LE have said NO sightings could be verified. I do agree LE are getting all their ducks in a row though. Justice for Hailey.
They said no sightings could be corroborated. Not quite the same thing.
LE do not assume an eye witness account is false unless proven true. The evidentiary value increases if it can be corroborated, but the evidentiary value does not disappear if it is not.
As I have pointed out repeatedly, in order to overcome these eye witness accounts in a court case, they would have to prove they are false, not just not be able to corroborate them.
It is all very well for a small town sheriff to make those claims (after all, this was the same sheriff that was claiming all sorts of child *advertiser censored*, which we now know to be false), but in a court case the prosecutor is going to have to prove the case. The defence does not have to prove anything, they just have to show reasonable doubt, which is what these witnesses will do. For that reason, unless LE can come up with compelling evidence that HD was dead the day before, or that the witnesses were wrong, their testimony will stand.
LE vacuumed and collected evidence from the car. Maybe there is something unique about the soil from the area around Lake JB Johnson.
We just don't know what kind of evidence LE has. IMO, the FBI is playing this close to the vest because they want to build a solid case. It hasn't even been three months since her remains were found, forensics take time. At least that is what I keep telling myself ...
yes, there would be something unique about the soil at or near the lake, there would be types of soil and other organisms only unique to lake born areas in contrast to other locations in the area, so hopefully they not only have traces of soil samples, but trace samples of biological evidence as well, soil sample testing of small amounts would take some time as in some cases, the samples have been shipped to universities specializing in the field of soil forensics
I just edited my comment about it being opinions right before you posted this. LOL And I agree with what you said. Yes, I could ignore the comments because I know not to believe what they are saying, but others who are not following this case as closely will believe it if it's continuously stated as facts when it's not. Heck, I believed it when I first started coming to this forum. I thought that I had missed something important somewhere down the line, so yesterday I spent hours combing through the links to find where LE made a mistake about the *advertiser censored* and there isn't a single link about it that isn't people like us discussing it in forums. It simply a theory from people playing Devil's advocate.
Personally, I wonder if the *advertiser censored* opened a whole new and separate investigation, which has never even been publicly acknowledged by LE? What is the Texas Statute of Limitations for filing charges?
http://fox59.com/2013/04/10/former-...-*advertiser censored*-charges/#axzz2VwgQlOY4
Personally, I wonder if the *advertiser censored* opened a whole new and separate investigation, which has never even been publicly acknowledged by LE? What is the Texas Statute of Limitations for filing charges?
http://fox59.com/2013/04/10/former-...-*advertiser censored*-charges/#axzz2VwgQlOY4
I'm baffled by the entire "child *advertiser censored*" finding. You see/read on a daily basis where people are being arrested/sentenced for child *advertiser censored*. If in fact child *advertiser censored* was found, why no arrest? Why no indictments? I don't see a Texas DA just letting that go. Jmo
I couldn't find anything about the statute of limitations, but I did find this link that explains what is considered criminal and I believe they have enough to press charges on him at any given point just on the child *advertiser censored*.
http://statelaws.findlaw.com/texas-law/texas-child-*advertiser censored*-laws.html
Notice the date of this article is March 21st. This states what was found on the computers.
http://bigcountryhomepage.com/fulltext?nxd_id=353726
Keep that in mind when I post the next link, which I believe is the link that Tugela is stating as proof of no child *advertiser censored*.
"The affidavit notes that some pornographic images were retrieved from the memory stick and cell phone owned by Adkins were made with a Kodak Easy Share camera."
Oh yes, me too!!!As the story originally said "depicted"... no, take that back. That was after the 2nd editing that morning. If those pictures included anything involving Hailey the info would have never been released. I actually enjoy Tugela's comments.
As the story originally said "depicted"... no, take that back. That was after the 2nd editing that morning. If those pictures included anything involving Hailey the info would have never been released. I actually enjoy Tugela's comments.