Victim: Alexis Murphy, 17, missing from Shipman, VA, 03 August 2013 - #7

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
BeginnersLuck said:
These are the Virginia codes that you cited in your previous post none of which apply to his lie or truth whichever way a person tends to look at it.

The law never goes how we look it at it. That the beauty of it, the law is meant to trap every escape or lie.



http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+TOC18020000007000000000000

The first one cited applies to the manufacture of meth and is the only one of the three that has language concerning a minor.

I have heard rumor's of meth use in the case by the defendant. That why I put it up there. Not to say I know or anything that he used.. We don't know the ramification of the deals, and conversation of the deals. She was a minor. he could get that charge if he has meth/heroin use on his records of the past. The state will have a history of it if its on his records if this is the case. Its on him to prove and give detail of this assumed deal, because of his drug dealing past in use records .








The last one you cited applies to synthetic drugs
Click to expand...


yes. A lot of weed/pot in this generation is not the real thing(synthectic) unless he can show the court proof of that it was not. A lot folks think the state has do all the show & prove but its the exact opposite. The defense is going to have to prove the drugs that he said he bought was real drugs,not synthetic or medical. Also they have to find this dealer, in his defense. Either way he will get charged with it "Conspiracy to commit" along a minor being involved. It can be also charged as "drug distrub ring" that involve a minor.

None knows the ramifications of the deals or conversations. Also if the dealer say he don't know him or etc( dis-vow him claims). Then (rat) will get a perjury charge and also charged with misleading information.

They all apply to this case. They are dealing with drugs. In each and every one of them she is minor and its a violation. she does not have to use any drugs. it based on the "sale". Not the use.
 
oldwindow said:
yes. A lot of weed/pot in this generation is not the real thing(synthectic) unless he can show the court proof of that it was not. A lot folks think the state has do all the show & prove but its the exact opposite. The defense is going to have to prove the drugs that he said he bought was real drugs,not synthetic or medical. Also they have to find this dealer, in his defense. Either way he will get charged with it "Conspiracy to commit" along a minor being involved. It can be also charged as "drug distrub ring" that involve a minor.

None knows the ramifications of the deals or conversations. Also if the dealer say he don't know him or etc( dis-vow him claims). Then (rat) will get a perjury charge and also charged with misleading information.

They all apply to this case. They are dealing with drugs. In each and every one of them she is minor and its a violation. she does not have to use any drugs. it based on the "sale". Not the use.
Click to expand...

He has been indicted on felony charges of abduction and possession of stolen property. If he was in possession of drugs when arrested then they would have charged him with that. They can't charge him with anything if all he did was say he bought some drugs. They have to have evidence of it.

A person could walk up to an officer and tell them they bought some drugs a few days ago, but that alone is no grounds for arrest or charges. Do you understand what I'm saying?
 
4MYGUYS said:
BBM: Considering how well informed RAT appears to be regarding the law, this makes the most sense to me. But then, that would mean he DOES have some fear, (however remote we don't really know), that she COULD be found and tested. hummmmmm
Click to expand...

IMO, even if they tested and found THC content, it wouldn't prove much. She could have smoked earlier. I don't see what it'd actually prove.
 
I'm not a big supporter of the death penalty, but I will not be satisfied until this piece of trash fries.
 
Curious Me said:
IMO, even if they tested and found THC content, it wouldn't prove much. She could have smoked earlier. I don't see what it'd actually prove.
Click to expand...

If in his story, he had stated that she smoked with them and it was later found she didn't then his story wouldn't hold up to well for him. He had to cover all bases with his story and could have said she didn't smoke in case she was found with no THC in her system.

The story made no sense to me from the get go. AM was on her way to go shopping. I know how much importance is put into hair, makeup and cloths for young girls. RAT creates a story that is suppose to be believable (so he thinks) but what is left out, is there is no incentive in this story for Alexis to go out of her way and waste her time, for what? To be nice to the creepy old dude? The creepy old dude has his own connections in the community. It's not like he's a stranger to those parts nor is pot hard to come by.

Then it's suppose to be believed that she went out of her way to call someone she knew to hook up creepy old dude for a little bit of weed.

Then, instead of the the supposed transaction taking place in the back of the parking lot or something, I am suppose to believe that they all drove to creepy old dudes, creepy little trailer, down a creepy little driveway back into some woods. Then I am suppose to believe they entered creepy little trailer that has electrical cord running to creepy run down house. All to make an exchange for a tiny amount of pot, in which she didn't even smoke, according to his story, anyway.

I don't find the story believable as a actual scenario or some sort of lure.

If Alexis wanted a little something to smoke before she went shopping all she would of had to do, is call or stop by a friends house. If he wanted some smoke it would be the same. There would be no reason to conduct a three ring circus to get er done.
 
We need some news.

The Pot Story.

RAT wasn't worried about THC in Alexis' system. How could he know if she had previously smoked or not?

He was backpeddaling his story, and covering his behind. He didn't want to be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, or some other charge as such, after he stated he got her to hook him up with some pot.

He was trying to put her and him together with the pot story, then caught himself in the admission of several other smaller crimes while trying to make something up just in case LE found something of Alexis' on him or his belongings.
 
BeginnersLuck said:
If in his story, he had stated that she smoked with them and it was later found she didn't then his story wouldn't hold up to well for him. He had to cover all bases with his story and could have said she didn't smoke in case she was found with no THC in her system.

The story made no sense to me from the get go. AM was on her way to go shopping. I know how much importance is put into hair, makeup and cloths for young girls. RAT creates a story that is suppose to be believable (so he thinks) but what is left out, is there is no incentive in this story for Alexis to go out of her way and waste her time, for what? To be nice to the creepy old dude? The creepy old dude has his own connections in the community. It's not like he's a stranger to those parts nor is pot hard to come by.

Then it's suppose to be believed that she went out of her way to call someone she knew to hook up creepy old dude for a little bit of weed.

Then, instead of the the supposed transaction taking place in the back of the parking lot or something, I am suppose to believe that they all drove to creepy old dudes, creepy little trailer, down a creepy little driveway back into some woods. Then I am suppose to believe they entered creepy little trailer that has electrical cord running to creepy run down house. All to make an exchange for a tiny amount of pot, in which she didn't even smoke, according to his story, anyway.

I don't find the story believable as a actual scenario or some sort of lure.

If Alexis wanted a little something to smoke before she went shopping all she would of had to do, is call or stop by a friends house. If he wanted some smoke it would be the same. There would be no reason to conduct a three ring circus to get er done.
Click to expand...

thank you button was not enough. You clearly outline why I have such a hard time with his story of events.
 
Whether or not the $60 story is plausible, the fact remains that it's RAT's story and in that same story, this drug dealer who had previous ties to AM is the one to blame for her disappearance.

If there are previous ties, they would've been found by now, because regardless of how desperate of a dealer he was, she would've had to have contacted him via phone at some point. Even if we're to believe they had the sort of relationship that allowed for random drop-by's. LE said they spoke to a POI, presumably thanks to RAT's description of his car. I think it's safe to say nothing has come of this.

So, being of the opinion the dealer interaction was a complete fabrication, I'm not thinking too hard about how realistic the whole set up was in the first place.

I just hope it's not enough to spark reasonable doubt. But since the records were sealed for fear of RAT not getting a fair trial, it might also be safe to say LE has more than enough on this guy.
 
This reminds me a lot of the Sierra Lamar case and it has drug on for a long time. Sierra hasn't been found yet either.
 
BeginnersLuck said:
He has been indicted on felony charges of abduction and possession of stolen property. If he was in possession of drugs when arrested then they would have charged him with that. They can't charge him with anything if all he did was say he bought some drugs. They have to have evidence of it.

A person could walk up to an officer and tell them they bought some drugs a few days ago, but that alone is no grounds for arrest or charges. Do you understand what I'm saying?
Click to expand...

your Misunderstanding.. if a person use it as a claim in the court of law and he say its truthful in his defense then they will be charged with it . conspiracy to commit..

You don't have to have drugs on you to be charged with drug possession. .Its the act of it. Even the thought to do or act on as in past or present is versus the law.

Say for example your riding with a person and they are selling drugs. Your just going to work "a real job" in the process then stopped by police. You use in the court of law that your was going to buy drugs from him and a ride to work but the police don't find any . The police can still charge you. Conspiracy to commit. Buying drug is versus the law, you don't have to actually have it on you to be charged with it.

If I use it as my defense in court then.I will be charge with drug possession because I admitted it as the truth I my defense . If a minor is in the mix they add the proper violations. Same as buying street woman/man. You don't have actually be to caught in the sheets to be charged with the violations and if it minor the proper laws come into play.. Your example of going to police because of drug use. Its very different than what I'm explaining or trying to express

Is this more understandable. Sorry for the confuse
 
oldwindow said:
your Misunderstanding.. if a person use it as a claim in the court of law and he say its truthful in his defense then they will be charged with it . conspiracy to commit..

You don't have to have drugs on you to be charged with drug possession. .Its the act of it. Even the thought to do or act on as in past or present is versus the law.

Say for example your riding with a person and they are selling drugs. Your just going to work "a real job" in the process then stopped by police. You use in the court of law that your was going to buy drugs from him and a ride to work but the police don't find any . The police can still charge you. Conspiracy to commit. Buying drug is versus the law, you don't have to actually have it on you to be charged with it.

If I use it as my defense in court then.I will be charge with drug possession because I admitted it as the truth I my defense . If a minor is in the mix they add the proper violations. Same as buying street woman/man. You don't have actually be to caught in the sheets to be charged with the violations and if it minor the proper laws come into play.. Your example of going to police because of drug use. Its very different than what I'm explaining or trying to express

Is this more understandable. Sorry for the confuse
Click to expand...

id like to ad if they tested (rat) and found drugs in his system it prove his claims of drug buying true, but not whole the case of his claims to be true... they could charge him accordling with his claims. Racking up time.

They have not because they are highly bogus in my opinion( his claims). But if they wanted to they still could charge him. It just becomes problematic, because then they slander the victim and her image. Which is something I don't think they want to do to get more charges on him.

Me personally I would add the drug charges and give the state some le-way to get a deal to find the body(end results) or heavier charge by catching him a lie. Because it would lead to perjury and other heavier charges like murder and etc.

Nothing much he could do from that stand point. He will have to pick his poison.
 
Twinbabyg said:
Earlier this week I saw Laura Murphy, Alexis' mom in Lovingston.

She looks so defeated and sad. Her world is turned upside down. Alexis is still missing and I think they are coming to grips with the fact that she may never be found :( Laura is such a strong woman and is so appreciative of our community and the support. She doesn't have much to say because her heart is broken in two. She gave me the biggest hug and told me to pray. I just kept saying "I'm so sorry" because there isn't much to say other than that. Alexis has never left my thoughts and after seeing her, it is back in the forefront of my thoughts. I am just so sad for Alexis' family.
Click to expand...

It's a helpless feeling to know how this family is suffering and especially facing the holiday season without Alexis. May they stay strong. It is said that even our very faith is a gift. May our prayers be heard regardless of which church or which religion.

Prayers for Alexis and her Family, Friends, and the Community. I pray they find Alexis and we will see her get Justice.
 
If Taylor is convicted, it will be because of the statements he made to the police. Had he kept his mouth shut, he may not have even been charged. Taylor's lawyer is incompetent.

As was mentioned previously, Taylor admitted to criminal activity with a minor. He didn't have to make those statements. The only other evidence against him is the hair they found in his trailer and the witnesses that saw him in a parking lot overlooking the gas station. The prosecutor will rip Taylor's statement to shreds and infer that Taylor is lying to cover up the abduction and murder. Without Taylor's statements, the prosecutor wouldn't have much to work with The parking lot and the hair by themselves wouldn't have gotten a conviction.

It's obvious to everyone that Taylor is guilty and he probably is.
 
Do we know for a fact that that is the only evidence?
 
edrebber said:
If Taylor is convicted, it will be because of the statements he made to the police. Had he kept his mouth shut, he may not have even been charged. Taylor's lawyer is incompetent.

As was mentioned previously, Taylor admitted to criminal activity with a minor. He didn't have to make those statements. The only other evidence against him is the hair they found in his trailer and the witnesses that saw him in a parking lot overlooking the gas station. The prosecutor will rip Taylor's statement to shreds and infer that Taylor is lying to cover up the abduction and murder. Without Taylor's statements, the prosecutor wouldn't have much to work with The parking lot and the hair by themselves wouldn't have gotten a conviction.

It's obvious to everyone that Taylor is guilty and he probably is.
Click to expand...

They have her phone and several others that were found on his property, too.
 
I'm wondering how they can have a press conference, BEFORE the court time, when there is a gag order in place!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 147 more.
Total: 761 (members: 148, guests: 613)

Online statistics

Members online
148
Guests online
613
Total visitors
761
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,265
Messages
18,236,948
Members
234,327
Latest member
EmilyShaul2
Back
Top