ST Murder Investigation Thread

[XXVI]

I hate to say this, and here is my theory.

No disrespect at all but... here goes.

Jackie has been having an affair with the suspect, and Sean came home early... or something (shot next to private area)

It seems funny how she said he was shot in the bedroom, and then CP said it was outside the bedroom, and if your boyfriend is STILL IN THE BEDROOM AND GOT SHOT, wouldn't you look to see who it was? I mean, covers or not, I would have looked. Too fishy to me.

Even funnier, if we could see what clothing he was in when he was shot, we might be able to know. He came home early, and dude had a gun, or maybe it was Jackie's ex boyfriend, IE the shot next to his nuts....


Last scenario, when the door was busted down, ST might have hit his arm..... like if you barrell into a room and try to shoot someone, you are probably pointing at his chest or head, but then ST hit his arm real fast while firing. Those are just some of my opinions. It was DEFENITELY someone he knew. No question.

[SmootSmack]

You're assuming the suspect was a great shot. Just because Taylor was shot near the groin doesn't mean that was the intent.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

You're assuming the suspect was a great shot. Just because Taylor was shot near the groin doesn't mean that was the intent.

I tried to make this same point numerous times in this thread. Deaf ears...

[irish]

Originally Posted by XXVI

I hate to say this, and here is my theory.

No disrespect at all but... here goes.

Jackie has been having an affair with the suspect, and Sean came home early... or something (shot next to private area)

It seems funny how she said he was shot in the bedroom, and then CP said it was outside the bedroom, and if your boyfriend is STILL IN THE BEDROOM AND GOT SHOT, wouldn't you look to see who it was? I mean, covers or not, I would have looked. Too fishy to me.

Even funnier, if we could see what clothing he was in when he was shot, we might be able to know. He came home early, and dude had a gun, or maybe it was Jackie's ex boyfriend, IE the shot next to his nuts....


Last scenario, when the door was busted down, ST might have hit his arm..... like if you barrell into a room and try to shoot someone, you are probably pointing at his chest or head, but then ST hit his arm real fast while firing. Those are just some of my opinions. It was DEFENITELY someone he knew. No question.

It wouldnt be the first time a spouse or gf was somehow involved in something like this. I'm sure the cops have questioned her extensively.

[wilsowilso]

Originally Posted by XXVI

I hate to say this, and here is my theory.
No disrespect at all but... here goes.
Jackie has been having an affair with the suspect, and Sean came home early... or something (shot next to private area)

I stopped reading after this. There are a few people in the world that don't have to worry about their girl cheating on them and Sean Taylor was one of them. Nobody is that crazy.

[irish]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

I stopped reading after this. There are a few people in the world that don't have to worry about their girl cheating on them and Sean Taylor was one of them. Nobody is that crazy.

You know this how?

[wilsowilso]

Originally Posted by irish

You know this how?

Uhhhh because Sean Taylor was a bad man and nobody would be crazy enough to mess with his girl. People take stuff a little too literally around here sometimes.

[courtney07]

Originally Posted by XXVI

I hate to say this, and here is my theory.

No disrespect at all but... here goes.

Jackie has been having an affair with the suspect, and Sean came home early... or something (shot next to private area)

It seems funny how she said he was shot in the bedroom, and then CP said it was outside the bedroom, and if your boyfriend is STILL IN THE BEDROOM AND GOT SHOT, wouldn't you look to see who it was? I mean, covers or not, I would have looked. Too fishy to me.

Even funnier, if we could see what clothing he was in when he was shot, we might be able to know. He came home early, and dude had a gun, or maybe it was Jackie's ex boyfriend, IE the shot next to his nuts....


Last scenario, when the door was busted down, ST might have hit his arm..... like if you barrell into a room and try to shoot someone, you are probably pointing at his chest or head, but then ST hit his arm real fast while firing. Those are just some of my opinions. It was DEFENITELY someone he knew. No question.

You're making an awfully big speculation. I don't think I see any of it falling into place; except the girlfriend *does* need to be questioned more because why did she have so much trouble dialing for help [15 minutes while your man's on the floor bleeding to death?!] and she had to have seen something to give the cops some sort of little detail as to what the shooter looked like... she was in the same room!!

But the whole cheating scenario, shot near the groin thing... it just doesn't do it for me. I don't think he caught her cheating on him, and I definitely don't think that the shooter had that particular area in his aim.

In conclusion, nice fabrication and vision of that fateful night, but I'm not buying into this one.

[BleedBurgundy]

Wow. Great post. That's a lot of information to digest but obviously this is a very clouded situation.

[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.

[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?