02-19-2011, 04:55 PM
(02-19-2011, 04:31 PM)concerned Wrote:(02-19-2011, 04:24 PM)concerned Wrote:(02-19-2011, 04:22 PM)concerned Wrote:(02-19-2011, 04:18 PM)concerned Wrote:Also Z would have been mentioned if was an adult(02-19-2011, 04:16 PM)ZEROSPHERES Wrote: Thanks....I quote here my source for believing "Z" is not a minor..Look I live close to them. He is a minor. 16 or 17.
- shitstorm - 02-17-2011 06:47 PM
(02-17-2011 01:06 PM)EastCoastKat Wrote:
(02-17-2011 12:59 PM)Sean69 Wrote: Here's the thing - this is an excellent theory, but if it is true, arrests would have happened by now, and I'm talking about DNA verification as well. WTF?
Because they were there the night before so their DNA could have been there, they are admitting they were there the night before, hanging out.
So their DNA would be there from the night before, and I am sure cops are tying to separate all of it...
And by the way Mr.Z is only a few months short of being an over 21yr. old adult!
Then he is NOT a minor!
IMO with them being at the Straubs the night before they set up a robbery would in a sense " Clear" them from the crime because of their DNA being there. This is what I think they thought. IMo they set it up to be robbed and it went bad. The lapse in time was the "wtf" moment on what to they do now?
How do we really know if they were really there the nite before?
anyone know FORE SURE? just saying!