Sassafrass
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2018
- Messages
- 605
- Reaction score
- 4,509
It’s common in a caregiver situation for sure. Like when I had my bone marrow transplant. My kids were shopping and filling my vehicle’s gas tank. They used my debit card with my permission.
I was surprised when the federal warrant came out for bank card use. It struck me as, are they desperate to find something to pin on him? Looking for a reason to hold him? Justifying what has to be a million dollar plus search for him?
It’s amazing how easy would it be to implode someone’s life just by claiming they used your debit card. These 2 weren’t married but in a long term relationship. It wouldn’t seem odd to me to use each other’s debit card on occasion. But hey, if this is what it takes to find this asshat, I’m all for it!!
If a person committed (or is suspected of...) multiple Federal felonies, and one of those is much simpler, quicker, clear-cut, more straightforward AND less likely to generate a collective media/public paroxsysm, months of premature speculation and criticism, and heightened anxiety for a fugitive of unknown mental stamina and fortitude...seems like a good idea to go with that one first.
The case is well-known enough that getting attention and resources wouldn't be harmed by going with a less sensational charge at first; everyone knows he is, formally or informally, the most likely suspect and most likely with the most informations, and merely having a Federal warrant in place was enough to support various LE cooperation, etc.
It's really common for prosecutors to start like this. It's a strategy appropriate for many situations.
In this case, too, where facts and theories of the case are still relatively early in development, it would be a mistake to select a degree or type of homicide (or other crime) to charge without knowing more. You don't want to have to keep amending/going back to the grand jury. That irritates everyone, among other potentially bad consequences.
If you have a situation where some guy, fresh off 25 years of hard time, is caught on camera point-blank shooting bank tellers in the head while robbing the bank of a million dollars and then car jacking a little old lady, snatching her purse, shooting her and her cat, and then running over a pregnant lady pushing a baby carriage and barreling through a crowd of disabled orphans as he flees the scene, you might go out with a murder indictment early and not focus on the fact that he next stopped by the 7-11 and bought three slurpees with her credit card. Because in that situation there's not necessarily a lot of grey area as far as facts specifically needed to fit statutory language - hard to imagine a reasonable scenario that ends in "he didn't do it.". Plus, in that case, you've got a known dangerous element out there, so "wanted for murder" is also a public safety warning about someone known to kill with reckless abandon.