Mock

(07-26-2012, 01:18 AM)Older Than Dirt Wrote: [ -> ]Aberlin, I know you spend a lot of time here (and that's a good thing)! But can you tell me where) without going way back and reading very old posts) there has been any testimony or article about a party the night before? It is my understanding that there was not a party. I know we're all on over load, but I would have thought that would have come out sometime in the last week because it would have complicated the DNA process!

Chime in here folks if I'm incorrect.

Since the beginning of everything there was an endless amount of talk about a party the night before. I could have overlooked a post where someone debunked that, but so far, I've always hear from numerous posts that there was a party the night before.

Stories like "we they could have been at the party the night before" to "no, people who were there said Sam and Cam weren't there."

Even before Sam and Cam came into public knowledge there was talk about a party. If I got that one wrong I apologize and would love confirmation either way.

(07-26-2012, 01:51 AM)Aberlin Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2012, 01:18 AM)Older Than Dirt Wrote: [ -> ]Aberlin, I know you spend a lot of time here (and that's a good thing)! But can you tell me where) without going way back and reading very old posts) there has been any testimony or article about a party the night before? It is my understanding that there was not a party. I know we're all on over load, but I would have thought that would have come out sometime in the last week because it would have complicated the DNA process!

Chime in here folks if I'm incorrect.

Since the beginning of everything there was an endless amount of talk about a party the night before. I could have overlooked a post where someone debunked that, but so far, I've always hear from numerous posts that there was a party the night before.

Stories like "we they could have been at the party the night before" to "no, people who were there said Sam and Cam weren't there."

Even before Sam and Cam came into public knowledge there was talk about a party. If I got that one wrong I apologize and would love confirmation either way.

Well a party to kids could be half a dozen people, not necessarily a big blown out bash! A couple on FB very close friends of Johnny and Lisa's went to Florida with Johnny and Lisa, she stated on her wall how her and Lisa spent like an hour and a half talking away the night before while Johnny and her boyfriend Ronnie were shooting pool, she was one of the last to talk to Johnny and Lisa but, it was the night before the murders at the Straubs , so it sounds like Johnny and Lisa had maybe 2 couples over. Now the same woman SH & he is RG have 2 adorable children she kept in touch all the time with Maytee saying how much she missed Johnny and Lisa over and over and over for months she kept in touch with Maytee all very sad. She went to a gathering for Johnny on the anniversary of their deaths, now on the anniversary of their deaths Sarah Rupert a friend of Sam and Cams also caught up in the prostitution bust, made a post on SH's wall and stated Sam and Cam were innocent! Maytee also saw it, Maytee commented & said "this cannot be real" right after this stinking nasty incident! it just was a stinking thing to do.

On the anniversary of Johnny and Lisa's deaths SH completely shut down her FB page and has never returned. I think it's terrible for they were very close to Johnny and Lisa. As I said above not a big bash! Hope that helps OTD.

Aberlin, I'm chimming in! You are absolutely correct!
There had been many posts about the night before. I had been told by a very reliable source, who knows Mary Beth, that there was absolutely no party the night before the murders. Then I asked Mustang who confirmed that there hadn't been a party. I was, from the beginning, very concerned about the possibility that all this DNA could really complicate things. I thought that I had posted that there had NOT been a party. So, when you posted about the party, I thought something had changed. I'm tired and a Virgo (very analytical & detail oriented). Otherwise ANAL as all my kids would tell you!!!

If you can find listen closely to this 13 ABC Video DNA experts testify in Williams murder trial. (I tried several times to link video and it keeps giving me the wrong video) Stacy Violi from the BCI states unknown female NO 1 DNA is on Johnny's sweat pants and sweat shirt, same unknown female NO 1 DNA found on the duct tape on Johnny's ankles.

Now the more I think about it, how can it be an innocent female if the same DNA is also on the pants and sweatshirt, this is some heartless bad bitch.
I no longer think it's a roll of duct tape that was last used by an innocent female brought in from someones home.

(07-26-2012, 12:11 AM)ArmyMom Wrote: [ -> ]Hello Everyone,

Also, I just can't stop thinking about the time line of everything. I know shitstorm brought it up recently, too. The 1^st time the police came to the house the lights & TV were on but when then returned they were off. How can that be, unless everyone was in the house at that time?

I'm glad you brought this up. I've also been wondering about time of death, and whether they were alive the first time the cops came.

(07-25-2012, 11:09 PM)Aberlin Wrote: [ -> ]I thinks its too detailed and graphic not to be true. There's minor little things mentioned: the crinkling sound, the fact they made her pass out twice and the third time she died. We don't know what they used to tighten the bag...maybe their hands or even a belt?

The cause of death is still the same, the markings the tape would have made on the neck would still be from blood being pushed away from the skin.

I love the details. But it still can't have happened the way he told it. They either would have had to have taped the bag to her neck after she was already dead -- and why would they? -- or they'd have to have been taping and untaping her in order to revive her each time -- or they would have had to have asphyxiated her until they were done playing with her and then taped it on her while she were still alive because they intended to kill her at that point. So at the very least, I think the accidental death is super unlikely.

There's also the problem of the blood. Sounds like blood was pooled inside Lisa's bag. As someone mentioned, dead people don't bleed, so she was alive when bleeding in the bag. So the bag was likely taped on her while she was alive. If it was taped on, they could not revive her by giving her air, and probably did not intend to. Again, can't argue it was an accident at that point.

I disagree that the tape would leave the same marks as fingers wrapped around a neck, or a ligature. Those types of bruises can be easily distinguished after death. If the coroner is to be believed, that tape went on tightly and is part of what killed them. Cutting off the blood flow would have made them pass out -- that's actually comforting in some way.

So maybe it happened that they went through the whole routine with Lisa while making Johnny watch -- taped her up first and killed her in front of him -- but then it's still really odd that the end of the tape roll is on her and not him. The last bit of tape went on her, not on Johnny.

Then there's the whole sitting in chairs facing each other thing. When do they step on his head if he's in a chair? (Didn't the snitch say chairs? No mention of chairs at the crime scene, were there? they were on the floor)

It's not adding up for me. In any event, it certainly didn't go down as told to/told by Yingling.

Soothsayer, that chronology has been speculated on earlier and the answer that fit is that Lisa passed out and came to twice as J.C. was forced to watch her being tortured. Then she fell from the stool hitting her head on the floor and did not come Back to consciousness. Two perps went to the garage to share a smoke and contemplate what to do with J.C. as things were going badly and not as planned. They returned to find in their absence a third perp had killed J.C. So to guarantee that Lisa was dead they affixed a bag with the remaining tape to her head/neck and left. This also could explain the blood found on her head.

zero

[/quote]

"I disagree that the tape would leave the same marks as fingers wrapped around a neck, or a ligature."

I'm not saying they used their finger to wrap the tape, was simply saying it was possible. I also mentioned they could have used a belt (we don't know). I too seriously doubt they would tape her and un-tape her. There would have been used pieces of tape all over the place (which was never mentioned).

There is another possibility. There are times when a person has stopped breathing but still have a slow heart beat. In CPR instead of giving two breaths with 15 chest compressions, you give two "rescue breaths".

Again, I'm not saying that was Lisa's status, we don't know and never will. But it is possible and see that she never started breathing they could have very well assumed she was dead. A stretch yes, but then again these guys aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. They could have also checked for a pulse but at that point I'd think they were thinking "she's #%@&ing dead, what the #%@! do we do now?"

In either case, they had the bag pulled on tight enough to now allow any air to leak out, or leak in...that's pretty tight. Otherwise Lisa wouldn't have passed out because there would be new oxygen getting into the bag.

Again, all this assuming the snitch's account is true. If not...nevermind all I'm saying.

"They either would have had to have taped the bag to her neck after she was already dead -- and why would they?"

I think that's very obvious; they wanted to guarantee she didn't come back. Again, these guys aren't thinking like detectives after committing their first murders...they're just trying to quell any screw ups. You can hear that fear and panic in what was in Sam's phone calls getting Cam's brother to comb through all the dockets...he's once again desperately trying to make things air tight. I posted a super long post about this a few pages back...don't want to keep posting the same material so I'm trying to keep this abbreviated.

"There's also the problem of the blood. Sounds like blood was pooled inside Lisa's bag. As someone mentioned, dead people don't bleed, so she was alive when bleeding in the bag."

Yes, I posted that statement about dead people not able to bleed...same comment I mentioned above. All the pooling in the bag means is that she had a good amount of blood in her hair, etc. Being that she's dead and her head isn't moving, all that she bled before dying is going to drift to one side of the bag and "pool up". Pooled blood in the bag can mean she started bleeding after the bag was put on, or again, just from bleeding previously while she was being tortured or whatever it was that actually caused the wound.

"making Johnny watch -- taped her up first and killed her in front of him -- but then it's still really odd that the end of the tape roll is on her and not him. The last bit of tape went on her, not on Johnny."

Lisa was colder than Johnny indicating she died first. However, there is cardboard on the end of her tape meaning she was taped up last...sounds like it goes perfectly with the snitches story; Lisa died first, taped up last. Again, I believe they were paranoid and wanted to be certain she wouldn't come back.

As for what the snitch mean by "gave her air", there was no DNA on Lisa's lip or at least none that's been mentioned in court. I think all he means is take the bag off and she starts breathing again/wakes up.

Some friends of mine when we were in middle school tried that a few times to get "high" (I know, kids are complete idiots). Once the person passed out (or maybe they just nearly passed out) from lack of air, they took their hand off their mouth and they automatically started breathing again and "woke up feeling all fuzzy". Stupid. Very stupid, but again, 14 year old idiots.

"Then there's the whole sitting in chairs facing each other thing. When do they step on his head if he's in a chair? (Didn't the snitch say chairs? No mention of chairs at the crime scene, were there? they were on the floor)"

Could have been referring to couches, or literally chairs. The kitchen was right there, there were definitely chairs.

"So at the very least, I think the accidental death is super unlikely"

But that's the thing, accident or not is completely irrelevant. They murdered them; they died because someone else did something to them with intent to cause physical harm. Either way you look at it, Johnny's death was based on premeditated murder.

What I think is significant about the snitch's story is that is goes along side with some information that "wasn't previously known" (whatever that is).

If anything, Sam could have mentioned the accident thing to not make it look as bad but that makes no sense at all...you're confessing that you were there when one or your co-conspiritors deliberately killed Johnny. At that point you're still in just as much trouble. If Sam was just trying to "lighten up" the crime he would have said they were both killed accidentally.

What matters most is that it puts Sam and Cam there along with their DNA to physically confirm it. Then you have suspicious jail phone conversations that sounds like a couple guys trying to not "talk obvious" on getting Cam not to snitch, etc.

What worries me is that a lot of people now are getting strapped down by the small details and not focusing on the big picture...they were there, they participated. "Who pulled the trigger" (so to speak) would be great to know, but I'd settle for putting them all away for life via "conspiracy to commit murder".

Anyone remember the Gotti trial and the RICO cases they were working against them to bring everyone down? Just a thought.

(07-26-2012, 04:23 AM)ZEROSPHERES Wrote: [ -> ]Soothsayer, that chronology has been speculated on earlier and the answer that fit is that Lisa passed out and came to twice as J.C. was forced to watch her being tortured. Then she fell from the stool hitting her head on the floor and did not come Back to consciousness. Two perps went to the garage to share a smoke and contemplate what to do with J.C. as things were going badly and not as planned. They returned to find in their absence a third perp had killed J.C. So to guarantee that Lisa was dead they affixed a bag with the remaining tape to her head/neck and left. This also could explain the blood found on her head.

zero

Agreed.

(07-25-2012, 11:06 PM)fabulous Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know about the whole jail-house snitch thing....it's hard for me to believe that a hardened criminal, or should I say streetwise thug.... Gets charged with murder...locked up in the county jail...and spews out the whole story to some *random* jail mate, just cause they're sitting around all day talking, nothing else to do kinda thing.... All this occured pre-trial, just...sitting over in the Lucas county jail, blabbing away??.... I don't know, I'm Leary....

Seriously I wonder that too

(07-26-2012, 12:44 AM)tlynne Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-26-2012, 12:33 AM)NightOwl Wrote: [ -> ][quote='Aberlin' pid='271392' dateline='1343275980']
[quote='tlynne' pid='271384' dateline='1343274077']

I vote No! we need less Government not more!

I agree with you but if you werent out commiting crimes then you would have nothing to worry about. If you've got nothing to hide then it shouldnt really matter.

Think if Syria had everyone's DNA ...you have to have middle ground ...protecting the masses from crime but also protecting them from a corrupt government...

"I disagree that the tape would leave the same marks as fingers wrapped around a neck, or a ligature."

I'm not saying they used their finger to wrap the tape, was simply saying it was possible. I also mentioned they could have used a belt (we don't know). I too seriously doubt they would tape her and un-tape her. There would have been used pieces of tape all over the place (which was never mentioned).

There is another possibility. There are times when a person has stopped breathing but still have a slow heart beat. In CPR instead of giving two breaths with 15 chest compressions, you give two "rescue breaths".

Again, I'm not saying that was Lisa's status, we don't know and never will. But it is possible and see that she never started breathing they could have very well assumed she was dead. A stretch yes, but then again these guys aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. They could have also checked for a pulse but at that point I'd think they were thinking "she's #%@&ing dead, what the #%@! do we do now?"

In either case, they had the bag pulled on tight enough to now allow any air to leak out, or leak in...that's pretty tight. Otherwise Lisa wouldn't have passed out because there would be new oxygen getting into the bag.

Again, all this assuming the snitch's account is true. If not...nevermind all I'm saying.

"They either would have had to have taped the bag to her neck after she was already dead -- and why would they?"

I think that's very obvious; they wanted to guarantee she didn't come back. Again, these guys aren't thinking like detectives after committing their first murders...they're just trying to quell any screw ups. You can hear that fear and panic in what was in Sam's phone calls getting Cam's brother to comb through all the dockets...he's once again desperately trying to make things air tight. I posted a super long post about this a few pages back...don't want to keep posting the same material so I'm trying to keep this abbreviated.

"There's also the problem of the blood. Sounds like blood was pooled inside Lisa's bag. As someone mentioned, dead people don't bleed, so she was alive when bleeding in the bag."

Yes, I posted that statement about dead people not able to bleed...same comment I mentioned above. All the pooling in the bag means is that she had a good amount of blood in her hair, etc. Being that she's dead and her head isn't moving, all that she bled before dying is going to drift to one side of the bag and "pool up". Pooled blood in the bag can mean she started bleeding after the bag was put on, or again, just from bleeding previously while she was being tortured or whatever it was that actually caused the wound.

"making Johnny watch -- taped her up first and killed her in front of him -- but then it's still really odd that the end of the tape roll is on her and not him. The last bit of tape went on her, not on Johnny."

Lisa was colder than Johnny indicating she died first. However, there is cardboard on the end of her tape meaning she was taped up last...sounds like it goes perfectly with the snitches story; Lisa died first, taped up last. Again, I believe they were paranoid and wanted to be certain she wouldn't come back.

As for what the snitch mean by "gave her air", there was no DNA on Lisa's lip or at least none that's been mentioned in court. I think all he means is take the bag off and she starts breathing again/wakes up.

Some friends of mine when we were in middle school tried that a few times to get "high" (I know, kids are complete idiots). Once the person passed out (or maybe they just nearly passed out) from lack of air, they took their hand off their mouth and they automatically started breathing again and "woke up feeling all fuzzy". Stupid. Very stupid, but again, 14 year old idiots.

"Then there's the whole sitting in chairs facing each other thing. When do they step on his head if he's in a chair? (Didn't the snitch say chairs? No mention of chairs at the crime scene, were there? they were on the floor)"

Could have been referring to couches, or literally chairs. The kitchen was right there, there were definitely chairs.

"So at the very least, I think the accidental death is super unlikely"

But that's the thing, accident or not is completely irrelevant. They murdered them; they died because someone else did something to them with intent to cause physical harm. Either way you look at it, Johnny's death was based on premeditated murder.

What I think is significant about the snitch's story is that is goes along side with some information that "wasn't previously known" (whatever that is).

If anything, Sam could have mentioned the accident thing to not make it look as bad but that makes no sense at all...you're confessing that you were there when one or your co-conspiritors deliberately killed Johnny. At that point you're still in just as much trouble. If Sam was just trying to "lighten up" the crime he would have said they were both killed accidentally.

What matters most is that it puts Sam and Cam there along with their DNA to physically confirm it. Then you have suspicious jail phone conversations that sounds like a couple guys trying to not "talk obvious" on getting Cam not to snitch, etc.

What worries me is that a lot of people now are getting strapped down by the small details and not focusing on the big picture...they were there, they participated. "Who pulled the trigger" (so to speak) would be great to know, but I'd settle for putting them all away for life via "conspiracy to commit murder".

Anyone remember the Gotti trial and the RICO cases they were working against them to bring everyone down? Just a thought.
[/quote]

Why is the prosecution not laying out the whole detailed theory. "You came here at xx o'clock [which we know from the phone call]. You beat them up, tied them up, ransacked the house, looked for a safe, found the alarm system, decided to torture them. We know by xxx o'clock they were both dead. You left with $80 and a ring." Will we see it at closing?

I still don't believe that the coroner would contend they both died due to the tape and bag -- with that super tightly wrapped tape, so tight it cut off the blood in both, as a major factor -- if in fact Lisa had suffered from some kind of manual or ligature (belt, rope, wire, etc.) strangulation and THEN had been taped up. They would have mentioned the marks from all of those things, wouldn't they? She would have had telltale bruising if hands or ligatures were around her neck while alive, and that weird opposite of bruising (where blood pools) when dead.

I do know about 'the choking game' kids dangerously play. And I guess they could have held the bag on her head miraculously leaving no finger marks on her neck, finally deciding to off her by taping her up after they taped up Johnny. I simply don't believe they taped her up while they knew or even thought she was dead.

That whole "Lisa was colder" bit -- can you point me to a source? I can't find the coroner or anyone talking about it, though it was reported that the police *think* Lisa died first...or was it last. Sounded inconclusive, since they used the word *think*. Could be based on the snitch's account for all we know.

I'm just frustrated to not have heard the whole official theory of how it went down. So far it sounds more like "There's two dead kids, dead from tight tape and bags that cut off blood flow and air, and there's a cigarette butt near them with your dna on it, so we figure you killed them, perhaps because Lisa mentioned the house non-smoking rules that we've covered in depth during this trial."

I know they've covered more than that --being silly, really. But I guess I was expecting a bit more science to figure in, and so far I haven't heard much. Maybe time of death doesn't matter because 1) it makes the cops look bad if the crime was in progress when they first came, and the kids were alive or 2) because the perps have no alibi for thus and such a time. Maybe I am a victim of watching too many police/court dramas, maybe Toledo's coroner sucks, maybe they don't go to this sort of trouble for throwaway perps or victims (but you'd think Lisa would rate some care and attention), maybe the TOD is such a broad range of hours that it wouldn't have been useful. Johnny's in rigor mortis with his stiff as a board neck, but that can start to set in after 10 mins depending on temp. I dunno, am I asking too much to want to hear the whole story as the officials see it? I don't mind the speculation that she hit her head, blood dripped off her dead hair, etc. -- heck, I do it myself trying to picture the scene -- but I'd like to see the whole 'fact based' official theory end to end. Am I alone in that? Much less how you get from a cigarette butt to necessarily being there for or during the murders.

(07-26-2012, 01:05 AM)blueberryhill Wrote: [ -> ]i always felt Tiffany knew more than she stated to others. i did think

I agree with you i think she knows more then she claims to, I been trying to do some personal research these last couple days by talking to a mutial friend that is really good friends with T.W I know if she will talk about the case to anyone it will be her...and i know i can get her to tell me it will just take a few days. however T.W story was never the same if u read the post she posted on this forum and then her trail statement its different and she even changed her story at each trail something isnt right.

(07-26-2012, 07:05 AM)pspence Wrote: [ -> ]Lucas county jail, blabbing away??.... I don't know, I'm Leary....

Seriously I wonder that too
[/quote]

while your in jail all you have is time with these other people he could have been talking to erik about there past jail history and felt like he was trust worthy everyone has to let out a secret and being that he couldnt get off his chest what he did over the phone or threw mail because those are recorded and read. he thought he could trust a older man in there and figured maybe he could get advice because he has so much jail history..criminals arent very smart if they were they wouldnt get caught at all for their crime. with his charges i am sure he thought this older guy could give him advice on maybe how he could get out of it. noone takes something so serious to the grave without speaking about it to a soul ya know. just my thoughts..

^ i hate that pettaway doesnt get the death penalty if found guilty && it looks like they had better witnesses for williams then for pettaway..like the jailhouse snitch pettaway doesn't have anyone claiming he talked about it while locked up so looks like while williams was so scared pettaway was ganna snitch while talking to his brother he really was just nervous because he knew he felt like he was going to snitch. he felt like he was going to give in and leak the info so he had to make sure pettaway wasnt feeling the same way.

(07-26-2012, 08:12 AM)soothsayer Wrote: [ -> ]Why is the prosecution not laying out the whole detailed theory. "You came here at xx o'clock [which we know from the phone call]. You beat them up, tied them up, ransacked the house, looked for a safe, found the alarm system, decided to torture them. We know by xxx o'clock they were both dead. You left with $80 and a ring." Will we see it at closing?

I'm just frustrated to not have heard the whole official theory of how it went down. So far it sounds more like "There's two dead kids, dead from tight tape and bags that cut off blood flow and air, and there's a cigarette butt near them with your dna on it, so we figure you killed them, perhaps because Lisa mentioned the house non-smoking rules that we've covered in depth during this trial."

I know they've covered more than that --being silly, really. But I guess I was expecting a bit more science to figure in, and so far I haven't heard much. Maybe time of death doesn't matter because 1) it makes the cops look bad if the crime was in progress when they first came, and the kids were alive or 2) because the perps have no alibi for thus and such a time. Maybe I am a victim of watching too many police/court dramas, maybe Toledo's coroner sucks, maybe they don't go to this sort of trouble for throwaway perps or victims (but you'd think Lisa would rate some care and attention), maybe the TOD is such a broad range of hours that it wouldn't have been useful. Johnny's in rigor mortis with his stiff as a board neck, but that can start to set in after 10 mins depending on temp. I dunno, am I asking too much to want to hear the whole story as the officials see it? I don't mind the speculation that she hit her head, blood dripped off her dead hair, etc. -- heck, I do it myself trying to picture the scene -- but I'd like to see the whole 'fact based' official theory end to end. Am I alone in that? Much less how you get from a cigarette butt to necessarily being there for or during the murders.

You're not alone soothsayer, I'm right there with ya!

(07-25-2012, 11:41 PM)tlynne Wrote: [ -> ]This is kind of a random question but would it be unconstitutional or something if, lets say at birth, it was required to have your dna on file somewhere? I know its a pretty radical idea but if the gov had everyones dna already in a databank... maybe there wouldnt be so many situations such as this where they have dna evidence but no match? Sorry if i sound like an idiot. Just crossed my mind as i was reading tonight.

Yes, that's a terrible invasion of privacy and it violates the constitution. Your DNA is the the blueprint of your physical self and you don't want that in the hands of strangers. Some states have had stealth DNA collection on infants and they were busted and sued. You have no idea what someone in possession of your DNA could be using it for. It can be sold to research and pharmaceutical companies and they can patent YOUR DNA without your knowing. It can be CLONED. Personal information about your DNA, like genetic information can be sold. While it certainly can be helpful in criminal cases, it's a minefield in terms of your right to privacy.

(07-26-2012, 12:28 AM)pfifltrigg Wrote: [ -> ]If I recall correctly, the cigarette still looked cylindrical in the photo, which would indicate that it had not been stepped on/smashed.

That's right. Somewhere it was mentioned that the butt was still "round" (cylindrical).