Could someone summarize what we are allowed to know about IN?
None of that. If it isn't reported in MSM, it's not allowed
Could someone summarize what we are allowed to know about IN?
It sounds like the witness(es) are no longer in danger but I don't think we know if anyone is protecting her/him/them.So if it "could have put a potential witness in danger", is the potential witness in danger now? Is anyone protecting the witness?
We are not allowed to slueth anyone not charged or arrested. So you can know, but you cannot post about it. IMOCould someone summarize what we are allowed to know about IN?
That clears that up.You can know what you know. I think you can’t tell us all you know or ask what we know or don’t know.
Noooo. Not allowed until or if she is charged and or arrested.This is why it might be a good idea to have a summary of what is officially “known” about IN, since it’s now obvious that she is real and a big part of the picture.
Yes, this is the order on the motion:Wasn't there a motion by the defense for all the evidence the prosecution has including LE notes, correspondence, emails, texts, etc? Was that ruled on?
and women.
The court minute says, "...parties still waiting to review discovery in criminal case before proceeding further..." It sounds like the custody hearing will need to be pushed back to me. Good question for @gitana1 or @PrairieWind.
Absolutely agree.
And there have been some who are protected by family no matter what they do -- much to the person's own detriment.
Do not know if this is what happened here..... but if it looks and quacks like a duck...
This is what I've been thinking. Akin to keeping people in separate rooms for questioning so parties don't know what the other is saying. MOO.For clarification, was the reason they kept the contents of the affidavit from Frazee so that he would not know to what extent the potential person involved had been cooperating?
The original motion said it may jeopardize the ongoing investigation and the physical safety of potential witnesses.For clarification, was the reason they kept the contents of the affidavit from Frazee so that he would not know to what extent the potential person involved had been cooperating?
HAHAHAHA, I'm sorry but that was hilarious MBThat clears that up.
Noooo. Not allowed until or if she is charged and or arrested.
im not buying PF wanted kids.If PF has known the ID nurse for a long time, is it possible she didn't want to have kids or was unable to have kids but Patrick wanted them?
He could have gone on the dating site looking for a "broodmare" who was willing to move to Florissant. (I'm saying that is how he could have been thinking. I'm not using that term as a description of KB).
IMO
Just to clarify because one of the mods clarified this for me: even if MSM states the name of the nurse, we are still not allowed to use her name until or unless she's been arrested or named as a POI.None of that. If it isn't reported in MSM, it's not allowed
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.