CO - The Stalking and Mysterious Death of Morgan Ingram #5

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you a prosecuting attorney or something? I'm curious to find where it's written that a case closed because the COD was determined not to be suspicious can be reopened without first having the COD changed. If you aren't a verified source, could you please post a link. If you are a verified source, I'll just take your word for it.

TIA

I am not an attorney. I do work for defense attorneys, that specialize in capital murder defense. Don't ask me law questions though, I just work for them.

Gitana is an attorney and stated it better than me in her post above ours. So, read her proper and eloquent phrasing on what I try to blurt out clumsily and without tact. Those are the steps necessary.

COD would be changed if someone is charged with murder to sum it up. Lots of steps involved first though.
 
Hasn't anybody ever started reading a book only to lay it down and pick it up to read again weeks or months later?
I'm not sure I get this train of thought.
 
Gitana they did get an attorney.
And more recently, TI said that someone powerful is finally going to help them. I'm not sure if she meant for M's case, or for the generic stalking awareness campaign.
 
Okay, on the m stalking facebook page, they did get some help from somebody. A simple google search will tell you who it " may" be.
 
I am not an attorney. I do work for defense attorneys, that specialize in capital murder defense. Don't ask me law questions though, I just work for them.

Gitana is an attorney and stated it better than me in her post above ours. So, read her proper and eloquent phrasing on what I try to blurt out clumsily and without tact.

COD would be changed if someone is charged with murder to sum it up. Lots of steps involved first though.

That's a major problem in that most of us laymen don't/can't understand lawyer speak - lol!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lawyer speak
(here's a good example even though I was aiming for the technical version of lawyer speak!)
 
And more recently, TI said that someone powerful is finally going to help them. I'm not sure if she meant for M's case, or for the generic stalking awareness campaign.

Maybe it's Gloria Allred and her daughter Lisa Bloom. That would be awesome!
 
Okay, on the m stalking facebook page, they did get some help from somebody. A simple google search will tell you who it " may" be.

Ok, I'm looking at the fb page and I don't see this? :waitasec:

I hate the timeline format!
 
There was? There was someone on video seen running from the house the night of M's death?

Where's that info - on the blog? If that's true, that's big and would definitely be usable evidence to show someone had at least been lurking there. Do we know what time the video indicates they were captured on the property?
If M's soul had already left her body, that would be God's intervention considering how difficult it was to capture any person on tape or otherwise. So, they showed this tape to LE?

It is huge. IIRC, mom stated they did not look at the video surveillance of that night until months later when they became uneasy with the coroner's report. Then, they saw the person running. They notified LE and asked them if they had reviewed the tapes. LE said they did not have time.

Here's my problems with that. All you have to do is release this evidence to the public (with the help of an attorney) and there will be a firestorm like you could never believe. It would be analogous to the reopening of Kathy Savio's case a s a result of Lacy Petersen's disappearance. It would also expose LE for the keystone cops or deeply corrupt officials they may be. But, this has not been done.

I also have a huge problem with the fact that this family lived in fear of Morgan being murdered by her stalker(s), Morgan's mom said that the minute she found her child's body she knew she had been murdered (according to the news) yet no one in the family, extended or not, was asked to or did review those tapes until months later.

Are you a prosecuting attorney or something? I'm curious to find where it's written that a case closed because the COD was determined not to be suspicious can be reopened without first having the COD changed. If you aren't a verified source, could you please post a link. If you are a verified source, I'll just take your word for it.

TIA

Well, looking at Kathleen Savio's case, they got an order to exhume her body and do a new autopsy. her ex was then charged with murder after a new cause of death was found. However, the very grounds for doing what was necessary to change the COD (exhume and a new autopsy), was a murder investigation.

Other cases teach us that they need something suspicious to show us that an earlier finding may be incorrect. In that case it was the disappearance of a second wife (and public pressure when the circumstances of kathleen's "accidental death" were publicized).

IMO, in this case, publication of video of someone running from the house the night Morgan died, along with Dr. Doberon's letter, would have a similar effect.

Gitana they did get an attorney.

Oh they did? Is her or she helping them? What is that attorney doing for them? That's a relief. Maybe will we see some progress now.
 
BBM
No - it's saying a book report is accurate but not being allowed to read the book.

I'm sorry, I get it now! Duh and well put!! :) It just needed a few punctuation marks for inflection, correct me if I'm wrong, should it read like this?

"No - it's saying a book report is accurate, but not being allowed to read the book?!!"
 
I can't figure it out. Can you tell us who you think it is?


All I see is a post stating someone named Steve Emersen is going to use his contacts to find a good media outlet to tell the story and is looking into a really great lawyer.

No clue what lawyer that might be. But apparently they have now hired an attorney? How do we know that, mysterygirl?

ETA: Here's Steven Emerson: [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Emerson"]Steven Emerson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Famous international journalist but different name spelling and I don't think he's the one who suggested they write their blog and also is using his contacts to help them get media attention as well as to retain counsel. The famous Emerson IS the media. He wouldn't need to punt the ball.
 
In most cases, we receive a lot of evidence, sunshine laws or not. We hear about police reports, prior court cases the victim or named POI or suspects may have been involved in, and various witness statements from other than family of the victim alone.

Here, the only evidence we have is one opinion letter from an ME and statements, an unauthenticated photo of a possible stalker and of a footprint, all from a person who may have a good reason for not accepting reality (or not).

Thus far, it's much different than many cases we examine. However, I have a feeling there will eventually be more.


post respectfully snipped bm

Given that, let's see the tape. Let's see it.

Oh, please don't lump me in with those who keep hammering that we can't discuss anything, really, because it's not a formal case or that the evidence is from one source. I have never said that or inferred any of that.

You said that in few cases do we have facts. I was simply pointing out that IMO, that's just not the case at all.

When I see what appears to be a misstatement, I respond. Others have done the same when I have made a statement they felt was incorrect. I've learned from that.

And yes, Ms. Ingram is crying out for help but instead of hiring an attorney and demanding all police reports, investigative notes etc., as I know she realizes by now she's entitled to and which are free, since she reads this site, she is writing a compelling, emotional blog.

That's cool but people have given her solid suggestions that she has not accepted. Her reasoning for not even trying to get police reports is unfathomable to me, especially at this point. I mean, I really do understand wading through grief through an emotionally charged blog about your beloved, deceased child, but either you want to investigate her death or not. You start that process by gathering evidence and enlisting professionals to help determine if LE did it's job or if not, whether higher authorities need to get involved.

I am trying to help. I have given suggestions: Get the evidence and hire an attorney.

As to the police, I am positive that their legal department do not want them opening their traps about a closed case that is being brought to the forefront again by a distraught and grieving mother. Either way, they lose. If they hammer on every reason why they feel there was no evidence of stalking or murder, they can make mom and/or daughter seem crazy and that's just cruel. If they keep their mouths shut, people may think they are hiding things and in that way they lose. But, it's the lesser of two evils.

The question is not why the police have not been more vocal about their reasoning, their investigation, etc. It's why mom has not been more proactive in accumulating documents to show there was, indeed, evidence that this could be more than natural causes or suicide, that LE and the first coroner dropped the ball and that the case needs to be reopened by a different authority and LE's incompetence investigated.

I agree that it's dense to think egos don't get in the way of finding the truth. It happens all the time. Small time LE departments can be the worst when it comes to that. But the ball is in mom's court, not LE's. :moo:

Sorreeee ~ my intention wasn't to lump you with anybody. I don't think we get too many facts in the form of what evidence police have gathered AND THE CONCLUSIONS they've drawn from the evidence. We may see them removing the computer and this and that from someone's house but they don't turn around and reveal what they found from their examination. They tell us they've received dozens or even hundreds of leads but we don't know what they are.
I still don't get why we are expecting evidence to be revealed when we know LE doesn't consider Morgan's death an open case, right?
Even if they did, they wouldn't reveal the evidence they have to us. :waitasec:

The mother's goal to get the case reopened. That's where her ball lies. What am I missing and I promise I wasn't trying to lump you with anybody. I was just responding to everyone's demand for evidence is all.

Lump me in the pile of trying to help a mother get the answers she needs to move on and the other pile of if someone committed a crime, I want them to pay for it. To me, there seems to be reasonable doubt as to either or, not just M's supposed suicide but that there may have been foul play involved that caused her death.
 
I am not an attorney. I do work for defense attorneys, that specialize in capital murder defense. Don't ask me law questions though, I just work for them.

Gitana is an attorney and stated it better than me in her post above ours. So, read her proper and eloquent phrasing on what I try to blurt out clumsily and without tact. Those are the steps necessary.

COD would be changed if someone is charged with murder to sum it up. Lots of steps involved first though.

Ok, so there is no link. Maybe You can tell me Gitana; is it different in different states, or does the COD always have to be changed before a case (suicide/accidentl death/natural causes) can be reopened and reinvestigated as a homicide? I know that in the 2 cases I know about (I wasn't directly involved but family and friends were) the police said their hands were tied unless/until the ME changed the COD. One had been originally determined to be a suicide and the other had originally been determined to be accidental.

The suicide has never been reopened because they refused to change the official COD. The accidental death was reopened more than 25 years later, and it was determined to be a homocide. Ironically, after 3 men had been charged, and 2 convicted (the 3rd was in jail for over a year before a jury found him not guilty after deliberating for less than an hour), they started wondering if they weren't all actually innocent and the original COD correct.
 
I'm sorry, I get it now! Duh and well put!! :) It just needed a few punctuation marks for inflection, correct me if I'm wrong, should it read like this?

"No - it's saying a book report is accurate, but not being allowed to read the book?!!"

OOOOOOHHHHHHH-- and YESTERDAY was National Punctuation Day! (really)
 
Gitana they did get an attorney.

Now I'm confused! I see a post dated 9-19-12, stating they are being referred to a possible attorney. Is there more info stating they have actually retained one?

Just trying to keep things straight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
50
Guests online
2,825
Total visitors
2,875

Forum statistics

Threads
604,098
Messages
18,167,451
Members
231,931
Latest member
8xbet8vip
Back
Top