thanks.
 
And I was not saying that the bit of drugs found at the Crowe house when searched did not exist. I was protesting the term or label "meth users". I suppose there are those who would characterize anyone found with any drug substance, no matter how miniscule, "users" of that particular drug. And technically it would not be a false statement. However, to say the Crowes were "meth users" seems like an attempt to label them and put them in the same category as Richard Tuite, a die hard "user". I have a friend who does not smoke cigarettes and never has. But if she goes "out on the town" and she is drinking and partying, which is like once every six months perhaps, she will smoke cigarettes. I've seen her go through a half to three quarters of a pack of smokes, which is a substantial amount for a person who does not smoke on an everyday basis. Then for the next six months between nights on the town she never touches a cigarette. So if someone said she was a "smoker" I would disagree. She has smoked cigarettes, yes, but she does not regularly smoke. The same is true for people who will drink an excessive amount of alcohol at perhaps a wedding, but then not touch alcohol for months following. If someone says that person is a "drinker", a reasonable person would disagree.

Could the lab have been wrong about the substance? It could have. Is that likely? No... not if blood tests showed two weeks later that amphetamines were present in the Crowes' blood. Amphetamines are drugs that are in and out of the system. Even residule amounts are unlikely to last more than 72 hours in the blood. For both tests to be wrong it would have to be a railroad job... and I don't see the police doing that to the parents when making a case against the brother. I would have been more suspicious if Michael's blood had tested positive. And it did not.

The family WAS mistreated. It is NOT standard practice to remove the children from the parents in cases like this. The children were removed BEFORE the substance was found in the house that was believed to be meth... and long before the test results on that substance came back. The children were removed for the purpose of ILLEGALLY questioning Michael Crowe. If they had only removed him and left Shannon with her parents, it would have tipped the parents off that they were looking at Michael as a suspect. The parents would have kept on top of the location of their son at all times. By removing both children and claiming it was routine they did not arouse suspicions in the Crowes who were already in a state of shock.
 
Uptotheminute,

It was the D.A.'s decision not to charge the Crowe's. You can go back and look in the articles and I believe there should be some quotes by Paul Pfingst or one of the deputy D.A.'s. It was their decision, and perhaps you can read for yourself what they said their reasons were. I neither agree or disagree, I only paraphrased some of what was said in court. I did not say LE did the Crowes a favor!

Does anyone actually know the extent of the Crowes' drug use? Do you? 2 grams were found in the house along with several articles or paraphanelia, it was found in their bloodstream a few weeks later, I think meth disappears after 48 to 72 hours. Do you know the Crowes' precise drug use habits, and do you know Truit's drug use habits? Did you live with them and write it down in a diary?

Meth and smoking cigarettes cannot be compared. Go read up on methamphetamine, and in particular crystal meth. There are presumptive tests law enforcement utilizes for drugs including meth with immediate results. Just like luminol. One does not keep drug paraphenelia to use aspirin. One does not carry white aspirin powder in vials in their purse or white aspirin powder in baggies. I do not know the exact time when the drugs were found, but I believe it was within the first few hours of the search.

One can drink one drink and not get drunk. One will only smoke,snort or shoot meth to get high.. Meth is a dangerous drug, one of the most dangerous out there. You cannot compare the two. Apples to oranges.

Yes, I know the kids were taken to the Polinsky children's center for a few days, and no, it was not to railroad Michael. Believe that if you want to, it's often done when there is a violent crime such as this with no sign of forced entry. The Crowe's themselves were suspects initially. I have been to the Polinsky center many times and it's not "any children's center," it's actually a lovely place, and has been a model for other shelters in the country.

Perhaps the Crowes were mistreated, but then again, so are many other victims. I sympathize with them on the death of their daughter, and there have been some recent deaths and illnesses in their family.

Although you have every right to your opinion, it is wrong to make up your minds before you have heard all of the evidence and the arguments of this case. There certainly is alot of reasonable doubt, and there is a very strong possibility Truite could get acquitted. We have been fed information on this case for years,but the details outside of San Diego have been limited. You are reading short newspaper articles from one paper, the trial transcripts are not available on line as far as I know. Local TV has covered part of the trial,but to my knowledge, national TV is not covering it in any sort of depth. You are not getting the entire trial or facts, only exerpts.

For example,I mentioned something I heard in court and on the news and was jumped on for relaying "tabloid news," and accused of posting misinformation.

It was posted "the lab was so screwed up they probably messed up on the drug tests." If anyone thinks this is an intelligent, informed statement they need to learn about drug testing,crime scene and evidence collection,DNA testing and how crime labs function. I am only attempting to inform people of some facts which they may not be aware of,are horribly misinformed about, and show a high degree of bias as cited above.

I really cannot say much more,but I don't think I will comment on this case any further. Richard Truite, offensive as he is, deserves a fair trial.
 
Sabrina said:
The amazing part about the blood was initially when tested, it was only Tuite's blood on his shirt. It wasn't until later that Stephanie's blood was found on the shirt as well.
Click to expand...
The original testing was done by the Escondido Police Department, who was already sure they had their killer (Michael Crowe). I'm afraid I will have to take that with a grain of salt. Subsequent testings by OTHER than Escondido, showed something else. Has to make you wonder, at least, since it was proven that Escondido botched the testing.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/reports/crowe/crowe6.html
"When Durgin tested the sweat shirt in April 1998, he also took pictures of it. Digital enhancements of those photos showed that the blood was on the shirt then -- three months before Attridge had examined the clothing at the police station."

BOTH the F.B.I. and the investigative team composed of not only Escondido police, but other agencies mentioned above, believed that someone held Stephanie under the comforter while another person stabbed her.
Click to expand...
However, also keep an open mind that a person who is cold will often tuck a comforter in around themselves (I do it frequently) like a mummy. You would not need anyone to hold down a comforter in that case, the victim is already pinned in. It was 44 degrees that night, cold by Escondido standards.
 
If you actually read my post you would see that I was not comparing smoking cigarettes to using meth. Actually my post was VERY FAIR to your viewpoint of the drug situation yet you persist in referring to my statements in posts to Up2 without addressing me. I was merely using cigarettes as an example to explain the difference between a person "who has used a drug" (in this case meth) once in awhile, or even predictably but only casually, and someone who uses around the clock... therefore a "meth user". It is just my perspective on things. There are men who have a couple of beers on weekends watching football and then one or two nights during the week watching television. And then there are men who drink a case of beer a night. If you can't see the difference there is no sense in further debating it.

BTW... the police claim they found 1.7 grams of meth in the Crowe home, which is less than 2 grams if we are going to get picky. However, this information did not come out until 13 months after the substance was found... nobody ever defined "drug paraphenelia"... B&C Headache Formula is an OTC drug that comes in powder form... One of my daughter's asthma medication is distributed in vials... and prosecutor Paul Pfingst said that the small amount of meth found would have resulted in a sentence of mandatory counseling and nothing more.
 
Sabrina, I thought we were all having a discussion and you were trying to take the side of the defense as far as debating their points. Yes? No? :confused: You seem to be getting upset that people are bringing up points to this case that contradict the defense argument. Did you not expect that to happen? You say that you are just bringing up the things that will come up in trial as points that the defense will try to make..well, that is exactly what the other side of the conversation is bringing up too in connection with the prosecution arguments. As far as your claim that all we have to go on with those arguments are news/media, well, you have cited the San Diego Tribune a few times yourself so I'm not sure how exactly you feel that everything you're saying or using as an example is coming directly from the trial either. I also have no idea why you avoid addressing Babcat directly with the things that you don't agree with written by her and instead include them in your posts to me as if I was the one who originally wrote it. I don't mean that you can't bring up the points she mentioned that you didn't agree with but you seem to be writing as if we are the same person. And could you please fix the quote in the post at the top of the page, my quote is still blended in with your posts. Thanks.
 
2 women describe their fright at being shadowed by Tuite

By Mark Sauer
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

March 2, 2004

Two young women who were about the same age as Stephanie Crowe at the time of her slaying testified yesterday that they were so frightened by encounters with Richard Tuite that they called the police.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/crowe/20040302-9999-1m2tuite.html
 
Sorry if I am getting the two of you mixed up.

The problem I have is this; I don't think it's fair for people in Kansas or wherever you are to call me liar because I relayed something I saw and heard in court which was not online and you may have not known about. I also don't think it's fair to say I am spreading tabloid rumors when I stated a fact which has been in the media for years and was the subject of pre trial motions. To prove my source was not a tabloid, I found an article which mentioned it in the Union Tribune, which is really the only outlet covering the trial in any depth online.

I also do not see how anyone can compare illegal crystal meth use with alcohol and tobacco. The sole purpose of crystal meth usage is to get high.It is produced in labs for this purpose only, and is not produced for medicinal or any other value. When I have a glass of wine or smoke a cigarette, I do not use it for the purpose of getting high. Anyone who uses crystal meth is using it to get high. Plus it's illegal.

If you want to disregard drug use, fine, but compare it to other illegal similar substances such as cocaine or heroin, do not compare meth to alcohol or tobacco, or even marijuana which is another classification of drug altogether.

By the way, 1.7 grams of crystal meth, has a street value of around $170-$200. This is not the price of a 6 pack or even a carton of cigarettes.

People go to jail for possessing drug paraphanelia. This was ridiculed. In case you don't know, this can be pipes, syringes, etc. It's illegal to posess or offer for sale in retail outlets. Look up the California codes.

I know of a case where the defendant plea bargained for 30 days in jail and 2 years probation for possession of drug paraphanelia. A pipe with meth residue.

Finding and confiscating drugs in the home, then having it show up with positive results in a blood or urine test 2 weeks later shows drugs were used 24-72 hours prior to the test. The evidence is there that these people are not using the drug for the first time since there are now 2 instances where it was discovered in their possession over a 2 week period.

It was suggested on this forum that the lab was wrong with the drug tests because the lab was screwed up. This is a ridiculous statement and I was only pointing out how silly it was to even state this.

I am not an advocat for Richard Tuite or the defense. I am squarely on the fence and want to learn about all the evidence. I could honestly say I was sure Westerfield did it before his trial started because I had knowledge of the plea bargain. I am only an advocat for fair trials, no matter how offensive the defendant may be. Personally, I am of the opinion that Tuite is not competent to stand trial but since the court psychiatrists seem to think he is, then I guess my perception is legally incorrect.

Patton showed photo evidence and outlined some of the witnesses he would be presenting, along with what they would testify to, and I was only relaying that information and got jumped on. If Patton comes through, which I have reason to believe he will, there will be alot of reasonable doubt raised. The majority of people I have spoken to in San Diego about the case feel like Tuite is being railroaded and an aquittal is a strong possibility.

It's easy to dislikel Truite and think him guilty because he looked like the classic "boogie man" everyone wants to think commits the unspeakable.

There is a reason(s) why Pfingst would not issue an arrest warrant for Truite, and the case. Largely because of pressure from the civil case and Crowe's lawyers, it was transferred to the attorney general who almost never prosecutes homicide cases. This case was also grounds for contention during the D.A. election. The civil case seems to be diminishing as much of the plantiffs' case has been ruled inadmissible. But I guess you all know this.

In the case of a violent crime in a home where the parents have not been ruled out,(they were suspects initially too) and there was no sign of forced entry, the children may be taken to a shelter. Maybe this isn't a procedure in your county, but I know of other cases where it's been handled this way in San Diego county.

I can't comment any further on the case or specific evidence until it's over.
 
I didn't live in San Diego at the time this happened, but I did work in a local TV newsroom when I first moved here, and when I first heard the story about the re-enactment the police did, some of my coworkers told me that they still thought the boys did it.

I think part of it may be the demeanor of the Crowe family, I did meet them on one occasion (at the time I didn't know who they were) and they did not strike me as being very personable, but I know this does not mean Michael is a murderer.

When Tuite escaped, I made a comment that if I were a member of the Crowe family, I would be out there hunting him down personally, And one of my friends told me that she STILL didn't think Tuite did it, at least not on his own, and thought the boys might have had something to do with it .
This was just a few weeks ago, and my friend is a very intelligent, level-headed person. Maybe she is privy to some off the record info that I don't know, as she still works in the news biz. Or maybe it is just her personal opinion. I don't know. But most of the people I have talked to in my personal life seem to feel that Tuite is the one being railroaded.

I myself haven't watched this case closely enough from the beginning to decide.
 
Former lab chief questioned about bloodstains in Tuite case

By Mark Sauer
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

March 16, 2004

The critical question of how Stephanie Crowe's blood got on the red sweat shirt worn by Richard Tuite the night she was slain was the focus of testimony yesterday, as the trial of the former transient entered its second month.

SignOnSanDiego
 
Stephanie Crowe's parents testify in Tuite trial

SIGNONSANDIEGO NEWS SERVICES
5:58 p.m. March 16, 2004

SAN DIEGO – The mother of Stephanie Crowe testified today that she twice heard knocking or banging noises in her home the night her daughter was killed but didn't get up to check them out.

SignOnSanDiego.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 175 more.
Total: 4,587 (members: 176, guests: 4,411)

Online statistics

Members online
176
Guests online
4,411
Total visitors
4,587
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,582
Messages
17,971,294
Members
228,825
Latest member
JustFab
Back
Top