Author Topic: why did the police think the crime was a sex atack  (Read 56 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14956
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
why did the police think the crime was a sex atack
« on: October 19, 2019, 09:18:PM »
what reason would the police  have for thinking that.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24614
Re: why did the police think the crime was a sex atack
« Reply #1 on: October 19, 2019, 09:25:PM »
what reason would the police  have for thinking that.

Probably because she was found naked. It's a reasonable assumption until tests were done.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14956
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: why did the police think the crime was a sex atack
« Reply #2 on: October 19, 2019, 09:36:PM »
Probably because she was found naked. It's a reasonable assumption until tests were done.

thats a good point but they were saying it for a fair while so i think there must of been more rason than that.

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 910
Re: why did the police think the crime was a sex atack
« Reply #3 on: October 19, 2019, 10:18:PM »
She was found naked, with sperm heads and semen deposits on her clothing and body, murdered in what was originally described as a "frenzied" attack.

Her body left with her mutilated breast on display for whoever found her, her hands tied behind her back with her own trousers.

The investigating team dropped the "potentially sexually motivated attack" approach after the first DNA results were returned.

All of the original evidence available to them suggested a sexually motivated attack. The big question is, why did they drop that line of reasoning when the developing evidence supported it?