Discussion in 'Located Persons Discussion' started by los2188, Sep 3, 2014.
Thank you Steve. I always appreciate your insight. Keep it coming.
Your thoughts were more detailed than my reply but this is how I feel too lol
Could the protection order be to keep the SA indictment out of the AK trial? Or is that something they file once the trial date has been set and/or has started?
Shame has an important role in society. I personally don't think this is it. We have a legal system in place to handle crimes and other situations like this.
Agreed. I can think of 2 cases that haunt me right now where I am wondering if the parents literally do NOT know where they left the little angels. They admitted to being 10 sheets to the wind and say they '
cannot remember'. I'm not saying I believe they cannot remember but there is a point when it's a real possibility. Think back to your wild college days. Do you remember how you got home every single time? ( assuming you had wild days like me )
ETA However, I wonder if you're in a black out state can you be so sneaky ? Most drunks , in that state, would leave evidence right in the middle of a street . Time will tell.
I certainly agree with most of your thinking. Thanks!
As to your point about errors by others in LE in the past, I don't think the answer is to treat LE's work here with an assumption that it's likely to have been cursory, incompetent or corrupt work and ask them to do it over. IMO the answer to past mistakes is better people, better oversight, and better training, and then let them do their work and take things where they go.
Back to the premise of this discussion we are talking about - the idea that LE and the family ignored looking at any other ideas and simply "fixated" on EA - I think it needs to be noted that such an idea is completely contrary to everything we know. Fact is, they looked at lots of people, but only found evidence on one. Wasn't that the point, to identify via evidence who did the crime, and find evidence to convict? Apparently they did just that.
Having done so, it sure doesn't make any sense to me that they should operate as if they know nothing and start over. You follow the evidence IMO. And, given the limited resources with which LE investigators must work, why would (or should) they start over and invest much more time on a case they must feel they have already solved?
If something emerges to point to additional parties, by all means pursue that, and I have no doubt they would. But the evidence of who was around CM at or after 3:35 am that day, and who did something to her, is all pointing to EA and no one else, and it's most likely because EA did it. Can't find something on someone else if they didn't do it.
Some people assume the doubts of whether other people could be involved or not are due to lack of faith in LE.
For me that isn't the case at all.
I realize LE may be sitting on more information they're unable to reveal for one or many reasons.
That is why, until we know the totality of evidence along with the case the defense presents, the answer and verdict is impossible to decide. Based on what is known today afaik, it looks as if EA acted alone.
Yet, the detective commented LE was investigating others and hasn't commented further on the subject.
I believe the investigation is ongoing beyond the kidnapping charges.
SteveS, how do you know LE has closed the case?
Your statements over and over again are based on what we do know, yes.
Are you sure LE knows and is sure of ALL the answers?
I'm lost here - CM's mother asked people to write EA?
Unless LE can prove a sexual motive for the kidnapping, I say "yes" the defense may attempt to get the SA charges blocked from the trial and have a good chance of doing so.
Bringing these posts together, so my question above makes sense.
Is the statutory rape victim the young woman he was dating when CM vanished?
Where or how did you see The Wolf of Wall Street movie?
According to Google, it was released in 2013 along with Gravity and Twelve Years a Slave both of which I watched on cable tv.
Prosecutors are linking the two cases now. They must have strong evidence the kidnapping is related to SA.
Don't know if the page sticks.
Here's where I saw the date of April 6, 2015 tied to a hearing x3.
The description typed in the column next to the date is "District Clerk Case Images".
Maybe it indicates a filing related to the Hearings scheduled to take place on April 29th.
Sorry, I just understood your question. duh.
No, I don't think they're the same person.
Maybe someone who knows for sure will confirm.
1 The case is closed? I didn't say that, nor did I mean to leave that implication, and my apologies if I didn't word it well enough. They still lack a conviction and the discovery of where CM is, and they may need proof for a capital murder charge when all is said and done, so those aspects are still very much open for investigators.
Let me be clear that I do NOT think LE would or should turn a blind eye to investigating, if there was something to lead them in a certain new direction. But considering what we know, they certainly don't seem to have any reason to blindly look for someone else.
2 I do think it's a mistake to read much into the LE comments made many months ago that, at that time, they were leaving the door open as to whether others may be involved. They didn't indicate they thought others were involved, only that they hadn't ruled it out. (My personal take? I suspect they were looking closely at EA's family for potential involvement later on, which would offer EA a reason to talk in order to protect them, and I suspect the comments were to keep from letting EA off the hook as to the need to talk to protect family.)
3 You remind, and I certainly agree (and have tried to say repeatedly), our comments here can only be based on what we see and know.
So what do we know? We know they
have arrested EA,
have charged him with the crime,
are headed to trial,
haven't revealed any evidence that points to any other perp, and
we have no indication that CM was around anyone except EA from 3:35 am on,
nor do we have any indication that anyone else did something to her.
So on the basis of what we see and know, it sure appears that LE has their guy. And based on what we know, the case would certainly appear to be solved (ie they have found the perp that abducted and perhaps murdered CM).
4 The insinuation made here by someone else wasn't just of the idea that someone other than EA might have participated somehow. Instead, they broadly accused/implied that LE and the family had "fixated" on EA, ignored everyone else, and essentially would be persecuing him with charges, an arrest, and a trial ahead. And the solution offered was that LE needs to ignore what they've found and look elsewhere.
I certainly don't buy any of that. What we've seen says exactly the polar opposite of being blindly "fixated" on EA and never considering or examining anyone else. Instead of ignoring all others, indications are that they looked, and did so in ways where we didn't even have a clue how detailed they looked - so I see no justification to suggest/criticize they need to START doing things they unquestionably have been doing all along.
BBM; IMO, yes. The problem with blackout drinkers, especially habitual blackout drinkers, is that others have no idea the person is in a blackout. They may simply seem tipsy. Habitual drinkers are usually not falling down drunk. And the blackout guy is the only one who has no idea why everyone is so peeved with him. Some may only have that occurrence when they mix drugs and alcohol. So the young, weekend party boy who drinks till he passes out is not the typical blackout drink/drugger.
I remember wondering that as well, and to my memory, I satisfied myself that that relationship had ended before Christina went missing.
"An arrest warrant states the alleged victim is a 16-year-old who [EA] dated between October 2012 and February 2013. He was 22 at the time."