Hey Scandi. I think we are all here for the victims, not the perp.scandi said:What a slew of grand posts! Thanks Charlie and Close for the link as it really said a lot. And Jilly, I just wish I had a man to shake his head! {remember this little icon during the Sp case? Baa Haa Haa Haaaaaaaaaaa :slap:
So I think the last line in that article says so much. The investigators confering with the DA or prosecutors office. I don't think they would do this unless they had a suspect well in mind and were counting all of the ducks to get an airtight case. I've read they've met before like this.
Hi pack_fan! I appreciate your attitude as well. I'm just nosey when it comes to crime and want to know every little tidbit I can. But in a case like this I don't want anything to interrupt the flow of justice for Michelle and her little boy. It's better to let these insiders be un-named and sink the person they are trying to defend.
Charlie, if they were in court and the prosecution brought up the fact a certain 'insider' had said in a post on a crime forum, and if true would mean the witness was possibly commiting perjury, would they subpena {sp} the posts from CTV.
You know Charlie I don't expect you to know that answer LOL but mainly want your thought on that.
Scandi
That would be interesting to know about the postings and the interest of LE. If any of the posters have as much knowledge as they claim, I'm sure they have been questioned by LE. I know for fact that some of Michelle's close friends (and I assume Jason's as well) were questioned around the time of the funeral. Even those that came from out of town.