It says nothing of the sort. There is nothing in that press release that states that the FBI believes she was dead when credit card access happened. That is not what the document states. Again, it states that a grand jury approved a warrant, and that warrant is meant to look into BLs activities...
we don't know. that's the whole reason we're here. The purpose of websleuths is to look for evidence and clues, not form a posse and troll our preferred suspect. The evidence we have to date does not prove that she was dead (or alive) when he left, nor does it prove he was involved directly in...
The first page is a press release announcing a warrant. the phrase "following her death" is not part of the charging documents that follow. it is part of the grand jury warrant that cites those charges and his activities following her death.
Again, the point is there is no evidence we have...
As i stated above, the credit card charge does not mention her being dead. The press release with the quote you mention is related to the arrest warrant, which was approved by the Grand Jury after she was found. They were able to approve the warrant (i presume) based in large part on his having...
His use of her credit card. Whether she is/was alive or dead, they could arrest him for that. I think they need some formal charge to get a warrant and to hold him if found, and that is the easiest option.
Not quite. The use charge says nothing about her being dead. The press release announces an arrest warrant **pursuant to** that charge related to his activities following her death. The Grand Jury (rightly) views the card usage sufficient to allow a warrant.
"It's my understanding" is a long walk from evidence of any kind. If there has been official statements saying anything related to a date certain, please share. But thus far, so far as I've seen, there is none.
I am sure there is more evidence, but none that has been presented here. And, so, citing 8/30 as a date certain that she is deceased is unsubstantiated.
there is nothing in the charging documents (that I've seen) regarding the cardholder being dead. Only unauthorized use. The point here is we are assuming she is dead by a date certain, and none of us have evidence to support that assumption
Again, i took that window to be a rough estimate, not at all precise. "3-4 weeks" is not "Aug 22-29" in my reading, but perhaps that will come. As for the unauthorized use, that doesn't prove whether or not she was dead at that point.
(edited for focus)
One question - has the ME pinpointed specific dates beyond saying "two to three weeks"? I really heard that as a very loose timeframe, rather than pointing to a precise week.
I'm pretty sure a 20-something knows how to turn off a phone. The Stan text is odd, and it may have been him pretending to be her in order to not give the impression VMs were being ignored. He could have slipped up and said "Stan" rather than grandpa. He may not have known (or connected the...
I am thinking this too... I think i read there was another Stan in business with the family. Weird, though, that she would be getting his VMs? did they share phone numbers or something? very curious
<modsnip> They either think he is on the loose, armed and dangerous and telling nobody (which would be insane), or they are overusing violent tactics which. <modsnip> eliminates any hope to completing this particular "mission" quietly.
Seriously, I have a growing feeling they have absolutely...
definitely - that and filing the lawsuit. I'm sure there are a few trying to find their way on Fox as we speak. It's all become very disgusting - but was predictable the minute Dog showed up.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.