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
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.
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?
[quote name="mandy.maree" post=13240907]I find that very interesting.
"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.
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.
I would add to this he may know of the person who did it but be unaware they did it.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
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,"
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.
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.
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.
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?