weekend discussion thread: 4/14-16/2012

[Flowercb]

in law; ignorance of the law is no excuse.

yes some would be foolish enough to do it; but if reported by parents to LE that their child was taken in car by strange man and out of town...LE can and prob would IMO charge the person with kidnapping and that idiot would learn very quickly it is illegal. MOO It is illegal by law.

And by law he would be responsible IMO for any harm afterward that came to this child. IMO Legally you cannot just take a strange child in your car and out of town. And it is not a loaf of bread it is a child; it takes express permission not implied permission. IMO Under the law I would think that implied permission COULD be inferred if talking about a music player or something; but not for a child. I would think by law it takes EXPRESS permission. IMO

When my kids were younger, I wouldn't even give their friends a drive home without their parents being aware/agreeing. You also have a liability if anything were to happen to the child, do you not?

 

[daisy.faithfull]

in law; ignorance of the law is no excuse.

yes some would be foolish enough to do it; but if reported by parents to LE that their child was taken in car by strange man and out of town...LE can and prob would IMO charge the person with kidnapping and that idiot would learn very quickly it is illegal. MOO It is illegal by law.

And by law he would be responsible IMO for any harm afterward that came to this child. IMO Legally you cannot just take a strange child in your car and out of town. And it is not a loaf of bread it is a child; it takes express permission not implied permission. IMO Under the law I would think that implied permission COULD be inferred if talking about a music player or something; but not for a child. I would think by law it takes EXPRESS permission. IMO

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

But in the situation I was describing, if a juror wonders if it could be possible that MTR thought he was just helping someone pick their child up from school because that is what TLM told him, that would be ignorance of the situation not of the law.

If the juror thinks MTR had reason to believe he was just helping someone pick their child up from school, he would have no reason to think he could be breaking the law because it is not against the law to help someone pick their child up from school. YKWIM?

 

[daisy.faithfull]

Quote:
Originally Posted by daisy.faithfull
Just my opinion, but when its really emphasized that the defence is making suggestions, it really emphasizes that the defence is putting stuff out there that may have no factual basis what so ever.


I was surprised that the defence was allowed to do that. Derstine was suggesting things to TLM and asking her to agree or disagree. I have seen stuff like this objected to in American court cases on television. MOO.

Me too! Maybe it was objected to and the judge over-ruled the objection? I don't know... I hope that Derstine won't be allowed to take it much further than those suggestions. If he wants the jury to hear another version of events asside from his opening and closing statements he can put MTR up on the stand.

:moo:

 

[daisy.faithfull]

When my kids were younger, I wouldn't even give their friends a drive home without their parents being aware/agreeing. You also have a liability if anything were to happen to the child, do you not?

Oh, okay, so you all are saying that MTR is liable for what happened to Tori no matter if a juror could suppose he allowed Tori into his because TLM gave him a legit reason for picking her up from school?

I don't know how that would work......

 

[Oldsoul2]

Its funny that there are so many that have such strong feelings about who did what.

I have to admit from the beginning I felt that TM had everything to do with what happened. I was wrong to say that but I still do feel the connection between her JS, Carol, TLM and MTR is so strong that it would be the only coincidence in this case if this were a random kidnapping.

That being said there are far too many coincidences in this case.

Here is what makes me wonder

1) Why was he trolling around the school that morning?
a) He was coincidentally in the same area for some other reason such as? or
b) He was scoping out the scene for the chance to nab a potential victim.

2) Home Depot
a) She didnt tell him what she was getting, she just asked for him to drive her there so she could pick something up.
b) He knew exactly what she was getting and understood exactly what was going to happen next
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Has anyone thought why he would not just have filled his tank prior to the abduction since he knew from the morning what he was going to do or why he didn't have the garbage bags and hammer already in the car since everyone knows that Home Depot has cameras all over the place and so do gas stations, BECAUSE HE KNEW HE WAS GOING TO MAKE IT LOOK like exactly what he is claiming it to be right now.