08-05-2012, 02:17 AM
(08-04-2012, 10:38 AM)Green Ribbon Wrote: 1. How come two not so bright (and one even classed as a retard!) perps managed not to leave any dna on either bodies in what was a nasty murder?
Could be a million reasons why and we won't know for sure until someones comes forward with the entire story, mentioning every detail. Obvious statement I know, but worth saying anyway
Even though we're not dealing with world class assassins here, I feel confident in saying all who were involved knew about finger prints, hair fibers, etc.
Before getting into Cam and Sam lets talk about the Unknown Female.
Nightowl made a great point about duct tape being difficult to open with gloves on. However, the DNA on the tape is the same Unknown Female DNA inside Johnny's pockets. So there's a clue.
In her case, here's some possible scenarios:
1. She took off her gloves twice (once for the tape, once for going through Johnny's pocket...both tasks difficult to do with gloves on).
2. She took her gloves off once for taping Johnny and went through his pocket immediately afterwards
3. She was wearing either surgical or thin/cheap gloves that got ripped in a small place during the struggle or while opening the duct tape
4. She never had gloves on to begin with (signifying either a lack of planning or implying she was not supposed to be a "hands on enforcer/participant"...I'll explain later, but I don't put much stock into this theory)
5. The DNA might not be from skin but rather saliva from biting off the tape (this doesn't explain the DNA in Johnny's pocket)
6. DNA on the tape could be from hair (this also doesn't explain the DNA in Johnny's pocket)
Point 5 is my favorite theory personally because if a second person had to come restrain Johnny, its safe to assume he was putting up an intense fight. Not too hard to assume she had one arm wrapped around Johnny's legs and the other spooling the tape around his feet. Perhaps with all the squirming it seemed easier to continue to hold him down and use her teeth break loose the duct tape. In addition, sometimes duct tape is a pain in the ass to rip, so when you're in a hurry you use your teeth (ask anyone how works with duct tape regularly).
Of course this theory isn't without its failings because I don't think this girl started licking the inside of Johnny's pocket.
The problem with the term "DNA" is that it can encompass more than one thing (skin, hair, saliva, etc) and we're lacking full disclosure about these samples.
The reason I put so much emphasis on this girl is because I believe this was a planned robbery effort. However, if you agree this was a planned effort then you also have to acknowledge collaboration. With collaboration, there's a certain level of consistency; if one wears gloves, all will, if one covers their face, all will, etc. I seriously doubt someone would come along seeing others with gloves thinking they're safe touching things with out them.
With collaboration there's varying levels of participation (which is key). I doubt they all went in there just winging it and seeing who grabs who first. Sure, I think there was some on-the-spot improvising but all in all when you bring that many people with you, each has a specific reason for being there.
Keeping those scenarios in mind remember that:
1. DNA was found on the cig butt but not fingerprints (Sam and Cam were wearing gloves...or at least when they went outside)
2. Sam and Cam both have very short hair (less likely to find hair fibers)
3. It was winter (people wear long sleeves and the likes that aids in covering skin/hair)
If Sam and Cam were masked, that can further explain the lack of hair-based DNA. As for the girl, longer hair has more probability of falling out even with a mask on.
If the DNA on the tape was saliva, then there is a pattern here; criminals aware of fingerprint evidence, composite sketches (maybe), and hair, but not thinking of saliva. If this is true, why bother taking the cig butt with you? Why not just bite off the tape?
There might not be any other DNA samples of Sam and Cam inside the house simply because they were just reinforcements; there to step in if someone got loose, etc.
However, I believe they all had some sort of hands on effort and the lack of evidence against them is because they were careful in every regard but overlooked DNA transfers from saliva. As far as the girl, maybe she was in a panicked state and stopped thinking because it all got out of hand so fast.
Lastly, you could be looking at total luck here. People have shot themselves and somehow left no fingerprints on the gun they used. Just mentioning that to show stranger things have happened.