FOIA. (I think those are the right initials)....
Sure do not want to think this is the case because I'm sure we all are hoping and praying they really are near an arrest.
Yes, Freedom Of Information Act...
(Anyone can place on of these requests - I found a website that will help you generate your letter, and you can even track it as well, free account setup, no spam, it's designed for press associates, but anyone can use it. All government agencies have a "FOIA officer" you can usually get this persons mailing address, email address, phone number etc. from the government agency's website [i.e.
http://www.sled.sc.gov/Admin2.aspx?MenuID=ContactInformation ])
LE is alluding that they know exactly who the responsible person(s) is/are. They claim to have gotten a hot tip, followed by "a bunch" of tips, and then based on the validity of that, administered 2 polygraphs, executed at least 1search warrant.
Polygraphs were either performed on witnesses to confirm their story, or to a suspect to see if he/she is lying. Unfortunately polygraphs to not carry a lot of weight in court.
We can assume the search warrant yeilded nothing of great importance, obviously, because no arrests were made following it.
Is it safe to assume LE has 0 physical evidence at this point. They're relying on statements - circumstantial evidence.
I've always feared the worst - these perps either destroyed the body, or hid it VERY well; in addition to destroying everything else - phone, clothes, etc. Can a defendant be found guilty without a body? Yes. Can a defendant be found guilty without physical evidence? Yes. But without either, it is going to be
incredibly difficult.
No doubt LE wants to wait until they have a solid case before proceeding with arrests. I (kind of) wish they would release some names! they had better be right if they decide to do that, I have a distinct feeling, after the names were released,
they would no longer have a need for a strong case...
-=-on another note-=-
In order to stimulate our minds, and keep this thread up top, let's talk about something else: Reasonable Doubt
We talked about "probably cause" previously. Probably cause is needed, and must be proven in front of a judge, in order for LE to obtain a search warrant. PC is needed for any other type of search (i.e. car) Also PC is needed for an arrest warrant.
After the arrest is made, the defendant will need to be indicted, in which a judge or "grand jury" will determine if the evidence is truly sufficient to proceed to trial.
Unless a plea agreement is made with a solicitor (district attorney), the case will go to trial. At trial, the
burden of proof** will be on the state, represented by the solicitor. The solicitor will have to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt**** that the defendant(s) did in fact have the means, motive, and opportunity, and willfully violated the laws in question.
** Burden of Proof - the obligation to shift the accepted conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position. The burden of proof may only be fulfilled by evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
****Reasonable Doubt - standard of proof required in most criminal cases within an adversarial system. Generally the prosecution bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt
Further Reading:
Reasonable Doubt: To define or not to define (Columbia Law Review)
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1122751
Hope everyone has a great weekend! I'm going to try my bestest to make it back to the W WMA woods, find the "red cone" and take some pictures, not promising anything though.
:woohoo: