Found Deceased CA - Maricela Garcia, 26, Reseda, 12 Jan 2017 #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
mistivon said:
rsbm

I believe margarita was asking about Elise Lam's detective. Her case never went to MPU, it went to Robbery/Homicide.
However, Detective Palmer is/was over Olivia Gonzalez and Brian Fernandez.
Click to expand...

(Omg you are correct. I toooootally forgot about that...)
 
Bornblest6 said:
I did a record search for MG on Los Angeles Superior Court of California
http://www.lacourt.org/criminalcasesummary/ui/Selection.aspx
It shows a drug charge on June 21, 2012 the charge is 11352(A). According to California Legislative Information Code Section
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=11352&lawCode=HSC
The definition for a 11352(A) says:
ARTICLE 1. Offenses Involving Controlled Substances Formerly Classified as Narcotics [11350 - 11356.5]

**( Heading of Article 1 amended by Stats. 1973, Ch. 1078. )
11352.**

Which in layman's terms is selling or transporting certain controlled substances, including:
Cocaine;Heroin;Peyote;LSD, and Commonly prescribed opiates.

On 5/4/16 the charge was dismissed.
Two other co-defendents are named on this drug case. Apparently they both were had court and were guilty/convicted.

I would upload the document but I don't know if it's a violation to do so.





Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
That's what I was looking for. Thank you.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
 
Bornblest6 said:
I did a record search for MG on Los Angeles Superior Court of California
http://www.lacourt.org/criminalcasesummary/ui/Selection.aspx
It shows a drug charge on June 21, 2012 the charge is 11352(A). According to California Legislative Information Code Section
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=11352&lawCode=HSC
The definition for a 11352(A) says:
ARTICLE 1. Offenses Involving Controlled Substances Formerly Classified as Narcotics [11350 - 11356.5]

**( Heading of Article 1 amended by Stats. 1973, Ch. 1078. )
11352.**

Which in layman's terms is selling or transporting certain controlled substances, including:
Cocaine;Heroin;Peyote;LSD, and Commonly prescribed opiates.

On 5/4/16 the charge was dismissed.
Two other co-defendents are named on this drug case. Apparently they both were had court and were guilty/convicted.

I would upload the document but I don't know if it's a violation to do so.





Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don't think we are allowed to name the other defendants, as they have not been names as POI's in this case.
 
code4SAR said:
The war on drugs was started by Nixon in 1971

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Oh my goodness...really? I learned something new every day. I know I was leaving early for work and the dog ignored my car.
 
I wonder if PM has any record of her being a driver.
 
Supposedly she was making deliveries for postmates. So, a driver...or what would you call it?
 
mistivon said:
Supposedly she was making deliveries for postmates. So, a driver...or what would you call it?
Click to expand...
Oh duh... Sorry, getting late here, long weekend [emoji29]

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
"On 5/4/16 the charge was dismissed.
Two other co-defendents are named on this drug case. Apparently they both were had court and were guilty/convicted."

I can see her playing the 'poor innocent girlfriend' card once and getting off, but 2 or 3 more times, and in this case 2 others were actually convicted. It can happen I guess, but now I'm wondering if the informant theories might be accurate and that's why police don't want anyone sleuthing her case for safety concerns. Who knows, I sure have no clue at this point other than I don't believe she left on her own accord.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
 
mistivon said:
Supposedly she was making deliveries for postmates. So, a driver...or what would you call it?
Click to expand...

I think it would be good to confirm too. I said a few posts back that it might be worth cross referencing with Postmates that those two deliveries were actually made. Don't mean to suggest Sarah is lying, but it will just confirm and solidify the events prior for us. And if not... well then there is that (although I think their story is true).
 
But....in that case, wouldn't you think the police would tell the family to stop talking to media? Or actually contact me and tell me to shut up? Release some kind of statement or something? Or would they just continue letting everyone speculate and be enraged?

code4SAR said:
"On 5/4/16 the charge was dismissed.
Two other co-defendents are named on this drug case. Apparently they both were had court and were guilty/convicted."

I can see her playing the 'poor innocent girlfriend' card once and getting off, but 2 or 3 more times, and in this case 2 others were actually convicted. It can happen I guess, but now I'm wondering if the informant theories might be accurate and that's why police don't want anyone sleuthing her case for safety concerns. Who knows, I sure have no clue at this point other than I don't believe she left on her own accord.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
 
I guess I can try to contact Postmate's corporate office tomorrow. Or anyone else want to?
 
Another quick thought. How did she pay rent? Is there any discrepancies between her lifestyle and her job. Postmate employees make only a certain amount and then perhaps supplement their income with another job. Would she be able to make rent on her Postmate job alone? Did the family help the girls out? Could she have made money on the side selling (again don't think this is the actively what she was doing but just curious).

Just wondering if there is something that we previously haven't accounted for ei: spending more than one could make based on their current job. What explanation for that could there be.
 
mistivon said:
But....in that case, wouldn't you think the police would tell the family to stop talking to media? Or actually contact me and tell me to shut up? Release some kind of statement or something? Or would they just continue letting everyone speculate and be enraged?
Click to expand...
Exactly. I feel like they would have instilled some form of communicated control if that were the case - Or SHOULD have if that were the case. They have to have special standard operating procedures in place when it comes to approaching those situations.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
She lived with her mother and sister. Although no one mentioned the dad....I think they all lived together.
Keep in mind, I actually spoke with the detective Friday and she didn't say anything about the press/publicity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 172 more.
Total: 1,901 (members: 173, guests: 1,728)

Online statistics

Members online
173
Guests online
1,728
Total visitors
1,901
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,456
Messages
18,124,885
Members
231,060
Latest member
lauriedries23456!
Back
Top