Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

facts surrounding the Keddie Murders, for beginners and up

Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby Ausgirl » Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:20 pm

A bunch of us in chat were saying that we need a list of actual evidence, all in one place both to just have it tidy and also to help new people find it all (I know I get tired just trying to remember stuff).

So we started a "just the facts" conversation, pulling up KNOWN information about the crime scene (i.e., documented, photographed by LE, reputably verified, visible in photos, etc) and asking questions about it for further information.

Anything we could not verify was placed in a list titled "Very Good Questions" for further exploration/verification.

Updated info from the basic post will be bolded.

Thanks to that, and a lot to Josh verifying information with LE documents, we have the beginning of what we hope will end up being a comprehensive list.


NOTE:

- This is NOT a thread for information or speculation on perp identity or any activity/artefacts outside the crime scene.

- We're doing our best with what we have.


Thus, occasionally details will change as we explore the information further. Occasionally, we will need to completely reconsider a fact. Apologies for that.

Please feel free to add anything we have missed (and keep in mind, we have not finished the list at all but will be adding to it as we get the chance to examine stuff, so if something isn't mentioned at all, we probably just haven't got to that yet).

If you can offer a correction or an addition to the list, please paste a link to the "proof" that it comes from a verifiable source, ie, a photo, Josh's conformation via LE docs, documented LE reports, etc. No guesses, what ifs, theories, hearsay.

Also, please add "Very Good Questions" (i.e., questions that maybe have a hope of being answered) if you have any --concerning the crime scene evidence only. Hopefully we can slowly moved these up to "facts" as answers come in.


____________


VICTIM FACTS:
(exact details of wounds and postions are not yet included here)

JOHN


AUTOPSY REPORT:

John's AUTOPSY REPORT






SUE


- was stabbed, gagged and heavily bound
- no sign of sexual penetration
- tied with a black plug-in type electrical cord
- was gagged with 2 gags:
- 1st blue bandana tied tightly, then some tape in strips over that
- 2nd gag is a pair of panties (how these are tied, and in what condition is yet to be determined)
- gagged so tightly her upper teeth are visible over the thick gag
- garment pushed up to reveal her body, looks like a deliberate act
- was wearing a partially bloodstained bra
- her wrists & ankles were tied with 2 different cords
- the cord covered the tape, indicating tape was used first
- had defensive wounds on arms
- Sue sustained several broken teeth, indicating blunt force trauma
- was wholly covered by a blanket and a sheet
- Sue had bare feet, bloodied
- was on the floor, facing the couch - i.e., away from the door

DANA

- was hammered, manually strangled (strangulation noted as cause of death)
- was bound at lower legs with white electrical extension cord
- had tape on top of left hiking boot
- had tape on right hand
- according to the coroner, Dana had lividity on the back of his legs showing he was not in a front-down position for an unknown time after death, but more than half an hour
- Dana's body was front-down, on discovery.
- was almost definitely moved post-mortem
- Dana's head was on a sofa cushion, on the bottom right hand corner

____________



CS ARTEFACTS (objects at scene)



CORDS & BINDINGS

- Sue was bound with two separate cords, one currently verified as a black electrical cord
- John and Dana were bound together at the lower legs with a white electrical extension cord, with a couple of feet of cord between them
- the phone cord was cut, not torn from wall
- the phone cords came from the girl's room (to be verified)
- there are several cords in the living room area close to the bodies that were not used as bindings.

Entered Into Evidence:

- cut piece of wire on floor in living room near V # 2's feet (Dana)
- cut wire end on floor between beds in west bedroom, plug on end
- cut wire end on floor between beds in west bedroom, lamp on end of wire
- cut wire found in west bedroom between beds behind box under table
- tape on living room floor near v # 3 (Sue)

FINGERPRINTS

Entered Into Evidence


- ashtray on floor in kitchen between stove and sink, fingerprint
- saw found on back porch floor, print lifted
- east wall living room by front door, bloody fingerprints on it
- fingerprint taken from metal center at phone booth outside resort

HAIR & FIBRES

Entered Into Evidence


- short hair (cut) on living room floor in front of couch
- short piece of hair on floor near feet of v # 3 (Sue)
- hair in blood splatter on north wall in living room
- 2 strands of fibre found on a fence south of cabin 28


FURNISHINGS/OBJECTS DISPLACED

- TV on a wheeled trolley was moved askew from its position on the wood panelled floor area (movement of TV flush to wall noted previously was due to LE)
- card table tipped, one corner resting on the edge of the TV trolley
- cassette recorder was on the floor, its cord under Dana
- sofa cushion was placed on the floor forward and a little to the right of its usual place on the sofa
(note: at this point we observe very little displacement of furnishings)
- sheets and blanket
- articles of clothing and shoes on floor

SOFA CUSHION DETAILS

- cushion was removed from couch, placed directly forward and a little right/clockwise
- very bloody where knees of a seated person would touch/front edge
- top left 1/4 of the cushion was covered in blood
- a lot of blood under the cushion, indicating that the cushion was placed on top of blood later


WEAPONS

- all the following weapons were items owned by the Sharp family

- hammer with blood on it found on wooden table in living room
- butcher knife on wooden table in living room next to hammer, blood on it
- bent steak knife (found on floor, to Johnny's right, observing from doorway).
- butcher knife was on the left, hammer on the right


also Entered into Evidence:

- 9" x 15 1/2" wall board taken from north wall near front door (4 knife marks)
- 1 1/2" x 1" wall board taken from north wall near front door (1 knife mark)
- 2 1/2" x 4" wall board taken from north wall near front door (1 knife mark)
- 2 1/2" x 3" wall board taken from north wall near front door (1 knife mark)



BLOOD

- small bloody footprints found in lounge
- Sue had blood on her feet
- patches of blood on the floor either side of John
- patch of blood between Sue's knees and abdomen, not wound seepage directly from Sue
- blood on back porch post
- blood on car door handle of Sue's car
- blood on bottom of Justin's shoes
- blood smear on door (to be verified as boy's door)
- fingerprint on a glass with blood on it (print matched to Martin Smartt)


Entered Into Evidence:

- blood splatter on north wall in living room (note: hair in blood)
- inside door knob on rear door in kitchen, blood on it
- notebook page with blood on it on TV tray
- stool in living room with blood splatters
- blue shirt on table in living room, blood on shirt
- green curtain on south window in living room, blood on it
- blood on edge of door in west bedroom
- drop of blood on floor in west bedroom between foot of small bed and wall
- drops of blood on cardboard on large bed in west bedroom
- bloodstain on sheet in small bed in west bedroom
- doorknob off outside door in west bedroom, blood on it
- blood on edge of door in east bedroom
- possible blood smear on wall in east bedroom by door
- doorknob on outside front door, blood on it.
- bathroom cabinet door, possible blood on it




OTHER ITEMS


- gym shirt with 'Trojans' printed on it, next to folding table
- small black semi-circular piece of (plastic?) observed under shoe
- bracket holding rear adjuster sight ramp from gun on living room floor near Sue
- pellet on living room floor between Johnny & Dana's heads
- two packs of cigarettes - B&H on tray by couch (likely Sue's), Camels on couch where cushion on the floor would have been.
- ashtray resting on right arm of sofa (R if seated on it, L if looking at it)
- ashtray in girl's room with one B&H butt in
- phone off hook, cord cut, handset laying next to base of phone

(outside)

- boot or shoe print
- button

Entered Into Evidence:

- a plastic baggie box with baggies inside in living room
- blue t-shirt on living room floor
- paperback book "John Travolta" on living room floor next to t-shirt
- Grossman's sale paper on living room floor
- notes on notepaper found on living room floor
- Current Energy ad Ecology magazine on living room floor
- blue jacket with red/white stripes, blood on jacket, on living room floor
- song book - "Sessions in Sound" - found on living room floor
- song notebook with sheet music inside on living room floor
- recorder tape found on table in living room, cassette
- one pair of white/green socks found on living room floor under v # 3
- " " of red shorts in floor in front of couch, blood on them
- " " of blue tennis shoes on floor in front of couch, blood on them
- " " of green tennis shoes on floor in front of couch, blood on them
- " " of blue/green/silver tennis shoes on floor in front of couch, blood on them
- one brown purse on floor at end of couch in living room
- one Sanyo brand cassette player on floor at end of couch in living room
- photograph of missing daughter Tina taken from photo case in kitchen (for ID purposes)
- TV in living room, partially dusted for prints, no prints lifted
- coffee cup on TV tray at end of couch in living room
- fingernail polish remover on same TV tray
- tube of glue on same TV tray
- a telephone book
- a dress, found under the cabin




ITEMS MISSING

- Toolbox made by Johnny Sharp
- Diarama shoebox project belonging to Tina


OFF CS ITEMS


Found in rubbish dumpster of general store:


- Bloody tissue
- Red-handled pocket knife
- Cardboard box with blood on it
- Bloody toilet tissue twisted at the end

_________

CS EVENT TIMELINE
(this is an ordering of events according to evidence, not correlated to actual clock time - yet)

(a work in progress - merely at collation stage at this time)

- Sue was gagged with the bandana before tape was applied to the gag
- Sue's hands were taped before they were bound with cord
- Sue's feet were not bound before the violence escalated
- the cassette player was on the floor before Dana was placed on the cushion
- a lot of blood had already soaked into the carpet before the cushion was placed over it
- shoes on the floor were moved around after the cords were cut



VERY GOOD QUESTIONS

-- and a couple answers!


These are some questions raised by discussion in chat, which we think have at least a hope of being answered.


- what was the other cord used to bind Sue, aside from the black electrical cord? was it two halves of the same cord?two separate cords? which was used for hand and which for feet?
-- what evidence was gained by examination of victim's fingernails?

-- where's the blue floral wallpaper in the photo from?
A: It's been discerned that the 'wallpaper' is in fact a bed sheet.

-- was the bathroom or kitchen basin wet when the cops came in?
-- carpet in girl's room - was it disturbed at all?
-- where were the cords binding Sue from?
-- what evidence was found in or around the TV corner?

-- was blood found under tape? was the blood taped over?
A: To the best of our knowledge, there was no blood under the tape.

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

-- was semen found anywhere on the scene?

--what were the weather conditions in Keddie at the time of the murders?
A: It has been discerned that the weather was reasonably warm in that area.

-- was Sue's car locked, and where were the keys found, if at all?
-- are all the cords used from the back end of the house? if not all, which not?
-- where was Sue's pillow?
-- where was the dumpster of the general store, exactly?
-- where was John's BB gun? was it found in his room? anywhere?
Last edited by Ausgirl on Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:54 pm, edited 49 times in total.
User avatar
Ausgirl
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:35 pm
Has thanked: 236 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Postby jhancock » Sun Aug 29, 2010 5:34 pm

These are some questions raised by discussion in chat, which we think have at least a hope of being answered.

-- what was Sue wearing, exactly, under her robe? A brasier that was partially stained with blood, and nothing else.

-- how was Sue seen, from the front door? ie, what was the most noticeable thing about the way she was positioned? At first she was covered with a sheet and a blanket, so that is all anyone would have seen looking through the front door. With the blanket and sheet removed, the most noticeable thing would be the blood on her bare feet. If you were standing at the front door, you would only be able to see her from the back; in other words, she was turned toward the couch.

-- what part of Sue, exactly, did the blanket cover? what didn't it cover? All of her.

- what was the other cord used to bind Sue, aside from the black electrical cord? was it two halves of the same cord?two seperate cords? which was used for hand and which for feet? Will respond to this at a later time.

-- where was Dana's head, -exactly - on the cushion? On the bottom right corner.

-- where, exactly, on Dana were signs of lividity, and where were they not? Will respond to this at a later time.

-- what kind of cloth is the 'white cloth', exactly? Unsure.

--what lights were on at time of discovery? was the TV on then? Unsure. I do not believe the TV was on. I can look into the lights.

-- 2 cig packs found - what brands? Still trying to find.

-- can we get phone records? The PCSO did gather phone records of the last five calls made from the house. They were all to family members/relatives of the Sharp family.

-- when were the dogs brought in? Unsure.

-- what did the dogs pick up - or not pick up? Nothing, as far as I know.

-- was luminol used? If not, why was it not used? Don't believe so. Don't know why it was not.

-- what evidence was gained by examination of victim's fingernails? Will respond to this at a later time.

-- whose blue bandana was used as a gag? I believe it was Johnny's.

-- where's the blue floral wallpaper in the photo from? Not sure from where in the house. Will try to find.

-- where is the sack of clothes Dana is reported to have carried? Unsure.

-- whose shoes are on the floor? Unsure.

-- which bodies were/ were not wearing shoes? All victims were wearing their shoes except for Sue.

-- was the bathroom or kitchen basin wet when the cops came in? I don't think we will ever know the answer to this, but I will look.

-- carpet in girl's room - was it disturbed at all? Unsure.

-- were all hammers from the house? if not, which one? Yes, the three weapons (hammer, steak knife, butcher knife) belonged to the Sharp family.

-- where were the cords binding Sue from? Looking into this.

-- were the knife marks a perimeter, ie, around a body? I do not believe so.
jhancock
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 11:59 am
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 273 times

Postby jhancock » Sun Aug 29, 2010 5:37 pm

-- was the hammer or the butcher knife on the left? If you are looking at the weapons from the front door, the butcher knife is on the left, hammer on the right.

-- what evidence was found in or around the TV corner? Looking into this.

-- where, exactly, was the bent knife found? If you are standing in the front doorway, it would be on Johnny's right on the floor.

-- was blood found under tape? was the blood taped over? Looking into it.

-- was the tape on Dana's leg the remnant of binding? Unsure.

-- was the footstool wiped clean? Unsure.
jhancock
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 11:59 am
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 273 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby full moon » Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:31 am

Some random thoughts on the evidence-apologize if this has been addressed before:

Johnny & Dana
Johnny- the white electrical cord tying his feet also tied Dana's legs
according to the coroner, Dana had lividity on the back of his legs showing he was not in a front-down position for an unknown time after death, but more than half an hour
John's right foot nearly touched the base of the TV stand, left front wheel
- Dana's foot nearly touching the rear right wheel of TV stand[/b]
Is it possible that Johnny could have moved/crawled a little before he died and then in turn moved Dana’s body since they were tied together. Johnny’s foot was found close to the wheel of the TV stand, perhaps he gained traction from this and was enough to displace Dana from his death position.

Sue
- was gagged with 2 gags:
- 1st blue bandana tied tightly, then some tape in strips over that
- 2nd gag is a pair of panties (how these are tied, and in what condition is yet to be determined)
- gagged so tightly her upper teeth are visible over the thick gag

Man, it really appears they were pissed at her. 2 gags on her. They must have had a hard time keeping her quiet to do that. She was also tied with the cords on both her hands & feet. Not just that flimsy tape. She was the one they were concerned about getting free.

Blood on Sue/sofa cushion
patch of blood between Sue's knees and abdomen, not wound seepage directly from Sue

Is it possible that Sue could have been sitting on the couch and either Johnny or even Tina could have been severely wounded and put their head on her lap while bleeding and got it on the cushion and on Sue’s abdomen? Since we only have Justin’s word that Tina was taken at the end of the event how do we know this for sure? Maybe she was wounded at the house and taken that way.

the phone cord was cut, not torn from wall

Was this cut a clean cut like with electrical clippers or jagged sloppy cut with the ends of the wire covering messy. If its clean could indicate someone with experience with wiring. Were the knives that sharp to cut wire cleanly?

blood on back porch post
- blood on car door handle of Sue's car

Maybe Tina after being wounded, ran and tried to get into their car to hide-(was the door locked?) they caught her there and took her maybe they had intentions of killing her at the scene but she got away. Maybe she was being loud and they were worried about being at the scene too long.

fingerprint on a glass (possibly bloody, print matched to POI) - TO BE VERIFIED
Possibly THE most critical piece of evidence at the scene.

- blood splatter on north wall in living room (note: hair in blood)
Could this indicate that the perp had vic’s head hitting the wall to leave hair and blood?
full moon
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 2:42 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby meankitty » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:41 pm

The wire on Dana was leading to Johnny's feet I think, but there is no way to tell if it was attached. Johnny was found face up with his hands and feet tied, so he might not have been able to crawl. Early news reports said the police had good reason to think one of the perps got a cut, so maybe the blood on the porch and car door was from a perp.
meankitty
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:17 am
Location: Quincy
Has thanked: 626 times
Been thanked: 50 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby Ausgirl » Fri Oct 08, 2010 8:37 pm

Dana had one end of the cord, the end with plugs still on it, knotted hard around his ankles. The knot was on top of his legs and slightly to one side, as it would be if the perp was kneeling when he did it, or had tugged the cord when tying John. The other end of the cord was tied tightly around John's ankles.

In the coroner's pictures, the cords look very different because of course the bodies had been moved around.

Dmac and I are currently discussing how likely it is that this particular cord was tied post-mortem for one or both boys, because:

- The knots are both at the top and slightly to the left and right respectively (ie, not center of legs, but toward the space between the boys).

- The boys' ankles are crossed.

- It would have been exceedingly difficult for the perp to move both bodies (and they were moved) while the boys were tied together.

and so on.

Could have John have crawled off a ways before he died and was moved back "into place" as found? Certainly. In fact, the blood patterns and the way the TV is displaced (likely by Dana's feet) strongly suggest he did, and this is one of the things d and I are studying hard to determine. Of course, it can only be opinion as we are not forensic scientists but we have eyes, yannow?


As for that couch cushion - I too thought about a head wound prior to being put on the floor... but there's also the possibility that Dana was bleeding heavily on the carpet before the cushion was placed under him, and then he was moved up onto the cushion (for whatever reason) and then was displaced again, possibly during Sue's struggles. This is another thing that needs more observation.

We have no information on the state of the wires. I believe the steak knife may have originally been used to cut Sue's cords, but that sort of thing needs to have been determined by a forensics team.

The fingerprint -- I have not yet seen it as a piece of evidence. Nobody has, as far as I know. But I could be wrong, and it needs verifying. As soon as it is, I'll add it to the list.

Personally, I think it's very likely somebody was pushed hard up against that wall, either hard enough to cause a wound, or after they were already wounded at the head.
User avatar
Ausgirl
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:35 pm
Has thanked: 236 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby geegee » Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:28 pm

I am sorry if this was covered before,but why did Sue move her family from the Mobile home park to Keddie? Was it financial or was there trouble at the park? It seems so far out of town, also how did the kids in Keddie get to school? Did they ride a school bus or did they have to be driven? It seems that with the short time the family lived in Keddie the killers must have followed their move.I dont believe it was random.
User avatar
geegee
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:45 pm
Location: Tucson,AZ
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby tinkerbell » Thu Oct 21, 2010 8:08 pm

geegee
we moved from a little tiny travel trailer to a house...
User avatar
tinkerbell
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:40 pm
Location: Here
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 101 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby Ausgirl » Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:05 am

Okay - now the dvd is mostly out, I think we can start adding a POI list to this thing, as well as expanding the existing areas. All this collated stuff can be then be moved over to the Wiki, etc, once we're sure everything's about as validated as it's going to get (this can take time, in some instances, but it's worth taking time for the sake of accuracy).

My internet has a habit of crapping out on me lately, something I can't fix for a few weeks yet. I'd really appreciate some volunteers to maybe take on collation duty for a detail or two - "info on Bo", "info on Marty", "info on (insert suspect here), "eye witness statements", bits and pieces of --verifiable-- evidence, in manageable chunks.

If you have the time to help out, just throw a post below, saying which one facet of evidence you'd like to collect and mail to me for posting here and then we won't be doubling up anywhere.

To reiterate, the criterion for inclusion of information to this thread is: no speculation, no "hearsay", no drawn conclusions - just the physical and/or authorised-personnel-logged evidence. This includes transcribed snippets from pictures and recorded interviews.
User avatar
Ausgirl
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:35 pm
Has thanked: 236 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re:

Postby ForensicGirl » Thu Nov 04, 2010 12:35 pm

jhancock wrote:-- was luminol used? If not, why was it not used? Don't believe so. Don't know why it was not.


Actually, Luminol is used at crime scenes less often than Hollywood leads you to believe. For starters, it is a presumptive test. Really the only thing that luminol can tell you is that there MAY be blood present. Luminol also reacts with bleach (which is ironic since people often attempt to clean up blood evidence with bleach!) and other proteins. Luminol in and of itself does not prove that blood is present. Once the presumptive test comes back positive, you must follow it up with a confirmatory test. This requires utilizing actual blood evidence. The problem being that the chemical reaction that takes place generally destroys the blood evidence. Technically, it does not destroy it, but it renders it useless as blood evidence.
Loops, Whorls, and Arches...oh my!
User avatar
ForensicGirl
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:17 am
Has thanked: 22 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby Ausgirl » Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:56 am

Nah, blab away - that sort of info is better, imo, coming from a person than a website.

I get to ask questions! :D Like this one:

- would it have been possible, with the dna technology available in '81, to get a conclusive paternity test? For an ordinary citizen, I mean, not a LE dept.
User avatar
Ausgirl
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:35 pm
Has thanked: 236 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby ForensicGirl » Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:06 am

Good point Ausgirl! Wow I wasn't even thinking about that. To answer your question, no. The DNA "fingerprint" and restriction fragment length polymorphism was not in practice in 1981. I believe Alec Jeffries first used it in England in 1985? Anyway, I know it was the mid 80's. The book The Blooding is all about that case. They were taking voluntary blood samples from people in the community to try to solve the case and the suspect asks a friend of his to go submit one and pretend it is his! Anyway....there goes the idea that anybody would have been worried that the baby could be positively identified as his.

Maybe folks still worried that the baby would end up looking like them though? Just a thought.
Loops, Whorls, and Arches...oh my!
User avatar
ForensicGirl
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:17 am
Has thanked: 22 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby Ausgirl » Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:11 am

Brilliant, thanks! Ache & I were discussing, just half an hour ago, the question of why it seemed imperative to remove Tina and make damn sure her body wasn't found (though they called her skull in? weird...) - and whether potential pregnancy and paternity test issues may've been involved (we didn't think so, which raised the latter question).

So. If paternity wasn't an -immediate - issue, why take her remains all the way out there? Why hide 'em so well? Opens up a pile of other questions, I'll have to think on that.

Cheers, anyhow. :)
User avatar
Ausgirl
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:35 pm
Has thanked: 236 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby dmac » Fri Nov 05, 2010 1:09 pm

No signs that luminol was used in any report I've seen, and I doubt they thought about using it since blood was all over the place. I don't think they were thinking about trace evidence to clarify the events as they unfolded.

Nynhidren was used on the wallpaper as part of the fingerprint dusting, but that's the only sign of chemicals I've seen mentioned.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 711 times
Been thanked: 2671 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby tcmc » Sun Nov 14, 2010 1:01 pm

Based on information that is known, Tina was probably not held anymore. The admission that most people use to identify one of the likely killers is the same evidence that strongly indicates that Tina's life was taken in the early hours of April 12.
tcmc
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 7:21 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby William Lee » Sun Jul 24, 2011 6:33 pm

Marilyn claimed Sheriff Thomas got Justin's shoes on the morning after the bodies were discovered.

If true, I'm not surprised they "disappeared". If not true, I'm not surprised Marilyn lied... Still it isn't like I trust Marilyn, but I suspect it WAS true. I suspect the evidence disappeared or was returned with the claim there was no blood on them. Either way, I suspect Justin probably DID have blood on his shoes. And either way, it wouldn't help determine much more than how close Justin was to the killers and to the crime scene itself, implication being more so evidence that it was M & B.

Anyone know if it was ever confirmed whether Justin's shoes were taken as evidence, aside Marilyn's claims that they were?
William Lee
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 9:10 pm
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 54 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby not sure » Thu Aug 25, 2011 9:32 pm

I was listening to a forensic program where they talked about how common it was for a victim who's bitten their attacker to have broken teeth. It got me to thinking about Sue's teeth. In the autopsy report it says her teeth were broken indicating blunt force trauma. I assume there's a way to tell the difference between broken teeth from biting down with all your might and being smashed in the teeth but it made me wonder...?
User avatar
not sure
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:52 pm
Location: stuck in the middle with you
Has thanked: 351 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby dmac » Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:38 pm

The autopsy, indeed, says her teeth were broken.

In the summation, "Focal fractures of anterior upper teeth. with loosening of teeth" means the teeth were chipped/broken, the roots loosened. the use of the word 'focal' means it was limited to the area of the upper (maxilla) front teeth. It's verified, and with greater detail, in the first paragraph of the report:

Sue's Autopsy Report wrote:Defects involve the upper teeth near their bases. These show roughened edges and are up to l/4 inch in greatest dimension. All of the front upper teeth are loosened. This includes the central and lateral incisors and the right cuspid.


Image

Rough translation: the teeth were broken very close to the base, near the gumline. The author is unclear, but the sentence about "1/4 inch in greatest dimension" likely indicates the amount of tooth visible above the gumline.

Other abrasions / cuts / bruising indicate the cause was blunt force trauma.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 711 times
Been thanked: 2671 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby dcheryl83 » Mon Sep 19, 2011 4:51 am

To me the word 'broken' means they were 'no longer attatched to the remainder of the tooth'. Focal fractures do not always mean 'broken' they can mean broken or they can mean cracked or split. The 'loosening' is a no brainer, but I think the 'focal fracture' is open to interpretation.

Just went back and looked at the first paragraph and I don't see where it was "verified" that they were "broken." All I see is the "focal fracture" and "loosening." I will re-read the whole thing more thouroughly before the days end. I tend to speed read thru things sometimes.
dcheryl83
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:38 am
Location: Virginia
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 27 times

Re: Crime Scene Evidence - just the facts, ma'am!

Postby dmac » Mon Sep 19, 2011 2:16 pm

Unfortunately, handwriting by supposed medical professionals is not the only thing incomprehensible to most mere mortals. Their lingo is also greek to us (well, let's play nice and say Latin). As shown in these autopsy reports, writing explicit, detailed, logical thoughts- much less sentences and paragraphs- is also a foreign concept to many of them. Much of these autopsy reports beg clarification due to both terminology and, quite simply, piss-poor diction. For instance, he uses 'focal' in the wrong portion of the sentence, because 'focal' only indicates (in this instance) that the teeth directly involved were limited to the anterior maxilla. 'Focal' is only (mis)used in Sue's report to indicate which teeth were damaged.

To simplify things, dental fractures are not hairline fractures. Most every time you see the term 'dental fracture', it means a broken tooth, or chipped tooth. Cracked teeth (which are almost always vertical, running from the tip of the tooth to the root) are usually called 'incomplete dental fractures', but account for the remainder of times the term 'dental fracture' is used. Even medical professionals don't like the current terminology and are trying to revise things.

Not only does the autopsy report say the teeth are broken, Josh has verified in chat (when I was discussing the gags) that photos show the gags were tied tight in her mouth, forcing her jaw open and exposing broken teeth. Unfortunately, the report is unclear on which teeth are broken- the report mentions five teeth are loose, but his diction muddles whether all five are broken. Breaking the cuspid is more difficult than the other four (front insicors which, by sheer volume, account for about 80% of broken teeth). The fact he fails to mention whether or not he located any broken fragments in the gags, mouth, or throat also all but destroys our ability to determine if the teeth were broken BEFORE or AFTER the gags were applied. Trust me, I'm frustrated by many aspects of these reports.

Hope that helps clarify that Sue's teeth were, in fact, broken.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 711 times
Been thanked: 2671 times

Next

Return to keddie facts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron