Somer Thompson POI Pre-Trial Discussion

[Kimberlyd125]

~snipped~

I applaud CCSO. Job well done sirs!

May I add "And ma'ams!"

Well, it's hard to tell but I think you can see a couple of women in there!

Yep, you are right. Sorry ladies! Job well done!!!!

 

[ChickenPants]

~snipped~

I applaud CCSO. Job well done sirs!

May I add "And ma'ams!"

Well, it's hard to tell but I think you can see a couple of women in there!

This is a great photo; have a FB friend whose husband was recently promoted to NYPD detective, and he looked so fantastic in his uniform that I asked her to send me a copy. Yes, I too applaud the hard work of LE everywhere. The world is a bad place to be LE in.

 

[ChickenPants]

Enpants, thanks for your clarification and agreeing that POI could be changed to suspect. It was the mention of POI that confused me the most.

Sorry about that. I am not sure how to go in and change it, if it matters. I will go answer your other post and thanks.

 

[ChickenPants]

While I'll admit that the information provided by the media is not enough to convict JH (if I were on the jury and not just posting opinion on this board), I have to have faith in CCSO and the States Attorney.

I have to believe they would not have made the arrest if they were not confident they had the evidence to back it up and get a conviction. Whether I'll still feel that way after evidence is presented at the trial, I do not know.

Thank you for your clarification on the purpose of the thread.

All JMO.

I totally agree (IMO) and must also agree that hopefully they will present A LOT MORE specific evidence in order to get a conviction on the murder of Somer. It's so easy for a perpetrator to walk on a technicality. For those of us old enough to remember, OJ Simpson walked because he had a defense team that out danced the prosecution and was able to punch holes left and right in the LE investigation and even spin it to make it look like a set-up and a racial matter.

This is another reason for my concern. If JH is indeed the killer, there are some alleged facts that do not quite make the cut of "uncontroverted" and a defense attorney would have fun with that. It has got to be a high-profile case with all of the media attention (including 20/20) to this point. At the point of a trial, good old Nancy Grace will probably pick up her interest again, along with many others; there will be pro and con pundits all over the airwaves. If I seem picky here, imagine what they will do then?

Take, for example, that JH allegedly made "statements" as to knowledge of the crime, but LE has never said he "confessed" to the crime. Perhaps at trial time this mystery will be solved. Maybe everyone is right by saying the less they release the better...but in that event, it seems better that they say NOTHING. Which is what they did at the outset, until they arrested JH. Then there were "clues" released but nothing specific.

 

[ChickenPants]

I have a question. Do you think that, due to our activity on WS, any one of us would be exempted from a jury pool for the JH trial?

I ask this because we technically don't know any more than anybody else. If eligibility for jury would mean no knowledge of the events, I can't see how they will find anyone in that community that fits.

Would our interest in the crime thus far preclude our participation? Even if we were not sure he was guilty or innocent? Just wondering?

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I have a question. Do you think that, due to our activity on WS, any one of us would be exempted from a jury pool for the JH trial?

I ask this because we technically don't know any more than anybody else. If eligibility for jury would mean no knowledge of the events, I can't see how they will find anyone in that community that fits.

Would our interest in the crime thus far preclude our participation? Even if we were not sure he was guilty or innocent? Just wondering?

Yes, I think we would be exempted because we have all followed this case very close.

But, I see no difference in this case or what has been released as any other high profile case. There is a way to get an impartial jury. Maybe not in Orange Park, but there may be a change in venue or like the CA case, jurors could be brought in from another area.
IMO this happens all the time.

Esp in FL where they have the Sunshine Law.

I could almost assure our interest in the crime would preclude our participation. Even if we were not sure he is guilty or innocent. IMO we could never be jurors.

JMO

 

[Chili Fries]

I am curious about the DNA as well. I had not stopped to think that LE would automatically put on file all DNA of RSO's. In any event, there was such a deal made when the investigation was lagging about how long it took to process DNA. So how could they have processed all the DNA on every RSO so quickly?

It would only take an instant to compare DNA to all the sex offenders, as long as it would take you to do a Google search. You have to remember that LE has DNA profiles for sex offenders in their database. All they have to do is run a simple computer matching check against whatever DNA they recovered that was associated with Somer.

I'm still very critical of the CCSO in general though because if Harrell had been arrested earlier on the child *advertiser censored* charges then Somer's life could have been spared. If I were her parents I would be exploring the possibility of filing a civil suit against the CCSO charging negligence. Maybe they have done that and it's out of the question, I don't know.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Chili:

Somewhere in one of the last general threads for this case, the child *advertiser censored* on JH's computer taking so long to investigate was picked over like a fine toothed comb.
I understand the frustratoin, but I think we learned that it can take months to investigate child *advertiser censored* charges due to having to prove JH was the one who downloaded them. There is also a money trail to follow if he paid for them.
You have to remember, his computer was brought to LE by someone else. Someone who had beef with JH. So, LE would first have to rule those people out. Then prove JH downloaded them. That takes a while.

The photos/video of the 3 year old was not found until search warrants were issued on JH's mother's home.

I'm not trying to defend CCSO, but I do understand how long this takes.

 

[ChickenPants]

Yes, I think we would be exempted because we have all followed this case very close.

But, I see no difference in this case or what has been released as any other high profile case. There is a way to get an impartial jury. Maybe not in Orange Park, but there may be a change in venue or like the CA case, jurors could be brought in from another area.
IMO this happens all the time.

Esp in FL where they have the Sunshine Law.

I could almost assure our interest in the crime would preclude our participation. Even if we were not sure he is guilty or innocent. IMO we could never be jurors.

JMO

I agree; not only have we been exposed, but we have delved into it a lot. Still, there are some who I think can remain "impartial" (?) but I am sure of one thing, they will be very careful. IDK, something says to me I wish I (we) could be a juror, maybe be proved wrong. A lot of people on WS have proved they are intelligent and do not make snap judgments, that they care about right. It's pretty interesting to read about how juries in other cases take their responsibilities seriously and really, really care about following the rules, etc. It makes you want to go back and watch some of those old movies, like To Kill a Mockingbird, Judgement at Nuremberg, etc., all of which occurred before mass media and the internet!

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I think we are ALL intelligent and we ALL really care about right. As far as snap judgements, I think we all form our opinions of what happened by the information that is out there.
I mean, look how long a lot of people were stuck on family involvement. That did not mean they were not intelligent or did not care about right, they just formed an opinion that turned out to be wrong. It happens.

There is no way any of us could be "impartial" enough to serve on that jury. We know too much.
But, there are people who believe it or not, have never even heard of Somer Renee Thompson. Those people could be impartial.
I feel like when the evidence is laid out to the jury, they will come back with the right verdict, no matter what it is.

But, IMO, CCSO knows what all they have on him and they felt they could hand that info to the state and a jury would convict JH. I have faith in that.

 

[ChickenPants]

It would only take an instant to compare DNA to all the sex offenders, as long as it would take you to do a Google search. You have to remember that LE has DNA profiles for sex offenders in their database. All they have to do is run a simple computer matching check against whatever DNA they recovered that was associated with Somer.

I'm still very critical of the CCSO in general though because if Harrell had been arrested earlier on the child *advertiser censored* charges then Somer's life could have been spared. If I were her parents I would be exploring the possibility of filing a civil suit against the CCSO charging negligence. Maybe they have done that and it's out of the question, I don't know.

I understood, though, that only the DNA of RSO's are available. There are such things called "SO's" - how do they reach that status? Is it that they were identified but did not have to register, how is that? WHO identified them, WHY were they called an SO, and HOW is that process carried out...that confuses me as well. Do they ONLY have to register once convicted? That seems to be terribly wrong - no common sense to that. Maybe this is a law that should change: Once caught doing anything sexual with a child, identified, registered, labelled, whatever, you are outed. You are no longer allowed to be around ANY children. It may prove a deterrent in our society which so lovingly upholds the rights of criminals. Criminals have rights and children are brutalized and killed because of those rights, I can't see it any other way.

We know that there were a lot of registered SO's and then the innumerable ones not registered like JH. A big, dumb slug with an obsession to watch little girls (which neighbors now describe as hinky), a classic profile of a pedophile, shed and all, with evidence of his sickness left all over the place - who nobody paid any attention to, even when they thought he was weird. Even when they thought "maybe" and had the evidence right under their noses. He sat there for days as they combed the neighborhoods and searched through garbage, he was still there. Here's what scares me: was it because he had never been arrested or convicted of anything? Yet he was a "SO". I wish somebody would help me with this.

Absolutely I believe if JH had been arrested, or at least questioned further it may have made a huge difference. I still shudder to think he may have photographed or molested more little girls after they already had enough on him to put him in jail. I do not have a clue as to why he was not arrested. I understand the difference between "interviewing" someone and "interrogating" them is the difference between someone looked at and some labelled POI or Suspect. But the same factors and behaviors that originally caught their attention about him and made them go into his house have not changed. They went in and saw no evidence. By that time, he had had enough time to get rid of it. Then they went back later and obtained evidence. ????? What am I missing here? Am I getting this wrong? I'm curious to what evidence they found the second time that they did not see the first.

It's curious also that since JH has been arrested, several more have been hauled in on child *advertiser censored* only, and with very high bail. They were there all along, too. A good example is the 20/20 program. It made one's skin crawl.

Big difference IMO between innocent until PROVEN guilty and presumed innocent but allowed the freedom to continue one's criminal activities for some outrageous reason in the justice system. Until parents and others who love children refuse to accept this, it will continue. Criminals forfeit their rights to live in society by virtue of their acts against citizens, IMO. I wonder what if anything can be done. It is hearteneing to see new laws coming out, but tragic that little girls like Somer have to be the casualties that move people to act on what is obvious anyway.

I don't see either of Somer's parents with a civil suit against LE. Not judging by their public comments of support. Samuel refuses to say a word against them, and Diena said they were like "family". What would have changed now?

Sorry about my rambling. Enough said. I am hoping somebody here will have the answers I lack.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

SO is a term we use here and I've seen other places when we talk about sex offenders that have not been caught yet.

ETA: JH was a sex offender and we did not know it. And, neither did CCSO until they found the sd card at his mother's home with the pictures/video of him with the 3 year old.

 

[ChickenPants]

I think we are ALL intelligent and we ALL really care about right. As far as snap judgements, I think we all form our opinions of what happened by the information that is out there.
I mean, look how long a lot of people were stuck on family involvement. That did not mean they were not intelligent or did not care about right, they just formed an opinion that turned out to be wrong. It happens.

There is no way any of us could be "impartial" enough to serve on that jury. We know too much.
But, there are people who believe it or not, have never even heard of Somer Renee Thompson. Those people could be impartial.
I feel like when the evidence is laid out to the jury, they will come back with the right verdict, no matter what it is.

But, IMO, CCSO knows what all they have on him and they felt they could hand that info to the state and a jury would convict JH. I have faith in that.

Well, Kim, "knowing too much" isn't a bad thing ... it will all come out, as you say, when the trial occurs. Facts being facts. The attorney will spin the facts to try to win. I pray they can find people who are impartial. Yes, it would be a kind of madness to hold him there if they really do not have evidence that they were sure could result in a conviction. It appears from what information is available, that at some point he filled them in on activities (made statements/admissions) which strengthened their confidence. The one question that I will always want answered is the same one Diena asks: Why Somer? Why out of all of the little girls he saw walk on that route every day, did he choose her? How would he know to abduct her in broad daylight and be sure that nobody would catch him? Did he plan it, all around this one little girl? Why did he want to kill HER?

As a result of these questions, I have stated that more information on what happened to her could determine his culpability further. If this was planned in advance - if he used props, photographs, engaged in activities similar to those he did in the past, etc., and this corroborated with what was discovered on the autopsy, it would be powerful evidence even without DNA.

Was it a sex crime gone wrong? Or did he plan murder in advance? There would be evidence on autopsy to nail exactly what happened in what order, based on deteroriation of certain organs, etc. Pooling of blood in certain parts of the body, for instance, bruising, lacerations, etc. From the time he touched her (grabbing an arm and causing a bruise) to suffocating her, everything would tell a story.

As everyone says here, LE apparently knows every bit of this. They know how, but I do not know if they know WHY...why Somer Thompson? She is the little girl who is gone now, and she deserves the answer.

 

[ChickenPants]

SO is a term we use here and I've seen other places when we talk about sex offenders that have not been caught yet.

ETA: JH was a sex offender and we did not know it. And, neither did CCSO until they found the sd card at his mother's home with the pictures/video of him with the 3 year old.

It was my understanding that they did know, as they had his computer with the *advertiser censored* which had been reported, they made a special visit to his house during the investigation. I do not know on what basis they visited him and he "cooperated", but people did know he was a pervert. At least the Buchanans did.

How does somebody get labelled a sex offender who has not been caught? Someone would have to know he offended to call him that. What does it mean to get caught? Does that mean people know this person is a sex offender but let him go on offending? Or that nobody has bothered to catch him? We toss around "RSO" and "SO" but these are individuals who hurt children and the instant anybody knows anything they should be deterred immediately.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I don't think she was targeted, no more than any other child that is snatched by a SO.
I think he chose Somer because she ran ahead and was alone. Plain and simple.

Like any other predator (like a wild animal), he struck when a weaker victim was alone and an easy target. JMO

As for DT asking why Somer, most parents do question why "their child" was taken/murdered. That's like when someone says "why me???" when they find out they have cancer.
I would think when anything tragic happens to people, they want to know why them. KWIM


JMO

 

[ChickenPants]

I read somewhere on one of these threads that LE was "watching" JH for a long time. I am sorry I cannot furnish specific details on when they were watching him or where. But whenever he was being "watched" he was free.

I totally understand the problem with following up on that computer. What I do not understand is, when Somer was murdered, why LE did not check out every single computer in their possession when looking for possible perpetrators. If they suspected it was a sexually-motivated crime, there would be one of the first places to start looking, IMO.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

It was my understanding that they did know, as they had his computer with the *advertiser censored* which had been reported, they made a special visit to his house during the investigation. I do not know on what basis they visited him and he "cooperated", but people did know he was a pervert. At least the Buchanans did.

How does somebody get labelled a sex offender who has not been caught? Someone would have to know he offended to call him that. What does it mean to get caught? Does that mean people know this person is a sex offender but let him go on offending? Or that nobody has bothered to catch him? We toss around "RSO" and "SO" but these are individuals who hurt children and the instant anybody knows anything they should be deterred immediately.

BBM
They made a special visit to most houses in that neighborhood. I think it was in the media they even searched the school's superintendant's home.

You're missing my point on the term sex offender. It is used to describe a person who is just that, a sex offender. But, once they are caught and convicted, they must register and then they become a RSO.
You can be a SO and nobody ever knows it.
We use the term SO here all the time. JH is a SO, but he is not a convicted SO or a RSO. Once he is convicted, he will be a convicted SO or RSO.
It does not mean people know a SO is a SO and nobody bothered to catch him.
I could go to the store right now and take something without paying for it. I would be a thief. But, I wasn't caught so nobody would know I was a thief. Same thing.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I read somewhere on one of these threads that LE was "watching" JH for a long time. I am sorry I cannot furnish specific details on when they were watching him or where. But whenever he was being "watched" he was free.

I totally understand the problem with following up on that computer. What I do not understand is, when Somer was murdered, why LE did not check out every single computer in their possession when looking for possible perpetrators. If they suspected it was a sexually-motivated crime, there would be one of the first places to start looking, IMO.

I really don't think that is a common practice among murder investigations.

I read somewhere, the info is in one of the last general threads here, that most child *advertiser censored* creeps do not offend.

 

[human]

I think that laws on sex offenders vary from state to state. That is a huge problem. There should be one law.

Where I live, Registered Sex Offenders are what are called "Level Three-most likely to re offend". Level One and Level Two are not in a data base here of sex offenders.

They would be in a data base of criminals, but not in a search for sex offenders. The Jacob Wetterling Foundation has info on this type of thing, I believe.

If not, there is a website somewhere, that I read ,of states that have very lax laws regarding sex offenders.

Where I live, there is community notification of Level three sex offenders moving into a neighborhood. There are neighborhood meetings, and it is reported in the newspaper for all to see.

The city that I live by has made a new law defining where sex offenders can live.

Some people, whose neighborhoods were the target areas because they are low income neighborhoods, complained to their city councilor. He promptly got the law changed within a couple of weeks of the citizens asking him.

There were objections to it stating the fact that with no place to live, these offenders would be more likely to re offend. Also, an artificial safe zone does not mean that they can't get victims outside of the zone.

But because the city has a low rent area,, other places were sending their offenders here. We only have 9 in the whole city-Level Three, that is.

Someone in the city suggested a group home place to live under supervision which might be a good idea

We can keep locking them up, but it doesn't change the fact that they have made victims out there, some of whom never recover or they kill their victims.

I would rather see a ton of money and resources put into finding out what makws these weirdos and then stop whatever it is.

It seems like there is an epidemic out there. But I suppose that there is no vaccine out there, so there is no monetary reason for people to jump on the cause.

 

[ChickenPants]

I don't think she was targeted, no more than any other child that is snatched by a SO.
I think he chose Somer because she ran ahead and was alone. Plain and simple.

Like any other predator (like a wild animal), he struck when a weaker victim was alone and an easy target. JMO

As for DT asking why Somer, most parents do question why "their child" was taken/murdered. That's like when someone says "why me???" when they find out they have cancer.
I would think when anything tragic happens to people, they want to know why them. KWIM


JMO

So do you think JH just saw her and grabbed her that day on a sexual impulse - that he had never watched her before or perhaps been attracted to her...I am thinking now about information regarding her and his dog...she gave it a name, which indicates that she was probably around there more than once. It says she wasn't a child who just walked on by. He knew of her, how did this affect what happened, in your opinion. Why HER instead of another little girl, is my question. Was it attraction? Something he had felt for a while...perhaps he wanted to photograph her? They say that one way pedophiles "groom" possible victims is using pets. If this is true, if it can be proven that he singled her out ahead of time, and just waited for his opportunity, it would IMO be premeditated.