Found Deceased KY - Savannah Spurlock, 22, left 'The Other Bar' with 2 men, Richmond, 4 Jan 2019 #6 *Arrest*

[oceanblueeyes]

I believe the Grand Jury would only look at the charges DS is currently charged with to determine if there is enough evidence to likely get a conviction and if so bring an indictment.
It's my understanding charges of murder would need to be added by the prosecution before the Grand Jury would consider them.

My hubby was on a GJ last year. They do not weigh the evidence presented to them to determine whether anyone will be convicted.

That's not the duty of any GJ. They are there to either true bill or vote no bill on the cases presented to them. They are not the triers of fact that determines whether anyone will be convicted. That is only determined in a trial where the threshold is BARD.

They are determine if there is enough probable cause presented for each case to go forward.

If they feel the evidence presented didnt meet that threshold they will vote no bill .. often telling the prosecutor more evidence is needed. Which means the case can be reconsidered if more facts are presented at a later time to the GJ. My hubby's GJ duty lasted 6 months, and he was called back to hear other cases a couple of times.

Imo, it makes no sense they are going to present evidence on the offenses he has already been charged with. They can't just charge someone for almost a month without having probable cause met at the time of the arrest, and charge.

I suspect the prosecutor went to a judge to present probable cause of the charges he already has against him, and the judge agreed the probable cause threshold had been met. Imo, that is why he has had these offenses against him for sometime now. So I don't see the prosecutor presenting the same thing to the GJ.

Now of course that will be a part of the evidence that will be shown to them. It will help layout why they are asking for additional charges which I believe they will do.

They will include those offenses along with other facts in evidence they have amassed since then when asking for additional charges. Imo.

GJs are also allowed to indict on other charges the DA may not have asked them to do if the evidence presented to them shows other offenses should be added as well.

Imo, the reason the DA is going before the GJ is to present further evidence that additional charges exist based on the ongoing investigation.

It's in GJs where they usually have the lead investigator testify about what has been discovered in the ongoing investigation. Plus its then the ME presents their findings to the GJ.

This way the testimonies are confidential as it is in all GJs. It protects the integrity of the ongoing investigation from being known publically, and can't taint the possible jury pool of the accused if an indictment is rendered.

Imo, all we will learn he has been indicted on another offense or offenses, but we will not learn how the GJ came to their decision based on the evidence presented to them which is the right way to insure the defendant gets a fair trial if indicted.

Jmho

 

[marcolepsy]

Is there a way I can see the post the Mod deleted so I can know what I said that he or she thought was against the forum rules?

Let me know what you find out - I had one of mine wiped from existence (I'm a noob) and I'm deathly afraid of repeating whatever I did because I don't understand what rule I broke.

 

[BaileyC]

Let me know what you find out - I had one of mine wiped from existence (I'm a noob) and I'm deathly afraid of repeating whatever I did because I don't understand what rule I broke.

Same here, want to know what I said that broke the rules so I don't repeat it. I'll let you know if someone helps me out so I understand.

 

[JaneEyre]

Questions to mods need to be sent in private messages to them, as we are not allowed to discuss moderation.

 

[Moxie Vi]

I can think of a few myself. I cannot however think of any (serial killers excluded) where an adult victim was murdered in another location.... then brought to the killer's backyard and buried there. I can think of several where they were initially buried in the backyard and then moved...

I can think of one that was fairly recent. The names escape me, so my apologies. A college age girl went to a bar near a campus in Philadelphia (I believe) and went home with a guy that killed her in his apartment in the city. He then put her in a tote and took an Uber to his grandparent's property 30+ min north of the city. This was within the past year or two and was on Websleuths. I think it does happen and killers, whether serial or not, will want to dispose of evidence of their crime in a location they feel they will control.

I think it works sometimes. Unfortunately. There is a missing person's case that is local to me and when I was active on my SAR team I learned that the official story was that the truck broke and the male let her "walk off into the National forest, never to be seen again." The reality is that she is most likely on his property. Without probable cause the SO and SAR can't get on the land to search. People will tell us he has bragged about it but the judges want more to sign the search warrant. We (being SAR), and the Sheriff, have asked for him to let us search voluntarily but he won't. It's sad. Super sad. Until someone is willing to talk on record or physical evidence is found we are out of luck. The missing person's cell phone in this case was no help. Wish it would have led us to his place.

 

[BaileyC]

Thanks, I was hoping there was a way for me to see the post that was deleted and I was just missing a way to view it.

 

[flashy09]

If he is guilty of murder why would he bury her in a 19 inch deep hole at the deepest in his parents garden? Makes no sense to me at all. Sounds like he even buried her belongings and maybe clothes there too. She was going to be found and her identity known too at his parents home in that shallow grave in there garden.

I agree it doesn't make much sense, however, burying her there after an overdose makes even less sense. He buried her because he murdered her. I think he quickly wanted her out of his house and thought he could move her later. Then the surveillance picture came out, he was named in social media, LE was onto him, and he lost that opportunity. Plus he might have thought he was home free after the search missed her. I still think he was hoping for everything to die down one day and he would be able to move her a final time.

It would be interesting to know his demeanor the past 6 months! He must have been a nervous wreck.

 

[BaileyC]

I agree it doesn't make much sense, however, burying her there after an overdose makes even less sense. He buried her because he murdered her. I think he quickly wanted her out of his house and thought he could move her later. Then the surveillance picture came out, he was named in social media, LE was onto him, and he lost that opportunity. Plus he might have thought he was home free after the search missed her. I still think he was hoping for everything to die down one day and he would be able to move her a final time.

It would be interesting to know his demeanor the past 6 months! He must have been a nervous wreck.

What you've said does make sense to me. That very well could be the reason she was in a shallow grave and on his folks property. Now for the motive for murder. I can go with he accidentally killed her in some kind of physical altercation more than I think out and out murder but shoot many times a person who murders is a shock to those who are close to them and thought they knew them. No prior violent criminal record but out of the blue they take a life.

He looked calm in the video of him when he was arrested and in his photo. I also would think he would have been a nervous wreck but maybe he's someone who feels no guilt. Also it could be he is showing no remorse, fear or nerves because somehow he's justified what he did.

I sure hope we find out more next week when they make a decision on his current charges.

 

[bwt42]

The forensic experts are able to determine that type of bleeding from other types of blood being let.

Imo

Could you explain this? TIA

 

[flashy09]

Could you explain this? TIA

Very unexpert post here....but bleeding after birth contains tissue from the uterus (and i am sure other things specific to after birth bleeding) so could be differentiated from regular blood.

ETA: A little more info:

The blood you see after childbirth is called lochia. It’s a type of discharge that’s similar to your menstrual period, and typically lasts for four to six weeks postdelivery. It contains:

• blood
• pieces of the uterine lining
• mucus
• white blood cells

Like a period, this bleeding is caused by the shedding and restoration of your uterine lining.

At first, the lochia will be mostly blood. As the days and weeks pass, you’ll likely see more mucus than blood.

 

[flashy09]

I can go with he accidentally killed her in some kind of physical altercation more than I think out and out murder but shoot many times a person who murders is a shock to those who are close to them and thought they knew them. No prior violent criminal record but out of the blue they take a life.

I don't think this was premeditated at all. He was drunk and he got angry. I also agree he very likely may not have intended to kill her when he did get angry. That is probably his self justification and why he hid her and tried to get away with it. It was an "accident" and he doesn't feel like he should go to jail for life for it.

 

[bwt42]

My theory from the get go. The three men left with SS hoping to have consensual relations with her. She would not have left only with DS. They went to DS home for reasons we don't know yet. ( Maybe the other two men had partners at home or lived farther away) The other two men left the home at some point & she was left with DS who she had no interest in. He became enraged after she would not do with him what she did with the other two.

 

[bwt42]

I don't think this was premeditated at all. He was drunk and he got angry. I also agree he very likely may not have intended to kill her when he did get angry. That is probably his self justification and why he hid her and tried to get away with it. It was an "accident" and he doesn't feel like he should go to jail for life for it.

Not disagreeing but premedication can happened in an instant. One only has to realize the likely results of their actions. jmo

 

[flashy09]

Not disagreeing but premedication can happened in an instant. One only has to realize the likely results of their actions. jmo

That is true and where I waver. I don't think he took her home thinking it was a great opportunity for his first kill. But I don't know if he "subdued" her too long or hit her too hard accidentally or if he snapped and did know what his actions were leading to.

 

[Kittybunny]

My understanding for toxicology testing for the autopsy is, a preliminary tox test is done which shows if there were or were not drugs in the system. If it comes out negative they don't do further testing and the tox test would be complete. If it shows positive for drugs they do further testing which usually takes 6 to 8 weeks, depending on the testing needed to be done.

I would assume if they are waiting on toxicology testing to be completed she did test positive for drugs being in her system.

I've never heard that, and maybe it's true for newly deceased people in which suspected foul play is not a factor, but I highly doubt that this is the case in suspected homicides when the body has been buried, exposed to elements, or otherwise severely decomposed. This is because the natural decomposition process can create false positives for some drugs/substances, and a preliminary test would not be able to detect some. So assuming she tested positive for drugs and that's why the tox isn't complete is quite an assumption. I can't imagine they would rely only on preliminary tests for a suspected homicide in which there is evidence that the victim was, at a minimum, ingesting alcohol.

 

[?mysterian?]

Could you explain this? TIA

Here's a more specific source that briefly states that menstrual blood can be differentiated from peripheral blood

Forensic differentiation between peripheral and menstrual blood in cases of alleged sexual assault—validating an immunochromatographic multiplex assay for simultaneous detection of human hemoglobin and D-dimer

 

[molly1255]

My theory from the get go. The three men left with SS hoping to have consensual relations with her. She would not have left only with DS. They went to DS home for reasons we don't know yet. ( Maybe the other two men had partners at home or lived farther away) The other two men left the home at some point & she was left with DS who she had no interest in. He became enraged after she would not do with him what she did with the other two.

"He became enraged after she would not do with him what she did with the other two."

Please explain what you mean by this.

 

[Joe Friday]

My hubby was on a GJ last year. They do not weigh the evidence presented to them to determine whether anyone will be convicted.

That's not the duty of any GJ. They are there to either true bill or vote no bill on the cases presented to them. They are not the triers of fact that determines whether anyone will be convicted. That is only determined in a trial where the threshold is BARD.

They are determine if there is enough probable cause presented for each case to go forward.

If they feel the evidence presented didnt meet that threshold they will vote no bill .. often telling the prosecutor more evidence is needed. Which means the case can be reconsidered if more facts are presented at a later time to the GJ. My hubby's GJ duty lasted 6 months, and he was called back to hear other cases a couple of times.

Imo, it makes no sense they are going to present evidence on the offenses he has already been charged with. They can't just charge someone for almost a month without having probable cause met at the time of the arrest, and charge.

I suspect the prosecutor went to a judge to present probable cause of the charges he already has against him, and the judge agreed the probable cause threshold had been met. Imo, that is why he has had these offenses against him for sometime now. So I don't see the prosecutor presenting the same thing to the GJ.

Now of course that will be a part of the evidence that will be shown to them. It will help layout why they are asking for additional charges which I believe they will do.

They will include those offenses along with other facts in evidence they have amassed since then when asking for additional charges. Imo.

GJs are also allowed to indict on other charges the DA may not have asked them to do if the evidence presented to them shows other offenses should be added as well.

Imo, the reason the DA is going before the GJ is to present further evidence that additional charges exist based on the ongoing investigation.

It's in GJs where they usually have the lead investigator testify about what has been discovered in the ongoing investigation. Plus its then the ME presents their findings to the GJ.

This way the testimonies are confidential as it is in all GJs. It protects the integrity of the ongoing investigation from being known publically, and can't taint the possible jury pool of the accused if an indictment is rendered.

Imo, all we will learn he has been indicted on another offense or offenses, but we will not learn how the GJ came to their decision based on the evidence presented to them which is the right way to insure the defendant gets a fair trial if indicted.

Jmho

Your Hubby sure has done a lot.

 

[BaileyC]

I've never heard that, and maybe it's true for newly deceased people in which suspected foul play is not a factor, but I highly doubt that this is the case in suspected homicides when the body has been buried, exposed to elements, or otherwise severely decomposed. This is because the natural decomposition process can create false positives for some drugs/substances, and a preliminary test would not be able to detect some. So assuming she tested positive for drugs and that's why the tox isn't complete is quite an assumption. I can't imagine they would rely only on preliminary tests for a suspected homicide in which there is evidence that the victim was, at a minimum, ingesting alcohol.

I just read through three different articles and I chose this one so you can see what I was referring to when I said, preliminary testing or screening for drugs.
The Truth About Toxicology Tests

In this article it explains more and when the body is severely decomposed it can be more difficult to do toxicology testing and the liver is used to do the testing but other organs, hair, fingernails, toenails bones etc can be used.
Toxicology: How It’s Done

Like you said in your post, because of the length of time Savannah had decomposed it may be more difficult for them to do the toxicology testing and a preliminary test may not have been done and if so may not have been able to give them what they needed.

Thanks for the reply, I learned something new from your reply and taking the time to read up on this.

 

[Joe Friday]

I've never heard that, and maybe it's true for newly deceased people in which suspected foul play is not a factor, but I highly doubt that this is the case in suspected homicides when the body has been buried, exposed to elements, or otherwise severely decomposed. This is because the natural decomposition process can create false positives for some drugs/substances, and a preliminary test would not be able to detect some. So assuming she tested positive for drugs and that's why the tox isn't complete is quite an assumption. I can't imagine they would rely only on preliminary tests for a suspected homicide in which there is evidence that the victim was, at a minimum, ingesting alcohol.

She was ID'ed by her fingerprints and tattoos. I don't think she was as decomposed as many think and defiantly not severely decomposed. JMO

Investigators were able to confirm the body was Spurlock by using her tattoos and fingerprints, Chavies said.

Read more here: https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/crime/article232677437.html#storylink=cpy