ST Murder Investigation Thread

[courtney07]

Originally Posted by cpayne5

It's not fact, it's speculation; which IMO is something people really need to be careful about right now.

Sorry. I threw the word 'fact' in there not to mean it was a straight truth; was just what I typed. I didn't mean it in that way.

[courtney07]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

The only two things we know for certain:

1.) Somebody broke in 8 days before
2.) Nothing was taken in either break ins

Judging by what we know, and not speculative information (like the phones, security system, etc.), I think it's safe to say that the motive was NOT robbery. Period. The end.

I agree 100%. I have believed it wasn't a robbery from the very start, and each article I read just strengthens that belief.

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

The only two things we know for certain:

1.) Somebody broke in 8 days before
2.) Nothing was taken in either break ins

Judging by what we know, and not speculative information (like the phones, security system, etc.), I think it's safe to say that the motive was NOT robbery. Period. The end.

No, I don't think it's at all safe to say that at this point. We may think it points to only one motive, but to make an assumption with two facts is not wise. It may turn out to be the truth in the end, but it is not wise to paint yourself into that corner at this time.

[courtney07]

Originally Posted by cpayne5

No, I don't think it's at all safe to say that at this point. We may think it points to only one motive, but to make an assumption with two facts is not wise. It may turn out to be the truth in the end, but it is not wise to paint yourself into that corner at this time.

It is fairly wise and relevant to assume that it at least wasn't a burglary seeing as how during the first break-in, the idiot could have taken whatever his heart desired since no one was there... but instead decided to leave a knife on the pillow..

...so yeah.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by cpayne5

No, I don't think it's at all safe to say that at this point. We may think it points to only one motive, but to make an assumption with two facts is not wise. It may turn out to be the truth in the end, but it is not wise to paint yourself into that corner at this time.

I hear you. However, I'm not suggesting any motive. I'm only suggesting that the motive can't be robbery -- nothing was taken.

If you break into a house, and risk so much, you take something to make the risk worthwhile. Nobody was in the house 8 days earlier when the first break in occurred. I don't buy the argument that somebody broke in, there was nobody home, and they decided not to take anything (or there wasn't anything to take).

I'm not analyzing the 2nd break in as much as the 1st. Why would someone break in with the intention of robbery, and not take anything? Nobody was home. To me that is so highly unlikely that it's hardly worth considering. It's far more likely, given the circumstances, that the motive was not robbery than otherwise.

[cpayne5]

For me, it all comes back to the safe. If it wasn't a burglary, why try to get into the safe during the first break-in?

[courtney07]

Originally Posted by cpayne5

For me, it all comes back to the safe. If it wasn't a burglary, why try to get into the safe during the first break-in?

Perhaps there was something in there that someone wanted.. still doesn't have to be a burglar to make that true. And do they know for 100% sure that someone tried to break into the safe? Because that's one thing that hasn't been mentioned as much within articles that I've read.

[cpayne5]

If it was a hit, he was under surveillance. I read where upon arriving Saturday, he took a 30 mile ride on his bicycle. The hit man would have known this and had plenty of opportunities for a drive-by. Why do it in a way that is so much riskier (hopping a fence in plain sight, out of your getaway car, breaking into a house w/ a security system, a possibly armed target, etc etc.

Who knows, though. Only the killer, the ones who hired the killer, or the ones the killer has bragged to at this point.

My whole deal is that with the info we have right now, there are 2 plausible scenarios; neither of which should be labeled as being more accurate than the other.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by cpayne5

For me, it all comes back to the safe. If it wasn't a burglary, why try to get into the safe during the first break-in?

Somebody tried to get into the safe? I didn't know that. Are you certain, or is it speculation?

[courtney07]

Originally Posted by cpayne5

If it was a hit, he was under surveillance. I read where upon arriving Saturday, he took a 30 mile ride on his bicycle. The hit man would have known this and had plenty of opportunities for a drive-by. Why do it in a way that is so much riskier (hopping a fence in plain sight, out of your getaway car, breaking into a house w/ a security system, a possibly armed target, etc etc.

Who knows, though. Only the killer, the ones who hired the killer, or the ones the killer has bragged to at this point.

My whole deal is that with the info we have right now, there are 2 plausible scenarios; neither of which should be labeled as being more accurate than the other.

Don't forget the other scenario that's been circulating.. that the shooter had intention for Sean, but not intentions to kill.. just to injure him beyond repair for ever playing football again.

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Somebody tried to get into the safe? I didn't know that. Are you certain, or is it speculation?

I'm pretty sure I saw it in one of the hundreds of articles I've read (like we all have) since Monday. I tried to find a reference, but entering "safe" does not return many good hits as Taylor was a safety.

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by courtney07

Don't forget the other scenario that's been circulating.. that the shooter had intention for Sean, but not intentions to kill.. just to injure him beyond repair for ever playing football again.

Yes, nothing should be ruled out.

*edit - Quite possibly the worst grammar I've ever used in a post.

[courtney07]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Somebody tried to get into the safe? I didn't know that. Are you certain, or is it speculation?

it was in a couple articles.
Here's one quote for you:
"According to our Herald reporters and police records, someone also broke into Taylor's house between 7 p.m. on Saturday, Nov. 17 and midnight Sunday Nov. 18, by prying open a front window. No one was home at the time. The burglar entered several rooms in the house, rifled through drawers, and a safe in Taylor's bedroom. The police report says it was ''unknown'' whether anything was taken. In that incident, someone left a kitchen knife on a bed in Taylor's house, according to the police report."

[courtney07]

Originally Posted by cpayne5

Yes, nothing should not be ruled out.

And no matter what the true cause, the number one thing to pray for is that the man behind the gun is caught.

[Stacks42]

There is way too much speculation going on at this point. Good thing O.J. was in jail for this cause im sure his name would have been thrown into the mix (jk). The fact is someone broke into the house two sundays in a row, they probably didint find what they were looking for the first time (either sean or property), so they went back. The fact that he was at the house was pretty random (he was supposed to be in DC). Im sure that whomever did this will be dealt with one way or the other, and we probably wont know what happened.