tvc184

​If the medical examiner did the autopsy and ruled homicide, it is very unlikely that there was any questionable brain trauma that might have caused death. Any three day old wound would likely still show up but if there was a struggle, there was almost certainly minor wounds to both the officer and her.

​

In a lot of television shows, I am sure that it is convenient that most times the prints, DNA, shell cases, etc., from a scene just happen to be in one of the FBI databases. CODIS for DNA AFIS for fingerprints NIBIN for ballistics NCIS for all kinds of stuff like criminal history, stolen items, wanted items for major crimes, etc.

​It is not so much inaccurate scientifically as it is not telling the entire story sometimes. We can get DNA off of almost anything. First you have to have a suspect to compare it to or hope that the suspect has had a reason to have his DNA put into a database. Out of the 300 million plus people in the USA, how many have DNA in a law enforcement database? Now if a person witnesses a crime and identifies a suspect by name (I saw Bob who I went to high school with), that can be used to get a warrant for DNA and that can be compared to evidence found at a crime scene. Merely gathering fingerprints, DNA, etc., even if it could prove a crime does not always lead to a suspect or maybe to one many years later (like happened at my agency a few months ago).

​So that the people will know that he is "doing everything possible". It was said also that he was handling it like a homicide investigation. All deaths are or should be taken as a possible homicide. Even locally we do hundreds of autopsies each year that turn out to be natural causes, accidents or suicides. Again, fingerprints might be of value if the person they lead to has no legitimate reason for the prints to be there. What if there was not supposed to be a trash bag in that cell? What if they come back to a secretary who has no valid reason for the prints to be anywhere near that bag? Just finding prints though will show nothing if it was a worker that could have legitimately handled the trash bag. I am sure that if you pulled bags out of every cell you might find a multitude of fingerprints. I have the feeling that no usable fingerprints will be found on that bag and if so, will prove nothing. How about the officer that found her and maybe removed that bag? How many EMS people might have handled the bag? Fingerprints are a very long shot at either being obtained or being of useful value but they have to do it just in case and to show that nothing was being left undone. To do less would lead to more accusations.

​Technically? Yes. Likely? Not so much. Crumpled up bags or any textured surface (whether natural or from crumpling) will really mess up the chance for prints. Here is the issue with prints in this case. I am sure that the trash bag did not magically appear in her cell. That means an officer or someone else had to put it there... which is probably routine. So what if an officer's (or maybe a janitor's, etc.) prints are on the bag? It proves that someone touched the bag other than the inmate which is probably about 99.99% likely. You could even have a case where a janitor or two touched the bag as they were handing them out, an officer picked up that bag and gave it to the inmate so we might have several sets of prints or DNA on the bag. Does that prove anything other than at some point in time, a person touched the bag? Fingerprints or DNA many times has no bearing. Let's say your car got broken into while in a mall parking lot. The officer gets fingerprints on the outside of the vehicle. That means that a person touched the vehicle but maybe 100 people could have walked by your car and any one of them could have touched it. It proves nothing except that the person touched the vehicle. In fact for all we know, that fingerprint could have been there from yesterday at an entirely different location. Now if a person's fingerprint is found inside of your vehicle and that person has never legally been in your car, then it means something. Fingerprints and DNA can be great but merely finding them might not prove anything. Ponder this, in the last week, what have you touched or might have touched while in the public including store counters, doors, cars, objects in a store, etc. Your fingerprints and DNA are likely all over the county. What does it prove?

Changing your mind might mean that you have learned or been convinced of something. To me that can mean intelligence and an open mind. Changing a stance might have nothing to do with a belief but for political purposes. That may or may not be good. For example a politician might be strongly pro life but never vote to ban abortion, feeling that your personal belief should not be forced on someone else by law. I know a lot of people that want no part of open carrying handguns (soon to come to Texas) but do not want to deny other people that option. It may be bad if a politician makes a statement based on how many votes it might get and may very vote differently once elected. I think that is an untrustworthy person. That isn't changing a mind however (as their beliefs never really changed) but merely suckering people. Here is how I might phrase the question. If a politician changes a political stance, has he changed his mind or is he buying votes and he may still vote the his belief against what he stated if it ever comes to a vote?

​I was just making sure that you understood the sarcasm.

​Were you actually responding to my post?

We will stop them with harsh language and telling people that we are displeased.

I honestly think that some people hope that she was murdered. A suicide is just a tragedy. A murder is a call to arms and a cause. Beside the death of a woman, the other tragedy is the family having to believe that she was wrongfully killed and likely not ever accepting the fact that she may have taken her own life. Even if after a thorough investigation by the FBI and the Texas Rangers shows evidence conclusively that she was a victim of suicide, the family will still probably not accept it because they have been filled with distrust.

The trooper is reported to be under investigation for a "courtesy" violation. In other words, he might have been rude to her or used bad language. It was probably seen on camera incidental to the investigation. I likely has nothing to do with the death.

Blue Bell named it homemade vanilla because of the people like me that were searching for a claim of greatness that does not exist.... especially now that BB is a hiatus.

​Me too. I often hear of this homemade ice cream like it is Ambrosia and have yet to find any. I didn't spit any of it out but it sure wasn't better than Blue Bell Homemade Vanilla, et al.

I have eaten a lot of homemade ice cream and have never eaten one that I can ever remember what it tasted like or wanting to go back for more.

​A police chief is hired and so can be fired without cause because the mayor or city manager no longer likes him/her. A sheriff is elected by the people and previous history has no bearing as long as the state law has not pulled a person's authority to be a police officer. A felony conviction for example would keep someone from being a police officer (whether rookie patrolman or the sheriff).

​I just read that on one of the articles. I also just read that she did a video about being depressed and having PTSD. One of the witnesses said that the woman was telling the officers to get their "so and so" hands off of her. It seems like that the "so and so" was some form of profanity and it also implies that she was resisting. No matter what the outcome of this, when is anyone going to convince people that you lawfully cannot fight with or resist the police. Almost no one is injured if they do not offer some resistance or aggression. No matter if the amount of force that any officer responds with is justified, the best solution is simply not offer a reason for an officer to use force.

Her being excited about her near future might be seen as a reason to believe that it was not suicide but it is also a reason for suicide. That is particularly true if it was a person with no criminal record and being in jail for a felony. A person that worked to get to a point in life and then have it crashing down, potentially with no future (due to felony record and possible prison time), is a prime candidate to end it all. It really doesn't mean anything one way or the other but people will be quick to point out that it could not be suicide due to a bright future but that can be just the opposite. I know in some jail interviews/screenings they ask questions about standing in the community, prior record, future plants, etc., to determine suicide risk. The same reason that some people will draw the conclusion that it could not be suicide can be the reason for suicide. This will likely be an autopsy case. The cause of death as proven by the autopsy will go a long way into proving the case and not suspicion or innuendo. Hopefully the area around the cell had video.

Actually the stuff that I was familiar with and/or saw some of the crime scene. No clue what else happened.

A wild day in PA. A shooting, a foot chase, an arrest, an escaped prisoner, a murder, a neighborhood sealed off, a re-arrest.... all in about five hours.

Well... ones that survived.

How many mass murders since 1997?

Guilty. Now on to the death sentence.

​According to where you are. In some communities that might be extreme mischief by egging, toilet papering, confetti, etc.

​Sounds like ol' Sid is missing Blue Bell more than we are, which is likely saying something. Fortunately he has the dollars to make it look like a philanthropic gesture like, "I am just helping out for a successful return".