gitana1
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- May 31, 2005
- Messages
- 29,385
- Reaction score
- 230,000
I mean, yeah, that's the point. Until the police clears her, she's stuck in limbo. She can go against her lawyer's wishes and risk being railroaded, or keep out of it, hoping more competent investigators look into the case at one point. It's not an enviable position.
As for the great number of parties involved, it's one thing to assist with the investigation, another to lead it. Has the FBI or the DEA said publicly they agree with the MCSO's choice of suspect? Would they even be in a position to have an opinion?
You know, this reminds me of Brittanee Drexel. The FBI publicly declared a young man as a suspect based on the word of a prison snitch, while the family of the victim claimed there was plenty of evidence against him that hadn't been made public. If you checked forums, including this one, the case was treated as essentially solved, and as the years went by without the suspect being charged, it was called a travesty of justice. Then, just this year, a completely unrelated man confessed and led police to the body. So the FBI were wrong and there was no secret evidence.
If a grand jury (who would "indict a ham sandwich"), after hearing hundreds of testimonies and seeing the evidence, including the hypothetical "hidden evidence", still hasn't indicted twelve years later? I'd say the case is flimsy at best.
With respect, I think you keep moving the goal post and going in circles. Again, based on two decades of family law experience (not to mention much longer sleuthing crime cases), it is not human nature to give up one’s child for fear of possibly being “railroaded”. Not unless there’s been a history of not caring for said child.
It’s actually the opposite. Parents will die for their kids. They will do anything for their children. They won’t give them up for fear of giving them up. Parents will do CPR on the cold, stiff corpse of their child. They will kill for their kids and go to prison for it.
But we are to believe TH gave up her beloved child, the one she doted on, because although innocent, she fears she could be railroaded if she participated in a child custody evaluation? Nah.
As to more competent investigators, are you aware that this case has cycled through numerous lead investigators who start from scratch each time? Multiple fresh eyes? And yet they keep coming back to the same place.
Moreover, states ask for help from the FBI because they want that assistance and perspective. Not because they want to ignore what they think. That doesn’t make sense.
As to the Drexel case, this case is not at all similar. The man who wrongly accused Taylor in that case stated he had seen Drexel after she went missing and witnessed her being murdered. He gave some details that could be corroborated. It’s no wonder the FBI believed he was their man. But no snitch has accused TH. Her behavior and the facts are what have pointed toward her.
Finally, regarding the ham sandwich reference, that was a statement by a judge in the 80’s who himself was a crook, later indicted and found guilty and sentenced to federal prison.
Regardless, I believe there is a lot more evidence that we have not seen but yes, without substantial biological forensics like a body, it’s not enough for an indictment.
I’m not sure why one would conclude that means TH is likely innocent. Guilty people roam free on our planet.