"G (Guilty)" vs "NG (Not Guilty)" Where do you stand? #3

Status
Not open for further replies.
No that has not been discussed care to elaborate?

Elaborate? I'm just here to stir the pot. ;)

To me, this rule suggests that, if evidence exists from which the jury could find second degree murder, the judge should instruct the jury on second degree murder whether or not it was separately charged.
 
Caylee was betrayed by the one person who should have protected her, her mother. KC stated to her parents while in jail words to the effect of: "I am their number one resource. LE said it, JB said it and Lee even said it". But she still sits today in her cell with all that valuable information and says not a word. Evidently she does not feel the truth will set her free.
 
Wudge and Marspiter, I've read most of this thread. Has either of you discussed the applicability of Florida Rule of Crim. Proc. 3.490?

"If the indictment or information charges an offense divided into degrees, the jury may find the defendant guilty of the offense charged or any lesser degree supported by the evidence. The judge shall not instruct on any degree as to which there is no evidence."

As regards motions to instruct on charges other than what existed at the start of the trial, that goes to the Judge being the gatekeeper based on the need for evidence that would support a particular charge.

If I recall correctly, sometime in the summer months, we previously discussed (and I believe we agreed) the need for supporting evidence and the trial Judge being the gatekeeper in our felony murder discussion on the Constitutionality of ambush charges.
 
Elaborate? I'm just here to stir the pot. ;)

To me, this rule suggests that, if evidence exists from which the jury could find second degree murder, the judge should instruct the jury on second degree murder whether or not it was separately charged.

Thanks AZ,

Didn't feel a simple click was enough.
 
Another person recently expressed the same interest. Post #9 in the thread linked below contains the list.


http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4429746&highlight=Ferris#post4429746

Scott Peterson...OMG
Okay, time for me to leave this thread to the professionals..
My best bet is to go ahead and call up my court house and let them know that I don't have an open mind where crime is concerned.. No need to have a person like myself on jury duty..
Have a good night!
 
Whats not clear about this?

"Murder in the First Degree includes the lesser crimes of Murder in the Second Degree, Murder in the Third Degree, and Manslaughter, all of which are unlawful."

Wudge and Marspiter, I've read most of this thread. Has either of you discussed the applicability of Florida Rule of Crim. Proc. 3.490?

"If the indictment or information charges an offense divided into degrees, the jury may find the defendant guilty of the offense charged or any lesser degree supported by the evidence. The judge shall not instruct on any degree as to which there is no evidence."

Elaborate? I'm just here to stir the pot. ;)

To me, this rule suggests that, if evidence exists from which the jury could find second degree murder, the judge should instruct the jury on second degree murder whether or not it was separately charged.

Right to all the quotes above. This is the very reason I'm confused with regards to what the penalty could be. You see, I thought in the State of Florida only a Murder 1 conviction, Felony Murder, Or blatant Drug Trafficking resulting in death & disease can have a Death Penalty sentence. So, if Casey is found guilty on a lesser charge, such as Manslaughter or Murder 2, it may be suggested that they not include the dp in sentencing/punishment phase by the judge to the jury...or am I wrong and misunderstand that aspect of it all? This is why I'm so confused b/c the prosecution is going after the death penalty, or is that subject to change? I know each state has their own laws, and I usually am fairly knowledgable in this area, but I'm at a true loss with regards to the technicalities of the sentencing and punishment guidelines in Florida. If the prosecution is going after the dp, can a jury award a lesser conviction & lighter sentence than suggested? If so, maybe I'm worrying about nothing. I worry that Casey will walk like OJ did over some stupid technicality. Not that I think it'll happen, I just worry about it. I only wish the prosecution went for the slam dunk charge and just kept her away for years. They could have charged her with manslaughter & put her in court fast...she'd have been found guilty and served 25 years...then when she got out, the citizens of Florida could have sued her & attached her wages for the rest of her life to repay all unnecessary funds used to represent her that came out of their friggin' taxes.

Like I said, I'm not quite sold on murder yet, but I do believe Caylee is dead b/c of her mother in one way or another. Any way you look at it, Casey needs some kind of punishment.
 
I'm don't recall reading your request before. Nevertheless, depending the criminal charge or charges in a case predicated solely on circumstantial evidence, some examples of highly reliable inculpatory evidence might well be: fingerprints, DNA, unique footprints, unique tire tracks, a defendant being found with blood splatter from the victim on their person and/or being found in possession of the murder weapon, etc..

HTH

Thank you! (FWIW, I think my original request either got lost in a shuffle of trollness, or moved to the OT thread. Either way I appreciate your response).

Next question: Have there ever been any cases which you feel did have highly inculpatory evidence? Can you describe that, please? Thanks in advance:)
 
Thank you! (FWIW, I think my original request either got lost in a shuffle of trollness, or moved to the OT thread. Either way I appreciate your response).

Next question: Have there ever been any cases which you feel did have highly inculpatory evidence? Can you describe that, please? Thanks in advance:)

A few weeks ago, I responded to a similar request. Post #870 in the thread linked below provides cases where I would have voted to convict.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4370617&highlight=Carruth#post4370617
 
Hope this helps us. As it stands, I'm still a bit confused. If I follow these guidelines, I'd definitely need more evidence in front of me to disect to sentence to the dp, according to the law. Now it has, however, shown me that she could indeed be found guilty of less than Murder 1 and be sentenced to Life In Prison. Here it is as follows:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statuTes..._Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0921/Sec141.HTM

The 2009 Florida Statutes

Title XLVII
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND CORRECTIONS Chapter 921
SENTENCE View Entire Chapter

921.141 Sentence of death or life imprisonment for capital felonies; further proceedings to determine sentence.--

(1) SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS ON ISSUE OF PENALTY.--Upon conviction or adjudication of guilt of a defendant of a capital felony, the court shall conduct a separate sentencing proceeding to determine whether the defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment as authorized by s. 775.082. The proceeding shall be conducted by the trial judge before the trial jury as soon as practicable. If, through impossibility or inability, the trial jury is unable to reconvene for a hearing on the issue of penalty, having determined the guilt of the accused, the trial judge may summon a special juror or jurors as provided in chapter 913 to determine the issue of the imposition of the penalty. If the trial jury has been waived, or if the defendant pleaded guilty, the sentencing proceeding shall be conducted before a jury impaneled for that purpose, unless waived by the defendant. In the proceeding, evidence may be presented as to any matter that the court deems relevant to the nature of the crime and the character of the defendant and shall include matters relating to any of the aggravating or mitigating circumstances enumerated in subsections (5) and (6). Any such evidence which the court deems to have probative value may be received, regardless of its admissibility under the exclusionary rules of evidence, provided the defendant is accorded a fair opportunity to rebut any hearsay statements. However, this subsection shall not be construed to authorize the introduction of any evidence secured in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Florida. The state and the defendant or the defendant's counsel shall be permitted to present argument for or against sentence of death.

(2) ADVISORY SENTENCE BY THE JURY.--After hearing all the evidence, the jury shall deliberate and render an advisory sentence to the court, based upon the following matters:

(a) Whether sufficient aggravating circumstances exist as enumerated in subsection (5);

(b) Whether sufficient mitigating circumstances exist which outweigh the aggravating circumstances found to exist; and

(c) Based on these considerations, whether the defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment or death.

(3) FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF SENTENCE OF DEATH.--Notwithstanding the recommendation of a majority of the jury, the court, after weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, shall enter a sentence of life imprisonment or death, but if the court imposes a sentence of death, it shall set forth in writing its findings upon which the sentence of death is based as to the facts:

(a) That sufficient aggravating circumstances exist as enumerated in subsection (5), and

(b) That there are insufficient mitigating circumstances to outweigh the aggravating circumstances.

In each case in which the court imposes the death sentence, the determination of the court shall be supported by specific written findings of fact based upon the circumstances in subsections (5) and (6) and upon the records of the trial and the sentencing proceedings. If the court does not make the findings requiring the death sentence within 30 days after the rendition of the judgment and sentence, the court shall impose sentence of life imprisonment in accordance with s. 775.082.

(4) REVIEW OF JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE.--The judgment of conviction and sentence of death shall be subject to automatic review by the Supreme Court of Florida and disposition rendered within 2 years after the filing of a notice of appeal. Such review by the Supreme Court shall have priority over all other cases and shall be heard in accordance with rules promulgated by the Supreme Court.

(5) AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.--Aggravating circumstances shall be limited to the following:

1(a) The capital felony was committed by a person previously convicted of a felony and under sentence of imprisonment or placed on community control or on felony probation.

(b) The defendant was previously convicted of another capital felony or of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person.

(c) The defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to many persons.

(d) The capital felony was committed while the defendant was engaged, or was an accomplice, in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit, any: robbery; sexual battery; aggravated child abuse; abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult resulting in great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; arson; burglary; kidnapping; aircraft piracy; or unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb.

(e) The capital felony was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or effecting an escape from custody.

(f) The capital felony was committed for pecuniary gain.

(g) The capital felony was committed to disrupt or hinder the lawful exercise of any governmental function or the enforcement of laws.

(h) The capital felony was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.

(i) The capital felony was a homicide and was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner without any pretense of moral or legal justification.

(j) The victim of the capital felony was a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his or her official duties.

(k) The victim of the capital felony was an elected or appointed public official engaged in the performance of his or her official duties if the motive for the capital felony was related, in whole or in part, to the victim's official capacity.

(l) The victim of the capital felony was a person less than 12 years of age.

(m) The victim of the capital felony was particularly vulnerable due to advanced age or disability, or because the defendant stood in a position of familial or custodial authority over the victim.

(n) The capital felony was committed by a criminal gang member, as defined in s. 874.03.

(o) The capital felony was committed by a person designated as a sexual predator pursuant to s. 775.21 or a person previously designated as a sexual predator who had the sexual predator designation removed.

(6) MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.--Mitigating circumstances shall be the following:

(a) The defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity.

(b) The capital felony was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance.

(c) The victim was a participant in the defendant's conduct or consented to the act.

(d) The defendant was an accomplice in the capital felony committed by another person and his or her participation was relatively minor.

(e) The defendant acted under extreme duress or under the substantial domination of another person.

(f) The capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his or her conduct or to conform his or her conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired.

(g) The age of the defendant at the time of the crime.

(h) The existence of any other factors in the defendant's background that would mitigate against imposition of the death penalty.

(7) VICTIM IMPACT EVIDENCE.--Once the prosecution has provided evidence of the existence of one or more aggravating circumstances as described in subsection (5), the prosecution may introduce, and subsequently argue, victim impact evidence to the jury. Such evidence shall be designed to demonstrate the victim's uniqueness as an individual human being and the resultant loss to the community's members by the victim's death. Characterizations and opinions about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate sentence shall not be permitted as a part of victim impact evidence.

(8) APPLICABILITY.--This section does not apply to a person convicted or adjudicated guilty of a capital drug trafficking felony under s. 893.135.
History.--s. 237a, ch. 19554, 1939; CGL 1940 Supp. 8663(246); s. 119, ch. 70-339; s. 1, ch. 72-72; s. 9, ch. 72-724; s. 1, ch. 74-379; s. 248, ch. 77-104; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 1, ch. 79-353; s. 177, ch. 83-216; s. 1, ch. 87-368; s. 10, ch. 88-381; s. 3, ch. 90-112; s. 1, ch. 91-270; s. 1, ch. 92-81; s. 1, ch. 95-159; s. 5, ch. 96-290; s. 1, ch. 96-302; s. 7, ch. 2005-28; s. 2, ch. 2005-64; s. 27, ch. 2008-238.

1Note.--As amended by s. 1, ch. 96-302. This version is published as the last expression of legislative will (see Journal of the Senate 1996, pp. 1077 and 1128). Paragraph (5)(a) was also amended by s. 5, ch. 96-290, and that version reads:

(a) The capital felony was committed by a person under sentence of imprisonment or placed on community control or on probation.

Note.--Former s. 919.23.
 
I'm don't recall reading your request before. Nevertheless, depending the criminal charge or charges in a case predicated solely on circumstantial evidence, some examples of highly reliable inculpatory evidence might well be: fingerprints, DNA, unique footprints, unique tire tracks, a defendant being found with blood splatter from the victim on their person and/or being found in possession of the murder weapon, etc..

HTH

Oh good- those of us who believe Casey guilty have a lot to look forward to in this case then...:woohoo:
 
Hope this helps us. As it stands, I'm still a bit confused. If I follow these guidelines, I'd definitely need more evidence in front of me to disect to sentence to the dp, according to the law. Now it has, however, shown me that she could indeed be found guilty of less than Murder 1 and be sentenced to Life In Prison. Here it is as follows:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statuTes..._Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0921/Sec141.HTM

The 2009 Florida Statutes

Title XLVII
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND CORRECTIONS Chapter 921
SENTENCE View Entire Chapter

921.141 Sentence of death or life imprisonment for capital felonies; further proceedings to determine sentence.--

(1) SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS ON ISSUE OF PENALTY.--Upon conviction or adjudication of guilt of a defendant of a capital felony, the court shall conduct a separate sentencing proceeding to determine whether the defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment as authorized by s. 775.082. The proceeding shall be conducted by the trial judge before the trial jury as soon as practicable. If, through impossibility or inability, the trial jury is unable to reconvene for a hearing on the issue of penalty, having determined the guilt of the accused, the trial judge may summon a special juror or jurors as provided in chapter 913 to determine the issue of the imposition of the penalty. If the trial jury has been waived, or if the defendant pleaded guilty, the sentencing proceeding shall be conducted before a jury impaneled for that purpose, unless waived by the defendant. In the proceeding, evidence may be presented as to any matter that the court deems relevant to the nature of the crime and the character of the defendant and shall include matters relating to any of the aggravating or mitigating circumstances enumerated in subsections (5) and (6). Any such evidence which the court deems to have probative value may be received, regardless of its admissibility under the exclusionary rules of evidence, provided the defendant is accorded a fair opportunity to rebut any hearsay statements. However, this subsection shall not be construed to authorize the introduction of any evidence secured in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Florida. The state and the defendant or the defendant's counsel shall be permitted to present argument for or against sentence of death.

(2) ADVISORY SENTENCE BY THE JURY.--After hearing all the evidence, the jury shall deliberate and render an advisory sentence to the court, based upon the following matters:

(a) Whether sufficient aggravating circumstances exist as enumerated in subsection (5);

(b) Whether sufficient mitigating circumstances exist which outweigh the aggravating circumstances found to exist; and

(c) Based on these considerations, whether the defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment or death.

(3) FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF SENTENCE OF DEATH.--Notwithstanding the recommendation of a majority of the jury, the court, after weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, shall enter a sentence of life imprisonment or death, but if the court imposes a sentence of death, it shall set forth in writing its findings upon which the sentence of death is based as to the facts:

(a) That sufficient aggravating circumstances exist as enumerated in subsection (5), and

(b) That there are insufficient mitigating circumstances to outweigh the aggravating circumstances.

In each case in which the court imposes the death sentence, the determination of the court shall be supported by specific written findings of fact based upon the circumstances in subsections (5) and (6) and upon the records of the trial and the sentencing proceedings. If the court does not make the findings requiring the death sentence within 30 days after the rendition of the judgment and sentence, the court shall impose sentence of life imprisonment in accordance with s. 775.082.

(4) REVIEW OF JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE.--The judgment of conviction and sentence of death shall be subject to automatic review by the Supreme Court of Florida and disposition rendered within 2 years after the filing of a notice of appeal. Such review by the Supreme Court shall have priority over all other cases and shall be heard in accordance with rules promulgated by the Supreme Court.

(5) AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.--Aggravating circumstances shall be limited to the following:

1(a) The capital felony was committed by a person previously convicted of a felony and under sentence of imprisonment or placed on community control or on felony probation.

(b) The defendant was previously convicted of another capital felony or of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person.

(c) The defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to many persons.

(d) The capital felony was committed while the defendant was engaged, or was an accomplice, in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit, any: robbery; sexual battery; aggravated child abuse; abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult resulting in great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; arson; burglary; kidnapping; aircraft piracy; or unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb.

(e) The capital felony was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or effecting an escape from custody.

(f) The capital felony was committed for pecuniary gain.

(g) The capital felony was committed to disrupt or hinder the lawful exercise of any governmental function or the enforcement of laws.

(h) The capital felony was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.

(i) The capital felony was a homicide and was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner without any pretense of moral or legal justification.

(j) The victim of the capital felony was a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his or her official duties.

(k) The victim of the capital felony was an elected or appointed public official engaged in the performance of his or her official duties if the motive for the capital felony was related, in whole or in part, to the victim's official capacity.

(l) The victim of the capital felony was a person less than 12 years of age.

(m) The victim of the capital felony was particularly vulnerable due to advanced age or disability, or because the defendant stood in a position of familial or custodial authority over the victim.

(n) The capital felony was committed by a criminal gang member, as defined in s. 874.03.

(o) The capital felony was committed by a person designated as a sexual predator pursuant to s. 775.21 or a person previously designated as a sexual predator who had the sexual predator designation removed.

(6) MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.--Mitigating circumstances shall be the following:

(a) The defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity.

(b) The capital felony was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance.

(c) The victim was a participant in the defendant's conduct or consented to the act.

(d) The defendant was an accomplice in the capital felony committed by another person and his or her participation was relatively minor.

(e) The defendant acted under extreme duress or under the substantial domination of another person.

(f) The capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his or her conduct or to conform his or her conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired.

(g) The age of the defendant at the time of the crime.

(h) The existence of any other factors in the defendant's background that would mitigate against imposition of the death penalty.

(7) VICTIM IMPACT EVIDENCE.--Once the prosecution has provided evidence of the existence of one or more aggravating circumstances as described in subsection (5), the prosecution may introduce, and subsequently argue, victim impact evidence to the jury. Such evidence shall be designed to demonstrate the victim's uniqueness as an individual human being and the resultant loss to the community's members by the victim's death. Characterizations and opinions about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate sentence shall not be permitted as a part of victim impact evidence.

(8) APPLICABILITY.--This section does not apply to a person convicted or adjudicated guilty of a capital drug trafficking felony under s. 893.135.
History.--s. 237a, ch. 19554, 1939; CGL 1940 Supp. 8663(246); s. 119, ch. 70-339; s. 1, ch. 72-72; s. 9, ch. 72-724; s. 1, ch. 74-379; s. 248, ch. 77-104; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 1, ch. 79-353; s. 177, ch. 83-216; s. 1, ch. 87-368; s. 10, ch. 88-381; s. 3, ch. 90-112; s. 1, ch. 91-270; s. 1, ch. 92-81; s. 1, ch. 95-159; s. 5, ch. 96-290; s. 1, ch. 96-302; s. 7, ch. 2005-28; s. 2, ch. 2005-64; s. 27, ch. 2008-238.

1Note.--As amended by s. 1, ch. 96-302. This version is published as the last expression of legislative will (see Journal of the Senate 1996, pp. 1077 and 1128). Paragraph (5)(a) was also amended by s. 5, ch. 96-290, and that version reads:

(a) The capital felony was committed by a person under sentence of imprisonment or placed on community control or on probation.

Note.--Former s. 919.23.

Net, the jury makes a sentencing recommendation to the trial Judge. However, the sentencing decision rests with the trial Judge.
 
The saddest thing to me about all of this is that, even though an overwhelming majority of us believe KC is absolutely guilty, CA and GA would have had our total support and sympathy for what they had to endure if they had been honest and forthcoming - and sided with the rights of their poor granddaughter - instead of imitating the sneaky, mendacious, whiny, obstinate and uncooperative behavior of their daughter during the investigation. We would have seen it as incredibly brave and true to the memory of Caylee if they had stood up for her rights to grow up and live a happy and productive life. I doubt they would have been stumping for the rights of any other suspect or defendant, which is a hypocrisy that the public finds reprehensible and self-serving.

Recently someone posted a software ad in which they morphed a picture of Caylee into that of a young woman. It may have been a tacky and opportunistic stunt, but it took my breath away to see her as she might look as a teenager, as someone who would someday be an adult and deserved a rich and happy future. It stopped me from romanticizing Caylee as some cute little baby, and made me realize she has all of the rights to justice of any adult, regardless of any age difference. Perhaps if Caylee's grandparents could have envisioned their daughter and Caylee side by side, as two adults, they would have made the choice to support the one who needed it most instead of settling for the one who robbed Caylee of her future, just because she was not eliminated from the picture.

It doesn't matter in the least to me what charges this trial brings - that girl is either guilty of neglecting her child to death by not reporting an accident and giving aid (just like a hit and run driver is accused of murder if a victim dies) or of premeditated murder. It doesn't much matter to Caylee's legacy which one it was either, her future was purposely stolen by either result.

Caylee is still be robbed by her greedy mother, grandparents, and snake defense attorney. They sold her video tapes, photographs, tee shirts and even filed a trademark of her name so they can make a few bucks in the future. Truly a sad group!
 
Oh good- those of us who believe Casey guilty have a lot to look forward to in this case then...:woohoo:

Oh ZsaZsa, I'm fairly certain there's sooo much more evidence that we're not privy to. I know this is the G vs NG thread but I do wonder if any of the A's could face obstruction charges.
 
Caylee was betrayed by the one person who should have protected her, her mother. KC stated to her parents while in jail words to the effect of: "I am their number one resource. LE said it, JB said it and Lee even said it". But she still sits today in her cell with all that valuable information and says not a word. Evidently she does not feel the truth will set her free.

OT but I am just watching the reports on Shaniya Davis- I hope these two hideously evil women - can't call them mothers as they are not worthy of the name- share a cell- Casey and her, they would be perfect companions. :furious:
 
Oh ZsaZsa, I'm fairly certain there's sooo much more evidence that we're not privy to. I know this is the G vs NG thread but I do wonder if any of the A's could face obstruction charges.

That would be serving justice if they did. They have behaved in a shameful way to obstruct this case, and are still trying to do it. It's like Sociopaths R Us.
In their way they are as guilty as her. I think that's what shocks so many people about this case- of ALL the people in the world who should come down on Casey like a ton of bricks, they pull stunts like we witness every day.
 
Elaborate? I'm just here to stir the pot. ;)

To me, this rule suggests that, if evidence exists from which the jury could find second degree murder, the judge should instruct the jury on second degree murder whether or not it was separately charged.

So as I understand it. Based on this rule brought to us by AZ and the jury instructions. The jury is allowed to consider any lesser degrees of murder should the jury decide that the evidence supports the lesser degree.

So yes to clarify the jury can consider murder two regardless if Casey is charged with it.

So Wudges statement that a jury can not consider murder two is incorrect. They can indeed consider it should the evidence lead them in that direction.

I am glad this is clarified and we can put this to rest knowing the forum has the correct information.
 
Oh please - KC should have welcomed any help she could get from LE to find her "missing" child. Didn't KC thank CA for calling the police? I seem to recall CA mentioning KC's gratefullness to her for performing that deed.

LE is not in the business of solving riddles - imo. Grab your batphone Robin and let's go see if we can sort out the lies of our "victim".

Oh please- perhaps they could just beat it out of her. This barbaric mentality does not produce results.

Obviously in this case they are not in the business of solving riddles.
 
Oh please- perhaps they could just beat it out of her. This barbaric mentality does not produce results.

Obviously in this case they are not in the business of solving riddles.

I'll bite..............there has been previous speculation and discussion about "A family code". I wonder what the reason for "riddles" would be. Is it your opinion that KC and / or members of the A family attempted to offer info via "code"? Is there an example you could offer for consideration? I am truly intrigued.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
148
Guests online
1,020
Total visitors
1,168

Forum statistics

Threads
625,994
Messages
18,515,238
Members
240,890
Latest member
xprakruthix
Back
Top