General Discussions #5

[PrayersForMaura]

Right, but they didnt say it wasnt a random crime...only that they had no indication that it was. Same in Jessica's case, they didnt say it wasnt an abduction, only that they had no indication of such.

If the intent was rape, not theft etc...what would indicate random or non random?

I understood it to mean that there was no forced entry, nothing stolen, nothing out of place; hence not random, but that Janet knew the perpetrator. I may have misunderstood but that's what I deducted from what was written in the news.

 

[Timex]

I understood it to mean that there was no forced entry, nothing stolen, nothing out of place; hence not random, but that Janet knew the perpetrator. I may have misunderstood but that's what I deducted from what was written in the news.

I agree, and all of those things were what LE to say there was no indictation of abduction in Jessica's case. I guess my point is, things arent always as they appear. Many assumed a family member had to have done something to Jessica, because there was no indication of a stranger being in the house.

 

[PrayersForMaura]

I agree, and all of those things were what LE to say there was no indictation of abduction in Jessica's case. I guess my point is, things arent always as they appear. Many assumed a family member had to have done something to Jessica, because there was no indication of a stranger being in the house.

what was a tad different in that case is that the body was moved. Jessica was not in the house. And it was a sexual crime. Janet was killed and left to die in her own home, and it was not sexual. Police would release that if there were signs of attempted r*pe ... I don't like to type that word, it bothers me.

 

[Timex]

what was a tad different in that case is that the body was moved. Jessica was not in the house. And it was a sexual crime. Janet was killed and left to die in her own home, and it was not sexual. Police would release that if there were signs of attempted r*pe ... I don't like to type that word, it bothers me.

ok...but wouldnt a 9 year old being missing from her bed lead one to at least think abduction? LE said over and over again there was no indication of abduction, even though we all know she was indeed abducted.

I dont think Janet was raped...but I cant eliminate the possibility of rape being the motive. Im of the opinion homes can be, and often are, entered and crimes commited with no "indication" of forced entry etc. We see this far too many times to think differently.

 

[PrayersForMaura]

ok...but wouldnt a 9 year old being missing from her bed lead one to at least think abduction? LE said over and over again there was no indication of abduction, even though we all know she was indeed abducted.

I dont think Janet was raped...but I cant eliminate the possibility of rape being the motive. Im of the opinion homes can be, and often are, entered and crimes commited with no "indication" of forced entry etc. We see this far too many times to think differently.

oh i completely agree with you... it was pretty obvious to me that she was abducted and I have no clue why Florida LE kept saying otherwise.
I guess because there was nothing out of place in that case either, no broken windows or doors.
But it wasn't as much a random abduction... he was a neighbor and Jessica probably saw the guy a time or two and the he probably sought her out. Whereas let's say Steve Staynor was taken.... that guy who took him saw him playing ball on the street and liked him but didn't know him... that was more random. But I guess he kind of saught him out too....

I don't know, this case is very strange so far.
You would think LE would release more info.... ay yi yi.

 

[golfmom]

You would think LE would release more info.... ay yi yi.

Is this a special chant that we can all use to have more focus on this case?

 

[OriginalJerseyGirl]

I agree, and all of those things were what LE to say there was no indictation of abduction in Jessica's case. I guess my point is, things arent always as they appear. Many assumed a family member had to have done something to Jessica, because there was no indication of a stranger being in the house.

I was one of the "many". So I know exactly what you mean. That's why (on my good days), I try to give Raven the benefit of the doubt.

BTW, PrayersforMaura, I don't interpret "not random" to mean that Janet knew her attacker, just that she (or the house) were specific targets of the attacker.

 

[OriginalJerseyGirl]

what was a tad different in that case is that the body was moved. Jessica was not in the house. And it was a sexual crime.

We didn't realize at the time that the crime was sexual. It wasn't until after she was found that we learned what motivated the crime. Actually, we didn't even know IF it was a crime until it came to its conclusion.

 

[PrayersForMaura]

Is this a special chant that we can all use to have more focus on this case?

lol :clap:
I am soooooooo frustrated that nothing has seemingly progressed in the investigation of this case other that what all of you sleuthers are finding on the web. What is LE doing??? Scratching their butts?

 

[PrayersForMaura]

We didn't realize at the time that the crime was sexual. It wasn't until after she was found that we learned what motivated the crime. Actually, we didn't even know IF it was a crime until it came to its conclusion.

that's because she wasn't in the house and the body wasn't found.
Janet's body was there and LE probably looked at sexual assault first and foremost. Also, they probably noted what she was wearing and if any clothes were removed or torn from her body. She wouldn't be dressed back up if she was assaulted.

 

[OriginalJerseyGirl]

oh i completely agree with you... it was pretty obvious to me that she was abducted and I have no clue why Florida LE kept saying otherwise.
I guess because there was nothing out of place in that case either, no broken windows or doors.
But it wasn't as much a random abduction... he was a neighbor and Jessica probably saw the guy a time or two and the he probably sought her out.

This statement illustrates that even though they say that it isn't "random", it could still have been someone that Janet never knew. Couey wasn't "random" in the sense that he probably picked Jessica out ahead of time. So Janet's murder might not be "random" for the same reason - simply that she was chosen for some reason, with or without knowledge of the perp.

 

[Timex]

I guess thats my frustration also. I have no doubt that LE most likely considers Raven the number one suspect. What I need to know now is why? Is there real evidence? Or is it simply because there was no "indication" of a random crime?

 

[OriginalJerseyGirl]

that's because she wasn't in the house and the body wasn't found.
Janet's body was there and LE probably looked at sexual assault first and foremost. Also, they probably noted what she was wearing and if any clothes were removed or torn from her body. She wouldn't be dressed back up if she was assaulted.

Yes, I agree. But the original question was about why LE calls this not random. Could it be that there was nothing to indicate it as such? Just as there was nothing to indicate that Jessica had been abducted. So whatever led LE to make that statement in Jessica's case didn't have to do with the fact that it was a sex crime because they didn't know that at the time they made the statement. So if we are drawing comparisons based on LE's statements early on in these cases, the nature of the crime was not a factor because the nature of the crime against Jessica wasn't known at that time.

Okay, I'm confusing myself here. I know what I'm trying to say but it probably isn't clear. Oh well. :banghead:

 

[SouthEastSleuth]

Something else that I have always been curious about -

The clothing they took from Raven that evening: if there was blood on the clothing, or not. And, if there was blood, where and how much.

Lord, in trying to think the best of ANYBODY, I hope he was covered in poor Janet's blood, if for no other reason, giving him the benefit of a doubt, that when he found her, he ran to her and held her....

That said, referencing that blasted Michael Peterson case in Durham, AGAIN -

he was literally dripping with Kathleen's blood - all over him. And, he of course said that that was the exact reason: he found Kathleen and was holding her as he called 911, etc.

Those bloody clothes became a HUGE deal at the trial. The defence brought in ol' Henry Lee. He was on the stand spitting ketchup (I kid you not!) at posterboard to demonstrate things, etc. The DA was talking about how there was blood spatter way up the inside of MP's shorts. On and on and on. (SO very tedious at times - blood spatter evidence!)

Anyway, I digress. I would love to know about what, if anything, they found on Raven's clothing... Maybe someday we'll know....

 

[Timex]

I agree about the clothing...but also feel more than enough time has passed for forensics to determine if there was blood splatter evidence etc. If there was blood splatter, that would be conclusive evidence, and I would have expected an arrest by now.

 

[OriginalJerseyGirl]

And more than enough time might have passed in the Abaroa house that evening that if Raven did do this, he could have disposed of his clothes anywhere. We don't know if the clothes he gave them were the clothes he was really wearing or not.

 

[Timex]

And more than enough time might have passed in the Abaroa house that evening that if Raven did do this, he could have disposed of his clothes anywhere. We don't know if the clothes he gave them were the clothes he was really wearing or not.

I agree with this also. But we (or I) cant assume he dumped his clothes just because it would make the "evidence" fit the crime.

 

[SouthEastSleuth]

And more than enough time might have passed in the Abaroa house that evening that if Raven did do this, he could have disposed of his clothes anywhere. We don't know if the clothes he gave them were the clothes he was really wearing or not.

I absolutely agree.

However, would it not be EQUALLY as suspicious if the police arrived, and find Raven absolutely clean and spotless, no blood whatsoever??

I mean what husband would come home, find his wife, with "large amounts of blood" on and around her, and not REACH FOR HER??? To see if she was still alive? Basic human nature: this is YOUR WIFE. The woman with you're in love. The mother of your child. Speculation sure, but, I dare say that MOST husbands would be right there with their wife...touching her, holding her, etc.

 

[curious1]

ok..Ive been reading through some of the early media articles, and have a question.

In one of original articles, LE made a statement something like "we have nothing that would indicate this is a random crime".

What indicates a random crime?

I just keep thinking back to when Jessica was missing and LE kept saying they could not call it an abduction because there was "nothing to indicate she had been abducted".

See that is what bothers me about focusing on that statement from LE. We should look at ALL possibilities, non random AND random. How do we know what guidlines this group is using to determine random or not. And I always thought the abduction statment in Jessica's case was dumb.

 

[curious1]

....how entry was gained....not forced usually indicates the victim knew the perp or wasn't "afraid" of the perp.

Or didn't lock their doors.:twocents: