|
Since: Apr 12
Brooklyn, NY
|
Please wait...
Simply Sarcasm wrote: I almost don't even want to touch the whole FrmLE/Jenkins debacle...
and yet, I will.
I'm not sure where you are going with this, Jenkins -(and I mean no disrespect...I don't particularly dislike your posts, and I've never taken issue with you before)- but there is no statute of limitations on murder. Furthermore, what you stated above regarding the right to a speedy trial - immaterial. There is no such 2 year window of opportunity.
Citation, sir: N.H. RSA 625:8(I)
I. Except as otherwise provided in this section, prosecutions are subject to the following periods of limitations:
(a) For a class A felony, 6 years;
(b) For a class B felony, 6 years;
(c) For a misdemeanor, one year;
(d) For a violation, 3 months.
(e) For an offense defined by RSA 282-A, 6 years.
II. Murder may be prosecuted at any time.
So. I think this argument about the presumptive unwillingness of the prosecution to indict, is a moot argument. But, that's just me. Your right, there is no statute of limitations on murder, but that's not what I'm talking about. A statute of limitations is in respect to before the person gets charged. I'm talking about a persons right to a speedy trial. This Obviously comes after the arrest. The state can't just arrest someone an have them sit in jail indefinitely while they try to find more evidence, you have the right to a speedy trial.. The clock starts ticking on the day the person is arrested. In NH the state basically has two years to start your trial or the charges get dismissed, this can be extended due to defense motions and the like but it's about two years. So that means that they won't bring charges just because they found a small bloodstain, that's not enough to convict. They would need her body. All I was saying was that the state isn't going to charge someone just because they found a little blood in their house. They would have a good idea of what happened but that's not enough. Since there's no statute of limitations on murder they have all the time in the world to try to find her body and bring charges.. Bringing charges against someone too early can be a huge mistake. Basically if they arrested someone because they found blood in their closet they would have two years to bring the case to trial or it gets thrown out. I suppose they technically could charge the person and then drop the charges but that isn't how prosecutors generally work; they charge cases they can prove at trial or they wait for more evidence to come to light.
|
|
hannah_b
Sweden
|
Strange thing about Bethīs postings is she already in early March was putting out theories about Mauraīs disappearance being connected to the Valley murders, yet at this point, though living in Grafton county, said she never heard of a school bus driver. She also talked about a local wrecking service, who supposedly was the top suspect in another murder case. Wonder if thatīs the one Det Columbo was talking about.
|
|
Since: Apr 12
Brooklyn, NY
|
Please wait...
So Hannah- within a month of the dissapearance she was already probing a link to the crvk? Was there anything to make her think this besides proximity? I find the potential connection to the crvk very interesting, however unlikely. It is interesting as to whether the guy could still be out there. I hate when people say she wasn't abducted because the chances were so low. Well things with extremely low chances happen every day and girls are abducted every day; sad but true. Unfortunately it is a very real possibility she got abducted. Looking at everything it is most likely she caught a ride. The NHSP seem to agree with that as well. They sound very confident she is not in the woods near the crash scene; this is one of the only things they actually sound confident about. Yes the chances are low but there could be some nut who was out driving that night. Some weirdo could wait years for opportunity like tha. That could be the opportunity of the lifetime for some sick fuck like that. It appears that she caught a ride from the wrong person, unfortunately.
|
|
JWB
Lincoln, NH
|
Jenkins, I meant to post a while back in response to your post that talked about how difficult it is to maneuver from I91 to the crash scene, and that she must have had her sights set on Lincoln and not Vermont. I had given that thought myself that maybe maura meant to go Rt 302 west instead of rt 302 east towards Wells river (assuming she even took rt 91).You are right in that it is very tricky to maneuver through Wells river as the signage is not that great and the road that crosses over to Woodsville comes right up on you in a hurry. I wonder if Maura Stopped at the Cumberland farms for gas and maybe asked for directions etc. The Cumberland farms is directly across from the turn Maura would have taken to cross over into Woodsville or as mentioned before, she could have stopped at the truck stop after she got off rt 91. Both of these stations should have had video cameras. If Maura was heading to Burlington That night,her directions would have directed her rt 91 to rt 89 and that is well south of rt 302.The same goes for Stowe.
|
|
Since: Feb 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
amy researches wrote: <quoted text>
Hahaha. This place is awesome. Good try to pawn him off on us, but the chicks already disowned him a few pages back over his lack of menstruation knowledge.
Yes, you are missing some fascinating stuff during your travels. Fortunately it'll all be in reruns again next month. Amy I have a question for you and maybe FRMLE if he can answer it as well. Let's say hypothetically that LE arrests a man today in PA for foul play in the MM case. The DA makes a case that MM entered the vehicle and she was taken to some farm or whatever in PA and that is where she met her demise. Could the defense make the arguement using posts from "family" about the AFrame house and how there implications of foul play was in the newspaper and on this forum. Could they ask citigirl to make comment on this carpet, or ask the PIs to hand over their samples for testing. If the PI's then can't produce this carpet does it help create reasonable doubt? I guess I am asking could a good defense attorney create the jury to have reasonable doubt by using all this AFrame stuff. Would it be allowed in court?
|
|
Since: Feb 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
BobJenkins-OG wrote: I just don't get that lighthouse, you saying that unknown person means that you know who it is you just don't personally know the person?
I thought unknown person meant the person was unknown, but maybe I'm wrong there Its my fault I should have not made any comments about the poison gas, and the unknown person trying poison her.
|
|
Since: Nov 08
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
mcsmom wrote: <quoted text>
Again, Bill's reply implies he's curious if the CO was ever sourced in connection to her death in the same location.
Holy smokes, no wonder there's an epidemic of missing people. Correct, I thought that the cause of death was also from CO poisoning. I was a little confused by the way it was written but that probably was just me. Thanks for clearing that up, both of you. Bill
|
|
mcsmom
Hebron, CT
|
Simply Sarcasm wrote: I'm completely and utterly lost as to the past few pages...and I've been reading/lurking for years here and at WS.
What exactly are you saying, Just me/Paris? I think you are inferring that Beth aka SilkyBoxers was untruthful in the some sense regarding her past (Army comment) but other than that, it sounds like a plethora of detail regarding her unfortunate health issues - yet, that still doesn't broach the inexplicable portions of what you wrote...
I get she was your friend. I understand that you want to 'defend' her, in a sense.
Yet...why go into all this detail about her, now? I'm confused.
Then again, this forum has that effect on me.
mcsmom? Perhaps a synopsis from you? I've always known your posts to be succinct.:) It's not relevant information.
|
|
Since: Feb 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Lighthouse 101 wrote: <quoted text>
Amy I have a question for you and maybe FRMLE if he can answer it as well.
Let's say hypothetically that LE arrests a man today in PA for foul play in the MM case. The DA makes a case that MM entered the vehicle and she was taken to some farm or whatever in PA and that is where she met her demise. Could the defense make the arguement using posts from "family" about the AFrame house and how there implications of foul play was in the newspaper and on this forum. Could they ask citigirl to make comment on this carpet, or ask the PIs to hand over their samples for testing. If the PI's then can't produce this carpet does it help create reasonable doubt?
I guess I am asking could a good defense attorney create the jury to have reasonable doubt by using all this AFrame stuff. Would it be allowed in court? Hi Lighthouse. That's an interesting question. I don't know if any of that would happen, but I think some of it is possible. I'm guessing it wouldn't happen over your PA example, but I'm thinking some of it could happen if they prosecuted over the aframe. I was thinking about something like this the other day - that if they decided to prosecute someone over the aframe house, then I wonder how easy it would be to establish reasonable doubt. I think it was Bill who had mentioned the chain of custody for the evidence. Well, according to what two PIs told the paper, they can't even agree on what happened to the evidence. If the prosecution planned to use this carpet as evidence or these guys as witnesses, I would think the defense could theoretically try to use that news article against them. The PIs could say they were misquoted, so I don't know if a lawyer would use that by itself. They would need more to establish reasonable doubt. Unless the prosecution can establish that she is even dead, I think there's plenty of room for reasonable doubt. If I'm on a jury I would have a lot of doubts about the aframe house based on what we know here. I wouldn't want someone convicted of murder unless I could be absolutely sure he did it. Something else you brought up that is interesting- forum posts. Yes, they can be used. In this day and age, defense lawyers do (for example) send their paralegals to Facebook to look for things said by an alleged victim to contradict what they've accused our client of. I'm always shocked to see what people will post on Facebook. The prosecutors can also do this of course. I read in the news a while back about a guy being prosecuted over checking into a house on foursquare while he was robbing the place. Stupider things have happened I guess. In this case, some of the PIs had posted on forums in their own words, no misquotes, and used their real names. Family members posted and also gave quotes to the media. I don't know if any of it would be useful to either side in this case, but I think it's possible depending on who they are prosecuting and what the situation is. Too bad Mason isn't here. I would like to know what defense lawyers think about it. As a paralegal I don't know enough to say for sure. There are a couple people here with more legal experience than I have. Maybe they'll chime in?
|
|
Since: Apr 12
Brooklyn, NY
|
Please wait...
Lol, checked into a house he was robbing on foursquare?!?! Sounds like a real criminal mastermind
|
|
Since: Apr 12
Brooklyn, NY
|
Please wait...
Theoretically whatever a family has said online shouldn't be admissible into court, unless the prosecution was somehow using it as evidence; which is highly unlikely. The only thing that matters is what's in that case file as evidence against the accused, whatever the prosecution presents as evidence in the discovery phase. The defense attorney can't bring up posts that the family made online, the family isn't privy to the case file or the evidence they have; in essence the family doesn't know shit. The only way they could bring that up would be if the prosecution was somehow using forum posts to prove their case, which is highly unlikely. Same with th pi's..If the prosecution isn't using evidence the pi's collected, and they aren't using the pi's as witnesses then what they said doesn't really matter. The pi's aren't police; they are private citizens. Now if the pi was brought into court that would be another story, then they'd be allowed to use their own words to Try to discredit them.
|
|
Since: Feb 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
1
BobJenkins-OG wrote: Lol, checked into a house he was robbing on foursquare?!?!
Sounds like a real criminal mastermind Jenkins, I just tried to find the story again but I couldn't. It was either foursquare or facebook. Lighthouse, you might be interested in reading this article. It explains some of the ways social media postings are used as evidence in different types of cases: http://hamptonroads.com/2012/05/social-media-...
|
|
Since: Jun 08
Arizona
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
1
I agree that theoretically the prosecution and/or defense could use forum posts in a court of law, but there are some inherent difficulties in doing that. For one, it would be necessary to be able to track the poster's IP address and pin that to a computer that belongs to the individual, to actually prove that the person did make such-and-such a post in such-and-such forum on such-and-such day/time. Anyone can post anything on the Internet under any name, including using someone else's name and pretending to be that person. If the individual is using a computer in a library, it would be pretty difficult to prove who made the post. If the individual is using his/her home computer, it would be easier to make the case that this individual indeed made this post.
|
|
Since: Feb 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
amy researches wrote: <quoted text>
Hi Lighthouse. That's an interesting question. I don't know if any of that would happen, but I think some of it is possible. I'm guessing it wouldn't happen over your PA example, but I'm thinking some of it could happen if they prosecuted over the aframe.
I was thinking about something like this the other day - that if they decided to prosecute someone over the aframe house, then I wonder how easy it would be to establish reasonable doubt. I think it was Bill who had mentioned the chain of custody for the evidence. Well, according to what two PIs told the paper, they can't even agree on what happened to the evidence. If the prosecution planned to use this carpet as evidence or these guys as witnesses, I would think the defense could theoretically try to use that news article against them. The PIs could say they were misquoted, so I don't know if a lawyer would use that by itself. They would need more to establish reasonable doubt.
Unless the prosecution can establish that she is even dead, I think there's plenty of room for reasonable doubt. If I'm on a jury I would have a lot of doubts about the aframe house based on what we know here. I wouldn't want someone convicted of murder unless I could be absolutely sure he did it.
Something else you brought up that is interesting- forum posts. Yes, they can be used. In this day and age, defense lawyers do (for example) send their paralegals to Facebook to look for things said by an alleged victim to contradict what they've accused our client of. I'm always shocked to see what people will post on Facebook. The prosecutors can also do this of course. I read in the news a while back about a guy being prosecuted over checking into a house on foursquare while he was robbing the place. Stupider things have happened I guess.
In this case, some of the PIs had posted on forums in their own words, no misquotes, and used their real names. Family members posted and also gave quotes to the media. I don't know if any of it would be useful to either side in this case, but I think it's possible depending on who they are prosecuting and what the situation is.
Too bad Mason isn't here. I would like to know what defense lawyers think about it. As a paralegal I don't know enough to say for sure. There are a couple people here with more legal experience than I have. Maybe they'll chime in? Thanks for your response
|
|
Since: Feb 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
BobJenkins-OG wrote: Theoretically whatever a family has said online shouldn't be admissible into court, unless the prosecution was somehow using it as evidence; which is highly unlikely. If your facing execution if found guilty and family is making mention of blood on a carpet and insinuating for years that it may be in connection of a missing person I would think the defense would have a right to test the rug for DNA to prove innocence.
|
|
mcsmom
Hebron, CT
|
amy researches wrote: <quoted text>
Hi Lighthouse. That's an interesting question. I don't know if any of that would happen, but I think some of it is possible. I'm guessing it wouldn't happen over your PA example, but I'm thinking some of it could happen if they prosecuted over the aframe.
I was thinking about something like this the other day - that if they decided to prosecute someone over the aframe house, then I wonder how easy it would be to establish reasonable doubt. I think it was Bill who had mentioned the chain of custody for the evidence. Well, according to what two PIs told the paper, they can't even agree on what happened to the evidence. If the prosecution planned to use this carpet as evidence or these guys as witnesses, I would think the defense could theoretically try to use that news article against them. The PIs could say they were misquoted, so I don't know if a lawyer would use that by itself. They would need more to establish reasonable doubt.
Unless the prosecution can establish that she is even dead, I think there's plenty of room for reasonable doubt. If I'm on a jury I would have a lot of doubts about the aframe house based on what we know here. I wouldn't want someone convicted of murder unless I could be absolutely sure he did it.
Something else you brought up that is interesting- forum posts. Yes, they can be used. In this day and age, defense lawyers do (for example) send their paralegals to Facebook to look for things said by an alleged victim to contradict what they've accused our client of. I'm always shocked to see what people will post on Facebook. The prosecutors can also do this of course. I read in the news a while back about a guy being prosecuted over checking into a house on foursquare while he was robbing the place. Stupider things have happened I guess.
In this case, some of the PIs had posted on forums in their own words, no misquotes, and used their real names. Family members posted and also gave quotes to the media. I don't know if any of it would be useful to either side in this case, but I think it's possible depending on who they are prosecuting and what the situation is.
Too bad Mason isn't here. I would like to know what defense lawyers think about it. As a paralegal I don't know enough to say for sure. There are a couple people here with more legal experience than I have. Maybe they'll chime in? Mason with the help Ben Franklin the Internet guru of all guru's, fictitiously placed an IP address relating it to citigirl, resulting in bogus claims of information regarding Maura, from a poster posing as citigirl. As you know, citigirl has since claimed her innocence. There are bigger questions to ask.
|
|
Since: Feb 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
Advocator wrote: I agree that theoretically the prosecution and/or defense could use forum posts in a court of law, but there are some inherent difficulties in doing that.
For one, it would be necessary to be able to track the poster's IP address and pin that to a computer that belongs to the individual, to actually prove that the person did make such-and-such a post in such-and-such forum on such-and-such day/time.
Anyone can post anything on the Internet under any name, including using someone else's name and pretending to be that person. If the individual is using a computer in a library, it would be pretty difficult to prove who made the post. If the individual is using his/her home computer, it would be easier to make the case that this individual indeed made this post. Why risk it? If you truly think foul play why would you ever want the risk that you may have to read your posts back about insinuating foul play at the Aframe infront of a jury only to become the defenses star witness? Risk vs Reward what reward would be worth the risk to help people get off.
|
|
Since: Apr 12
Brooklyn, NY
|
Please wait...
Lighthouse 101 wrote: <quoted text>
If your facing execution if found guilty and family is making mention of blood on a carpet and insinuating for years that it may be in connection of a missing person I would think the defense would have a right to test the rug for DNA to prove innocence. That sounds right, they should have the right to test that. Particularly in murder cases the defense is given leeway to defend their client. The only thing about that is say her body was found on someone else's property and it's obvious the bloodstain had nothing to do with mm, I'm sure they could still test it if they wanted to but if it doesn't have anything to do with mm then it wouldn't do anything to test it.
|
|
Since: Feb 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
mcsmom wrote: <quoted text>
Mason with the help Ben Franklin the Internet guru of all guru's, fictitiously placed an IP address relating it to citigirl, resulting in bogus claims of information regarding Maura, from a poster posing as citigirl.
As you know, citigirl has since claimed her innocence.
There are bigger questions to ask. I didn't know Mason was involved in that. I just think it would be interesting to hear a defense lawyer's response to lighthouse's question.
|
|
mcsmom
Hebron, CT
|
amy researches wrote: <quoted text>
I didn't know Mason was involved in that. I just think it would be interesting to hear a defense lawyer's response to lighthouse's question. It would be interesting to hear from a defense lawyer who has no ties to Maura's case, yes of course.
|
|
|
Dating
