GUILTY NH - Abby Hernandez, 14, North Conway, 9 Oct 2013 - #15

[tlcya]

While it would not be unethical for her to address Kibby's charges directly, the onus is not on Abby or her representatives (attorneys) to address any of that to us as a public. So while it might clear the air for many who still have questions, their concern first and foremost is not to reassure the public that the charges against Kibby are just and fair. That is for the prosecution to tackle.

Abby's job is simply to heal and be a cooperative witness for the state.

Not being argumentative, just expressing my own view which differs.

 

[Fireweed]

I do not think that the onus is on Abby or her attorneys to do or say anything at all. In fact, there is no reason for Abby to even have an attorney. I am simply pointing out that what they chose to say, was worded oddly and in a way that I normally associate with suspects or defendants. I do not think that Abby is not victim because of it. What I wonder is if perhaps another person was involved, or if someone other than Kibby abducted her.

 

[skibaboo]

I'm struggling a little as It's all odd to me, the case, every case on WS from the US. I'm English I have to remind myself these people are real, these horrors happened, and it's not a TV show or movie. I'm still learning how LE works, how the legal system works, then every LE and every jurisdiction operates differently. I honestly saw the statement from Abby's lawyers as a "Abby's been through hell, back off, you will see soon enough" kinda thing. Aimed at the haters, the naysayers, the doubters. To me Abby is 100% a victim of a heinous crime. I don't understand why people think it's fishy? Fireweed, more BS? What BS was there originally?

 

[tlcya]

Skibaboo, I am American and I still struggle to understand the ins and outs and rules of our system of justice. It can be difficult because of variations in the statutes from region to region. I have found that there are often people who are puzzled and/or suspicious of some of the tactical maneuvering that goes on during the criminal case. Sometimes I am one of them, Holly Bobo's case for instance. I just don't happen to feel that way in this case. I see no BS, deception or subterfuge. Others do.

It's all good.

 

[skibaboo]

Skibaboo, I am American and I still struggle to understand the ins and outs and rules of our system of justice. It can be difficult because of variations in the statutes from region to region. I have found that there are often people who are puzzled and/or suspicious of some of the tactical maneuvering that goes on during the criminal case. Sometimes I am one of them, Holly Bobo's case for instance. I just don't happen to feel that way in this case. I see no BS, deception or subterfuge. Others do.

It's all good.

Thanks!

 

[Fireweed]

I explained why I thought that statement from Abby's lawyers was fishy, namely that it is in the passive voice and it does not mention Kibby by name. Here, let me give a different example: "Mistakes were made" vs. "I made a mistake"

Both sentences convey basically the same thing, except for one takes ownership of making the mistake and one does not. Saying that "Abby was violently abducted by a stranger" could mean that she was abducted by someone other than Kibby. The sentence does not accuse a specific abductor, which I find odd since Abby has already accused a specific man. I am not claiming to be right or wrong about this, and I certainly have no concrete evidence that it means anything, but I still find it odd nonetheless. It is certainly not the way that I, as a lawyer, would have written that statement. To me it comes across as being phrased in a way so as to conceal the perpetrator's identity, which would make no sense given what we know.

All I am saying is that the lawyers released this statement as a sort of "back off, haters" thing and I think that it failed in accomplishing that. It just made people even more suspicious. Instead of clarifying, I think it muddied the waters even more.

 

[skibaboo]

I explained why I thought that statement from Abby's lawyers was fishy, namely that it is in the passive voice and it does not mention Kibby by name. Here, let me give a different example: "Mistakes were made" vs. "I made a mistake"

Both sentences convey basically the same thing, except for one takes ownership of making the mistake and one does not. Saying that "Abby was violently abducted by a stranger" could mean that she was abducted by someone other than Kibby. The sentence does not accuse a specific abductor, which I find odd since Abby has already accused a specific man. I am not claiming to be right or wrong about this, and I certainly have no concrete evidence that it means anything, but I still find it odd nonetheless. It is certainly not the way that I, as a lawyer, would have written that statement. To me it comes across as being phrased in a way so as to conceal the perpetrator's identity, which would make no sense given what we know.

All I am saying is that the lawyers released this statement as a sort of "back off, haters" thing and I think that it failed in accomplishing that. It just made people even more suspicious. Instead of clarifying, I think it muddied the waters even more.

Thanks for clarifying, I think I misunderstood. I understood what you were saying but thought you were implying more than the statement was fishy, my bad. I appreciate your perspective, looking at it with a lawyers eye. I saw it as a 'back off haters' thing too but I only saw saying "Abby was abducted by a stranger" as saying Abby did not know Kibby, as had been speculated (not necessarily here but locally)

 

[tlcya]

Thanks for explaining your thought process fireweed. While mine took me another route I appreciate civil discussion even if we don't see eye to eye on certain points.

 

[Fireweed]

I should also add that I am a statement analysis junkie. I also work as a legal translator so I constantly think about how things should be worded and which words to use. One thing (that drives a lot of people in my life crazy) is that I never jump straight to intent; I always first take someone's words at face value. So here, for example, although the intent may have been to put out there that Abby's abductor was Kibby and he was a stranger to her, that is not actually what the lawyers said.

 

[newguy123]

Interesting discussion. The nuances are so important. I can see the concern about AH lawyer's statement not identifying NK specifically. In the recently released legal documents (links posted in this thread) it states that Abby was able to identify NK as the person who held her captive since Oct 9 2013. The statement of hers stated she was there at his home, did not state specifically he kidnapped her, it said she could identify the person who held her since October 9th 2013. I suppose there is a difference between the actual kidnapping and keeping her captive...but the fact it she phrased it as "held her captive" as opposed to "he is the one who kidnapped me" is interesting.
On the other hand....I live in a different country with different legal traditions, and often "miss" stuff right in front of me. So not sure if that phrasing is significant or not.

 

[Fireweed]

Interesting discussion. The nuances are so important. I can see the concern about AH lawyer's statement not identifying NK specifically. In the recently released legal documents (links posted in this thread) it states that Abby was able to identify NK as the person who held her captive since Oct 9 2013. The statement of hers stated she was there at his home, did not state specifically he kidnapped her, it said she could identify the person who held her since October 9th 2013. I suppose there is a difference between the actual kidnapping and keeping her captive...but the fact it she phrased it as "held her captive" as opposed to "he is the one who kidnapped me" is interesting.
On the other hand....I live in a different country with different legal traditions, and often "miss" stuff right in front of me. So not sure if that phrasing is significant or not.

I do not think you are missing anything. In the law and the legal system, it is extremely important how words are used. Words in the law have a very specific and intentional meaning. For example, Kibby is charged with an "intent to commit an offense against her." One thing that some people here have a hard time understanding is that Kibby could have been charged with that crime and still have not committed any sort of offense against Abby. All that matters under the law is that Kibby, when he kidnapped Abby, had the intent to commit an offense against her. He could have, 5 minutes after the kidnapping, dropped that intent and the charge would be exactly the same.

By the way, the charge against Kibby is that he "knowingly confined Abby with an intent to commit an offense against her." That does not necessarily mean that he abducted her. It also does not mean that he ultimately committed any offense against her.

 

[newguy123]

It all makes my head swim! The prosecutors did say other charges may be forthcoming......didn't they? So, in theory, the sketch of the man released originally could be the abductor and NK was the one to actually detain her? It could explain, in a very literal sense why the sketch doesn't match NK. LE asks her to describe the man who abducted her......and she did. However, the abductor and the detainer could be two different people.
Oh boy.....I guess it's best to wait for the trial because there are so many ways to speculate about this stuff. Sadly that is what it is.....speculation.

 

[Fireweed]

It all makes my head swim! The prosecutors did say other charges may be forthcoming......didn't they? So, in theory, the sketch of the man released originally could be the abductor and NK was the one to actually detain her? It could explain, in a very literal sense why the sketch doesn't match NK. LE asks her to describe the man who abducted her......and she did. However, the abductor and the detainer could be two different people.
Oh boy.....I guess it's best to wait for the trial because there are so many ways to speculate about this stuff. Sadly that is what it is.....speculation.

I wonder if there are really anymore charges coming. They act as though the probable cause hearing and the grand juries are coming up soon. So they are going to go through both procedures, and then charge this man with more crimes? Okay....

 

[BillNH]

I explained why I thought that statement from Abby's lawyers was fishy, namely that it is in the passive voice and it does not mention Kibby by name. Here, let me give a different example: "Mistakes were made" vs. "I made a mistake"

Both sentences convey basically the same thing, except for one takes ownership of making the mistake and one does not. Saying that "Abby was violently abducted by a stranger" could mean that she was abducted by someone other than Kibby. The sentence does not accuse a specific abductor, which I find odd since Abby has already accused a specific man. I am not claiming to be right or wrong about this, and I certainly have no concrete evidence that it means anything, but I still find it odd nonetheless. It is certainly not the way that I, as a lawyer, would have written that statement. To me it comes across as being phrased in a way so as to conceal the perpetrator's identity, which would make no sense given what we know.

All I am saying is that the lawyers released this statement as a sort of "back off, haters" thing and I think that it failed in accomplishing that. It just made people even more suspicious. Instead of clarifying, I think it muddied the waters even more.

I agree the statement was off and not just in its tone or lack of naming Kibby. The entire point of her lawyers statement was to adjust public perception of the case. Period. It may be that he was trying to CORRECT public perception by mentioning abuse but he also could have been ADJUSTING public perception to benefit his client. We all suspect there is way more to this story because the whole thing has been odd from the start. Much better for Abby and the potential jury pool to be thinking in terms of Kibby being an abuser of young girls until trial rather than having the public be critical of Abby's role in this whole thing for the many months before trial. They could have said "back off!" without mentioning abuse or that they didn't know each other prior. Yes it was a calculated statement and IMO was given specifically to change public perception. We are still left to wonder why they felt it was necessary to paint the picture they way they did.

 

[newguy123]

If I remember correctly the heavily censored released info the other day did identify NK as the man who detained her, but it did not state he abducted her. Maybe there are still others involved???

 

[tlcya]

I wonder if Abigail canot identify the person who abducted her because she did not see him and he spoke little in a different voice or tone or his voice was muffled or altered.

One person could easily fool another whose vision was obscured. Abby could be unable to identify her abductor as the same person who detained her after initially being grabbed if she was taken or placed somewhere alone/secured and then taken somewhere a short time later or an abductor giving the appearance of transferring her to another through some means.

I do not believe anyone else was involved but wonder if LE cannot really prove for whatever reason Kibby was the abductor but hope to be able to link him to it by evidence, for now they have him on the other charges.

Could it be as simple as Abby not being able to say with certainty that he is the man who took her but can with certainty say that he is the one who "knowingly confined" her?

Police allege Kibby knowingly confined Abby, then 14, on Oct. 9, sometime after she left school to walk to her home in North Conway. Abby returned home the night of July 20, but authorities have not explained the circumstances of her return.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/28/nathan-kibby-abigail-hernandez_n_5628591.html

 

[Amperstand]

Hi all,

After lurking for a year, I finally registered.

I don't have much to add to the discussion, but since I've been following this case for a while, I'd like to say, for my own sake:

1) I'm so freaking happy that Abby came back to her family. I found myself thinking about her this thanksgiving-- I (luckily) can't imagine what Abby has been through nor what her family has been through, but I was personally thankful for her return. I really hope she's getting everything she needs.

2) The charges against Kibby are oddly vague, as other sluethers have said. If he did what I think he did (detain a minor for almost a year & who knows what else) I hope he goes away for a long, long time.

3)I get so frustrated that the trial hasn't started yet. I know it will take forever--I can't deal with the time frame, and I'm just an observer--it must be so hard on the victims.

Thanks for listening. I look forward to posting more!
A

 

[Bravo]

:welcome: Amperstand

 

[Fireweed]

press conference at 430.

 

[tlcya]

press conference at 430.

Any other info? Links? Thanks for the heads up.