Found: a tooth

[PolkSaladAnnie]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

This made me chuckle thinking about those people that peek into your medicine cabinets or other places when visiting.

TAXImommmmm!

Some people are really wierd, eh?. I could never go into even another ROOM at a friend's house without them - let alone investigate their cupboards and cabinets! I suppose I should catch a wake-up.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Sure, AlwaysShocked .... I also don't think there's a sinister print hanging around. Also, MY had friends over the night before, so there are already multiple sets of prints involved ..

But Polk, surely LE must think there are sinister prints dont they? If not then why the need to exclude/include them?

Ocean

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

But Polk, surely LE must think there are sinister prints dont they? If not then why the need to exclude/include them?

Ocean

Hi Ocean.... Yep, in the general scheme of things, a sinister print would be pivotal to the case. In this case (going on LE's confidence that this is not a random murder), I personally don't think they're looking for an 'unknown' print.

That's what I meant by sinister... (the unknown)

I DO think they're matching prints from all those KNOWN to have have been in the Young household. This is just a guess on my side - but ... IF ... there had been help, (cleaners, odd job/handymen, phone/TV company, etc) they will be onto these to determine the owners (ETA: print vs owner matches that is).

This would support LE's comment the crime was not a random murder ... there IS NO questionable print hanging around that the defense might turn around and say "A-HAH! you didn't check that one out...".

Didn';t mean to use wrong choice of word, Ocean.

 

[Samiya]

ARE ALL mY Fellow WEBSLEUTHERS OKAY. I am IN CANADA & WE were hit by abad storm last night. the pictures I see Of where it hit you are Worse than I can see right now for now us. Any way How are all my new friends fairing . my foPrayer's for all you folk's. Including friend's and family of course. Everyone !!! you know what I am saying ey ey .Take care eveyone .I know power may down where you are but I just wqnt you all to know I am thing Of you ALL. OKAY EY':angel:

Even over here we just had a not so nice storm. The lightening was pink and orange and quite beautiful so it must be WebSleuths storm day (or night for me, lol)

 

[strach304]

Geez, Scott Peterson didn't just take the birthday cake re the media-chats. He stormed the entire party! :doh:

As an aside, strach... Sometimes I have difficulty with the right to remain silent .... which law, in and of itself I do recognize and appreciate. However, it seems to me (in my own dimbulb brain that is) that this often overlaps to border on "the right not to co-operate". Now that's where these court-ordered search warrants, docs, probable cause etc comes in - I agree but raise my eyebrows to be forced to "willingly comply with the basics only".

HOWEVER... when one is so heavily lawyered up within hours of your spouse being murdered then this right transcends into the safety and security of many people in a given community. They too, really need evidence that there was indeed: "no random killer...". They have rights, too, surely?

Sorry, I think the above is garbled - but I'm just mad this guy has shut up and shut out. Again: why criminal defense attornies? What crime does he want to defend?

I just know from the SP case that LE used as much info at trial that included the kitchen sink
Seriously though they told all about Scott from the git-go. He did go in for an interview and they did use that at trial. In Michele's case the prosecuter may not even need the kitchen sink so I'm just theorizing about incriminating stuff.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Hi Ocean.... Yep, in the general scheme of things, a sinister print would be pivotal to the case. In this case (going on LE's confidence that this is not a random murder), I personally don't think they're looking for an 'unknown' print.

That's what I meant by sinister... (the unknown)

I DO think they're matching prints from all those KNOWN to have have been in the Young household. This is just a guess on my side - but ... IF ... there had been help, (cleaners, odd job/handymen, phone/TV company, etc) they will be onto these to determine the owners (ETA: print vs owner matches that is).

This would support LE's comment the crime was not a random murder ... there IS NO questionable print hanging around that the defense might turn around and say "A-HAH! you didn't check that one out...".

Didn';t mean to use wrong choice of word, Ocean.

Thanks. Well if they are thinking that someone helped commit this crime I hope they do have a particular print they are trying to match. Also it will look better when this goes to trial that they tried to include and exclude all fingerprints they found.

IMO

Ocean

 

[raisincharlie]

Revisiting this subject as a result of the recent statements by Sheriff Harrison that the crime lab is backed up and it may be a while before forensic results are back.

This referenced back up indicates to me that the tooth has not been tested in terms of DNA (if that is possible on a tooth). With this in mind and the statements from Mr. Penna with CCBI, seems to me for them to reach the conclusion that it was MY's tooth they must have known from the preliminary autopsy that a tooth, portion of a tooth or perhaps several were disturbed during the attack. Seems to me that perhaps the way they reached this conclusion may have been through x-rays and/or dental charts.

I can't figure a representative of CCBI would say what Penna has said without some way of making a reasonable, if not a data based, conclusion.

 

[annrulefan]

I don't understand how they could have done a search on the master bedroom where her body was found and not find the tooth that the family found?? It seems to have been in plain sight. Any thoughts/theories appreciated!

 

[raisincharlie]

I don't understand how they could have done a search on the master bedroom where her body was found and not find the tooth that the family found?? It seems to have been in plain sight. Any thoughts/theories appreciated!

Welcome Annrulefan,

We have bantered this about quite a bit - you may want to review this thread to see some of the ideas we came up with;

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44988

I don't know that we will ever have an answer to this question. Please continue to post - we always need more brain power.

RC

 

[annrulefan]

I am sure the tooth is a defense atty's dream! Reasonable doubt about the CSI team. I can hear it now!

 

[raisincharlie]

I am sure the tooth is a defense atty's dream! Reasonable doubt about the CSI team. I can hear it now!

I have no doubt that a defense team will attempt to use it for just as your describe. However I'm not sure the impact will be significant if the DA can demonstrate through dental records that it was indeed MY's tooth. If it is MY's tooth it does nothing to provide insight into who killed her or who didn't kill her, but I'm sure a defense lawyer will argue it no matter what. JMO.

 

[Pepper]

I thought the same thing, but then the "rumor" of an open casket....

But even with an open casket, the deceased wouldn't have her mouth open.

 

[Floh]

But even with an open casket, the deceased wouldn't have her mouth open.

But she would probably have a smashed up face which resulted in a tooth/teeth coming out.