Science is not biased (in unbiased hands)

[Betty P]

I don't understand it either. If RZ was wearing gloves, it could easily be explained. Gloves were found, but she couldn't have been wearing gloves the entire time since one knife was found with her prints. It doesn't make sense because she had to first pick and remove both knives then carrying them upstairs. So how does one knife end up with fingerprints and the other none? I highly doubt she wiped off her own fingerprints if she wanted to stage a murder scene. In my opinion, RZ's fingerprints were forcibly planted on the one knife.

Agree, good point. Why would RZ leave her fingerprint on one knife and not the other? She wouldn't. I, too, have always found it strange that nearly everything in the room had been wiped clean of fingerprints. It's not act of a distraught person who decides on impulse to commit suicide.

 

[inthedark14]

I don't understand it either. If RZ was wearing gloves, it could easily be explained. Gloves were found, but she couldn't have been wearing gloves the entire time since one knife was found with her prints. It doesn't make sense because she had to first pick and remove both knives then carrying them upstairs. So how does one knife end up with fingerprints and the other none? I highly doubt she wiped off her own fingerprints if she wanted to stage a murder scene. In my opinion, RZ's fingerprints were forcibly planted on the one knife.

This is one of those things that one can not wrap their minds around in this case. So RZ decided to wear gloves to do all these things (take knives from the kitchen, take the rope from the garage (maybe?!?) get the paint brush(s)? and the paint, which was not a medium that she worked with, have two glasses in the room with her (the contents and fingerprints IIRC not released), and then somehow make sure that her fingerprints show up on only one knife. If the theory that RZ had this all planned out, as an elaborate suicide to look like a homicide...well, wouldn't she have done a better job of it? I am almost always 100% proLE in the many cases I've followed here. When you look at what LE presented to the public as fact, when it is mostly supposition, it floors me. I come from an LE family, and this just stinks of LE dancing around the lines of what is true and what they can "prove".

Agree, good point. Why would RZ leave her fingerprint on one knife and not the other? She wouldn't. I, too, have always found it strange that nearly everything in the room had been wiped clean of fingerprints. It's not act of a distraught person who decides on impulse to commit suicide.

Also, not to harp on it, because I know I have before but there would be shards or shavings from this rope, no? So did RZ cut the rope with or without the gloves? We have to think not because LE states that RZ's fingerprints/DNA were on the rope. Was there any touch DNA in the rope shavings/shards? Where there any rope shavings/shards found in the hanging room? Doesn't look like it in the available photos? Did they find shavings/shards elsewhere? If so, why wasn't this included in their PowerPoint presentation?

Sorry to go on and on, but this is something that makes my head spin. If RZ, even taking all the supposed precautions and wearing gloves (although not bothering to wear them while painting the "note" and still leaving prints on one knife) when did she take the time to dispose of the shavings/shards of the rope? There had to have been some. Where are they?

ALWAYS MOO.

 

[IQuestion]

INTHEDARK....I was really getting into all the questions you were asking and the points you were making. And then, I just laughed out loud when I read this line:
"Sorry to go on and on, but this is something that makes my head spin."
Cuz, I sure share the same head spinning confusion on the supposed motivations and processes described in the sup-PRESS conference!
Even one of the detectives said, "We can't be sure in what order the events occurred....etc, etc, " (so we surmised/assumed/guessed??)

And, one thought keeps running through my mind, the old adage, "It takes two to tango." So, no one ties themselves up, or allows themselves to be tied up.... just for themselves.
To clarify, isn't the purpose of "binding" a component of interaction with or for another individual?

 

[*Lash*]

Let's say Rebecca's fingerprints were not forcibly planted on the knife. Another consideration, to reiterate what Zinn said, it is logical Rebecca's fingerprints were found on only one knife because that particular knife was used by her to wash or remove the knife from the dishwasher. The DNA that was found on the other knife to be Rebecca's could easily have come in contact with her skin if someone held a knife to say her throat or touched her body while cutting the rope.

The gloves simply don't fit. What purpose would there be in using the gloves to carry the knives upstairs and then remove the gloves to complete the rest of her alleged suicide plot? In my opinion, if RZ wanted to make her death look like a murder, she would have kept the gloves on.

 

[kittychi]

IIRC, there has not been any information released on DNA, fingerprints, etc. INSIDE the gloves, correct? If that was available, it would answer a lot of questions.

Did I just miss this information? Or could it be that the insides of the gloves were not tested?

 

[*Lash*]

• FAQ Number 5

Were there prints and DNA on the rope?

Rebecca’s DNA was found on the rope, particularly in areas that would have to be manipulated to tie the knots. Only Rebecca’s DNA was found on these items other than one “artifact,” which is a fragment of material that could be DNA, but does not contain enough information to determine who, or what, it came from (animals and plants also have DNA that can be left behind). The rope could not be fingerprinted.

http://www.sdsheriff.net/coronado/faq.html

 

[*Lash*]

LE should have expected Rebecca's DNA to be found on the rope, she was bound with it for goodness sake.

An "artifact" which could be anything? SDSO supposedly has state of the art equipment. They really want people to believe they couldn't determine this fragment of material or I wonder how much they really tried? I am reminded of the name of this thread. Science is not biased (in unbiased hands). In my opinion, confirmation bias likely halted LE from using all their investigative tools.

 

[screecher]

" In my opinion, confirmation bias likely halted LE from using all their investigative tools. "

Yes, *Lash*, I think after 'collecting' what evidence they deemed worthy of being collected, that was the end of their investigation. What? LE checked Rebecca's phone...but not so much. But why not her camera, computer, phone? When was the lead woman detective not the leading detective anymore?

I would not be surprised to find out LE 'lost' most of the evidence.


"...using all their investigative tools." IMO, LE was overtly negligent in investigating Rebecca's murder from the beginning.


" Science is not biased (in unbiased hands)." IMO, the many hands involved in this case was completely and openly biased.