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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Thank you Amanda. All that painstaking work was to benefit AH and her being found - alive. Thank you for removing the fruits of your labors now that she has. You rock.
 
My turn to bellow a bit…MOO, MOO, MOO…

I couldn't care less if AH bought weed, was offered weed, whatever. As if she'd be the only teenage kid to do so!

The sale of controlled drug charges, to me, seemed to indicate INITIALLY that she may have bought from Kibby on October 9th…then things went horribly wrong. But then we see another charge of a sale from 12/3-7/20 and that doesn't fit into any neat little box. Then, upon further investigation (thanks to all of you awesome sleuthers), we read the fully correct definition of the charges and the options of what may have transpired just grew exponentially.

It leads me to think that I have absolutely no clue as to what happened to have these charges brought against Kibby and what roll the controlled substance played in her captivity. As 2Hope4 said up thread, I hope she was given something to have "escaped", even a little bit, the horrors of being confined with this monster.
 
I haven't seen anyone here even close to imply that Kibby's pot charges in any way shape or form makes AH complicit or responsible for what happened to her or any less a victim of a monster. Until someone pointed out the charges were for Kibby's county not AH's I thought it was possible that it had somehow been used as a lure. If it had been she would have been no less the victim of a horrific crime and captivity. I know many (me included) feel very protective of this young lady but no one has posted anything even close to victim blaming regarding the pot charges against Kibby IMO.

And quite frankly, if smoking pot when "offered" some by her captor assisted her in building a rapport with her abductor then so much the better. It may well be a part of what kept her alive and saw her eventually released alive.
 
tlcya said:
I haven't seen anyone here even close to imply that Kibby's pot charges in any way shape or form makes AH complicit or responsible for what happened to her or any less a victim of a monster. Until someone pointed out the charges were for Kibby's county not AH's I thought it was possible that it had somehow been used as a lure. If it had been she would have been no less the victim of a horrific crime and captivity. I know many (me included) feel very protective of this young lady but no one has posted anything even close to victim blaming regarding the pot charges against Kibby IMO.

And quite frankly, if smoking pot when "offered" some by her captor assisted her in building a rapport with her abductor then so much the better. It may well be a part of what kept her alive and saw her eventually released alive.
Click to expand...

You're exactly right - it is already happening on SM and News sites. I have seen it and I won't repeat it here. They take the drug charges and run with the drug deal, that is why here at WS I would like to see that not develop. I wasn't accusing anyone, no one. So my post meant I would like to see it gone all over, not just here.
Whether or not she agreed, found a benefit, was forced means nothing, she's a minor, drugs didn't belong so it's only about him! it's a crime for him. Therefore a discussion about the child is moot.

:cow:
 
When I read the list of charges I must admit I was glad this took place in the USA and not here in Canada. Here, sentences for crimes run concurrently, not consecutively.
 
I am still surprised that Kibby was not a suspect or at least POI within a few months of the kidnapping. His schedule was such that he drove that route every day at the same time the kids got out of school. I know hindsight is 20/20, but this seems like a massive oversight to me. Did no one seriously check and see who normally drives that route? I mean this is lightly populated area. It would not have been too much work to find out who those people were. Most people work "9 to 5" so someone who worked from 6 to 2 would have stood out. From there it would have been a matter of narrowing down to men, and then to those men who lived alone.

I know it is totally against the rules to "bash" LE and I am not trying to do that. I have simply followed enough of these kidnapping cases to notice a pattern of most kidnappers being locals, or living within 50 miles or so.

Kibby probably saw A on many occasions walking home from school before he had his opportunity. He may have "prepped" his house well ahead of time. He would have seen her because he drove the direction she walked home from school because he got off work then. I just cannot fathom how this was missed. Also, LE had a great opportunity in this case in that they could have found a a good excuse to have searched Kibby's home due to the fact that the man was often enough in trouble for the probable cause.
 
I have always thought the opposite of many here, namely, that by shutting down conversations about the actions of a victim, that we indeed make things less "victim-friendly" and not more so. It makes it seem like the only actual victims are people who were not at all "complicit" (hate that word in this case) in what happened to them. I do not think A was buying weed off this guy, but even if she were, it would change absolutely nothing about the case or her status as a victim.

Anyway, I find it far more "victim friendly" to have an open and honest dialogue about any and all facts or theories that may help bring a criminal to justice.
 
Fireweed said:
I have always thought the opposite of many here, namely, that by shutting down conversations about the actions of a victim, that we indeed make things less "victim-friendly" and not more so. It makes it seem like the only actual victims are people who were not at all "complicit" (hate that word in this case) in what happened to them. I do not think A was buying weed off this guy, but even if she were, it would change absolutely nothing about the case or her status as a victim.

Anyway, I find it far more "victim friendly" to have an open and honest dialogue about any and all facts or theories that may help bring a criminal to justice.
Click to expand...

I would normally agree, but in this case it is a young teen. Plus there were ugly implications in posts about her and all that crap on SM. Dialogue might not have been positive. This girl needs positive. I wish I could wipe all that garbage off the internet.
 
AmandaReckonwith said:
I would normally agree, but in this case it is a young teen. Plus there were ugly implications in posts about her and all that crap on SM. Dialogue might not have been positive. This girl needs positive. I wish I could wipe all that garbage off the internet.
Click to expand...

There was a lot of garbage because everything that happened after her return was handled very poorly by the people in charge. I think they meant well, but their actions (or non-actions) just led to more speculation. There is no reason why A should have had to have gotten three of her own lawyers. She did that because the people in charge assumed that by being silent, people would ease off their speculation when in fact human nature dictates otherwise.

I know that the people in charge thought that they were protecting A by being secretive but here is the thing: people just assume that when a teenage girl is kidnapped and held by a man that she was sexually assaulted. By their silence and very awkward answers to media questions, those handling this case insinuated that there was something more going on. They are the ones who ruined much of the public's goodwill towards A. No, despite what so many have claimed the public wanted, I do not think the public wanted to hear the "dirty details". All they wanted was a very basic explanation as to what happened. Of course, everyone here can continue to shout that the public did not "deserve" answers, yada, yada, yada, and maybe that is true, but the end result is that it really hurt A. I simply do not think that those in charge were thinking as holistically as they should have. Yes, legally speaking, they did everything well. But they should have thought a bit more outside the box. This is a special case and they should have treated it differently.

By the way: it was the authorities themselves who made it seem like A ran away. I get that was a tactic, but then they should have explained it was a tactic after the arrest. The reason a lot of people are "against" A, is because they believed LE and thought A ran away, which was exactly what LE wanted. They should have cleared that up as soon as they could. Again, these people have been horrible communicators and it has caused far more harm than good to A.
 
As a (mostly) lifelong New Hampshire resident, I just have one comment: this AG is notoriously tight-lipped on high-profile and sensitive cases. There was very little information released on the death of Celina Cass in 2011.

There were also a number of shooting deaths in April 2012 in New Hampshire; the AG's office was fairly silent on most of them. Much of that is because of the lack of criminal circumstance, but in those cases where the justice system would be utilized most everyone kept quiet.

New Hampshire is, historically, politically conservative. That doesn't always translate to social conservatism, but there's a fairly prevalent mentality that involves keeping to oneself. My perception is that it spills over into the governmental bodies as well. It's just the way things are done. I don't at all disagree with the things that you've said, Fireweed, but I'm just painting my perspective on it.
 
It is always unfortunate though when people just keeping doing things the way they always have done them, even if the circumstances warrant a different approach. Also, it certainly did not help the D.A. here that they were unable to get and arrest or conviction in the Celina Cass case, a case which should have been easy to solve. I think that the public did not have a lot of faith in them because of that case.

They could have still played their cards close to their chest and made a statement that would have really, really helped A. I have known a few lawyers like this is my life. They obsess over the legal details of something and totally blow off the rest.
 
I just want to wish everyone here a very merry Christmas.

I know our dear girl has much to celebrate and for that I am thankful and happy as well.

To all of you Happy holidays, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Yule, and Festivus for the rest of us.



:sleigh:
:santahat:

:christmastree:

:snowman:


Peace and Joy :cow:
 
I have wondered what LE could have done, or not done, which might have resolved this sooner. Perhaps once all the info is out there, ideas will come forth which will help in similar situations. Hopefully, something "good" will come of this.
It does give me a great deal of comfort knowing a young lady is home with her family for the holidays. That is the best gift they could ever want!
 
http://www.conwaydailysun.com/newsx/local-news/118438-kibby-pleads-not-guilty-to-205-charges

The next step will probably be dispositional conference orders by the judges in each county.
"These orders will likely include, but not be limited to, dates for depositions, major motions, jury selection and trial; notices of defense, discovery deadlines; disclosure of experts; witness lists and general voir dire questions for potential jurors,"
Click to expand...

http://www.courts.state.nh.us/press/2015/kibby1.htm

CONCORD, NH - The Superior Courts in Coos and Carroll Counties announced today that the video arraignments scheduled for Thursday, January 8 and Friday, January 9 in the above-captioned cases have been waived by the defendant.
Click to expand...

Also see all documents here;

http://www.courts.state.nh.us/caseinfo/pdf/kibby/index.htm

This guy is never going back home to his:

kibbyprop.jpg


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/12/17/24216F9C00000578-2878098-image-m-58_1418855008732.jpg
 
Wow the wheels of justice turn painfully slow! Just reading this shows how much still lies ahead.
 
newguy123 said:
When I read the list of charges I must admit I was glad this took place in the USA and not here in Canada. Here, sentences for crimes run concurrently, not consecutively.
Click to expand...

I believe here it is at the judges discretion whether the sentence runs concurrently or consecutively.
 
I agree with the motion. It's a good one. The argument that the crimes charged were part of one long continuous crime is correct. It was not one crime in one county, followed by a period of not crime, then a new crime in a new county. IMO it was indeed all one continuous crime, start to finish.
 
Bear in mind I am ignorant of how the law works in cases like this, but have they perhaps overplayed their hand?

Is it possible for the Kibby camp to then argue that there was one continuous sexual assault and one continuous felonious sexual assault, resulting in only 2 charges instead of 160?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 202 more.
Total: 2,953 (members: 203, guests: 2,750)

Online statistics

Members online
203
Guests online
2,750
Total visitors
2,953
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,885
Messages
18,100,830
Members
230,947
Latest member
tammiwinks
Back
Top