Mystery: Who removed the memorials? UPDATE The A's and the Milsteads that's who

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it is time for the protesters to show back up. Bet the do fore it's all over.

yep..... cause all those people who were yelling obscenties and threats, who pointed a laser at GA's back, and who dragged their own children there to be caught up in the circus are such fine folk. :rolleyes:
 
May be sad to some---but I would love to see somebody slap CA to the moon.
 
Just to clear up the trespassing NON-issue:

In Florida, only the property owner or authorized agent can file a trespass complaint.
In order to do so, the owner/agent must notify LE and have a trespass warrant served upon the alleged trespasser while ON the property.
Thereafter, if that person goes upon the property they are in fact trespassing and may be charged with such upon a proper complaint filed by the owner/agent.
Signs or no signs, it doesn't much matter.
 
I think the difference is that most of us would think that people placing crosses and stuffed animals at a memorial indicates their respect for the deceased. Most people would be touched to have someone honor a loved one that way, and if they weren't, they would still have the decency to allow them to express their care and concern.

The Anthonys, by insisting on angrily removing every piece of tribute to Caylee, refusing to provide a place where people can stop and reflect on the tragedy and how it might make them more grateful for their own little loved ones - by insisting that they are the only ones allowed to feel anything for the little girl they were too happy to splash all over the media when it suited them - are foolishly managing to ruin every single spot of sympathy the public has been able to muster for them and their loss.

Their propriety insistence that only THEY are allowed to grieve and be close to Caylee (ostensibly through cremation jewelry) seems selfish and cruel given the fact that they were only too happy to share her image and story with the whole world when it would benefit them. It's not their grieving anyone objects too, it is that they are insisting on controlling everyone else's right to join them, like the list of those "invited" to the memorial.
 
I apologize for my assumption, it seems you are correct. What a shame because I really feel the instigators in this situation deserve to face charges.
Fortunately or unfortunately, depending upon one's personal views, taking action that one knows or reasonably should know will instigate instigating others to act isn't always criminal.

As you know, in the case of the internet suicide case against Drew, discussed at WS recently here: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3763245&highlight=internet+suicide#post3763245, prosecutors argued that "... Drew's acts were criminal because she signed up for the fake account with the intention of harming Megan by humiliating her. Drew knew her acts were illegal and deleted the account shortly after Megan's death to cover up her crime, he contended...." See here: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-myspace19-2009may19,0,6394911.story
 
Just to clear up the trespassing NON-issue:

In Florida, only the property owner or authorized agent can file a trespass complaint.
In order to do so, the owner/agent must notify LE and have a trespass warrant served upon the alleged trespasser while ON the property.
Thereafter, if that person goes upon the property they are in fact trespassing and may be charged with such upon a proper complaint filed by the owner/agent.
Signs or no signs, it doesn't much matter.
Which also means that a property owner may elect to have certain persons so charged, and not others.
 
ITA ... I swear this whole bunch needs to read and memorize the book Co-dependent No More.

Unless you are willing to change- nothing changes! They can read and memorize the bible, they wouldn't learn anything from it!
 
Just to clear up the trespassing NON-issue:

In Florida, only the property owner or authorized agent can file a trespass complaint.
In order to do so, the owner/agent must notify LE and have a trespass warrant served upon the alleged trespasser while ON the property.
Thereafter, if that person goes upon the property they are in fact trespassing and may be charged with such upon a proper complaint filed by the owner/agent.
Signs or no signs, it doesn't much matter.

On vacant property with no structure, in Florida, it must be Posted.
 
Now for my comments on the NON-issue:

It appears to me that many people placed rememberances on what has been described as county land. NO ONE but the county or the property owner/agent had a right to remove those objects. A visitor attempted to remove some items in the past and was prevented from doing so.

The owner of the property made no known attempt to clear the property but SOMEONE did, even though there was ample press coverage that it was not allowed.

So, imo, the ORIGINAL violator was not those who left objects, but those who removed them.

Had the objects not been removed, there would have been no press for anyone attempting to insert themselves into anything. From what I read, Lois and company put crosses there repeatedly and it wasn't until they were removed that there was interest. So I don't see how anyone can logically blame Lois with this at all. Perhaps out of past grievances but not on recent actions.

According to both GA and CA they have never gone to the site and never will. It is not on their way to anywhere and therefore not even something they had to take steps to avoid. So, their supporters cannot logically claim they had any way of knowing that Lois placed the crosses and they were being baited by Lois, an antagonist.

And what is the excuse for the high speed chase? Who put the A's and M's in charge of neighborhood security? Who gave the M's the authority to have "strobe lights" in the grill of their vehicle mimicing police lights? Isn't impersonating LE a crime everywhere?

Finally, I'll be very interested to hear about the "suspicious vehicle" report phoned in by the A's and M's that night. They did call 911, didn't they? Didn't they announce that was their intent and the FOUR OF THEM got out of their cars to NOTIFY the 'suspicous vehicle' occupants of their intention to dial 911? That was the purpose for getting out of their car, right?

GMAFB
 
I am very sorry Chilly but, I could never use the words decency and respect in the same sentence with these people.

Sure you could -- you'd just to have something along the lines of: "Total lack of _____"
 
Without knowing what actually happened and knowing that the truthfulness of everyone involved has been questioned in the past, I can't say that it was a dangerous situation. I do agree, it was childish on all parts and, IMO, mean and cruel on the part of those doing the baiting.

Please explain to me how the A's were baited. They never go there and there has been no press coverage of Lois being there prior to now.
 
Also, I "think" I've read where the memorial was on the public right-of-way, easement, if you will ........ which covers several feet between the roadway and the actual "property line." And, it appears, this same area is where the most recent cross was placed (in video). Consequently, I do not think trespassing would be applicable. Now, the city certainly has the right to clean up right-of-ways.

This is correct, I believe. They were putting the crosses on the public right of way, and were not trespassing on the owner's actual property. Watch the vid, you can see the No Trespassing signs way behind where they put the cross.
 
Keep in mind Chilly, I'm going on the assumption the new owner has not put up posted signs. Maybe they have.

If you watch the video of the story on WESH you can see "No Tresspassing" signs just over their shoulders as they hammer the cross into the ground. However, in the video interview of GA last week, concerning the removal of the Caylee memorial, it is reported that the area where the memorial stood was public right-of-way. Anyone could have legally removed the memorial.

So... it appears any legal issues from last night's craziness have nothing to do with tresspassing or even theft. However, the car chase, complete with flashing lights, does sound like a problem.
 
yep..... cause all those people who were yelling obscenties and threats, who pointed a laser at GA's back, and who dragged their own children there to be caught up in the circus are such fine folk. :rolleyes:

Ooooh Arrgh I SO hear what you are saying! I see we have been told not to discuss these people so I won't.

But those protesters had little room to point fingers at anyone!! Dragging their children out in the middle of the night to sight see at the Anthony's home. The "mothers" who encouraged their children to LIE and pretend Lee actually hit them with his car. The woman screaming at Cindy that she's a lousy mother as her own child is closing his arm in the door and dropping to the ground crying.. nobody going to his rescue.

Those people made me sick! These were defensless children, their mothers should at least be responsible enough to get a friggin' baby sitter if they want to go start with the people down the road known to run around with hammers and do burn outs out of court parking lots!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
147
Guests online
342
Total visitors
489

Forum statistics

Threads
609,381
Messages
18,253,477
Members
234,648
Latest member
WhereTheWildThingsAre
Back
Top