GUILTY NH - Abby Hernandez, 14, North Conway, 9 Oct 2013 - #15

[psyquestor]

If this is something I'm not allowed to post, please delete.

<modsnip>

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...le-violence/W6KVAbNM68VZpkZAyB3YcM/story.html

My guess is that "no serious bodily injury" means nothing broken and no stab wounds or gunshot wounds.

as far as dropping her off on north/south rd, she could have been dropped off at the part of the road where her house is. There are little paths that I'm guessing she has used before and could have used the night she was released. Maybe a safe place to them is right behind her house??

Good catch, I had not noticed that before.

 

[AnaTeresa]

This may be true, but I don't recall victims getting lawyers too often. Jmo

You'd be surprised. Again, not verified, so take my statement with a grain of salt and all that - although my firm primarily practices criminal defense, we are approached by victims and do handle things for them. Most of the time, you don't hear much about it, because most cases don't have a lot of media attention. Even those that do, a lot of times, victims that hire attorneys do so because one benefit is directing the media to them, rather than be hounded.

In Abby's case, I'm only surprised it took them so long to hire one (probably carefully vetting, I'd guess). The media coverage has been awful. I'd hire an attorney for my child too, if the media coverage was so savage.

 

[psyquestor]

You'd be surprised. Again, not verified, so take my statement with a grain of salt and all that - although my firm primarily practices criminal defense, we are approached by victims and do handle things for them. Most of the time, you don't hear much about it, because most cases don't have a lot of media attention. Even those that do, a lot of times, victims that hire attorneys do so because one benefit is directing the media to them, rather than be hounded.

In Abby's case, I'm only surprised it took them so long to hire one (probably carefully vetting, I'd guess). The media coverage has been awful. I'd hire an attorney for my child too, if the media coverage was so savage.

As these things play out on court tv shows and SM this is becoming more common imo. A public "jury" can taint any trial with mass misinformation and heresay persecution. There is a fine line to walk and many times (imo) the tv coverage goes too far with suggestions of misdeed and so forth. Families of victims these days need to be cautious and get solid advice from attorneys whenever possible or at minimum a PR agent. You can be judged innocent by a jury and still have your life ruined if the public convicts you based on bad representation of yourself.

JMOO - fwiw.

 

[Steleheart]

While this may be completely true, LE hasn't said such, and at this point, the perp hasn't been charged with such.

We sure didn't take everything Jose Baez said in the Casey Anthony case, nor the attorney for the Parsons in the Erica Parson case as the gospel, be all, end all. Instead, the statements were put up against what was in MSM and what LE had said. So I'm not sure why this spokesman gets more lead way than in other cases. And those were just the two cases that came to mind immediately but there are more.

Media wants ratings, attorneys want to taint a jury and put their client in the best light, LE has a case to solve....each has their own agenda. What this spokesman's agenda is hasn't been determined. Some have stated perhaps to extinguish some of the online and perhaps in the community rumors that abound. I don't know. Time will tell. Charges will be added if what he said is true, IMO.

No doubt in my mind at all that being away from her family for 9 months wasn't horrendous enough. Yes I believe the perp has a motive, and what will come out later won't be good. I don't doubt that. While it hasn't been stated by LE what happened, as they repeatedly have stated they just don't know yet!!! They haven't said where she was held, if it was the same place the entire time, if she was moved around, how she was abducted, how she was returned, etc. So much is not known at this point. LE may have gotten additional statements and evidence since their last release, but we don't know what yet.

Again, yes I believe Abby is a victim of being kept from her family. Any emotional, physical, or sexual abuse has not been verified at this point. I know what I believe, and again, I don't think it will be good, but we don't have those facts.

As for closing this thread....why? Because people still have unanswered questions? Well that happens in every case. Sometimes even after the trial there is still unanswered questions. Some cases remain open even after the trial. Let's be honest, this thread didn't bring Abby home. The mass media coverage didn't bring Abby home. The mass social coverage didn't bring Abby home. Beyond all odds. Beyond all statistics, Abby is HOME!!! I don't think a single poster here isn't elated that she was returned!! We don't see that often, thus we wonder WHY? Not to put Abby down. NO! Not at all. Not to blame Abby. NO! Not at all!! But in my mind, I want to know what made her release possible. She has been with him 9 months, so even if he used a fake name the whole time, he had to think she would be able to identify him. Maybe even know where she had been held. So it was a great risk in returning her. What was his mindset? Was it because he was possibly facing jail time for other crimes? If so, he didn't do as many perps and murder her (THANKFULLY!!), he opted to return her to home. Whether that was at the mall, the exact place he abducted her from, from the NS road, or right at her driveway, we don't know. But HOME was the destination!!! Miracle indeed!!!
Now we await the criminal trial aspect, and hope to learn what we can to get into the mind of these criminals, and arm ourselves with that knowledge to either help prevent us or a family member from becoming a part of the same crime, or to help solve other cases. Knowing how the criminal thinks, and their motives, etc puts us one step closer to looking for those same traits in other unsolved cases, or currently missing cases. If we can profile that aspect, while we may never understand it, it's possible it can be useful in determining the outcome in other cases.

2Hope,
Your entire post is beautiful. Wonderful, thank you.

This BBM is well thought out. I ask because I do not know re, closing the thread, the admin know best and I understand that.. This is a different case. This Kibby person may have had an epiphany of sorts, maybe there was a miracle. But I will say this; he snatched up a girl and dropped off a woman and that says nothing about him. It speaks only to her, to her strength, her tenacity, her faith and her character. No, we did not bring Abby home. Abby brought herself home. Kieran Ramsey himself said that.
HOPE is what we talked about and HOPE is what we are awarded with. At this point I would like the focus to be upon him and the law. My wish is that she can just get on with being a normal person as she had expressed, but reality will set in, I am sure. This will be a long road and I could not bear the thought that the criticism of her and her family would continue.
We have no facts, we have no evidence and until there is a trial we have no definitive judgment that a crime has been committed, I understand that. But a girl was gone and now she is home. A mother has her child back. That's what we do here.

 

[tlcya]

While this may be completely true, LE hasn't said such, and at this point, the perp hasn't been charged with such.

We sure didn't take everything Jose Baez said in the Casey Anthony case, nor the attorney for the Parsons in the Erica Parson case as the gospel, be all, end all. Instead, the statements were put up against what was in MSM and what LE had said. So I'm not sure why this spokesman gets more lead way than in other cases. And those were just the two cases that came to mind immediately but there are more.

Media wants ratings, attorneys want to taint a jury and put their client in the best light, LE has a case to solve....each has their own agenda. What this spokesman's agenda is hasn't been determined. Some have stated perhaps to extinguish some of the online and perhaps in the community rumors that abound. I don't know. Time will tell. Charges will be added if what he said is true, IMO.

No doubt in my mind at all that being away from her family for 9 months wasn't horrendous enough. Yes I believe the perp has a motive, and what will come out later won't be good. I don't doubt that. While it hasn't been stated by LE what happened, as they repeatedly have stated they just don't know yet!!! They haven't said where she was held, if it was the same place the entire time, if she was moved around, how she was abducted, how she was returned, etc. So much is not known at this point. LE may have gotten additional statements and evidence since their last release, but we don't know what yet.

Again, yes I believe Abby is a victim of being kept from her family. Any emotional, physical, or sexual abuse has not been verified at this point. I know what I believe, and again, I don't think it will be good, but we don't have those facts.

As for closing this thread....why? Because people still have unanswered questions? Well that happens in every case. Sometimes even after the trial there is still unanswered questions. Some cases remain open even after the trial. Let's be honest, this thread didn't bring Abby home. The mass media coverage didn't bring Abby home. The mass social coverage didn't bring Abby home. Beyond all odds. Beyond all statistics, Abby is HOME!!! I don't think a single poster here isn't elated that she was returned!! We don't see that often, thus we wonder WHY? Not to put Abby down. NO! Not at all. Not to blame Abby. NO! Not at all!! But in my mind, I want to know what made her release possible. She has been with him 9 months, so even if he used a fake name the whole time, he had to think she would be able to identify him. Maybe even know where she had been held. So it was a great risk in returning her. What was his mindset? Was it because he was possibly facing jail time for other crimes? If so, he didn't do as many perps and murder her (THANKFULLY!!), he opted to return her to home. Whether that was at the mall, the exact place he abducted her from, from the NS road, or right at her driveway, we don't know. But HOME was the destination!!! Miracle indeed!!!

Now we await the criminal trial aspect, and hope to learn what we can to get into the mind of these criminals, and arm ourselves with that knowledge to either help prevent us or a family member from becoming a part of the same crime, or to help solve other cases. Knowing how the criminal thinks, and their motives, etc puts us one step closer to looking for those same traits in other unsolved cases, or currently missing cases. If we can profile that aspect, while we may never understand it, it's possible it can be useful in determining the outcome in other cases.

Casey Anthony, Casey and Sandy Parsons are not the minor victims of a charged crime. They are the accused perpetrators. LE has not said what happened to Abby but they have charged someone with abduction with intent to harm. Jane young also said the following:

"I cannot tell you how a child like that can get through the nine months, but she has done that. That concludes to us that she has a level of strength that I'm not sure any of us has."

which does not in any way contradict what Abby's spokesperson has stated. SO while LE have not charged Kibby with what some think he should be charged with if Abby's spokesperson speaks the truth, they certainly have not denied, disputed or discredited it either.

IMO those comparisons are not even apples and oranges. They are apples and chairs.

​

 

[Not Without Peril]

BillNH ,Let me first say thank you for your insights, I appreciate it. Also, I do not think anyone feels that you are defending the accused by presenting a view that is largely neutral and unbiased.

So we disagree on the inherent safety of North South Road and that is my point regarding the statute. There is no definition of "safe place" and that is because it has not been argued yet. True, if it were defined as only municipal buildings in the day time that would be self defeating. But along the lines which you addressed, free from imminent danger, bodily injury, inherent, obvious, etc., I can see some kind of guideline being necessary there.

I have not researched the construction of "safe place," if any, provided by New Hampshire courts. That said, courts very often use a dictionary to construe statutory language. "Safe," in reference to a place, means "affording safety or security from danger, risk or difficulty." The location of Abigail's release, I think, plainly meets this definition.

Abigail was not, on release, exposed to any actual danger (or, if she was, this has not been made public).

Of course, we can all think of hypothetical "dangers" that could materialize in certain places. Is there a place, on this planet, that is free of hypothetical dangers?

It would make very little sense for New Hampshire to have intended "safe place" to mean a place that could never become dangerous. Simply put, no place would qualify as such.

If they had charged a class A felony kidnapping,, any attorney could successfully argue the voluntary nature of her release, but that would have opened the door to admitting he had, in fact, held her captive. What a conundrum!

In that hypothetical, Kibby's attorney could argue that Abigail's captor, who was not Kibby, voluntarily released her.

 

[Not Without Peril]

You can be judged innocent by a jury

Briefly, I think it necessary to point out this distinction: A jury might find a defendant not guilty -- a jury cannot find a defendant innocent.

I saw a few posts that mentioned the fact that, although Kibby has not entered a plea, his attorney stated, at the motion hearing, that Kibby claimed he was "not guilty." In fact, Kibby's attorney stated, at that hearing, that Kibby claimed to be innocent.

One can imagine situations where a person, although "not guilty," is not regarded, by the majority of the public, as "innocent." O.J. Simpson comes to mind.

 

[BillNH]

BillNH ,Let me first say thank you for your insights, I appreciate it. Also, I do not think anyone feels that you are defending the accused by presenting a view that is largely neutral and unbiased.

So we disagree on the inherent safety of North South Road and that is my point regarding the statute. There is no definition of "safe place" and that is because it has not been argued yet. True, if it were defined as only municipal buildings in the day time that would be self defeating. But along the lines which you addressed, free from imminent danger, bodily injury, inherent, obvious, etc., I can see some kind of guideline being necessary there.

But I think a larger question is why did the prosecution not grab a class A from the get-go. They seemed to want to hold him on one mil cash, but a class B? If they had charged a class A felony kidnapping,, any attorney could successfully argue the voluntary nature of her release, but that would have opened the door to admitting he had, in fact, held her captive. What a conundrum!

I think they skipped all that purposely in an effort to make it small, make him talk. He likes the jibber jabber after all, IMO.

So my arguments about a safe place all return to the fact that there is no definition in the statute and the State is using that gray area as part of their strategy.

You say tomato but who the heck says tomahto?

Tumata, Patata. :cow:

BBM
To address this bolded. question only, I think it was the only charge that fit. I do not believe it was strategy to go with class B, I think it would have made the prosecution look desperate to charge class A. Our differences in opinion are noted but I think it's a huge stretch to claim she was not released in a safe place. Why risk the appearance of a trumped up charge in such a serious case?

 

[jadejazzkayla]

Briefly, I think it necessary to point out this distinction: A jury might find a defendant not guilty -- a jury cannot find a defendant innocent.

I saw a few posts that mentioned the fact that, although Kibby has not entered a plea, his attorney stated, at the motion hearing, that Kibby claimed he was "not guilty." In fact, Kibby's attorney stated, at that hearing, that Kibby claimed to be innocent.

One can imagine situations where a person, although "not guilty," is not regarded, by the majority of the public, as "innocent." O.J. Simpson comes to mind.

in our country,a defendant does not need a jury to find them innocent because they begin their trial-innocent and they remain innocent unless a jury finds them guilty AFTER hearing all pertinent evidence.

i.e. regardless of anyone thinking the contrary, oj simpson is innocent of murder. as is websleuths ever popular Casey Anthony.

 

[Steleheart]

As always, Stele, you have touched on something I've been thinking a lot about. For me, having been intimately involved (as intimately as a forum may allow) in Abby's case from the get-go, reading the post-return analysis has been terribly difficult. While, yes, when she returned, I was traveling and only had intermittent access to the internet, I see now that it was a good excuse. Because, now that I'm back, it is utterly impossible for me to get involved in discussing Kibby and his freak-a-zoid-ness, his possible defense, his attorney's game plan, Abby's torture, Abby's day-to-day in the hands of Kibby, the God-forsaken container, Abby's jaw, North-South Road…anything. I feel (this is the me-show right now) that now that she's back, now that she's safe, now that she wasn't killed, now that she didn't run away, now that her life is forever changed because of this idiot, that I, who couldn't sleep at nights because I was thinking about what could have possibly happened to Abby, can't bear picking it all apart. (And, I certainly couldn't bear to read another website's comments where there isn't the stringent TOS of WS.) It's weird to me because, on many other cases, I have picked apart the aftermath with an analytical eye devoid of great emotion. But, Abby's ordeal and the extreme way I felt about her wellbeing over the last 10 months, has made me feel like I shouldn't have a voice in her aftermath. I've tried to chime in a couple of times but I always erase my post before I hit send. My voice can only utter that I am so ecstatically happy that she is alive and home and strong and facing the future straight on and that her family and friends have her back.

This is a short (haha) way of explaining why I haven't been right in there with all of you, posting away. You all go to it. Figure it out. I'll keep reading and may join in the discussion again, maybe.

Abby, I am so glad you found your way home. So, so glad.

Jo, If someone asked me a month ago 'where is MamaJJ" I would have said exactly what you posted. We know what you feel and we have seen how invested you are You do not need to explain,.

I just love you MamaJ

Stele.

Empathy -"it's a blessing... and a curse"

 

[Not Without Peril]

in our country,a defendant does not need a jury to find them innocent because they begin their trial-innocent and they remain innocent unless a jury finds them guilty AFTER hearing all pertinent evidence.

i.e. regardless of anyone thinking the contrary, oj simpson is innocent of murder. as is websleuths ever popular Casey Anthony.

I disagree. A presumption of innocence neither equates to actual innocence nor applies to anyone other than the defendant and the trier of fact.

While O.J., without question, was presumed innocent; he is not considered actually innocent by many.

Moreover, as I have recently learned (and please correct me if I am wrong, CatFancier), when "MSM" (which, I believe, refers to "mainstream media") is inconsistent with a legal decision or other document, and where "MSM" has had the last word, "MSM" is taken to be true on Websleuths. Obviously, O.J. Simpson is considered guilty
by "MSM."

Although my prior point was said half-jokingly, does anyone else see the irony of the "MSM" / legal dichotomy in this instance, where Abigail's lawyer is against trying this case in the press? It's almost as if "MSM" has deferred us back to the primary legal documents. I will wait to hear from CatFancier on this one...

 

[CatFancier]

For the most part, with a few asides (victim-friendly policy, etc.), we take the lead of MSM and/or LE. It is interesting if Abby's lawyer is against trying this case in the press when in fact he won't really be involved in trying or defending it, isn't it? Since he spoke out in MSM, we take that as "fact" unless or until other MSM or LE overrides it.

And, not sure about WS, but my view on OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony is that they weren't proven guilty. With all the doubt of their innocence in the press, of course WS can lean that way too (or not innocent...).

Does that answer your questions?

 

[Not Without Peril]

For the most part, with a few asides (victim-friendly policy, etc.), we take the lead of MSM and/or LE. It is interesting if Abby's lawyer is against trying this case in the press when in fact he won't really be involved in trying or defending it, isn't it? Since he spoke out in MSM, we take that as "fact" unless or until other MSM or LE overrides it.

And, not sure about WS, but my view on OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony is that they weren't proven guilty. With all the doubt of their innocence in the press, of course WS can lean that way too (or not innocent...).

Does that answer your questions?

Yes, that helped, thanks.

You make a good point about the position of Abigail's lawyer. Interesting, when you think about it.

Here's my position: I volunteered with the Innocence Project. I want Kibby to have a fair trial, so that there is no doubt, in our collective minds (including that of "MSM") that the result was just. Kibby deserves that -- but most of all, Abigail deserves that. I hope that New Hampshire has a strategy, here. And some healthy criticism of New Hampshire, at least on my part, is entirely consistent with the "victim-friendly" policy of WebSleuths.

 

[cluciano63]

Regardless of how he supposedly brought her back safely...why should that downgrade the act of kidnapping, which in many states equates to life in prison? I really do not understand a kidnapping charge with a sentence of only seven years as a possibility.

 

[white rabbit]

http://www.conwaydailysun.com/newsx/local-news/115880-conway-police-detective-still-on-abby-case

At Tuesday morning's police commission meeting, police chief Ed Wagner said detective Suzanne Scott is still working the Hernandez case 40 hours a week.
"It's not just us," said Wagner. "State Police has at least one person designated to the investigation, the FBI has at least one, we have at least one person and the attorney general's office has at least one person."
Wagner said the cost of overtime has gone down since its peak.

(snipped)

Wagner said the investigation would end with the trial. Wagner added that Scott will probably be able to move on to other cases in about a month.

 

[margarita25]

Regardless of how he supposedly brought her back safely...why should that downgrade the act of kidnapping, which in many states equates to life in prison? I really do not understand a kidnapping charge with a sentence of only seven years as a possibility.

(o/t: I was amazed to see that the prosecuting attorney originally offered a deal to Christopher Wilson in the Mckenzie Cowell murder case---6 years).

Full episode about McKenzie's murder on 48 hours: (ftr, CH is another ARS, imo)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-search-for-mackenzie-cowells-killer/

 

[lawstudent]

Regardless of how he supposedly brought her back safely...why should that downgrade the act of kidnapping, which in many states equates to life in prison? I really do not understand a kidnapping charge with a sentence of only seven years as a possibility.

While I agree it's scary that someone could be let go after such a short period, policywise it makes a lot of sense to me. We want a kidnapper to let the person go instead of kill them in an effort to hide the crime and keep themselves from serving life in prison. It's an incentive to keep the witness alive and safe.

 

[newguy123]

I must admit my first reaction to the 7 yr maximum was incredulous....but if a perp has a choice of 7 yrs vs. life, then maybe it does help sway them to release people? We may not be having this discussion about her safe return if the punishment was more severe.
It has been speculated that the release was due to possible confinement of NK due to other charges. That may have been the motivating factor. However, since his arrest was not immediate, I am guessing she did not know who he was exactly. What bits of info must she have gleaned over time which were pieced together to find him? Time will tell.
Strangely, today I rec'd a call to do some work on a shipping container in the next month or so.....I will be looking at these things a little differently from now on.

 

[BillNH]

Bear in mind that the current charge against NK is only for confining AH with intent to commit offenses. One would have to assume that if they can prove intent, and he had her for 9 months, then the charges for other offenses will be coming. The same charge would apply IMO, if she had been recovered within an hour of her disappearance and no other offenses were committed. The 7 years seems appropriate if that were the case. Currently it gives them reason to hold him with a million dollar bail until other charges, with much more jail time attached, are sorted out.

 

[MamaJoJo]

I wonder if a perp is ever actually calculating the potential jail time they will get if caught when they are committing a crime? It seems to me that crimes are crimes, in and of themselves, whether they are passionate or calculated, and what ever comes after (jail, hopefully) is mostly not factored in by the criminal.