IN - Abigail Williams, 13, & Liberty German, 14, Delphi, 13 Feb 2017 - #33

[vinayd]

Its hard to make out RLs legs with his pants stuffed in the boots. I think this is causing the bowing. Also would a stocking cap over gray hair make it look darker?

 

[GGE]

Numerology is a load of rubbish. Sad to see it enter this board. It's not infowars.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

Oh, it's absolutely not allowed here. The post that says these numbers "add up to evil" was in the previous thread and should probably be alerted on in fact.

In fact I probably shouldn't have even quoted the other person and pointed out how this doesn't add up to evil, I probably should've just reported that other post. But here we are. Sorry. At least we're in agreement on the rubbish factor. I have no idea what an infowar is though. But it's probably OT anyway.

 

[GGE]

Im not drawing a conclusion, his speech would need full analysis.

But i do think there is a big difference between saying "on" vs "in", and saying something happened in your house rather than on your property. I don't know what happened, I can only go by what he said.

He he said something happened in his house.

OT, sorry: KISS fan? Excellent username.

 

[GGE]

I've only been following on WS for the last four threads. Has this <snip> been mentioned in MSM or is it a complete rumor?

Hi Sutton, I snipped your post that I'm responding to because you'll want to go back and edit or delete it since yes it is a complete rumor and can't be put on the board. hope that helps.

 

[Ashley95]

[quote name="mandy.maree" post=13240907]I find that very interesting.

about these numbers: 7.13.12 and 2.13.17

I find the above interesting too.

Assuming for a moment that the two cases are related, could the mirror image of the two sets of numbers suggest a dyslexia component?

____________
The above is just my opinion.[/QUOTE]
You are joking? Insanity!

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

[GGE]

https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase...qVTBNelV4TnpFNU1UTXdPakUxTWprd05EVXhPR0k9In19


Here is a screencap of the most recent updates as of this morning:



It says:

03/13/2017
Hearing Journal Entry
The State of Indiana appears by Jerry Bean, Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney. The defendant appears in custody of the Sheriff of Carroll County. The defendant is advised of his right to counsel and of his constitutional and statutory rights as to the Petition for Revocation of Probation filed on March 10, 2017. The defendant advises the Court that he will employ his own attorney. Hearing is held on the Petition. The defendant denies the allegations of the Petition for Revocation of Probation. Evidentiary Hearing is set for March 20, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. The defendant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Carroll County and held without bond. C: State, Probation, CCSD, RJO 3/16/17

03/16/2017
Notice of Violation of Probation
AMENDED Petition for Revocation of Probation filed by Melissa Chapman, Adult Probation Officer.

03/20/2017
Evidentiary Hearing
Session:
9:30 AM, Judicial Officer: Fouts, Kurtis



As of now the court system online does not show that the judge granted a continuance for tomorrow.

Some have stated that they heard on a video that RL's lawyer REQUESTED a continuance... important to note that a judge doesn't have to grant it. IMO we don't know if he's granted it or not.

 

[WebSight]

Good morning GGE, you seem to have a handle on this stuff so what does this mean then? Thx.

"However, the man who owns the land does have some criminal history.

Police arrested him Saturday on a probation violation warrant stemming from a drunk driving conviction. There is a 15-day probation violation hold on his release, and he remains incarcerated,"

 

[GGE]

"However, the man who owns the land does have some criminal history.

Police arrested him Saturday on a probation violation warrant stemming from a drunk driving conviction. There is a 15-day probation violation hold on his release, and he remains incarcerated,"

Good morning GGE, you seem to have a handle on this stuff so what does this mean then? Thx.

IANAL (that means I am not a lawyer, for anyone who is giggling right now)... I simply have had relatives in the system for probation violation, one right now, and have spent too much time and money with their lawyer to not be filing away the details.

Anyway, in my experience that just means that no matter WHAT he's being held for, the probation department has said "hey, we've got dibs - this guy was already on probation and violated so no matter what else you guys do on your end, hold him for 15 days for us to do our Probation Investigation so we can make a solid recommendation to the judge when this guy does go to court".... Probation has to get a chance to assess their clients who violate and are in jail BEFORE they go to the judge, because probation has to get a chance to make a recommendation to the judge, because the judge basically "gave" RL to probation to be "babysat" instead of putting him in jail last time, and it didn't work - RL is back in jail now. So probation has to report to the judge and let them know their position. In Indiana it would seem probation gets a default standard 15 days to do that, hence the minimum 15 day hold on probation violators.

But in this case we know his probation officer lady has already made her recommendation, and that is for probation revokation (which means jail time for his original charges, necessarily). She didn't even take the whole 15 days she was afforded.

I hope this is clear as mud and a lawyer can come in and say it more clearly.

 

[WebSight]

I'm wondering who made that statement. It seems like part of the quote and all of the attribute is missing from your post.

IANAL (that means I am not a lawyer, for anyone who is giggling right now)... I simply have had relatives in the system for probation violation, one right now, and have spent too much time and money with their lawyer to not be filing away the details.

Anyway, in my experience that just means that no matter WHAT he's being held for, the probation department has said "hey, we've got dibs - this guy was already on probation and violated so no matter what else you guys do on your end, hold him for 15 days for us to do our Probation Investigation so we can make a solid recommendation to the judge when this guy does go to court".... Probation has to get a chance to assess their clients who violate and are in jail BEFORE they go to the judge, because probation has to get a chance to make a recommendation to the judge, because the judge basically "gave" RL to probation to be "babysat" instead of putting him in jail last time, and it didn't work - RL is back in jail now. So probation has to report to the judge and let them know their position. In Indiana it would seem probation gets a default standard 15 days to do that, hence the minimum 15 day hold on probation violators.

But in this case we know his probation officer lady has already made her recommendation, and that is for probation revokation (which means jail time for his original charges, necessarily). She didn't even take the whole 15 days she was afforded.

I hope this is clear as mud and a lawyer can come in and say it more clearly.

Sorry, for some reason the whole quote didn't get on the post and I didn't check it.

"However, the man who owns the land does have some criminal history.

Police arrested him Saturday on a probation violation warrant stemming from a drunk driving conviction. There is a 15-day probation violation hold on his release, and he remains incarcerated, Riley and Carroll County Sheriff Tobe Leazenby said earlier this week."

Link to article:http://www.jconline.com/story/news/...h-property-where-delphi-teens-found/99304450/

 

[balaney]

Reasons to arrest RL
1 He was found to be in violation of probation
2 He needed to be arrested to get him away from his property for a thorough search
3 He knows who did the crime and was taken away to be safe
4 LE was concerned he would talk too much if they were looking for a specific item or a person
5 LE was concerned he would get hurt if he knows the person who committed the crime
6 LE thought the person that committed the crime would return to his house if he was definitely not home so they "arrested" him hoping to lure the suspect back

 

[Ashley95]

Reasons to arrest RL
1 He was found to be in violation of probation
2 He needed to be arrested to get him away from his property for a thorough search
3 He knows who did the crime and was taken away to be safe
4 LE was concerned he would talk too much if they were looking for a specific item or a person
5 LE was concerned he would get hurt if he knows the person who committed the crime
6 LE though the person that committed the crime would return to his house if he was definitely not home so they "arrested" him hoping to lure the suspect back

I would add to this he may know of the person who did it but be unaware they did it.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

[KyMom]

Good morning GGE, you seem to have a handle on this stuff so what does this mean then? Thx.

"However, the man who owns the land does have some criminal history.

Police arrested him Saturday on a probation violation warrant stemming from a drunk driving conviction. There is a 15-day probation violation hold on his release, and he remains incarcerated,"

I know you directed your question to CGE, but I decided to chime in here..if I'm not mistaken, if you're on probation & get arrested, they can hold you for 15 days w/o bail, which gives them time to decide on filing a violation. If they don't file a PV by the 15 days, then they have to set bail. If they do file one then they can hold you without bail.


jmo

 

[GGE]

http://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-35-criminal-law-and-procedure/in-code-sect-35-38-2-3.html

I'm finding very interesting sections in the Probation Violation section of Indiana's Criminal Codes.... JMO... and BBM..

It also explains about the 15 day hold.

This is NOT the entirety of the material at the link above, just a small section -


Sec. 3. (a)&#8194;The court may revoke a person's probation if:

(1)&#8194;the person has violated a condition of probation during the probationary period; &#8201;and

(2)&#8194;the petition to revoke probation is filed during the probationary period or before the earlier of the following:

(A)&#8194;One (1) year after the termination of probation.

(B)&#8194;Forty-five (45) days after the state receives notice of the violation.

(b)&#8194;When a petition is filed charging a violation of a condition of probation, the court may:

(1)&#8194;order a summons to be issued to the person to appear; &#8201;or

(2)&#8194;order a warrant for the person's arrest if there is a risk of the person's fleeing the jurisdiction or causing harm to others.

(c)&#8194;The issuance of a summons or warrant tolls the period of probation until the final determination of the charge.

(d)&#8194;Except as provided in subsection (e), the court shall conduct a hearing concerning the alleged violation. &#8194;The court may admit the person to bail pending the hearing. &#8194;A person who is not admitted to bail pending the hearing may not be held in jail for more than fifteen (15) days without a hearing on the alleged violation of probation.


- See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-3...code-sect-35-38-2-3.html#sthash.YJR0mrS9.dpuf

 

[Deleted member 278]

about these numbers: 7.13.12 and 2.13.17

I find the above interesting too.

Assuming for a moment that the two cases are related, could the mirror image of the two sets of numbers suggest a dyslexia component?
U
____________h
The above is just my opinion.

I think you are really reaching here. IMO.

 

[WebSight]

Okay, just to be extra annoying while the thread is fairly quiet:

We determined threads ago, and after much scrutiny, that RL received 2 yrs suspended sentence w/ 2 years probation plus 2 yrs suspended license. If the two were simultaneous then his probation/license suspension would have ended already.

Then better minds than me pointed out that the suspended license was consecutive.

See that doesn't make sense to me. Did he have 2 yrs suspended then 2 years probation? Or four years probation, because if the probation is attached to his suspended sentence it is onely two years.

The suspended license, unless it was simultaneous would not be under probationary jurisdiction.

Are we saying that he was able to drive the first two years and then the 2 yrs suspended license kicks in? That doesn't make sense.

So, if it is consecutive, then that would mean he could drive for 2 yrs and then would have to give up his license? And, if he had a 2 yr suspended sentence, it is in lieu of serving time with a 2 yr probation period.

Anyway I look at it, I don't see how he is still on probation? Did he violate his original probation and they decided not to revoke but extend and now he has violated the extension?

HELP?

 

[LostOldUserName]

Sorry I can't quote the post from the last thread but several people wondering about the 2nd search warrant being served on RL's property. The first would have been when the girls were discovered. Police would have gotten a search warrant to protect the integrity of any evidence obtained.

 

[Stephenie]

I was wondering about his violation. I wonder if it had to do with driving. Was his license suspended or revoked the day he said he drove to the fish place?

 

[GGE]

Okay, just to be extra annoying while the thread is fairly quiet:

We determined threads ago, and after much scrutiny, that RL received 2 yrs suspended sentence w/ 2 years probation plus 2 yrs suspended license. If the two were simultaneous then his probation/license suspension would have ended already.

Then better minds than me pointed out that the suspended license was consecutive.

See that doesn't make sense to me. Did he have 2 yrs suspended then 2 years probation? Or four years probation, because if the probation is attached to his suspended sentence it is onely two years.

Not how it works, you're correct in feeling that was not accurate.

The two years sentence that was suspended is the jail time he wasn't made to serve pending successful completion of probation, which clearly didn't happen because here we are on a probation violation, so that's the sentence that I expect the judge to re-instate now because he has violated, and which IMO he will stack the probation violation sentence on top of.

edited to delete some other stuff because I mis-read and need to double check facts before I state them again, because words matter and I'd rather be sure.

ETA:

this part is what I was saying about the suspended sentence:

(j)&#8194;If the court finds that the person has violated a condition during any time before the termination of the period, and the petition is filed under subsection (a) after the probationary period has expired, the court may:

(1)&#8194;reinstate the person's probationary period, with or without enlarging the conditions, if the sum of the length of the original probationary period and the reinstated probationary period does not exceed the length of the maximum sentence allowable for the offense that is the basis of the probation; &#8201;or

(2)&#8194;order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of the initial sentencing.
- See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-3...code-sect-35-38-2-3.html#sthash.YJR0mrS9.dpuf

 

[CrimeDawg123]

Pure conjecture that they would say his name on the recording if they knew him.
Ill feel bad for him if he is cleared but right now he is presumed innocent, the police have said he is not a suspect but obviously there is some reason that LE believes that there is evidence in his property or home. They would not spend the man hours on the search for theatre.

I also do find his statements strange such as saying this happened in his house or home. The woods is not his house.

BBM. Sure it is. It's his property, it is his home. Plenty of people, myself included, talk this way. Nothing strange at all.

 

[MzOpinion8d]

Okay, just to be extra annoying while the thread is fairly quiet:

We determined threads ago, and after much scrutiny, that RL received 2 yrs suspended sentence w/ 2 years probation plus 2 yrs suspended license. If the two were simultaneous then his probation/license suspension would have ended already.

Then better minds than me pointed out that the suspended license was consecutive.

See that doesn't make sense to me. Did he have 2 yrs suspended then 2 years probation? Or four years probation, because if the probation is attached to his suspended sentence it is onely two years.

The suspended license, unless it was simultaneous would not be under probationary jurisdiction.

Are we saying that he was able to drive the first two years and then the 2 yrs suspended license kicks in? That doesn't make sense.

So, if it is consecutive, then that would mean he could drive for 2 yrs and then would have to give up his license? And, if he had a 2 yr suspended sentence, it is in lieu of serving time with a 2 yr probation period.

Anyway I look at it, I don't see how he is still on probation? Did he violate his original probation and they decided not to revoke but extend and now he has violated the extension?

HELP?

The 2 year suspended sentence was to run consecutively with a 2008 case he was already serving a sentence on. So the sentence began when the 2008 case sentence ended.

The 2 year license suspension was entirely separate and ran concurrently. It started immediately at the time of the sentencing and likely ended within the past few months.