Ok, how much of a dumbass do I have to be not to see this?

Ok, how much of a dumbass do I have to be not to see this?


9 Comments on “Ok, how much of a dumbass do I have to be not to see this?”

  1. cathybroad says:

    Fur and hair from victim.
    Swab from ICE CHEST IN SUSPECT’S VEHICLE.
    Hair from ICE CHEST IN SUSPECT’S VEHICLE.
    Swabs from REAR SEAT.
    HAIR, FUR AND DIRT FROM SUSPECT’S VEHICLE.
    HAIR FROM FLOOR OF SUSPECT’S VEHICLE.
    . . .
    RED FIBERS FROM SUSPECT’S VEHICLE.
    RED FIBERS FROM VICTIM’S PANTS.

    WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK?!! As of February 20, 1976, these wads at Southfield PD (where Mark’s body was found), have evidence they ARE ACTUALLY COMPARING TO THAT OF EVIDENCE FOUND ON A SUSPECT’S ICE CHEST, FOUND IN A SUSPECT’S CAR, INCLUDING HAIR, FUR AND DIRT FROM A SUSPECT’S CAR DAYS AFTER THE FIRST KNOWN VICTIM OF THE OCCK IS FOUND DUMPED IN A PARKING LOT IN SOUTHFIELD, MI?

    So much for your “no evidence, this killer’s a genius, the kids’ clothing was pristine” bullshit. Oh yeah–and there’s no evidence–none whatsoever. This guy is a genius. We will never solve the case, he is so damn clever.

    Keep reading . . .

    • Andrew Wellman says:

      Is there any further information on the identity of this suspect from 1976, and/or why this individual was considered a suspect?

  2. Assholes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  3. Jessies says:

    Ok, is it just me or does there seem to be a match of fur and hair between victim and suspect?

    Jessie coco11103@aol.com

    • Fur & hair fibers were not a match, but the real question is… What was it that made this person a suspect? This is 1976 & the Southfield P.D. wouldn’t have taken all of these swabs and such if this person wasn’t a likely candidate as “killer” of Mark Stebbins. It would be very helpful to know which car this was. I am guessing a Pontiac LeMans.

  4. Anonymous says:

    The Charlotte Day posts appear to be two separate reports. The first one (reported 3/2/1976) prior to her learning that a “dirty blanket had been used to cover the body” thus compromising the forensic value of any evidence found on the clothing, exposed parts of the body and nearby ground, and the second one (undated, reported after May 1, 1977) after she learned about the blanket. Note her using the phrase “used to cover the body”, not “found with the body”. Read section #6 of the second report carefully. Notice that the blanket‘s glaring absence as tagged evidence in BOTH reports. By the time of the second report, she had examined the blanket, but it is not evidence.
    Viewed from this standpoint it raises a lot of questions about what was being sent to the lab for analysis and why. The initial report lists semen as being examined for. Semen does not appear in the results. The two swabbed areas seem unlikely regions for semen. What were items 5-8? Why were they not delivered for testing? Were they the contaminated items that appear in sections 1-4 of the second report? Was the hand towel that appears in section #4 of the second report substituted for the blanket? You get the idea. I think, by May 17, 1977, Day is beginning to have questions along these lines. Hence her refusal to acknowledge a proper chain of custody for the known Alaskan Husky dog hairs-“Evidence reportedly placed in locker”.

  5. What color was the carpet or seating in the American Legion at that time?

  6. Lanceman says:

    Sloan had a red ’66 Bonneville, no?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s