Investigators searched Justine Damond’s house for bodily fluids, weapons and drugs after the bride-to-be was shot and killed by a U.S. police officer.
According to court records released on Wednesday, investigators asked for two search warrants, one for the alley behind Justine’s house where she reported a potential rape, and another for her house itself.
Criminal expert Joseph Daly claimed there was no apparent reason for detectives to search the 40-year-old Australian woman’s home.
‘When I read that I really cannot find probably cause to search her home,’ Mr Daly told 5 Eyewitness News.
Detectives reportedly found nothing of interest in the search of Justine’s home after she was fatally shot by a police officer behind her Minneapolis home on July 15.
Investigators searched the house for ‘bodily fluids, controlled substances, and writings’, court documents revealed.
‘I think the Australians are going to go berserk if they think that the focus is on this woman as a suspect,’ Mr Daly said.
US based group Communities United Against Police Brutality Michelle Gross said she was ‘very concerned’ to hear Justine’s home was searched.
‘What was the purpose of that?’ she told Fox 9.
‘This is always an effort by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension to try to criminalise a person who was killed or their close family members.
‘I think that’s really inappropriate and wrong.’
Court documents also claimed the police car was ‘slapped’ by a woman moments before the fatal shooting.
The documents did not specify whether Justine was the woman who reportedly slapped the car.
As court documents surface, news comes of a GoFundMe page created in the name of the Minneapolis police officer who fatally shot Justine on July 15.
Officer Mohammad Noor has reportedly asked for an unauthorised GoFundMe page to be taken down after it was created in his name to raise money.
Mr Noor claimed the fundraising page was falsely created in his name.
His attorney Thomas Plunkett asked for the page to be removed and asked for any money raised by the page to be returned to the donors, ABC reports.
‘(He) did not authorise this, he did not provide the photograph which appears in the fundraiser and he is not the recipient of the funds,’ Mr Plunkett said.
Source: http://undergroundjournalist.com