<respectfully snipped for space>
BUT MOST IMPORTANT:
Glynn County Police Chief Matt Doering said the crime was preventable.
“There are people in the community — adults — that had information that could’ve stopped the crime,” Doering said, “but they consciously made a decision not to come forward.”
Read more at Jacksonville.com:
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/...rs-killing-couldve-been-stopped#ixzz2PaX0wH5U
I wonder who knew about this and would that make this premeditated murder????
wow. what a twist. if true, this spins a lot of different angles.
if "people in the community" had info that could have stopped it, this surely wasn't random. you would think if this is true there would be more arrested and charged w/ conspiracy.
so many questions.
Sounds like LE is saying this was random yet also wasn't (in that it was 'preventable.') I feel like I'm using this smilie a lot in here -->
I don't understand this defense motion regarding the baby's father. Can someone please explain?
(From article)
The other motion asks for information on any deals made with Louis Santiago, the boy's father, and disclosure of any known associates and connection between Santiago and Wilfredo Calix-Flores, a victim in a prior shooting in which Elkins is now charged.
The defense says Santiago is or was an informant for an unnamed law enforcement agency. Attorneys also say Santiago has a history of domestic abuse and point to a 2002 arrest in Camden County.
http://www.news4jax.com/news/Defens...rents/-/475880/19625028/-/mckwbq/-/index.html
Okay...read the motion. Also the articles listed in the last 2 pages. In the 10 comments under the First Coast news 'attorney says' article is a comment by a prior wife of Santiago's who says she was the victim in that domestic violence 2002 arrest. Her name in that comment links to her facebook page, where she talks about that experience openly. I'm sure LE is aware of this history, though they've established no connection of that case to this case. But apparently the defense thinks this and some other questionable things in the history of Antonio's parents might 1) make their own testimonies less credible in the case of his client, and 2) possibly even be relevant to this crime. It might not read 'nice' but unfortunately he has the right to explore all this in doing his job for the defense.
What's true is true, what's false is false, and what's valid
to this case will hopefully, eventually, be sorted out. Exposing all kinds of 'truth' in an effort to extract the relevant truth has always been the price to pay for justice.
http://www.fox30jax.com/content/top...d-baby-traded-sex/GOVAoF48ekaGvI0CzoCnmQ.cspx
The mother's actions and the shooters actions are
separate as far as I can see.
It wouldn't change the charges against DE
even IF these allegations against the mother are true.
Maybe this attorney is going to claim that this shooting was somehow connected to the sex/drugs thing?
Something like DE was forced to shoot the baby by someone else, due to a drug debt, or for revenge.
It doesn't matter if the mother was a drug dealer and hooker who beat her child, sold her child and drugged her child...
That child was ALIVE when they shot him... which means he's DEAD because they shot him. :facepalm:
That is really all that matters. :twocents:
True--I don't personally care what either parents' lifestyle choices are--as long as those are not directly related to Antonio's murder. Ultimately, that's what matters--ultimately that innocent baby was The Victim. His life completely snuffed out even before he was capable of understanding the evil in the world he lived in.
The way I see it, if a defense atty thinks there might be a thread of a connection between
anyone's lifestyle and the crime they say they experienced at the hands of his accused client, (
especially when LE are saying it 'could have been prevented'), I see it as an ethical imperative that he explore that, no matter how uncomfortable that might be to all living victims/witnesses involved. Exploring the lives of all principal players for the sole purpose of saying nasty things about them or slandering them is purely malicious. Exploring things for the purpose of digging deeper into a case in an attempt to extract the whole truth--for everyone's sake--is not 'malicious,' though, but done with a mind toward eventual justice for
all victims and guilty parties. JMOUO. (JustMyOwnUnpopularOpinion)...and I know I'm going to be ducking tomatoes, here.
(In other words, if I'm ever wrongly accused of something, I'd hope to have a defense atty like 'Stretch.' Probably would even if I were 'rightly' accused of something.)
