True Crime - Case 1 - Children Killer

[Arsalan]

We already discussed it and including you suspect mother for the crime, So there is no need to extend it further, lets have another case study.
I don't like saas bhi kabhi bahu this type long discussion, read the case and name the suspect.

I am quite old married person.

So you deleted my link its OK now discuss it till the end.

And let me know new findings

Read the OP sir. It clearly states that we will wait for 7 days and after that the results/findings from real case will be shared. Then we can move on to next case. Please give the members some time to study and give there input. It is not about you or me alone.

 

[jhungary]

I wont say that these are self inflicted but i am sure these were not meant to harm her to a great extent either. The cut on the neck could have killed her if done properly and the one who did that had all the time in the world to do it properly yet he did not. The elevation of cut from left to right is also unnatural for a right handed person (if she is).
Plus the cuts are mostly superficial as far as i can see. Stab on the forearm, (ARM!!) cut on RING FINGER (was she mentally stable and happy?) Bruising on her hand (If this from cutting that glass scree or help set up that break in). While she lost some blood due to these cuts, none of these were extensively lethal.

Although there are no evidence suggest Rebecca is left handed (not beyond reasonable doubt) the cut on her left finger would probably suggest implication (ie cutting her own hand with the weapon) Otherwise, all other wound are superficial and cannot be suggest whether or not they are self-inflicted.

The bruise cover a large area under both her arms and in her wrist, so it probably not suggesting the bruise were from the break in.

But one thing is certain from the wound pattern between Rebecca and her two sons, the pattern of injury does not match, either there are 2 persons who did the slicing and dicing, or they are intentionally made different. That bit is quite conclusive.

This is serious and in light of other findings only support the point of view regarding an accomplice. She herself would not have taken that kind of risk and i am not sure if she wont know that there is this important main blood vessel at this spot. Since it was not the life of accomplice at risk, he was just a bit careless about it.

The wound to the neck is circumstantial, because the prosecution could argue she or anyone did not know such blood vessel exist without proper medical training.

Would flag this. Further strengthens that argument that the sock was placed there by someone else, someone other than Rebecca as she was injured at that time and would have left a blood trail. The KILLER would have left some spots as well, or stained boot prints but nothing there either. So i feel there was someone else involved as well. Killer seem to be Rebecca.

This is actually the most puzzling evidence for the whole case, the probability of that sock exist does not make sense. However, the sock, itself, is not exactly a physical evidence, it is a circumstantial evidence, because it cannot either proof or disproof anyone involvement in this murder, in fact, the sock itself cannot be proof or disproof beyond reasonable doubt that it came from the crime scene.

Plus please note that even though there are evidence of someone else present there, it is not like the classic break in. There are doubts about the screen that was cut (if it was from the inside or outside). No dust have been disturbed at those points. There is no print on screen either. A kitchen knife from the family's set is found IN KITCHEN with traces if the material that was cut. The intruder from outside would not have access to that knife to cut that screen.

Since you mentioned that the case is from 90s, i hope Rebecca is either in jail or have been sent to death and the accomplice have been found and charged as well. Personally, i am sure that there was someone else involved, someone else present there. Do anyone here disagree with this? please share what you think i have missed?

The case, was quite circumstantial for both the mother and the father, as there are gap exist that does not quite fit the overall picture, I guess the majority of the issue regarding Rebecca as a killer is that it only make sense either it was done by a third party, or Rebecca is working with a third party, however, the physical evidence of a third party involvement is lacking, there are quite a few circumstantial evidence of a third party did exist, but short of actual proof linking to the case (There are no DNA nor Other Physical Evidence exist for a third party, beside Rebecca and Ron and the 3 children there inside the home of Rebecca and Ron. And that is the problem for the "third party theory" that either support or against Rebecca Guilt.

The prosecution would need to either,

Established that third party did exist and is working with either Ron or Rebecca or both to commit the crime or
Established that third party DID not exist and either Ron or Rebecca or both commit the crime themselves or working together.

What about neighbour RN.... I have my doubts on him ... may be he was having an affair with rebecca

The RN is a woman....And she was with her husband the time of the murder and was at home immediately afterward.

One thing is sure that the motive behind the incident is murder of kids only not burglary ( if kids got stab multiple times then crystal clear) . Otherwise why not the intruder killed rebecca too. Surely rebecca is the killer other wise who talk to emergency service for 5 mins when both of her kids are dying. And her husband is just trying to cover her may be for insurance claim.

The motive as to why the case happen the way it happened is hard to determine.

The circumstance is that, this case does not look like a normal break-in or B&E (Breaking and Entering) because the first thing the person or person(s) do is to kill the occupant inside, also the alleged place the person or persons break in is not directly connected to the living room where the 2 child was killed. That would mean it was premeditated (ie a through of malice as the person or persons intended to kill)

However, there are no evidence suggesting the husband of direct involvement on this crime.

hmmmmmmm ..................

The father went out of the house to approach KN for help, before performing CPR on 2? 2 had already expired why didn't he concentrate on 3?

9 minutes ............... Rebecca took 5 minutes or so on the phone, police took over 2 minutes to reach the crime scene (lets say 2 minutes) that makes it 7 minutes ............ so the boy was stabbed 2 minutes before Rebecca dialed 911. And in those 2 minutes she chased the killer, came back made the call, the police officer who responded on phone can he / she remember if Rebecca was heavily breathing?

The postmortem reports of the boys .......... are there any signs of torture and boys being drugged in past or near past? The sock filled with blood could have been arranged well before the actual crime by simply taking out some blood via injection syringe.

I would like to grill KN as well she is the nurse and holds medical knowledge, someone who could assist inflicting wounds on Rebecca, she can be a potential accomplice, plus details of Rebecca's and her husband's acquaintances anyone with a black car.

The dad claim was to give CPR to resuscitate the boy that he think is not breathing, which mean he would have gone to help the child that is already dead (or at least not breathing.)

Rebecca status during the call is of panicking and shocked, the first responder arrived at about 4 minute mark during the 9-11 call, but was not doing anything until backup arrive, back up arrived to the scene the same time the Paramedic Arrive, after back up clear the house, Paramedic go in and treat the boys.

KN was grilled and was cleared by the police as a potential suspect.

 

[I.R.A]

The dad claim was to give CPR to resuscitate the boy that he think is not breathing, which mean he would have gone to help the child that is already dead (or at least not breathing.)

Rebecca status during the call is of panicking and shocked, the first responder arrived at about 4 minute mark during the 9-11 call, but was not doing anything until backup arrive, back up arrived to the scene the same time the Paramedic Arrive, after back up clear the house, Paramedic go in and treat the boys.

KN was grilled and was cleared by the police as a potential suspect.

Its a dead end for me, cannot find any concrete evidence to charge Rebecca or her husband for the killing of their own children, and there is no clue to trace a third party that may have killed the boys.

What do the neighbor and school say about boys and their relationship with their parents? The postmortem reports?

 

[jhungary]

Its a dead end for me, cannot find any concrete evidence to charge Rebecca or her husband for the killing of their own children, and there is no clue to trace a third party that may have killed the boys.

What do the neighbor and school say about boys and their relationship with their parents? The postmortem reports?

lol, I am not trying to drive you to a dead end, just playing devil advocate here (and my wife is a lawyer so we do this a lot)

You can still build a case with circumstantial evidence on either or both the parent.

Post Mortem show no sign of abuse, both boy was healthy up to the point of dead. Both was of unremarkable (normal) height, weight, nourishment level, and did not have any prior wound serious enough to be concern (Noted some abrasion prior or immediately prior to death.

 

[I.R.A]

You can still build a case with circumstantial evidence on either or both the parent.

I am not familiar with US laws .......... I still feel they (both parents) can be held for further investigation because the evidence so far leads them to be the prime suspects. This case can only (in my view) be closed successfully if either both of them or one of them accepts that it was them and explains how they managed this.

 

[Arsalan]

Although there are no evidence suggest Rebecca is left handed (not beyond reasonable doubt) the cut on her left finger would probably suggest implication (ie cutting her own hand with the weapon) Otherwise, all other wound are superficial and cannot be suggest whether or not they are self-inflicted.

The bruise cover a large area under both her arms and in her wrist, so it probably not suggesting the bruise were from the break in.

But one thing is certain from the wound pattern between Rebecca and her two sons, the pattern of injury does not match, either there are 2 persons who did the slicing and dicing, or they are intentionally made different. That bit is quite conclusive.



The wound to the neck is circumstantial, because the prosecution could argue she or anyone did not know such blood vessel exist without proper medical training.



This is actually the most puzzling evidence for the whole case, the probability of that sock exist does not make sense. However, the sock, itself, is not exactly a physical evidence, it is a circumstantial evidence, because it cannot either proof or disproof anyone involvement in this murder, in fact, the sock itself cannot be proof or disproof beyond reasonable doubt that it came from the crime scene.



The case, was quite circumstantial for both the mother and the father, as there are gap exist that does not quite fit the overall picture, I guess the majority of the issue regarding Rebecca as a killer is that it only make sense either it was done by a third party, or Rebecca is working with a third party, however, the physical evidence of a third party involvement is lacking, there are quite a few circumstantial evidence of a third party did exist, but short of actual proof linking to the case (There are no DNA nor Other Physical Evidence exist for a third party, beside Rebecca and Ron and the 3 children there inside the home of Rebecca and Ron. And that is the problem for the "third party theory" that either support or against Rebecca Guilt.

The prosecution would need to either,

Established that third party did exist and is working with either Ron or Rebecca or both to commit the crime or
Established that third party DID not exist and either Ron or Rebecca or both commit the crime themselves or working together.




The RN is a woman....And she was with her husband the time of the murder and was at home immediately afterward.



The motive as to why the case happen the way it happened is hard to determine.

The circumstance is that, this case does not look like a normal break-in or B&E (Breaking and Entering) because the first thing the person or person(s) do is to kill the occupant inside, also the alleged place the person or persons break in is not directly connected to the living room where the 2 child was killed. That would mean it was premeditated (ie a through of malice as the person or persons intended to kill)

However, there are no evidence suggesting the husband of direct involvement on this crime.



The dad claim was to give CPR to resuscitate the boy that he think is not breathing, which mean he would have gone to help the child that is already dead (or at least not breathing.)

Rebecca status during the call is of panicking and shocked, the first responder arrived at about 4 minute mark during the 9-11 call, but was not doing anything until backup arrive, back up arrived to the scene the same time the Paramedic Arrive, after back up clear the house, Paramedic go in and treat the boys.

KN was grilled and was cleared by the police as a potential suspect.

There is an unknown print lifted from kitchen that do not belongs to the five members of the family as mentioned in opening post. Plus the broken screen do indicate the presence of a third part. Then there is that black car too (that surprisingly is not being looked into). The fact that the cuts on Rebecca are not proven to be inflicted by herself and were not threatening in nature, ALSO clearly are not from same motive as the stabbing done to the kids, i again feel presence of an unknown here.

The important matter of that knife from kitchen set that was found in kitchen had traces that suggest that this was used in the break-in (cutting of the screen) indicate that someone from the house is involved as well. The Sock also though circumstantial, means that there was some outside help present because the timeline do not allow the Rebecca to make the call and place the sock where it was found at the same time. Again, SOME THIRD PARTY HERE.


My Verdict: Rebecca is the killer and had help from someone else. It may be Ron but it is more likely to be someone from outside. Will ask authorities to detain Rebecca an grill her to spill the bean on accomplice. Charging Rebecca because of her unstable medical condition, financial benefits etc.

 

[jhungary]

There is an unknown print lifted from kitchen that do not belongs to the five members of the family as mentioned in opening post. Plus the broken screen do indicate the presence of a third part. Then there is that black car too (that surprisingly is not being looked into). The fact that the cuts on Rebecca are not proven to be inflicted by herself and were not threatening in nature, ALSO clearly are not from same motive as the stabbing done to the kids, i again feel presence of an unknown here.

The bloody print can be of any of the first responder, the Witness KN or anyone that was in that house after the fact (As the crime scene was contaminated), the exist of a print mean there are third party exist, but did not proof beyond reasonable doubt that the same third party was there when the murder took place.

Again, I am not poking into your theory, just playing devil advocate here

The important matter of that knife from kitchen set that was found in kitchen had traces that suggest that this was used in the break-in (cutting of the screen) indicate that someone from the house is involved as well. The Sock also though circumstantial, means that there was some outside help present because the timeline do not allow the Rebecca to make the call and place the sock where it was found at the same time. Again, SOME THIRD PARTY HERE.

Again, not trying to argue with you here Just saying the sock is a circumstantial evidence and unless they can be linked to actual physical or forensic evidence, it does not alter the case direction (as it would as a circumstantial evidence)

I am not familiar with US laws .......... I still feel they (both parents) can be held for further investigation because the evidence so far leads them to be the prime suspects. This case can only (in my view) be closed successfully if either both of them or one of them accepts that it was them and explains how they managed this.

In the US Law, to prosecute a suspect would have to satisfy what DA called Evidence Test. To see if the evidence are strong enough to present a case, because the constitution in the US forbid citizens to be falsely accused, and for the accused to have a speedy trial, couple with the double jeopardy rules, which forbade Prosecution to trial the same person with the same crime twice, which mean for the DA, they will only have 1 shot in trying a suspect. If the suspect is acquitted, then there are nothing the DA can do.

So, for DA (District Attorney) usually to charge a suspect, you will need either overwhelming physical evidence or if the case lacking overwhelming physical evidence, then the prosecution can submit the evidence to a grand jury to decide if there are enough circumstantial and physical evidence to indict a person

 

[I.R.A]

the prosecution can submit the evidence to a grand jury to decide if there are enough circumstantial and physical evidence to indict a person

In my conclusion enough circumstantial evidence exists to prosecute Rebecca and her husband.

 

[Arsalan]

Again, I am not poking into your theory, just playing devil advocate here

Well it is totally understood. That is what brain storming is. Carry on, may be we can get on to something more conclusive.

The bloody print can be of any of the first responder, the Witness KN or anyone that was in that house after the fact (As the crime scene was contaminated), the exist of a print mean there are third party exist, but did not proof beyond reasonable doubt that the same third party was there when the murder took place.

It is a BLOOD print as suggested. Connected with murder. That third party was there during or AFTER the killings. Should be matched with the print of all the visitors, neighbor, first respondents, policemen, paramedics. If not matched with anyone that unknown is someone we will want to look for. It will prove beyond doubt his connection with the killings.

Again, not trying to argue with you here Just saying the sock is a circumstantial evidence and unless they can be linked to actual physical or forensic evidence, it does not alter the case direction (as it would as a circumstantial evidence)

No no, i am not using it to charge anyone either. Using it as circumstantial evidence in the first place. Only to SUGGEST the theory of a third part stating that it is not possible for Rebecca to place the sock where it was. I am also not using that to charge Rebecca or even the third party. Just using it to highlight the need for probe into the third part concept here. Dont you think it should hold in court and will creat enough doubt for a further probe into this matter?

In the US Law, to prosecute a suspect would have to satisfy what DA called Evidence Test. To see if the evidence are strong enough to present a case, because the constitution in the US forbid citizens to be falsely accused, and for the accused to have a speedy trial, couple with the double jeopardy rules, which forbade Prosecution to trial the same person with the same crime twice, which mean for the DA, they will only have 1 shot in trying a suspect. If the suspect is acquitted, then there are nothing the DA can do.

If i may, i will charge Rebecca for at least one murder. Tighten the screws and ask for accomplice. The second dead son can will make sure we have another shot at the case and wont get effected by double jeopardy.

So, for DA (District Attorney) usually to charge a suspect, you will need either overwhelming physical evidence or if the case lacking overwhelming physical evidence, then the prosecution can submit the evidence to a grand jury to decide if there are enough circumstantial and physical evidence to indict a person

If i put myself into DA's position, i will go for grand jury. Evidence is enough for me to believe what i have said in previous posts but may not be enough to get desired results which i firmly believe to be the right result. Jury can be convinced with all the circumstantial evidence.

In my conclusion enough circumstantial evidence exists to prosecute Rebecca and her husband.

Yes, then we should go with Jury. Right @jhungary ?


Well this was excellent fun. I cannot wait for the week to pass (will request to reduce the number of days if possible) and see what the actual outcome was and then we can decide who got closest to the real deal. May even award him with a positive rating lol. (be aware, negative ratings may also be issues lolz)

 

[Chhatrapati]

In the US Law, to prosecute a suspect would have to satisfy what DA called Evidence Test. To see if the evidence are strong enough to present a case, because the constitution in the US forbid citizens to be falsely accused, and for the accused to have a speedy trial, couple with the double jeopardy rules, which forbade Prosecution to trial the same person with the same crime twice, which mean for the DA, they will only have 1 shot in trying a suspect. If the suspect is acquitted, then there are nothing the DA can do.

So, for DA (District Attorney) usually to charge a suspect, you will need either overwhelming physical evidence or if the case lacking overwhelming physical evidence, then the prosecution can submit the evidence to a grand jury to decide if there are enough circumstantial and physical evidence to indict a person

As far as I see, the case against Rebecca is build on circumstantial evidence. She may not be in a normal state of affair watching her own kids stabbed to death and herself getting wounded. Rebecca should have the benefit of doubt. Chances of a cover up by Rebecca is also possible. Her husband was also at the scene.

The husband should be a suspect. He was in the house, he had equal benefits from murdering the Children. May be he tried to harm her wife, but couldn't do that, due to some unknown reason,

 

[I.R.A]

Yes, then we should go with Jury. Right

Yep we should go with jury. Rebecca has history of mental disturbance and her husband is broke. The only hints of Third party involvement are a black car that was spotted day(s) before killing, broken glass and sock outside the house. The sock could have been placed there well before the killings by the way.

 

[Arsalan]

Yep we should go with jury. Rebecca has history of mental disturbance and her husband is broke. The only hints of Third party involvement are a black car that was spotted day(s) before killing, broken glass and sock outside the house. The sock could have been placed there well before the killings by the way.

Blood droplets that indicate she was harmed there while standing, the nature of her wounds and that particular knife in the kitchen "used" in break in!

 

[I.R.A]

Blood droplets that indicate she was harmed there while standing, the nature of her wounds and that particular knife in the kitchen "used" in break in!

If its your first time killing someone that too with a knife your hands most probably would be shaky, how to inflict superficial wounds on one's own self can be learnt (that is the area where I want KN to be interrogated again as She is a nurse), or boys may have put up some resistance and in process Rebecca got wounded?

 

[Arsalan]

If its your first time killing someone that too with a knife your hands most probably would be shaky, how to inflict superficial wounds on one's own self can be learnt (that is the area where I want KN to be interrogated again as She is a nurse), or boys may have put up some resistance and in process Rebecca got wounded?

Cant be resistance. The positioning of cuts and bruises under arms cannot be explained. I am going for an accomplice and it can well the KN (as she is a nurse as you mentioned). But what about motive?
It will be good to know who were Rebecca's relations with Ron and also KN.

 

[jhungary]

In my conclusion enough circumstantial evidence exists to prosecute Rebecca and her husband.

They did, but this is for this Friday when I disclose the actual case detail. And I am telling you this, the case is a bit of a twist in the end...

Well it is totally understood. That is what brain storming is. Carry on, may be we can get on to something more conclusive.

It is a BLOOD print as suggested. Connected with murder. That third party was there during or AFTER the killings. Should be matched with the print of all the visitors, neighbor, first respondents, policemen, paramedics. If not matched with anyone that unknown is someone we will want to look for. It will prove beyond doubt his connection with the killings.

Well, at this stage, I can only tell you the blood print does not match the 5 at the household and is not being compared to anyone that might have access to the crime scene after the murder.

No no, i am not using it to charge anyone either. Using it as circumstantial evidence in the first place. Only to SUGGEST the theory of a third part stating that it is not possible for Rebecca to place the sock where it was. I am also not using that to charge Rebecca or even the third party. Just using it to highlight the need for probe into the third part concept here. Dont you think it should hold in court and will creat enough doubt for a further probe into this matter?

Don't really know should I say this now....But anyway, I guess we are in this stage when we are talking about actual charge

The main concern, at this point, for the prosecution is that if they are to go with third person theory and charge Rebecca that way, then Rebecca can basically dump the whole case on the third party then play stupid and continue her claim of basically "I woke up after everybody is death" yes, that is illogical but it can be true because otherwise the case would hinged on mostly circumstantial evidence and as long as Rebecca can push through an "Alternative" theory, jury can swing either side. Unless of course, the prosecution can link the third person to Rebecca, which to be honest, there are nothing more to go on except a few theory and a few hearsay...

So you see why the prosecution unwillingness to push forward the third person theory??

If i may, i will charge Rebecca for at least one murder. Tighten the screws and ask for accomplice. The second dead son can will make sure we have another shot at the case and wont get effected by double jeopardy.

That would be for Friday when I disclose the actual case file, I will have follow up from what the Prosecution do, then the actual trial and then the verdict and again, the twist in the end.

If i put myself into DA's position, i will go for grand jury. Evidence is enough for me to believe what i have said in previous posts but may not be enough to get desired results which i firmly believe to be the right result. Jury can be convinced with all the circumstantial evidence.

Yes, then we should go with Jury. Right @jhungary ?

it's grand jury (Only US have this system) is different than a Trial Jury, Grand Jury is a group of people that hear the pre-trail arrangement of evidence and decide whether or not there are enough clause to indict a person or persons on a crime. Basically, you can submit anything you want not matter is it physical evidence, forensic evidence, circumstantial evidence or even hearsay.

What said or present in the grand jury cannot be used in the actual trial, and cannot be disclose to the trial juror, except in the case that the witness that give evidence on Grand Jury hearing is killed by the person or persons in the indictment.

Well this was excellent fun. I cannot wait for the week to pass (will request to reduce the number of days if possible) and see what the actual outcome was and then we can decide who got closest to the real deal. May even award him with a positive rating lol. (be aware, negative ratings may also be issues lolz)

..........lol...

Anyway, I will disclose the actual case in 2 days (Friday my time) and I will cover everything from indictment and the outcome. stay tuned...