Edward O'Brien Case-Questions
Lionelgirl
I didn't get to see the whole trial, so after the verdict was read today and I
heard
about the possibility that someone else might have committed the crime, I was
confused. The commentators said that there was plenty of blood evidence con-
necting O'Brien to the crime. Did they mean DNA-tested evidence? And did
they mean that O'Brien's blood was in the Downing house, or Downing's blood was
on O'Brien? Does anyone know the real details on this? I'd appreciate any
info!
Maggie8097
***Didn't follow it real closely, but did pick up a few tidbits--O'Brien's
bloody fingerprints found at crime scene; victim's blood found on O'Brien's
leg; injuries to his hands (I think it was hands); he told several different
stories about that night (one was that the murders mugged him at a different
location, one was that he was in the house after the murder, but was too
scared to report it) and probably for that reason never testified at trial;
friends of his reported seeing him in the bushes outside the house on that
night. Blood and fingerprints were taken from the victim's family (including
the ex-brother-in-law that Eddie O'Brien's parents accused of committing the
crime) and none of the family's DNA was found at the scene. And, yes, there
was DNA testing on the blood.
Maggie
Dave C.
Well, there was some speculation that she might have been murdered by
someone (a relative, I think) that she kicked out of her house shortly
before she died. But it didn't seem plausible to me. As for the blood
evidence, I didn't follow this one too closely, but I did see that
O'Brien's blood was found at the scene of the crime, and the victim's blood
was found on O'Brien. Yes, there was DNA testing. I did actually watch
some of the actual testimony about DNA evidence linking O'Brien to the
scene of the crime. Also, his fingerprints were found *laced with the
victim's blood* at the scene of the crime. He had been in the house
before, but it looked pretty bad for O'Brien when they showed that his
fingerprints were mixed with the victims blood, rather than the victim's
blood being spattered over his fingerprints or something. I wish I had
followed this one more closely, but it was over pretty quickly. I think it
only took, what, two weeks for the whole trial once it started? From what
I saw, they nailed the right perp in this case. I think his story is that
he was mugged in his neighbor's house. Yeah right, like someone's going to
murder this woman and then only *mug* O'Brien. Sure. -Dave
To respond directly, there is no "8" in dav...@rocketmail.com
Lionelgirl <lione...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971002080...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Martha Sprowles
Lionelgirl wrote:
>
> I didn't get to see the whole trial, so after the verdict was read today and I
> heard
> about the possibility that someone else might have committed the crime, I was
> confused. The commentators said that there was plenty of blood evidence con-
> necting O'Brien to the crime. Did they mean DNA-tested evidence? And did
> they mean that O'Brien's blood was in the Downing house, or Downing's blood was
> on O'Brien? Does anyone know the real details on this? I'd appreciate any
> info!
My guess: he raped her as well.
Martha Sprowles
Eric Saeger
Tetani wrote:
> O'brien's father (in a frenzy of denial) shouted out after the
> verdict that Janet's brother in law had committed the crime. Though
> there was absolutely no evidence of this.
True. The brother was interviewed on one of the local Boston stations.
He seemed saddened by the loss of his sister and flatly denied having
anything to do with it. Meanwhile, the entire O'Brien clan is whooping
and hollering 'injustice' like a band of bee-stung, wild Indians, all
very histrionic, loud and somewhat boorish.
Don't even say it, Halle.
The Darlin of the Lurking Gods,
Eric
--
> Insert El Lame-o sig here
> Remove NOSPAM* to reply
> QA done from my home! http://members.aol.com/ManORuin/QA.html
Tetani
Yes the blood was dna tested. They found O'brien's blood at the scene.
They found several samples where his blood was mixed with the victim's.
They found her blood on his leg. They also found his fingerprints in Janet
Downings blood at her house. There is nothing tying anyone else to the
crime. O'brien's father (in a frenzy of denial) shouted out after the
verdict that Janet's brother in law had committed the crime. Though there
was absolutely no evidence of this.
In article <19971002080...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Stress310
>Subject: Re: Edward O'Brien
>>I didn't get to see the whole trial, so after the verdict was read today and
>I
>> heard
>>about the possibility that someone else might have committed the crime, I
>was
>>confused. The commentators said that there was plenty of blood evidence
>con-
>>necting O'Brien to the crime
The circumstantial evidence also pointed powerfully to his guilt.He had been
looking through the window watching the victim, Janet Downing, undress.He had
told this to the victims son.He talked about the victim alot and showed an
unusual interest in her affairs ie, asking the victim's son if she was a
lesbian.He had worked in a convience store rolling papers. Part of the store
was an adult book store that had ponorgraphic magazines. The search of Edward
O'Brien's house revealed ponorgraphic magazines (mostly gay) and ponorgraphic
videos.His Father claimed the ponorgrapy to be his. He claimed after being
injected with a truth serum, Sodium Amytral, he had been in the house and had
seen the victim attacked by a masked man. He didn't bother to tell anyone this
until a month after his arrest. There was a trail of blood leading from the
victim's house to his house. Two of his friends saw him in the woods behind
Janet Downing's house and one friend saw him climbing over a wall by her
house. When they saw him in the woods he was wearing a dark shirt. A few
minutes later when they saw him on the sidewalk he was wearing a light shirt.
He said he was mugged in front of a Dunkin Donut. There was no evidence to
support that claim. He claimed the cut on his hand was from warding off the
blow of a knife attack by the mugger. The hilt of his knife was found at the
crime scene. He had scratches on his leg, claiming he received these when he
fell down during the mugging. These scratches were inconsistent with someone
falling down. There was more circumstantial evidence but I can't remember it
at the moment.
I can sympathize with the victim's and offenders family. My understanding is
that Edward O'Brien had never been in trouble with the law. I know I would
have a hard time accepting that my son was a murderer. Apparently the
O'Brien's were pillars of the community with Edward's grandfather being the
former chief of police. How sad for all involved. Contrary to what some may
believe I have never heard Edward was abused so I don't think Edward was
acting on his True Reality with rage. If he had been abused I'm sure it would
have been entered into testimony.
Best Wishes,
Stress 310
PattyC4303
In article <19971003135...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
stre...@aol.com (Stress310) writes:
>The search of Edward
> O'Brien's house revealed ponorgraphic magazines (mostly gay) and
>ponorgraphic
> videos.His Father claimed the ponorgrapy to be his. He claimed after being
> injected with a truth serum, Sodium Amytral, he had been in the house and
>had
> seen the victim attacked by a masked man. He didn't bother to tell anyone
>this
> until a month after his arrest.
Wow. And what defense atty. would let the client be injected with truth
serum?? That I find very interesting...
PattyC
Cybil
the area) and the test was done before he became involved. Apparently
the family and Eddie really wanted it.
Cyb
