Post by Helen Dagner on Oct 21, 2011 0:17:22 GMT -5
The following is a post sent to me by a site member-It was posted on WEBSLEUTHS.COM By-Omori -Note-I think it is one of the best posts I have read on the Chris Busch-Gunnel connection,so I would also like to share it with you-
I watched the news segment on this last night and was disappointed. Sounds like another dead end. This new evidence is largely useless. The DNA, as it turns out, is mitochondrial DNA which means that it did not narrow down the suspects to an individual but only to “one percent of the Caucasian male population” which Gunnels falls into. The problem is, of course, tens of millions of people fall into this category at any given time and thousands of them live in Michigan at any given time.
The segment also brought up a snatch of a phone conversation overheard between Gunnels and his sister as she talked to him through prison glass while he was incarcerated recently. She told him his DNA was found all over the OCCK victims to which he responded, “I wasn’t there when it happened.” That response, obviously, could mean almost anything. What it cannot mean is that Gunnels was confessing to the murders or admitting any guilt at all. Also brought up was that Gunnels took a polygraph concerning the murders but appeared to be holding his breath to cause false readings. But what does this mean? Nothing or anything, take your pick.
Busch’s death was covered in the segment including the showing of bloody ligatures found at the scene and a pencil drawing of a screaming boy said to look like Mark Stebbins. The problem, of course, is that it is only a drawing and could have been anybody. Even stranger was the picture of Mark Stebbins to which the drawing was compared for our convenience also appeared to be a drawing (
). How valid is comparing one drawing to another for identification purposes when photographs are available? Because, judging from the only photograph I've ever seen of Mark Stebbins, he actually doesn't look all that much like the drawing found at the Busch death scene. Maybe I'm wrong but why didn't they give us a photo to look at?? The segment also admitted nothing at the scene of Busch’s death linked Busch to OCCK including DNA testing of items removed from the scene. Whether anything there linked him to Gunnels was also not mentioned. While the segment presented the photos of the ligatures and screaming boy drawing as never before seen in public, the news of these items have nevertheless long been known among internet sleuths.
They showed Mark Stebbins's brother commenting on the drawing and saying it looked just like his brother. What was not brought up was that the Stebbins family had originally accused Theodore Lamborgine as the one who kidnapped and killed Mark. Now, it's Chris Busch. The problem is, if you look at any of the main suspects, you can make them look guilty if you play up on certain things and downplay others. The bottom line is that there is no evidence Chris Busch was ever in any contact with any of the victims.
What was just as noteworthy in the segment was not so much what was said but what was not. For example, the segment brought up that identical dog hairs were found on the bodies of all the victims. Yet, the type of dog was not identified nor was there any mention of a dog at the Busch cottage. They told us what certain victims had seen while they were there but did not say that any of them saw a dog. If they had seen one, why didn't the reporter mention this? Obviously nobody saw one and the dog is very important because if you find out who owned it, you find the killer. No one knows of Busch owning a dog.
Regarding Jill Robinson being shot in the face with a 12-gauge shotgun, the segment revealed that one boy who had been to the Busch cottage where Busch molested or attempted to molest him stated that Busch had also taught him how to fire a 12-gauge shotgun. But the segment neglected to mention that no 12-gauge shotgun was ever recovered in Busch’s possession and even if he did have one that by itself, of course, doesn’t prove anything since 12-gauge shotguns are extremely common among gun-owners in the United States. Also not addressed is why Busch would have abducted girls when he was strictly into boys. In fact, no female victims of Busch have ever come forward that I know of. They also forgot to mention that Busch passed a polygraph shortly after he was busted as part of the North Fox Island porn ring indicating he did not abduct or murder Mark Stebbins.
I think the killer was too careful to leave his/her hairs on the victims. Why go through all the trouble of bathing the bodies and washing the clothes only to leave hairs on the victims’ bodies? The hairs, in all likelihood, do not belong to the killer and may even have been placed deliberately to confuse forensics experts.
None of this evidence could pass muster in front of a grand jury although the segment reported that police are discussing the possibility. Unless something vital was withheld in the segment, nothing was presented other than circumstantial evidence and nothing beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence is, in fact, very weak. This segment is just the latest in a long line of news specials that surface every few years to remind the public about the killings. All claim to have found new evidence. None of the evidence ever leads anywhere and certainly nothing from this latest one ever will. In fact, police have released Gunnels saying they have no evidence that compels them to continue holding him.
I think the police might be trying to close this case due to pressure from the families of the victims and Chris Busch makes as good a scapegoat as any. I think the cops want this case closed--whatever it takes. When members of Tim King's family stated on this segment that even if Gunnels had nothing to with the killings, since he had been in Busch's car a number of times and the children had his hair on their clothes, it puts them in Busch's car as well. Needless to say, a red flag went up immediately in my mind. If they picked up Gunnel's hair in Busch's car, wouldn't they have picked up SOMETHING from Busch himself since it was, after all, his car??? And despite what they say, they NOT proven the hair was Gunnels' hair--it COULD be. They are going to hang this on Chris Busch if they can without anything solid to do it with and that means that if he is not the killer--and nothing concrete says he is--then the real killer is going to get away with it. And that will be a huge shame.
I watched the news segment on this last night and was disappointed. Sounds like another dead end. This new evidence is largely useless. The DNA, as it turns out, is mitochondrial DNA which means that it did not narrow down the suspects to an individual but only to “one percent of the Caucasian male population” which Gunnels falls into. The problem is, of course, tens of millions of people fall into this category at any given time and thousands of them live in Michigan at any given time.
The segment also brought up a snatch of a phone conversation overheard between Gunnels and his sister as she talked to him through prison glass while he was incarcerated recently. She told him his DNA was found all over the OCCK victims to which he responded, “I wasn’t there when it happened.” That response, obviously, could mean almost anything. What it cannot mean is that Gunnels was confessing to the murders or admitting any guilt at all. Also brought up was that Gunnels took a polygraph concerning the murders but appeared to be holding his breath to cause false readings. But what does this mean? Nothing or anything, take your pick.
Busch’s death was covered in the segment including the showing of bloody ligatures found at the scene and a pencil drawing of a screaming boy said to look like Mark Stebbins. The problem, of course, is that it is only a drawing and could have been anybody. Even stranger was the picture of Mark Stebbins to which the drawing was compared for our convenience also appeared to be a drawing (
). How valid is comparing one drawing to another for identification purposes when photographs are available? Because, judging from the only photograph I've ever seen of Mark Stebbins, he actually doesn't look all that much like the drawing found at the Busch death scene. Maybe I'm wrong but why didn't they give us a photo to look at?? The segment also admitted nothing at the scene of Busch’s death linked Busch to OCCK including DNA testing of items removed from the scene. Whether anything there linked him to Gunnels was also not mentioned. While the segment presented the photos of the ligatures and screaming boy drawing as never before seen in public, the news of these items have nevertheless long been known among internet sleuths.They showed Mark Stebbins's brother commenting on the drawing and saying it looked just like his brother. What was not brought up was that the Stebbins family had originally accused Theodore Lamborgine as the one who kidnapped and killed Mark. Now, it's Chris Busch. The problem is, if you look at any of the main suspects, you can make them look guilty if you play up on certain things and downplay others. The bottom line is that there is no evidence Chris Busch was ever in any contact with any of the victims.
What was just as noteworthy in the segment was not so much what was said but what was not. For example, the segment brought up that identical dog hairs were found on the bodies of all the victims. Yet, the type of dog was not identified nor was there any mention of a dog at the Busch cottage. They told us what certain victims had seen while they were there but did not say that any of them saw a dog. If they had seen one, why didn't the reporter mention this? Obviously nobody saw one and the dog is very important because if you find out who owned it, you find the killer. No one knows of Busch owning a dog.
Regarding Jill Robinson being shot in the face with a 12-gauge shotgun, the segment revealed that one boy who had been to the Busch cottage where Busch molested or attempted to molest him stated that Busch had also taught him how to fire a 12-gauge shotgun. But the segment neglected to mention that no 12-gauge shotgun was ever recovered in Busch’s possession and even if he did have one that by itself, of course, doesn’t prove anything since 12-gauge shotguns are extremely common among gun-owners in the United States. Also not addressed is why Busch would have abducted girls when he was strictly into boys. In fact, no female victims of Busch have ever come forward that I know of. They also forgot to mention that Busch passed a polygraph shortly after he was busted as part of the North Fox Island porn ring indicating he did not abduct or murder Mark Stebbins.
I think the killer was too careful to leave his/her hairs on the victims. Why go through all the trouble of bathing the bodies and washing the clothes only to leave hairs on the victims’ bodies? The hairs, in all likelihood, do not belong to the killer and may even have been placed deliberately to confuse forensics experts.
None of this evidence could pass muster in front of a grand jury although the segment reported that police are discussing the possibility. Unless something vital was withheld in the segment, nothing was presented other than circumstantial evidence and nothing beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence is, in fact, very weak. This segment is just the latest in a long line of news specials that surface every few years to remind the public about the killings. All claim to have found new evidence. None of the evidence ever leads anywhere and certainly nothing from this latest one ever will. In fact, police have released Gunnels saying they have no evidence that compels them to continue holding him.
I think the police might be trying to close this case due to pressure from the families of the victims and Chris Busch makes as good a scapegoat as any. I think the cops want this case closed--whatever it takes. When members of Tim King's family stated on this segment that even if Gunnels had nothing to with the killings, since he had been in Busch's car a number of times and the children had his hair on their clothes, it puts them in Busch's car as well. Needless to say, a red flag went up immediately in my mind. If they picked up Gunnel's hair in Busch's car, wouldn't they have picked up SOMETHING from Busch himself since it was, after all, his car??? And despite what they say, they NOT proven the hair was Gunnels' hair--it COULD be. They are going to hang this on Chris Busch if they can without anything solid to do it with and that means that if he is not the killer--and nothing concrete says he is--then the real killer is going to get away with it. And that will be a huge shame.
