s
He certainly presents a compelling case not to talk to the police, innocent or ilty.
I would have liked to seen the other side of it. The police officer present was given the floor to present the opposing side, but the recording was cut off at that point, so I didn't get to compare both options. I only got half the argument, so I am unable to fully evaluate if it's better or not to talk to the police, especially if I am innocent.
I'm sorry. The Part Two video, the part with Officer Bruch, was linked right there from the first part:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE&feature=related[/ame]
Basically, Officer Bruch agreed. He gave many, many examples of the techniques police can use to elicit the appearance of guilt.
His part is well worth watching as well. I simply assumed (silly me) that anyone interested in the second part would click on the link plainly labelled as "Part Two."
He gave two cases in which one man was mentally handicapped and admitted to a crime and another in which a man was insane and was convicted of a crime he didn't do, but in all the other cases I remember him presenting, the people were guilty.
KH and DY have talked to both the police and the press, as has TH. TH is the one who has appeared to lie. To me, the cell pings are the most glaring of the discrepancies in her story and do not bode well for her imo, especially since she continues to deny that she was on Sauvie that day.
The cell phone pings are suggestive to me but not enough to convict. There has been much discussion of the technology in this forum and many examples given from the personal experience of various posters where their cell phones caught towers many miles away from their own location.
I know that when I am in a particular spot on my property, if I make a cell call it shows my location as originating from a town over 30 miles away.
How can this be? I have a big grain bin on the property and when I am in a certain position relative to the grain bin, it blocks the nearest cell tower and apparently amplifies the cell tower of the next town (this is according to my cell provider).
One link posted in the cell phone thread (which I cannot call to mind right now; I hope the original poster will see this and re-post) had a list of the variables involved in cell phone ping locating. It included stuff like terrain (hilly or mountainous terrain can be less accurate than flat terrain), which towers are in service, how heavy the load on the various towers is, etc.
My best guess is that cell phone pings could be used to indicate a location but probably are not enough to take to court as the sole evidence of location without any corroborating evidence.
So, someone stole her cell phone for a couple of hours or so and drove it around on Sauvie to frame her? Where did the pings have her located at 8:20 am? How 'bout 2 pm when she was back home? Her defense cannot say, "technology was correct when it showed her at the school and at home, but it was wrong when it shows she was on Sauvie." I don't know of the other phone ping locations at 8:20 and 2 pm, but I'm guessing LE knows.
Sure they could. My cell phone bill is sometimes accurate and sometimes inaccurate, depending on where I am standing on my five acre property. If the terrain and towers around her house vary in any way from the terrain and towers around the school and/or around Sauvie Island, there's room to question.
Is she innocent or guilty? She knows. Should she have talked to the police or the press? She can't unring the bell. Just because a criminal defense attorney might have told her "under no circumstances, guilty or innocent, talk to the police" doesn't make her innocent. OTOH, doesn't make her guilty either, but she sure is looking guilty to me.
If KH and DY hadn't come forward to speak to the press and the police, I would have thought that they were all in it together somehow. It would look to me like they had something to hide imo.
So, KH and DY talked even more than KH did, so why does KH look so guilty but the other two do not?
I think one of those three does look much guiltier than the other two. However, I haven't read anything so far that would lead me to a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
I do know that investigative tunnel vision is a known problem. I believe that if anyone's life were put under the microscope, they could look really, really guilty. I know that I cannot vote someone guilty just because they peg my hinky meter (a good thing because I bet I peg plenty of people's hinky meter).
Finally, back to my original point: TMH has nothing to gain from talking at this point. Her lawyer has no doubt advised her not to make any comments at all and she would do well to heed that advice.
