margarita25
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 51,429
- Reaction score
- 369,009
[BBM]
But, he's smart enough to know this and he did it anyway, and did it knowing she already has counsel that could file a suit on a dime. So, this says something different to me. It says to me that this might actually have some teeth. And, maybe others also read it like this and this, coupled with all of the very good (imo) he has done in the past, warrants consideration of the view. I don't think anyone jumped on any train though lol.
jmo
Indeed, I totally get this, which is why my initial statement was he as an attorney should/would/does know what “slander” means.
I don't think people are doing that. Saying there is a possibility she might have been aware and saying she was an active participant are not the same imo.
jmo
Anything is possible, of course it’s possible. My main issue and point is that it is a very dangerous game to go out there and call someone’s family “complicit” without presenting the proof, considering the enormity of such an allegation. Once something has been said, it can not be taken back. And the fact that this is something that a very apparently capable new Task Force has not said, at this time...Again as stated, who knows what will come out going forward. But is it his place at this time to come out and do what he’s doing? Maybe Yes, if it’s true, but we don’t know that it is true. It’s just what he says.
BBM: Unless I misunderstood his comments that have been posted here via video link many times I think he told us what he believes the connection is. He just hasn't told us how he knows (or has come to believe) of this connection. Does he know of information seized on his work computer? We do not know. But he seems confident that RH associated with like-minded people and therefore could hold the key to solving more of these unsolved homicides. And, he firmly believes AE knows more than she is saying (and has stated he has a witness to this). He seemed to be coming from a place of aggravation (running out of patience) and wants the coddling to stop and the pressure to start. Is it right or wrong? I won't attempt to judge. But I think in the end it's actually coming form a place of purpose, not attention seeking.
Exactly, “believes”. I’m afraid that’s not strong enough to put that out there without providing some kind of proof, considering the gravity of the stakes here.