branmuffin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2015
- Messages
- 4,319
- Reaction score
- 38,677
Why wouldn't the police files be unavailable? Is it still considered an active case?I was not able to get the police files. I did get court transcripts.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why wouldn't the police files be unavailable? Is it still considered an active case?I was not able to get the police files. I did get court transcripts.
Until she's found, yes.Why wouldn't the police files be unavailable? Is it still considered an active case?
But if she is declared to have died in the attacks, there would no longer be an open case. The ruling that she died on 9/11 means the police would not be actively looking.Until she's found, yes.
It's really odd that the family kept insisting that she be put down as a victim of 9/11, to go as far as hiring someone expensive to declare her as so.But if she is declared to have died in the attacks, there would no longer be an open case. The ruling that she died on 9/11 means the police would not be actively looking.
She died a hero in the WTC.It's really odd that the family kept insisting that she be put down as a victim of 9/11, to go as far as hiring someone expensive to declare her as so.
If there was no solid evidence or irredeemable proof that she did, then why hinder the case by doing so?
The OCME is still looking at bone fragments and identifying people with DNA, they get a couple ID's a year now.But if she is declared to have died in the attacks, there would no longer be an open case. The ruling that she died on 9/11 means the police would not be actively looking.
Yes, but the people were already declared to have died on 9/11 at the World Trade Center and the cases are closed years before the positive ID. They weren’t considered missing until remains were confirmed to be them and only then was the case closed.The OCME is still looking at bone fragments and identifying people with DNA, they get a couple ID's a year now.
Agree, but if you look at where she could have been versus where the people who are still being identified were, it is nearly impossibke for her to be in that group. The poor souls who are only fragments were high up in the towers and all of the restaurant patrons were accounted for, so she was not there either.The OCME is still looking at bone fragments and identifying people with DNA, they get a couple ID's a year now.
She has been though.In a case with these circumstances, she'd need to be declared legally dead to officially (albeit rhetorically) deem her not alive - thereby freeing her assets, starting probate and other legal situations where her estate is in limbo. Her family trying to declare her a 9/11 victim isn't suspicious on its own as the surrounding details certainly make it likely she is dead (medically).
Fact is, there is just about equal evidence for all the scenarios. I'll list them in order of the amount of evidence available:Agree, but if you look at where she could have been versus where the people who are still being identified were, it is nearly impossibke for her to be in that group. The poor souls who are only fragments were high up in the towers and all of the restaurant patrons were accounted for, so she was not there either.
It is still very odd to me a judge ruled she died in the Towers. If you read up on options for where a non-worker would be, she would have no business being in there. IMO, I have read and listened to basically everything about this case, but I’m not pulling MSM at the moment. MOO