GUILTY NH - Abby Hernandez, 14, North Conway, 9 Oct 2013 - #15

[Montjoy]

While I see where you're coming from, hindsight is 20/20. I'm not sure that all of the things you suggest would be (let's say) red flags would be interpreted as such. It is difficult.

I know that we're all happy that Abby has come home. I've followed this case from the start, and I had no idea how it was going to play out. But in my humble opinion I do not see the merit in accusing LE of any failure here. Or, for what it's worth, and it's not like anyone's suggesting it here, I don't think that Abby could have done anything different to free herself here.

Not speaking for anyone else, or suggesting that anyone thinks like I do, but my humble hope is that Abby will be safe from now on, and that Kibby should never be a threat to anyone else (assuming, as I do, very strongly, that he is guilty in this crime, which I state as my opinion, for legal reasons, but I'd bet all I have on it.)

 

[margarita25]

I think fear and threats would be an obvious reason why one might not reveal a captor's identity (in addition to Stockholm Syndrome). Not sure why so many people think ii is a huge deal that she lied about the sketch/declined to immediately reveal the identity of her captor, jmo. We anticipated this when the sketch was released.

 

[bettiepageturner]

Her entire worldview and sense of trust had been shattered by this man. I wouldn't be surprised if he threatened (and perhaps actually did) continue his surveillance of her after her release, having ordered her to provide a fake sketch — at which point he loosened his grip (whether real, threatened, or imagined). It's impossible to imagine being in her situation, and I think she's been so incredibly brave.

 

[MissUnderstood]

Her entire worldview and sense of trust had been shattered by this man. I wouldn't be surprised if he threatened (and perhaps actually did) continue his surveillance of her after her release, having ordered her to provide a fake sketch — at which point he loosened his grip (whether real, threatened, or imagined). It's impossible to imagine being in her situation, and I think she's been so incredibly brave.

I think she has been brave too. In my opinion, her not telling who he was straight away was probably one of the bargains she made with him to let her go. I don't see him waking up one morning and out of the blue saying to her that he is going to take her home. I think she bargained in anyway she could to get out alive!!


MOO!!

 

[Fireweed]

While I see where you're coming from, hindsight is 20/20. I'm not sure that all of the things you suggest would be (let's say) red flags would be interpreted as such. It is difficult.

I know that we're all happy that Abby has come home. I've followed this case from the start, and I had no idea how it was going to play out. But in my humble opinion I do not see the merit in accusing LE of any failure here. Or, for what it's worth, and it's not like anyone's suggesting it here, I don't think that Abby could have done anything different to free herself here.

Not speaking for anyone else, or suggesting that anyone thinks like I do, but my humble hope is that Abby will be safe from now on, and that Kibby should never be a threat to anyone else (assuming, as I do, very strongly, that he is guilty in this crime, which I state as my opinion, for legal reasons, but I'd bet all I have on it.)

I am not accusing them of failure. What I am saying is that along the way, they had to make decisions regarding their tactic. I only wonder if perhaps, when going forward with other missing person's cases, that we reconsider whether this was the best one. It has always been my opinion that LE very often does not readjust their tactic when perhaps they should. For example, not releasing where the letter was postmarked may have been wise at first, when they thought they might get a lead on their own, but maybe after six months of absolutely nothing it would have been prudent to let it be known that they were looking for a local.

 

[Steleheart]

I am wondering now if it was wise for LE to have played this one so close to their chest. Presumably, Abby was kidnapped at around 3 pm on a weekday and was taken in a northbound direction, and presumably the letters she sent were postmarked in the Conway area. So the person who did it was likely a local who traveled the North-South road on a weekday at 3 pm. Nate Kibby went to work early so I assume he got off early too, and that would have been his route home.

I think LE made a big mistake in not releasing where the letter was postmarked. I know hindsight is 20/20, but I wonder now if Kibby's name would have popped up much earlier if LE would have said that they were looking for a local man who is known to travel northbound on the North-South road in the afternoons and who lives alone and who likes writing letters - all things that applied to Kibby. Heck, once LE knew that Abby was still local, why not record who regularly travels that route at that time and investigate it? LE claims to have had no leads, but in the end, it turns out that they had a huge lead right under their noses: Nate Kibby got off work around that time and would have taken that route to have gone home. So many people have come forward to say that Nate was weird, etc, etc, but no one had him are their radar because LE was not releasing any information that would have pinged on anyone's radar.

BBM;

Did they know she was local?
Honestly if there is a link where LE says that they knew in October that Abby was still local I would cherish the opportunity to see it because after a year now, that would mean that I missed a huge part of her case. I don't think that is an actual fact in the case IMO.

One of the scenarios I posited early on was the plausibility of a vendor at the Fryeburg fair, or a long haul trucker who only comes through Conway on a bi-weekly basis. There were so many unknowns in the case that just because it was mailed locally does not mean she was located locally. To surmise that and say it was mailed locally would possibly cause others to disregard the possibly she was in their town. LE did not make that decision lightly IMO.

I still won't fault LE for not releasing the postmark.

:cow:

 

[newguy123]

The post mark could be interpreted in different ways. If you were the abductor, would you use it knowing people would zoom in their attentions on a geographical location while you went the other direction? Or, would you blatantly use it thinking LE was too smart to put much stock in a postmark knowing it could be a red herring? I respected the non release of the location since LE are professionals.....but must admit as time went on and no new info came forth, I couldn't figure out what harm there was in releasing the info since it seemed nothing new was happening.
Given NK's history with the law, I'm guessing no fingerprints were obtained from the letter which could match his in some database? I've been watching too many episodes of "Forensic Files" I guess.

 

[Fireweed]

Okay, so LE would not have known for sure that it was a local. But, judging from the time and place where Abby was kidnapped, added to the fact that the letter was postmarked in the area, would have at least strongly pointed to a local being involved. All I am saying is that LE could have put it out there that it was postmarked locally and let people draw some of their own conclusions. LE asked for the public's help in very cryptic ways in this case and I think it did more harm than good. I know a lot of people here are wondering why so many members of the public are seemingly "against" Abby, but I think Abby is simply the proxy for their frustrations with how LE handled this case.

I think that the public's desire for knowing where the letter was postmarked was quite reasonable. Now, I know I will chastised and told that LE knew what they were doing, but since they never actually found Abby I am going to have to disagree a little.

 

[mpnola]

Okay, so LE would not have known for sure that it was a local. But, judging from the time and place where Abby was kidnapped, added to the fact that the letter was postmarked in the area, would have at least strongly pointed to a local being involved. All I am saying is that LE could have put it out there that it was postmarked locally and let people draw some of their own conclusions. LE asked for the public's help in very cryptic ways in this case and I think it did more harm than good. I know a lot of people here are wondering why so many members of the public are seemingly "against" Abby, but I think Abby is simply the proxy for their frustrations with how LE handled this case.

I think that the public's desire for knowing where the letter was postmarked was quite reasonable. Now, I know I will chastised and told that LE knew what they were doing, but since they never actually found Abby I am going to have to disagree a little.

I'm with you on this. I think not releasing info is what has lots of people out in the community thinking she left on her own. Also, I keep thinking about the parents in that community! I don't feel like it was suggested strongly enough that there is likely a predator in the area, children should walk in groups or be picked up, if at all possible. I know... common sense... it could happen anywhere... but the fact of the matter is, this was a heightened situation! I think the lack of public information had people believing she left on her own and now it is hard to re-work that path into a stranger abduction, for lots of people. I don't know if I am making sense, but I absolutely get what Fireweed is saying. I actually said that while she was still missing. When the police give people far too little information, the tend to lose the urge to help or have compassion. They don't perceive it as an urgent situation when there is no sense of urgency from law enforcement. Not talking about websleuths people, I am talking about the other population that doesn't consume themselves with missing people and crimes that have nothing to do with them or their community!

 

[Fireweed]

My thinking on this has always been that while LE may have felt very confident in what they were doing, if the public does not feel the same way, then the public will lose interest and will start to make up their own theories as to what happened. And, let's face it, LE did not get Abby back; she was simply let go. Thus, the public has not had their confidence in LE restored. Additionally, the fact that so much of this case has been kept quiet, is making some wonder if LE is covering their butts right now. I am still very much so on the fence about a lot of this. I know that hindsight is certainly 20/20, but when you find out something like the fact that Kibby worked at EMM precision and had an early morning to early afternoon schedule, and would have driven the same route home, which the route that Abby disappeared on, at the time Kibby got off work, then you have to wonder. Did no one monitor that route and have Kibby at the very least on a list somewhere?

Surely in a town of 8,000 such a task would have been doable.

 

[MamaJoJo]

My thinking on this has always been that while LE may have felt very confident in what they were doing, if the public does not feel the same way, then the public will lose interest and will start to make up their own theories as to what happened. And, let's face it, LE did not get Abby back; she was simply let go. Thus, the public has not had their confidence in LE restored. Additionally, the fact that so much of this case has been kept quiet, is making some wonder if LE is covering their butts right now. I am still very much so on the fence about a lot of this. I know that hindsight is certainly 20/20, but when you find out something like the fact that Kibby worked at EMM precision and had an early morning to early afternoon schedule, and would have driven the same route home, which the route that Abby disappeared on, at the time Kibby got off work, then you have to wonder. Did no one monitor that route and have Kibby at the very least on a list somewhere?

Surely in a town of 8,000 such a task would have been doable.

I see where you are coming from, Fireweed, but I'm of the mindset that all is quiet now not because LE is covering their butts but because a case is being built against Kibby. I'm not completely up to speed with Abby's case since she returned home so forgive me if I bungle some facts…

Where was the letter postmarked from? I thought the actual city of the postmark hadn't been released. Was it really a local postmark? North Conway? What cajones on him if he was so bold! Maybe he traveled into VT or NH to mail it? I still can't figure out why LE would have felt it necessary to hide the postmark.

It does seem, looking back on the days and months after Abby was kidnapped, that LE MUST have been looking at all of the local yahoos and hopefully had identified a handful of them to put on a "list". We certainly had identified a couple ourselves! Was Kibby on that list for LE? I'm thinking not but that, given his schedule and predilection for being a weirdo, he should have been on someone's list, for sure. If I was a parent in North Conway, I believe I would have acted like there was a dangerous predator around and kept my children on a tighter rein. But for how long, I wonder? My guess is for a few months but that I would have loosened the reins and gone back to normal, even though Abby was still missing. Was Kibby a person who was a threat to the community (meaning would he have kidnapped a second child) while he had Abby in his confines? He clearly was an unstable citizen, right? But in all of his brushes with the law I don't believe child molesting kidnapper was popping to the forefront. Thank God he returned Abby and was apprehended before he could damage the life of anyone else.

I have to say…I would like to know LE's timeline, movements and assumptions throughout Abby's disappearance, their list, the postmark, why the letter was sent to the P.O. Box, where her belongings are (phone, purse, shoulder bag, necklace), and what actually led Kibby to return Abby to her life. We probably won't be privy to much of it but I hope we find out some answers to our long-standing questions.

And I really don't want to know what happened to her at the hands of this lunatic.

 

[Fireweed]

I personally think that, despite what a lot of people on the internet assume, the vast majority of us who want more detail are not disgusting perverts. Me? I simply find it odd enough, for example, that Abby's lawyers never said anything about Kibby being involved. That raises a tiny red flag for me and so my curiosity has been piqued. Now I know that someone will remind me that this is an "ongoing investigation," but I can see nothing that would possibly violate the holy sanctity of an "ongoing investigation" by naming Kibby (who has already been charged with the crime) as Abby's abductor.

People here constantly wonder why a lot of people in the public are not on Abby's side, and this is why. The statement from Abby's lawyers was designed to conceal the identity of her abductor and abuser. Even if you did not pick up on it, your brain did. Your brain went, "hey that ain't right!" In case anyone wonders why Abby is getting a different public reaction than Elizabeth Smart, this is why. Once Abby finally "spoke" through her lawyers, the statement was still a little deceptive.

 

[skibaboo]

I personally think that, despite what a lot of people on the internet assume, the vast majority of us who want more detail are not disgusting perverts. Me? I simply find it odd enough, for example, that Abby's lawyers never said anything about Kibby being involved. That raises a tiny red flag for me and so my curiosity has been piqued. Now I know that someone will remind me that this is an "ongoing investigation," but I can see nothing that would possibly violate the holy sanctity of an "ongoing investigation" by naming Kibby (who has already been charged with the crime) as Abby's abductor.

People here constantly wonder why a lot of people in the public are not on Abby's side, and this is why. The statement from Abby's lawyers was designed to conceal the identity of her abductor and abuser. Even if you did not pick up on it, your brain did. Your brain went, "hey that ain't right!" In case anyone wonders why Abby is getting a different public reaction than Elizabeth Smart, this is why. Once Abby finally "spoke" through her lawyers, the statement was still a little deceptive.

I didn't see it that way, I thought he wasn't named as he is charged but not at that time, nor has he yet been found guilty. I figured he wasn't named for legal reasons? I do still think he is guilty, and of more than kidnapping. JMO

 

[Fireweed]

I didn't see it that way, I thought he wasn't named as he is charged but not at that time, nor has he yet been found guilty. I figured he wasn't named for legal reasons? I do still think he is guilty, and of more than kidnapping. JMO

He was charged with kidnapping Abby long before that statement was released. There is absolutely no legal or ethical reason for Abby's lawyers not to have said, "Abby was violently abducted by Nathaniel Kibby, a man she had never met before." That would have been very clear and would have certainly put some of the rumors to rest. Instead, her lawyers' shoddy statement just added more fuel to the fire.

 

[skibaboo]

He was charged with kidnapping Abby long before that statement was released. There is absolutely no legal or ethical reason for Abby's lawyers not to have said, "Abby was violently abducted by Nathaniel Kibby, a man she had never met before." That would have been very clear and would have certainly put some of the rumors to rest. Instead, her lawyers' shoddy statement just added more fuel to the fire.

Sorry if my wording was not clear I said he was charged, but as of yet he has not been found guilty. I'm pretty sure if they had named him in the statement his lawyers would have been all over that, but I am not an expert in these matters, at all.

 

[tlcya]

Fireweed, I think I understand where you are coming from about the wording used in Abby's attorney's statements and the lack of naming Kibby directly. I had never looked at it that way. I took the statement as attempting to hammer home and be clear that Abby was abducted by and held by Kibby, who was a complete stranger to her. I assumed that statement was designed to clarify in no uncertain terms that Kibby and Abby were not acquainted prior to her abduction, thus quelling longstanding rumors otherwise. Also, I think the lack of naming him directly in the statement was a means of refusing to give him the courtesy of using his name in that statement. He took so much from Abigail. So they refused to even address him or the subject of him by name.

It never occurred to me that others might see it differently.



“Abby was violently abducted by a stranger. For many months, she suffered numerous acts of unspeakable violence.”

Read more: http://www.wmur.com/news/abigail-he...e-violence-lawyer-says/27437382#ixzz3JuRhFpk3

 

[Fireweed]

Well, speaking as a lawyer myself, I know that lawyers use their words and phrases very carefully and intentionally. When I see a lawyer write about a victim's experience entirely in the passive voice and without actually naming the suspect (who has already been charged with the crime), then my ears immediately perk up. Writing a statement like that in the passive voice is an odd choice for the victim of the crime (but perfect for a suspect or defendant). Now, maybe Abby just has terrible lawyers, but any decent lawyer would know not to word a statement like that unless they were intentionally concealing the identity of the kidnapper (who has already been charged).

There is absolutely nothing illegal or unethical of a victim naming her abuser after he has been arrested and charged with a crime. It is pure nonsense to think this is the case. I know that the attorneys and people in charge of Abby's case have been hinting at stuff like this, but it is simply not true. A victim of a crime can, outside the courtroom, name her kidnapper. There is nothing illegal and nothing that will hinder an "ongoing investigation" in doing that, and Kibby's lawyer cannot say boo about it.

 

[Steleheart]

Fireweed, I think I understand where you are coming from about the wording used in Abby's attorney's statements and the lack of naming Kibby directly. I had never looked at it that way. I took the statement as attempting to hammer home and be clear that Abby was abducted by and held by Kibby, who was a complete stranger to her. I assumed that statement was designed to clarify in no uncertain terms that Kibby and Abby were not acquainted prior to her abduction, thus quelling longstanding rumors otherwise. Also, I think the lack of naming him directly in the statement was a means of refusing to give him the courtesy of using his name in that statement. He took so much from Abigail. So they refused to even address him or the subject of him by name.It never occurred to me that others might see it differently.



“Abby was violently abducted by a stranger. For many months, she suffered numerous acts of unspeakable violence.”

Read more: http://www.wmur.com/news/abigail-he...e-violence-lawyer-says/27437382#ixzz3JuRhFpk3

BBM ~ I agree completely, getting the focus onto the victim's needs, specifically.
additionally Coyne's statement was carefully worded because, while Kibby was arrested and charged, he had not had a probable cause hearing nor any indictment. It is up to the prosecutors to name Kibby and bring the charges forward. To do otherwise could cause his lawyers to complain that he could not get a fair trial because the victim's counsel is trying the case in the media.

<snip>
"Investigators have not revealed details on how Hernandez, a student at Kennett High School in Conway, went missing or how she returned home"

"He said once the indictments are unsealed, additional information will reveal what Hernandez went through."


Read more: http://www.wmur.com/news/abigail-he...e-violence-lawyer-says/27437382#ixzz3JuUoZaIH


It's not like Coyne was hiding the name of the guy charged - he was simply responding to concerns about ABBY, period, and not the perp or the investigation, In my opinion.

:cow:

 

[Fireweed]

Fair enough, but it was worded in such a way that many people out there thought it was more b.s. I simply cannot say that people who still find this case fishy have nothing to base it on.

And Abby publicly repeating what she said to LE in order to get Kibby charged with a crime would not be unethical or anything that the defense could use to get Kibby off (unless it is a lie).

 

[MamaJoJo]

Fair enough, but it was worded in such a way that many people out there thought it was more b.s. I simply cannot say that people who still find this case fishy have nothing to base it on.

And Abby publicly repeating what she said to LE in order to get Kibby charged with a crime would not be unethical or anything that the defense could use to get Kibby off (unless it is a lie).

BBM

Hmmm…I just can't see Abby as anything but a victim here. There have been many oddities about this case (her lawyer's statement being one) that I deeply hope are explained or become a non-issue once the trial is over. I have a suspicion that more perpetrators are involved.