Handcuffs and Leg Irons

New Posts

ksterling3408 said:
I'm just glad to finally see a picture of the "leg irons" in question... I seriously had a picture in my mind more along the lines of big, heavy ankle cuffs with a rusty padlock or something. Good to know now that we're talking basically fuzzy handcuffs with a longer chain, more "spice things up" than the "medieval torture" like I first thought.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong, but the pink one's belonged to BJ and there was another pair which belonged to SA. I believe the one's SA owned can be seen here.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/photos/

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Exhibit-174-Leg-Irons.jpg
    Exhibit-174-Leg-Irons.jpg
    43.4 KB · Views: 140
One thing that long confused me, is the pic of KK holding BJ's pink cuffs, in what appears to be a court setting. Why? Who cares if she's into kinky stuff. Unless they contained DNA that connects them to Ms. Halbach, which they did not, they seem to be, imho, a red herring... maybe just to inflame people (the jury?) who take issue with regard to the kink stuff.
 
shadowraiths said:
One thing that long confused me, is the pic of KK holding BJ's pink cuffs, in what appears to be a court setting. Why? Who cares if she's into kinky stuff. Unless they contained DNA that connects them to Ms. Halbach, which they did not, they seem to be, imho, a red herring... maybe just to inflame people (the jury?) who take issue with regard to the kink stuff.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I really, really don't get it.

TBH I also question the relevance of SA's handcuffs too.
I guess they were supposed to reinforce the image of SA as some sort of sexual deviant and bolster BD's story about TH being tied to the bed.
IMO they do neither.

What does puzzle me though is the unknown female DNA on SA's cuffs.
Weren't these the ones he was supposed to have bought a couple of weeks before TH's murder?
If so, where on earth did that other DNA come from?
The shop assistant who sold them to him? Playing around with another woman while Jodi was still locked up?
Or if you want to go down a more sinister route (I don't) : More contamination in the testing or there's another pair of cuffs belonging to SA as yet unlocated?

It's most likely completely irrelevant in the grander scheme of things and I don't buy into the conspiracy theories . . . but it's a little detail that bugs me.
 
Sarah said:
Exactly. I really, really don't get it.

TBH I also question the relevance of SA's handcuffs too.
I guess they were supposed to reinforce the image of SA as some sort of sexual deviant and bolster BD's story about TH being tied to the bed.
IMO they do neither.

What does puzzle me though is the unknown female DNA on SA's cuffs.
Weren't these the ones he was supposed to have bought a couple of weeks before TH's murder?
If so, where on earth did that other DNA come from?
The shop assistant who sold them to him? Playing around with another woman while Jodi was still locked up?
Or if you want to go down a more sinister route (I don't) : More contamination in the testing or there's another pair of cuffs belonging to SA as yet unlocated?

It's most likely completely irrelevant in the grander scheme of things and I don't buy into the conspiracy theories . . . but it's a little detail that bugs me.
Click to expand...

Hi Sarah,
I have spent a great deal of time researching how DNA is collected and the art we might think it is is actually quite flaky. It is possible to find a sample of DNA, but then be unable to test it due to a myriad of circumstances.

Matching it to someone is quite a complex process which requires multiple tests, and if there is not enough DNA to be tested, then the process is declared inconclusive. So it would be possible to find a match for someone, but then due to there not being enough of the sample left, testing it would be impossible.

It is Bonkers I know, but it is clearly possible that someone could leave their DNA at a crime scene, but because there was not enough of it for a second test, it becomes inadmissible.

As for your thoughts on SA? Yes, the prosecution did try to paint a negative picture IMHO, however I believe that they were right to do so. I think I am in the minority camp that believes SA is guilty. That said, it is great to get everyone else's perspective on this.
 
Hi Hoosen_Fenger,

I'm not sure that you're in that much of a minority.
FWIW I also believe in SA's guilt, although with so many people convinced of his innocence I find myself compelled to look at the other side and make my own mind up.
To date I haven't seen anything to persuade me otherwise, but I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong if and when something new comes to light.
As for BD - I don't know. I believe that he helped SA in some shape or form but I'm not completely sure of exactly how involved he was.

The nice thing about this forum though, is that people from both sides of the fence are able to have a sensible, constructive discussion without the personal insults that you see elsewhere - and I have to say that I do enjoy debating the evidence and hearing different perspectives.

Anyway back to the DNA question :lol:
I know it's not an exact science, but I can't help thinking that if the result was inconclusive or there was insufficient quantity to fully test, the prosecution still wouldn't have missed an opportunity to go down the road of "There was female DNA on the cuffs and we can't rule out that it belonged to TH".
Either way, I'm starting to think that these weren't the new cuffs purchased a couple of weeks before so I guess that becomes a moot point.
 
Sarah said:
Hi Hoosen_Fenger,

I'm not sure that you're in that much of a minority.
FWIW I also believe in SA's guilt, although with so many people convinced of his innocence I find myself compelled to look at the other side and make my own mind up.
To date I haven't seen anything to persuade me otherwise, but I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong if and when something new comes to light.
As for BD - I don't know. I believe that he helped SA in some shape or form but I'm not completely sure of exactly how involved he was.

The nice thing about this forum though, is that people from both sides of the fence are able to have a sensible, constructive discussion without the personal insults that you see elsewhere - and I have to say that I do enjoy debating the evidence and hearing different perspectives.

Anyway back to the DNA question :lol:
I know it's not an exact science, but I can't help thinking that if the result was inconclusive or there was insufficient quantity to fully test, the prosecution still wouldn't have missed an opportunity to go down the road of "There was female DNA on the cuffs and we can't rule out that it belonged to TH".
Either way, I'm starting to think that these weren't the new cuffs purchased a couple of weeks before so I guess that becomes a moot point.
Click to expand...


Well said!
 
Just because the handcuffs/leg cuffs didn't show Teresa's DNA, does not mean they were not used to restrict her ability to fight off her attacker.

SA's DNA, along with the unknown female's, would be there because they all handled them at one stage. Much like SA's DNA on both the key and the hood latch.

I highly doubt Teresa asked to hold them prior to them being used on her.

There is also the fact that the ones purchased by SA along with BJ's pink ones, were animal print ones. I have not come across any documents stating that the animal print covers were found. Perhaps they went in the fire also, along with any trace evidence from Teresa's socks.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
 
If Kratz had any hint at possible evidence that there were animal print handcuffs that were never recovered, he would have been repeating that and we would still be hearing it. Instead he introduced handcuffs that had zero connection to TH.

In the report of Barbs statement, it says:

I informed her [of] a receipt from the store indicating a pair of pink cuffs were purchased along with an animal print of some sort.

I think it's more reasonable to think that Barb bought an article of clothing that was animal print. JMO
 
She stated the pink ones were hers and didn't know what colour SA got and never mentioned articles of clothing to clarify the animal print description. It is also reasonable to think the animal print was in reference to the other set of handcuffs.



Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
 
Limaes said:
She stated the pink ones were hers and didn't know what colour SA got and never mentioned articles of clothing to clarify the animal print description. It is also reasonable to think the animal print was in reference to the other set of handcuffs.



Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

They did take 2 receipts from Intimate Treasure's and put them into evidence, too bad they didn't enter them as an exhibit, we would probably have a better idea.
 
missy1974 said:
They did take 2 receipts from Intimate Treasure's and put them into evidence, too bad they didn't enter them as an exhibit, we would probably have a better idea.
Click to expand...

This likely means one is Barb's and one is SA's... And the leopard print whatever isn't SA's.
 
Hippiemomof5 said:
This likely means one is Barb's and one is SA's... And the leopard print whatever isn't SA's.
Click to expand...

Hippiemom..."leopard print"? Are you sure about that? There is mention in the list of items found in the trailer near the "blue building" (during the license plate discovery) of some women's leopard panties. Fascinating junk yard stuff, isn't it? Sounds more like a waltz into Sodom and Gomorrah...
 
ZOOL said:
Hippiemom..."leopard print"? Are you sure about that? There is mention in the list of items found in the trailer near the "blue building" (during the license plate discovery) of some women's leopard panties. Fascinating junk yard stuff, isn't it? Sounds more like a waltz into Sodom and Gomorrah...
Click to expand...

I meant to say animal print!!
 
Limaes said:
Just because the handcuffs/leg cuffs didn't show Teresa's DNA, does not mean they were not used to restrict her ability to fight off her attacker.

SA's DNA, along with the unknown female's, would be there because they all handled them at one stage. Much like SA's DNA on both the key and the hood latch.

I highly doubt Teresa asked to hold them prior to them being used on her.

There is also the fact that the ones purchased by SA along with BJ's pink ones, were animal print ones. I have not come across any documents stating that the animal print covers were found. Perhaps they went in the fire also, along with any trace evidence from Teresa's socks.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It takes a lot of speculation to come to these conclusions about the cuffs. I don't think jurors are supposed to speculate like that. If we speculate the guilty way, we can do it in the other direction, saying that we have no idea where this animal print is or when it was removed. Maybe SA never liked the print and took it off before the first time he even used them. If the DNA found is located on the metal, that might support this idea.

I would find it hard to believe that SA can touch the key and get DNA on it (But TH's isn't) but she can be shackled long enough to get raped and shot and slit throat, but her DNA didn't get on the cuffs. Seems like she'd be struggling and moving a lot more in those cuffs than SA was with the key. But there's always several ways to look at evidence.

I find interesting that, while Jodi was in jail, DNA from two other women wound up on these cuffs.
 
Tawny said:
Actually, the first thing he said was tied with ropes.
Click to expand...
But how many times did that change, how can you even take his testimony into account honestly ever word of his "confession" was the detectives words not his it was bull ****. And to people yelling guilty you are truly uneducated in forensics why are you on this website? No blood in the room where supposedly she bled and it was carpet and don't forget the garage where she was shot there wasn't any blood not even splatter on any of that clutter in said area not to mention the only bullet casing found had cross contamination it doesn't add up any way you swing it is a gross miscarriage of justice and has reasonable doubt written all over it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 204 more.
Total: 4,616 (members: 205, guests: 4,411)

Online statistics

Members online
205
Guests online
4,411
Total visitors
4,616
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,311
Messages
17,967,169
Members
228,740
Latest member
zorba347
Back
Top