I'm sure the jury had a whole lot more to look at than we did, but I'd find it hard to convict him. I really can believe that he planned an escape because he was terrified about being the only suspect. The lack of his DNA at the scene bothered me too. I'd think if he walked in on her and she was talking to her mom, she'd say his name? Too many circumstantial theories for me with lack of concrete evidence.
Thank you. This is actually what bothers me more than any other thing. It was a violent and bloody scene. There are scratch marks on him and there’s dna underneath her fingernails but it’s not his. As pointed out upthread, it's the dna matching the medical examiner's last autopsy. Um, what? I’m sorry if the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt this guy should not be in jail. One of the medical experts whose research is going to be relied upon isn’t bothered enough to sterilize instruments from one death to the next? And somehow proven contamination doesn't establish the shoddy investigation tactics of this whole case?
I want to know why "highly educated family of professionals" seemed to be the buzzword of the evening.
Ugh. Most pointless editorial of all time. Because degreed people don’t do stupid shit? Like hide getaway bags in the desert or make up anonymous emails proving their innocence?
I had a lot of distractions last night while watching the Carol Kennedy episode, so I may have missed something ... but did they ever explain who killed her boarder? He seemed to have been killed in the same way that she was. I thought that was meaningful, but I never saw them tie up that loose end.
The police concluded that it was suicide staged to look like homicide. No note.
I'm sure the jury had a whole lot more to look at than we did, but I'd find it hard to convict him. I really can believe that he planned an escape because he was terrified about being the only suspect. The lack of his DNA at the scene bothered me too. I'd think if he walked in on her and she was talking to her mom, she'd say his name? Too many circumstantial theories for me with lack of concrete evidence
YES! Celina. She was on the phone with her mother when, presumably, her killer walked in. If it’s your pain in the ass ex husband, wouldn't the most natural thing to say be some version of: Crap, Steve’s here, mom I’ll call you back or, how’d you get in here? or something, anything that indicates familiarity even if you don’t use his name? But Carol's mom describes a foreboding oh no. She was clubbed to death but there's not a hair, an eyelash, a thumbprint, an anything that places Steven in that house. Actually there's a bloody print at the scene that matches neither Steve's, nor Jim Knapp's dna.
Did they give a motive as to why they thought the ex- husband killed his ex-wife?
Yeah they said the 5-6 grand per month that she was likely to receive in their divorce settlement pressed him into desperation because he didn’t want to give up their lifestyle.
From what I remember they didn't even know the cops had been called, so he left her to walk in and find her mother murdered?
No, the daughter goes to the house after realizing it had been hours since she’d texted Carol and hadn’t received an answer. She and her boyfriend find patrol cars already at the house.
I agree that on paper, he wasn't exactly a model citizen and he did a lot of stupid stuff along the way to circumstantially incriminate himself but being an asshole doesn't make you a murderer. For this one to rise to the level of beyond a doubt was just wrong.