I did not mean to upset you Pensfan, its just common practice. We do the prints for free at the Sheriff Dept, however the Police Dept charges. I think that has to do with the fact that Sheriffs are elected into office if you ask me.
It is not the same however as having them bring in urine. Prints cannot be altered on the card. Also if you are not good at rolling prints, they can be rejected by CBI, if they are even smudged they are rejected. Also job backgrounds your not stripping and searching the applicant, so you have to take their word for scars, marks and tattoo's etc. So what is the difference. With inmates we do strip them and go over every part of their body, with our eyes of course, we cannot touch them.
When it comes to U.A's I ran the program not only at the D.O.C. but also at the 252 program at the Community Corrections I later worked at. When taking a U.A. we literally have to use a flashlight and watch the urine enter the cup, much harder on female officers I might add. Also they can tell if its dilute or if they dipped. We check temp on the cup itself. So that too is foolproof as long as your squeamish as inmates can be disgusting when it comes to random U.A.'s.
The parents and the mother's boyfriend have been cleared. Sleuthing them and speculating about their involvement is off limits.
I had read that the three were not named as POIs, but that is a far different concept from saying they've been cleared. Does anyone have a quote directly from LE stating that all 3 were in fact cleared?
"Clearing" this up might help with all of the confusion, altho the rules and TOS would remain the same.
(admittedly I am way behind on reading plus I've worn-out my scroll button as well, ha)
ETA: This distinction had been raised in the JonBenet Ramsey case so long ago. It's beyond just semantics, imo.
Last edited by shana; 04-16-2012 at 11:06 PM. Reason: clarifying/adding
No problem about the "misstated" ... I do it sometimes myself ... lol ...
I do wish LE would answer some of the unanswered questions ...
And JMO, but there are a lot of things that raise the "hinky meter" ... If there were some confirmation or answers, I think there would be less "speculation" with respect to Rick and Marlene ...
And again, JMO, while I understand that going on Nancy Grace's Show is "no picnic", Marlene could have easily answered the question about Rick, but she chose not to ... and that right there raised the "hinky meters" ...
If there is nothing to hide, then it should be clear and simple ...
TYBEE U WILL ALWAYS BE MISSED AND LOVED.
Just something to think about when we are analyzing the need to monitor children going to, from, and at school.
krkrjx..I was just using your post to express my thoughts.
I agree with you that children need to be monitored, but they need to be given experiences with parameters where they can practice real life. When wrong choices are made, guidance and closer monitoring can then be enhanced.
ETA: again.... This is probably going to land at a place in this thread where it doesn't seem to "fit the flow". Sorry...I am catching up with the reading!
Last edited by IHAVENOCLUE; 04-16-2012 at 11:09 PM. Reason: clarification
Please continue at the new thread
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7795531#post7795531"]CA CA - Sierra Lamar, 15, Santa Clara County, 16 March 2012 - #10 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
Muddy water in the street; Muddy water 'round my feet... as sung by the inimitable Bessie Smith, "Muddy Water (A Mississippi Moan)"