2010.06.21 ~ CNN says focus of investigation not on TH

[tlcya]

So far, I haven't seen confirmation of the cel ping thing from LE, but with very little having been confirmed by LE I do not know if that makes it inverified fact or unverified rumor. So for now, I will stay out of specualtion that has to do with pings.

 

[human]

I think LE has given a lot of information.

1. They have not given a profile of a person who would do an act like this.

2. They have not told people things to look for in a possible perp such as getting rid of a vehicle or not coming to work. Those kinds of things that LE usually says .

3. LE has not given the impression that other children are in danger.

 

[nursebeeme]

Many posters here have indicated that this paper is anything but a rumor-mongering rag. Whether the paper is free or not is hardly relevant. Where I live, we have a weekly, which is free, and does some of the most in-depth pieces in the state on all sorts of current affairs and is often way ahead of the curve. I think it is probably very similar to the weekly there in Portland that printed the story last week. I think their wording was very cautious, as it should be, but that does make it unreliable, automatically. In any case, the fact that so many other sources have picked it up tells me it is not a notoriously poor source.

exactly.

this paper won a pulitzer prize in 2005 for investigative reporting and one of the only papers of it's type to do so. http://www.aan.org/alternative/Aan/ViewCompany?oid=oid:99

 

[raeann]

Bolding in first paragraph by me.

Usually, I'm in agreement with you Raeann, but I think you are incorrect here. WW article is very clear that the five people are "law enforcement officials" - not janitors, receptionists, or secretaries, as you say.

The other thing is, if you are going to disparage the paper for being free, and weekly, it would be nice to explain exactly why. When has the WW been shown to be unprofessional as a newspaper? I would consider the fact that it won a Pulitzer Prize (for investigative journalism), and that it has broken some pretty important local news here in Portland/Oregon (Neil Goldschmidt, for example) to count in its favor. Honestly, there is nothing about what WW reported that the Oregonian wouldn't have written.

It was not meant to disparage them, but to point out that a WEEKLY paper is not able to keep up to the minute on breaking information. The fact that someone may CLAIM to be a law enforcement official does not mean that they ARE one. If a person is not willing to be named by the media source that they are giving information to....their claims should always be questioned as to their reliability. If they are also not willing to allow the paper to say "a former detective" or a "one time patrol officer".....that is further reason to question why they do not want to be forthcoming.

When the WW article directly contradicts what LE is telling the media, it should not be given MORE credence than what LE is saying. If some want to include it in their thoughts on the case, that is great. But for other news sources to quote them as a definitive source is poor journalism at best.

jmo

 

[SuziQ]

IMO, this is about LE keeping TH from lawyering up.

 

[Calliope]

exactly.

this paper won a pulitzer prize in 2005 for investigative reporting and one of the only papers of it's type to do so. http://www.aan.org/alternative/Aan/ViewCompany?oid=oid:99

minor distinction, perhaps

http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2005-Investigative-Reporting

awarded to Nigel Jaquiss.

/OT

 

[Karen Anne RN]

...if, (and I do mean a very hypothetical IF) I were trying to dump a body....and I knew about cell phone pings.....I think I might drive around to random places with my cell phone and then while I was actually doing the dirty work I might just leave my cell at home.

Because all the while they are searching a random place for a body, I would have hidden it somewhere completely different and as we all know from the Caylee Anthony case,the more a body decomposes, the harder it is to determine cause of death.

Just sayin.

MOO.

I read here last night that she did not have her cell phone with her when she went to the bus to pick him up. I thought that was a strange thing to do.

But it would account for why she was not the one calling the school and 911.
She may or may not have had it with her, I don't know.. just read it here last night.

 

[Calliope]

IMO, this is about LE keeping TH from lawyering up.

I hope they have a lawyer.

 

[SuziQ]

I hope they have a lawyer.

Lol yeah, but ya know LE is hoping they don't go there.

 

[raeann]

exactly.

this paper won a pulitzer prize in 2005 for investigative reporting and one of the only papers of it's type to do so. http://www.aan.org/alternative/Aan/ViewCompany?oid=oid:99

Yes, but please note that the blub quoted there was not written ABOUT them it was written BY the WW to promote themselves. The same blub appears all over the net on various self advertising types of sites. That Pulitzer Prize was also awarded to the reporter, not technically to the paper itself. Not that both should not be commended for his work.

jmo

 

[grayjay]

The thing that stands out for me, is when Gates said something about wanting to get it 'perfect.' This might mean he knows he got a lot right and that part was easy enough. Maybe too easy. Now he has to nail down a whole load of smaller details. We all want to know the details, the reasons, the ways and means. It also might signal he's wanting to get a confession. Now that could be perfect, right?

 

[sofia76]

It was not meant to disparage them, but to point out that a WEEKLY paper is not able to keep up to the minute on breaking information. The fact that someone may CLAIM to be a law enforcement official does not mean that they ARE one. If a person is not willing to be named by the media source that they are giving information to....their claims should always be questioned as to their reliability. If they are also not willing to allow the paper to say "a former detective" or a "one time patrol officer".....that is further reason to question why they do not want to be forthcoming.

When the WW article directly contradicts what LE is telling the media, it should not be given MORE credence than what LE is saying. If some want to include it in their thoughts on the case, that is great. But for other news sources to quote them as a definitive source is poor journalism at best.

jmo

It is a weekly hardcopy paper, but this article was posted in the News wire section, which gets updated more frequently. It is hardly different than the Oregonlive.com articles that often don't appear in the paper copy version of The Oregonian. I also don't see how what WW published contradicted information that LE has given. LE has never said they were not reviewing cell phone records. No single paper is a definitive source for news, but WW is a newspaper, and we have the right to discuss what they've written and consider it.

 

[sofia76]

The thing that stands out for me, is when Gates said something about wanting to get it 'perfect.' This might mean he knows he got a lot right and that part was easy enough. Maybe too easy. Now he has to nail down a whole load of smaller details. We all want to know the details, the reasons, the ways and means. It also might signal he's wanting to get a confession. Now that could be perfect, right?

Yes, especially if most of what they have is circumstantial. If someone did harm or abduct Kyron, there was a lot of thought put into it, or they had help. That means LE needs to be careful with their case, and maintain control over it.

 

[Kelly Faraday]

If she's smart, she has retained an attorney, guilty or not.

Calliope,

You are SO right. I've often been bashed (on other boards) for saying people who are innocent need an attorney. But in a situation like this, I think she would be wise to seek legal counsul. While it's nothing personal, there is no way LE wouldn't suspect her. They would be amiss in their role as investigators if they didn't.

While it is obvious the most important person here is Kyron, someone ultimately being imprisoned for a crime they didn't commit isn't going to solve anything.

That said, I'm no longer so sure she is telling truth. I hope she is.

Kelly

 

[tlcya]

I am backing off my statement that the WW is a blog as someone (I think maybe Sofia) disabused me of that notion the other day. But I still have issues with all the "unnamed sources".

I am not trying to further the debate over WW but rather whenever there are "unnamed sources close to the investigation" or "unnamed LE officers" quoted as a source, I choose to give it less credence. Others tend to give it more. We all have our beliefs about this particular story and I think we are pretty well entrenched with them.

I wish everyone well and do not feel I am going to sway others who disagree nor will they sway my opinion on what is or is not legitimate news vs speculation so I will step out of this one with one final thought.

LE is taught very very early on not to communicate with the press unless via the designated information liason through scheduled pressers. And with good reason. If 5 separate officers have made statements to press ouside those bounds I find that very disturbing and doubt I am alone. Their jobs may be in jeopardy as this kind of thing is taken VERY seriously by their commanding officers. as always MOO

now carry on kids

 

[sofia76]

Calliope,

You are SO right. I've often been bashed (on other boards) for saying people who are innocent need an attorney. But in a situation like this, I think she would be wise to seek legal counsul. While it's nothing personal, there is no way LE wouldn't suspect her. They would be amiss in their role as investigators if they didn't.

While it is obvious the most important person here is Kyron, someone ultimately being imprisoned for a crime they didn't commit isn't going to solve anything.

That said, I'm no longer so sure she is telling truth. I hope she is.

Kelly

I totally agree! If I were in TH's situation, I would have legal counsel. And I would be very, very surprised if she didn't. A company like Intel will often have low cost legal counsel available for a nominal fee to its employees. I guess they could have not opted for that, but if they did, now is the time to use it! The police are not on the side of the parents; they are there to make an arrest, period. If they do anything else (console the parents, etc.) it's basically extra stuff, or a ploy.

But there is a difference between having legal counsel and "lawyering up" with a criminal defense attorney.

 

[BOZGAL]

The thing that stands out for me, is when Gates said something about wanting to get it 'perfect.' This might mean he knows he got a lot right and that part was easy enough. Maybe too easy. Now he has to nail down a whole load of smaller details. We all want to know the details, the reasons, the ways and means. It also might signal he's wanting to get a confession. Now that could be perfect, right?

That perfect word really stood out to me. I have never heard LE use this term when speaking about an investigation. :waitasec: Maybe some have but I sure have missed it.

jmho

 

[nursebeeme]

IMO, this is about LE keeping TH from lawyering up.

couldn't agree more

((why do I keep getting misty croslin feelings?))

 

[eyes4crime]

I'm amazed that only one paper, with others picking the info up, is stating so-called facts about 'cell phone pings'; the facts are coming from un-named sources - best paper in the country or not, are we now at a point where cell-phone pings are equal = to DNA evidence? just a question and moo mho

 

[TrialAddict]

I am surprised they don't already have a lawyer , but we don't know if they do or not, I have a lawyer for my family. We have had one for years. Although is he is not a criminal lawyer, he would be the one I would call first. If I needed one I am sure he would refer me to the best criminal lawyer I could afford.