Hope your disappointment won't be too great if he isn't involved.....:facepalm:
I feel the same. It has nothing to do with a desire to be right, and everything with finding hannah. The video was creepy, no two ways about it...
Hope your disappointment won't be too great if he isn't involved.....:facepalm:
Thought so. Thank you.You are correct. They have the car.
Apologies for beating a dead horse, as I have said this elsewhere, but Chief Longo was very specific on Friday in saying that the POI's car had *not* been searched at the time that they "developed probable cause" to obtain a search warrant for the apartment. You can watch him interacting with a reporter who asks him about it here (jump to 2:22) --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCPPS1pb56Q
Thought so. Thank you.
I wonder how long it will be before we hear what they found (or didn't find).
Re: talking to the police if you are a poi or a suspect.
One should talk to a lawyer first.
Uh, yes it is. It is not proof, but it is certainly evidence. If you are the last person to have had contact with someone who disappeared, then that is evidence of your involvement. It is not proof, and it certainly is not great evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless.
From everything that I have read, there is a lot of good evidence which points to this JL guy.
I keep hearing that they searched all 4 apartments, and I don't understand how a judge approved warrants for the other 3 apartments ????
By the OWG?
Police already had a warrant for the vehicle in hand when they arrived at the property - a warrant which has been sealed, so we don't know what the probable cause was that convinced a judge to issue the warrant (well, other than what Longo said about it.) But it's possible that the car had nothing to do with the probable cause that allowed them to seek a second warrant for the apartment. For example, there was a dumpster located adjacent to that building, and it doesn't require a warrant to look inside a dumpster. There are a number of other possibilities that might be independent of the vehicle. I'm really not trying to split hairs, just pointing out that it doesn't logically follow that the vehicle contains critical evidence.Regardless of the choice of terms used, SOMETHING about the car enabled them to both REMOVE it from the property to execute a search on it, and also to get a judge to sign off on a search of the apartment!
NBC 12 just named Jesse Matthew as the POI.
ETA... it also says police have not talked with him yet. Hm???
Gee, if writing in a notebook in a public place is evidence of being mentally challenged, I am in BIG trouble.
Police already had a warrant for the vehicle in hand when they arrived at the property - a warrant which has been sealed, so we don't know what the probable cause was that convinced a judge to issue the warrant. But it's possible that the car had nothing to do with the probable cause that allowed them to seek a second warrant for the apartment. For example, there was a dumpster located adjacent to that building, and it doesn't require a warrant to look inside a dumpster. There are a number of other possibilities that might be independent of the vehicle. I'm really not trying to split hairs, just pointing out that it doesn't logically follow that the vehicle contains critical evidence.
And yet you could still be right - if they looked in the vehicle and saw something clearly belonging to Hannah, it wouldn't take a search of the vehicle to have probable cause. A sworn officer's statement to a judge would be sufficient at that point.