Crime Classification Manual: Domestic Homicide

[debbiediablo]

PART A

Citation:
Douglas, John; Burgess, Ann W.; Burgess, Allen G.; Ressler, Robert K. (2013-03-26). Crime Classification Manual: A Standard System for Investigating and Classifying Violent Crime (p. 186). Wiley. Kindle Edition.

Click image to enlarge:

[debbiediablo]

PART B

Citation:
Douglas, John; Burgess, Ann W.; Burgess, Allen G.; Ressler, Robert K. (2013-03-26). Crime Classification Manual: A Standard System for Investigating and Classifying Violent Crime (p. 186). Wiley. Kindle Edition.

Click image to enlarge:

[debbiediablo]

PART C

Citation:
Douglas, John; Burgess, Ann W.; Burgess, Allen G.; Ressler, Robert K. (2013-03-26). Crime Classification Manual: A Standard System for Investigating and Classifying Violent Crime (p. 186). Wiley. Kindle Edition.

Click image to enlarge:

[debbiediablo]

PART D

Citation:
Douglas, John; Burgess, Ann W.; Burgess, Allen G.; Ressler, Robert K. (2013-03-26). Crime Classification Manual: A Standard System for Investigating and Classifying Violent Crime (p. 186). Wiley. Kindle Edition.

Click image to enlarge:

[Catbooks]

wow. tough reading, those cases.

so the author believes that ron goldman was there talking to nicole brown when simpson showed up? i'd always thought ron showed up at some point after simpson and nicole had had some type of exchange and he'd already assaulted her with the knife.

i'm not sure what to make of this as it relates to lizzie. both murders appear to be a cross between staged and unstaged, with elements of both, but leaning more towards staged/premeditated.

interesting to read that in the instance of staged homicides, a third party is usually who discovers the body/bodies. if lizzie did do it, i wonder why she didn't let bridget discover andrew. i suppose there is the problem of where would she go while waiting for bridget to discover him. the dining room, i guess, but how long could she hang out there, ironing her handkerchiefs? if she went upstairs to her room, there was abby's body lying 20 or so feet away.

[Curryong]

Catbooks, that's what Ive always thought, too. (That he, Ron Goldman, was only running in for a few moments to return the sunglasses Nicole had left and came across an argument.) Of course, the only thing against that scenario is that a stranger might hesitate to go near two others arguing, at night. Perhaps it erupted suddenly as he quickly came on the scene, and he instinctively tried to help Nicole?

Murderer and victim living in the same property always makes it difficult for investigating officers, doesn't it? I do think that Lizzie would have faced far greater challenges in getting away with what she did today, especially with regard to explaining away Abby's murder, but, if it happened in 2014, Lizzie's D.N.A. and fingerprints would still be all over the rooms of No 92. in the natural course of events.

I agree, I don't think Lizzie had any option other than 'discovering' Andrew's body herself. The layout of the house made it difficult if not impossible not to, considering she was the only one downstairs.

[Catbooks]

but ron and nicole weren't strangers, they were friends. some have said they were in some kind of romantic relationship, and that even the candles and so forth in nicole's apartment were because ron was coming over. i don't know that i believe that last part, but i do believe they were at least friends.

i've always thought that by the time ron showed up, things had escalated past the argument point and into physical violence, although i don't know how far. had simpson knocked her unconscious and then ron arrived at that moment? seems to me it was something like that. or maybe he'd just killed her when ron arrived. i always thought the 'hey, hey, hey!' a neighbor heard was ron arriving at the scene and trying to do whatever he could to stop it - if it wasn't already too late.

i don't think lizzie would have gotten away with it today. although, the simpson trial wasn't all that long ago, and look what happened there.

yeah, she didn't have many choices. the dining room, or find a good reason to go out to the barn for a long time (although it was hot in there), or go run an errand. i wonder why she didn't do that? maybe she thought it'd make her look more guilty if she left afterwards, or that she might act very strangely (even for her) and people might notice, then later tell the police.

[Curryong]

I thought they were more casual acquaintances than friends. I know he saw her sometimes at the restaurant he worked at on a casual basis, didn't he, or am I getting confused, (a normal state for me!) I'm sure they liked each other. I meant stranger in the sense of not wanting to interfere in any domestic dispute in the way a close friend or family member would.

However, thinking it over, I'm quite sure that you are probably right and Ron came upon a scene where Nicole was probably dying, and then ,extremely quickly, he was being attacked too.

The verdict came in the middle of the night in Australia. My son David and I were the only ones in the household mad enough to sit up and watch! (We had just got cable TV installed and had been following the trial on American news channels.) My son and I followed it quite closely, but of course details get blurred over the years!

I do remember my son not being surprised at the verdict, but I was. I thought the D.N.A. evidence was strong enough to get a guilty verdict over the line. But of course other things were in play!

[debbiediablo]

Murderer and victim living in the same property always makes it difficult for investigating officers, doesn't it? I do think that Lizzie would have faced far greater challenges in getting away with what she did today, especially with regard to explaining away Abby's murder, but, if it happened in 2014, Lizzie's D.N.A. and fingerprints would still be all over the rooms of No 92. in the natural course of events.

If Lizzie took the axe today
Luminol the cops would spray,
Unto the gallows she would trek
Through the trapdoor; broken neck.

[debbiediablo]

I thought they were more casual acquaintances than friends. I know he saw her sometimes at the restaurant he worked at on a casual basis, didn't he, or am I getting confused, (a normal state for me!) I'm sure they liked each other. I meant stranger in the sense of not wanting to interfere in any domestic dispute in the way a close friend or family member would.

However, thinking it over, I'm quite sure that you are probably right and Ron came upon a scene where Nicole was probably dying, and then ,extremely quickly, he was being attacked too.

The verdict came in the middle of the night in Australia. My son David and I were the only ones in the household mad enough to sit up and watch! (We had just got cable TV installed and had been following the trial on American news channels.) My son and I followed it quite closely, but of course details get blurred over the years!

I do remember my son not being surprised at the verdict, but I was. I thought the D.N.A. evidence was strong enough to get a guilty verdict over the line. But of course other things were in play!

Nicole Brown Simpson's Blood Was Planted On the Sock. The blood matching Nicole Brown Simpson that was found on the sock was a large, thick stain, slightly larger than the size of a quarter. It had a slightly crusty appearance and made the underlying material of the sock stiff and puckered. Surely this stain would have been noticed, the defense argued, had it been on the sock at the time the sock was collected. Yet on three separate occasions the sock was examined and the stain was not noticed. On June 13, 1994, criminalist Dennis Fung collected the socks in O.J. Simpson's bedroom. At that time he was conducting a search for blood in Simpson's residence. He noted no blood on the socks. On June 22, 1994, the socks were examined at the LAPD laboratory by Michelle Kestler, a laboratory supervisor, and two experts for the defense, Michael Baden and Barbara Wolf. They noted no blood. On June 29, 1994, the socks were examined again as part of an inventory of evidence ordered by Judge Ito. The express purpose of the inventory was to determine what blood samples might be available to be split with the defense. No blood was observed on the sock. The laboratory notes say "blood search, none obvious." Then on August 4, 1994, the blood stain was discovered. The defense argued that this sequence of events makes it obvious that the blood was planted on the sock sometime after June 29, 1994.

Defense experts Dr. Henry Lee and Professor Herbert MacDonnell examined the sock and concluded that the blood stain had been pressed onto it while it was lying flat, and not while someone's leg was in the sock. The blood had soaked through one side of the sock and left a "wet transfer" on the opposite inner wall at a point that would have been directly under the stain had the sock been lying flat. The wet transfer is inconsistent with the prosecution theory, the defense argued, because Simpson's leg would have blocked such a transfer had he been wearing the sock when the blood was deposited on it during the murders. Based on Professor MacDonnell's estimates of the drying rate of blood on the sock, the defense argued that by the time Simpson got home and removed the socks, the blood would have dried, making a wet transfer impossible at that point.

The planting theory is also supported by evidence that the chemical preservative ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid ("EDTA") was found in the stain, the defense argued. The victims' blood samples were stored at the LAPD laboratory in tubes that contained EDTA. When the defense first raised the theory that the blood on the sock had been planted, the prosecution sent the sock to the FBI laboratory and asked that the stain be tested for EDTA. Absence of EDTA would presumably have been taken as proof that the stain did not come from the laboratory tubes. But the tests performed by FBI agent-examiner Roger Martz did show evidence of the presence of EDTA. When the prosecution declined to call Martz as a witness, he was called by the defense. Martz admitted that the stain showed traces of EDTA but opined that the quantity was too low to be consistent with blood from a reference tube. The defense then presented Dr. Fredrick Reiders, who reviewed Martz test results and expressed the opinion that the quantities of EDTA present in the stain were indeed consistent with the stain originating in blood from a reference tube, and are too high to be consistent with blood from a living human being. The defense argued that Dr. Reiders was a better qualified and more credible witness than Martz, who does not have an advanced degree, and that Reider's conclusion, if true, proves that the blood on the sock was planted.

[Curryong]

Gosh forgot about the planted sock. The glove too, wasn't satisfactory was it? Must go back and do more study on the things I've forgotten!

[Catbooks]

I thought they were more casual acquaintances than friends. I know he saw her sometimes at the restaurant he worked at on a casual basis, didn't he, or am I getting confused, (a normal state for me!) I'm sure they liked each other. I meant stranger in the sense of not wanting to interfere in any domestic dispute in the way a close friend or family member would.

However, thinking it over, I'm quite sure that you are probably right and Ron came upon a scene where Nicole was probably dying, and then ,extremely quickly, he was being attacked too.

The verdict came in the middle of the night in Australia. My son David and I were the only ones in the household mad enough to sit up and watch! (We had just got cable TV installed and had been following the trial on American news channels.) My son and I followed it quite closely, but of course details get blurred over the years!

I do remember my son not being surprised at the verdict, but I was. I thought the D.N.A. evidence was strong enough to get a guilty verdict over the line. But of course other things were in play!

Nicole Brown Simpson's Blood Was Planted On the Sock. The blood matching Nicole Brown Simpson that was found on the sock was a large, thick stain, slightly larger than the size of a quarter. It had a slightly crusty appearance and made the underlying material of the sock stiff and puckered. Surely this stain would have been noticed, the defense argued, had it been on the sock at the time the sock was collected. Yet on three separate occasions the sock was examined and the stain was not noticed. On June 13, 1994, criminalist Dennis Fung collected the socks in O.J. Simpson's bedroom. At that time he was conducting a search for blood in Simpson's residence. He noted no blood on the socks. On June 22, 1994, the socks were examined at the LAPD laboratory by Michelle Kestler, a laboratory supervisor, and two experts for the defense, Michael Baden and Barbara Wolf. They noted no blood. On June 29, 1994, the socks were examined again as part of an inventory of evidence ordered by Judge Ito. The express purpose of the inventory was to determine what blood samples might be available to be split with the defense. No blood was observed on the sock. The laboratory notes say "blood search, none obvious." Then on August 4, 1994, the blood stain was discovered. The defense argued that this sequence of events makes it obvious that the blood was planted on the sock sometime after June 29, 1994.

Defense experts Dr. Henry Lee and Professor Herbert MacDonnell examined the sock and concluded that the blood stain had been pressed onto it while it was lying flat, and not while someone's leg was in the sock. The blood had soaked through one side of the sock and left a "wet transfer" on the opposite inner wall at a point that would have been directly under the stain had the sock been lying flat. The wet transfer is inconsistent with the prosecution theory, the defense argued, because Simpson's leg would have blocked such a transfer had he been wearing the sock when the blood was deposited on it during the murders. Based on Professor MacDonnell's estimates of the drying rate of blood on the sock, the defense argued that by the time Simpson got home and removed the socks, the blood would have dried, making a wet transfer impossible at that point.

The planting theory is also supported by evidence that the chemical preservative ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid ("EDTA") was found in the stain, the defense argued. The victims' blood samples were stored at the LAPD laboratory in tubes that contained EDTA. When the defense first raised the theory that the blood on the sock had been planted, the prosecution sent the sock to the FBI laboratory and asked that the stain be tested for EDTA. Absence of EDTA would presumably have been taken as proof that the stain did not come from the laboratory tubes. But the tests performed by FBI agent-examiner Roger Martz did show evidence of the presence of EDTA. When the prosecution declined to call Martz as a witness, he was called by the defense. Martz admitted that the stain showed traces of EDTA but opined that the quantity was too low to be consistent with blood from a reference tube. The defense then presented Dr. Fredrick Reiders, who reviewed Martz test results and expressed the opinion that the quantities of EDTA present in the stain were indeed consistent with the stain originating in blood from a reference tube, and are too high to be consistent with blood from a living human being. The defense argued that Dr. Reiders was a better qualified and more credible witness than Martz, who does not have an advanced degree, and that Reider's conclusion, if true, proves that the blood on the sock was planted.

i think they were actual friends, if not more. she'd let him drive her car, and there was other evidence they knew one another better than that he was just a waiter at a restaurant she'd frequented.

normally i wouldn't have followed anything like this. i don't read newspapers, nor do i watch news. that day i was home working, and for some reason had the tv on. whatever i was half-watching, the news broke in, showing simpson's bronco on a cleared-out 405 freeway. the 405 is never clear, let alone at peak rush hour traffic times. i'd heard nothing about the murders up until then. so to hear that o.j. simpson, who even i, someone utterly disinterested in sports and sports figures, knew of, suspected of murdering two people, and was on the run, and as a result had cleared the 405 was flat-out surreal. i couldn't stop watching. i probably looked very much like your koala, throughout the whole broadcast, which lasted many hours.

from that point on, i was hooked. i had to know wth this was all about, and if he had done these murders, or not. so i watched the whole thing, including the civil trial and most of the coverage.

the blood on the socks may have been planted, but at that point in the trial i believed almost nothing from the defense, who were doing their best to obfuscate. i wasn't very happy with the prosecution either. i felt they'd allowed themselves to get caught up in and defensive of the 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' defense methods of the defense team, and lost sight of presenting a clear, clean case, with a clean and clear overview of what happened, and how it happened.

i believe the woman who saw an extremely agitated simpson run a red light that night on bundy, around the time of the murders, headed back to his house. i believe he killed them both, and got away with it, except at the civil trial of course.

i was shocked at the verdict, but also think the jury probably came to the right decision, given the many missteps of the prosecution, and judge ito's sometimes downright bizarre behavior.

eta: the glove was clear enough. again it was the prosecution's bungling that was the problem.

[twinsrwe]

...

If Lizzie took the axe today
Luminol the cops would spray,
Unto the gallows she would trek
Through the trapdoor; broken neck.

Good one, Debbie!

[debbiediablo]

Thanks...:-)

Not a poet,
Sure does know it.

[twinsrwe]

You're welcome.

Debbie, I think you're more of a poet than you think.