KY - Gabriella Doolin, 7, Allen County, 14 Nov 2015 #1 *Arrest*

[DexterMorgan]

Let's not forget. A piece of pizza crust linked darron wint to the dc murders. Even before they found other damming evidence as well.

 

[ILOKAL]

What was the other evidence?

Each case is different and the very first one states that the "DNA was the PRIMARY evidence".

 

[ILOKAL]

*If* they have (sorry to be graphic) found his semen in the child, he's not going anywhere. He will be found guilty at least of rape from that, IMO.

Is that what was found, or do we know? Was it blood?

 

[helpfulcharlie]

I doubt that is the only evidence they have now or will have after they build their case. Whatever evidence they have will need to be shared with the defense. If the defense doesn't think it's enough for a strong case against his client, a speedy trial might be in order, but that's risky too, because it usually takes a good amount of time to build an equally strong defense.

Yes, it's quite obvious that's not all the evidence they have. The other evidence is what led them to his house in the first place, and what led them to ask for his clothing and DNA. There is no question there is significant other evidence, whether it's eyewitness, surveillance footage, items left behind at the crime scene, or something else we don't know. But we KNOW they have something.

 

[Madeleine74]

Ok so I'm not getting the point. They have DNA (so they say in the charging docs). We know there was other circumstantial evidence as well: perp & victim at the same event at the same time. So there was proximity. We also have his statement in which he places himself with or near the victim right at the time she went off and then was missing. We also have a statement in which he theorizes how blood got on his clothing. So yes, there appears to be more than just DNA in this case. That's just what we know so far, and as members of the public, we will be the last to know what all they have.

 

[Rayemonde]

Is that what was found, or do we know? Was it blood?

No idea. Could be anything. Could be a hair. Could be skin under her fingernails.

 

[Rayemonde]

Each case is different and the very first one states that the "DNA was the PRIMARY evidence".

Police swabbed the rock for DNA. It matched the DNA of Pedro Arevalo, who was then arrested. Based on only the DNA match, the Orange County District Attorney charged Arevalo with felony second degree commercial burglary (Penal Code § 459).

At trial, the detective testified that swabbed the rock for DNA, as he did not think it belonged in the business. A DNA expert testified as well, explaining that someone’s DNA could remain on a rock for a year and that she had no idea when the DNA was posited on the rock. Nevertheless, the Orange County jury found Arevalo guilty of the crime.

Arevalo appealed, arguing the DNA evidence linking him to the burglary was insufficient to support his conviction. The Fourth Appellate District, in People v. Pedro Arevalo (2014 DJDAR 4659) distilled down the issue to “whether Arevalo’s DNA on a rock at the crime scene is, by itself, sufficiently substantial to allow any rational trier of fact to infer beyond a reasonable doubt Arevalo committed the burglary.”...

In Arevalo’s case, [the court] emphasized that Arevalo’s case was a “DNA – only case.” The court then looked to analogous finger print-only cases, such as Mikes v. Borg (9th Cir. 1991) 947 F.2d 353.

This case. What was the other evidence in this case? I'm sorry but you're just assuming that cases never go to trial on just DNA evidence without actually looking to check.
http://www.greghillassociates.com/conviction-reversed-for-commercial-burglary-despite-evidence.html

 

[lonetraveler]

Thank you for the reply! When it comes to people being innocent or guilty, I guess I still don't see the difference in everyone sharing theories about who it could have been on here, compared to offering a theory about why LE mentioned going down that road.

Different subject: It's definitely more than possible that LE's biggest tips came from a kid(s). Hopefully they will have more than enough DNA evidence so that the testimony of a child won't be their nail in the coffin.

Welcome to the site and I definitely feel your pain and frustration with what to post or not. I have thousands of posts and have had my hand spanked many times for offering my theories on a case. I suggest you offer "in your opinion only' instead of theories. Painful I know. Been there, done that. Don't give up, keep posting. Looking forward to your "opinions".

 

[Rayemonde]

The DNA in this case could just be a hair or skin cells or something, but I don't think that by itself would be enough to even arrest, because he and his family know Gabrielle so his DNA could have ended up on her in a perfectly innocent way. Like, his DNA was on his daughter and his daughter hugged Gabriella and passed it on to her.

 

[mmmagique]

If he was under the influence of drugs, wouldn't that mitigate the circumstances of his crime? I would think he would want to drug test, but maybe too stupid to know that? Wouldn't having drugs in his system, maybe keep away capital murder charges? I guess each state is different.

Why would it mitigate his guilt? Purposely taking a substance that may cause you to rape and murder a child (if there were any such thing) should be considered an allowance of possibly doing such a thing.

 

[ILOKAL]

This case. What was the other evidence in this case? I'm sorry but you're just assuming that cases never go to trial on just DNA evidence without actually looking to check.
http://www.greghillassociates.com/conviction-reversed-for-commercial-burglary-despite-evidence.html

Of course I read it. It solidifies what I have said. This Case WAS prosecuted with ONLY DNA evidence and lo and behold, he got a conviction! However, on APPEAL (did you read that part?), the conviction was OVERTURNED n the grounds that the prosecution failed to show a connection between the blood on the rock and the defendant. My point exactly! No prosecutor worth his salt would risk an appeal by going forward with only DNA evidence.

 

[Jsizzle]

He drowned Gabbi, so I don't see how he could have avoided at least some very wet mud, in order to get her in deep enough water to kill her.

Unless he strangled her first then threw her lifeless body on the creek. Could have been simultaneously

 

[bluesneakers]

<modsnip>

I think the theory is if there is only DNA evidence it's not enough to prosecute whether or not it proves a crime was committed.

IMOO it doesn't matter if it's the only evidence- it's enough. This guy is going down.

 

[bluesneakers]

Unless he strangled her first then threw her lifeless body on the creek. Could have been simultaneously

Have we seen any pictures of the creek? Do we know how wide or deep? Or if the area is muddy? For some reason the way I'm picturing it he would have had to have gotten mud on him and I just realized I have no idea where the picture in my head came from.

 

[Ontario Mom]

I'd read about poor Gabbi in the news but hadn't followed here until I saw a WS post on FB yesterday about the arrest. I *think* I'm finally caught up, but I'm sure I've missed some important posts/links so apologies in advance if my questions/thoughts come off as redundant, but I have A LOT of them.

First and most importantly, I want to make it clear that I don't think TM is innocent (the DNA is a tough one, if not impossible to argue) but I do think there's a whole bunch here that simply doesn't add up. YET.

I think public perception is rather curious. Had TM made the national news headlines because he was interviewed sitting on his porch with a smoke in one hand a beer in the other, after saving a litter of drowning puppies, those news media clips would go viral and he'd be the social media darling of the week. Much like Charles Ramsey who suddenly found Amanda Berry clinging to him in abject fear when she escaped her 10 year horror ordeal. BUT, because he's been arrested and charged with the horrible crimes he has, he's hated, despised, scorned and even his manner of speech mocked. Trust me, I get the former but the latter (the mocking of his speech) is rather unfair, in my opinion. I mean, I reckon they's a lot a folk 'et talk like 'at. 'Specially down yonder. In fact, I know there are, as I know many of them and some are from Kentucky, not far from where Gabbi lived. (Of course not everyone there speaks that way but A LOT of them do, and the locals will confirm this I'm sure). I don't suppose they're too impressed with people making fun of they way they speak. And granted, that's a small-potatoes issue in this case but if I noticed it (and I don't speak that way, usually, but some of my family does) I'm sure others did too.

That said... there's a lot that doesn't seem to add up. If I've missed the links that answer any of these questions, please post?

Game Day: The Doolin family is at the HS to cheer on their son playing, and their sweet Gabbi was there too, and is a member of the cheerleading team. Likewise, the Maddens were there too - son also playing ball and daughter also on the very same cheer team as Gabbi. Keeping in mind Gabbi's daddy and TM have known each other for at least the last 20 years, having "run around together" in TM's words in high school and after. Both families are likely life-long residents of this VERY small town, with deep roots there, families there, mutual friends and etc. This is the first thing that seems off.

Quite likely the most WRONG time/place ever to commit the violence that happened to Gabbi, and yet it did. TM claims to have been taking pics with his phone for his ex that wasn't there, and wanted to see their son playing ball. The digital time stamps of every one of his (TM's) pics will be rather important. As well as any other digital evidence such as location history via pings, any texts/emails and/or other pics or videos.

So, some questions.

Is there any MSM or LE statement that says TM was already at home before Gabbi was found? I've seen mentions here that say he was, but I haven't seen a link (it's possible I missed that). Likewise, do we know how his own son and daughter got home, if he just up and left? Or did he collect them right away and leave? No doubt LE has already interviewed them - or will - if they haven't yet.

The jailhouse interview (and for those wondering how common that is, I didn't think it was common at all until following the Anjelica Hadsell case and seeing her step-dad Wesley Hadsell mouthing off from jail every chance he got).

TM's demeanor is... seemingly that of someone who has only partially convinced himself he IS innocent. I only say that because if he were GENUINELY innocent of any connection to this at all, he'd be FURIOUSLY denying all charges. He'd be horrified he was accused, and all that injustice he was experiencing would come out in some kind of an angry emotional way. Or, so one would think. But that isn't the case here. He doesn't appear angry at all, just mildly inconvenienced. If you didn't know what he'd been charged with, you might think he was blowing it off like a shoplifting charge where no one actually saw him so he knew he was going to get away with it. In some ways his reaction sort of reminds me of Ted Bundy's when dealing with LE. Reaction only, Bundy was incredibly smart and worked his madness quite well. I don't see TM on that level but the reaction is very similar.

I have some other thoughts but this is already very long so I'll just add this:

For those on social media, who end up in the news for some heinous crime... we always end up seeing what they REALLY look like, don't we? Those glossy glamour shots used for profile pics and those carefree backyard BBQ snaps suddenly look a lot different when we see mug shots, crime scene pics, pics of the inside of the home as gathered as evidence, etc.

All of the above is moo after spending the entire day reading this heartbreaking thread.

 

[ILOKAL]

I think the theory is if there is only DNA evidence it's not enough to prosecute whether or not it proves a crime was committed.

IMOO it doesn't matter if it's the only evidence- it's enough. This guy is going down.

It certainly doesn't seem as though DNA is the only evidence they have, which is good. More than DNA is needed for a successful prosecution.

 

[roselle]

Why would it mitigate his guilt? Purposely taking a substance that may cause you to rape and murder a child (if there were any such thing) should be considered an allowance of possibly doing such a thing.

I surely don't think anything should mitigate anything to do with this case, but I thought that if a person was drunk or on drugs, that sometimes that was seen as a contributing factor for their committing a crime, they might not have, had they not been on a substance. I did find this. It's interesting:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/mitigating-circumstances-sentencing.html

 

[KateB]

Please continue here:

KY - Gabriella Doolin, 7, Allen County, 15 Nov 2015 *ARREST* #2