KeyboardCat
Member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2010
- Messages
- 304
- Reaction score
- 7
LE had a warrant -- DS did not consent to a warrantless search. FWIW, I don't know whether she had the opportunity to do so.
Not cooperating could mean that she refused to talk to LE, as it is her constitutional right to do. There are lots of good reasons for an innocent person not to subject themselves to police interrogation. Someone posted a great video about that here on Kyron's forum, which explains why in detail.
Not cooperating could mean that she refused to undergo a polygraph exam. There are good reasons for not doing that, too, because they are not always reliable indicators of a person's truthfulness or lack thereof. She also has a constitutional right to refuse to do that.
Both innocent and guilty people refuse to cooperate in these ways with LE. The mere refusal to answer questions or to be polygraphed, without more, is not indicative of a person's guilt or innocence.
She's placing her own self interests before that of a missing child. She may have important information and not even know it, whether it implicates Terri or not. Anytime a child is harmed it is usually someone who has had some contact or connect to the child. But instead of sitting down and opening up to let LE, she has decided to do what is in her best interest. She is using her right to not cooperate.
In my opinion, that is a very selfish thing to do.
I hope that when LE searched her house they found something that could land her in jail, even if its just unpaid parking tickets.
I -really- have no compassion for such selfishness.
Maybe that makes me a mean person, but I have to admit I'm going to have to stop myself from laughing when the media does put all her flaws in the spotlight.
So although she may be in her rights and boundaries to remain silent/not cooperate.. its not a morally correct thing to do. This is about a missing child. Let the cosmic justice ensue. I look forward to reading about all her misdeeds.