I was talking to my attorney friend about the dog at the crime scene. She said in the crimes that had animals in the cases she was familiar with, the crime scene techs processed the animals as part of the scene. (Photographs, combed and collected hair and in some cases a forensic Vet was involved)
She said that it could be very insignificant and never used or it could be a big part of the case such as the akita in the OJ trial. Another potential problem is if the animals transfer evidence to an area that was not part of the original scene. At the time of the investigation, one does not know what may or may not become important to the case later on.
I donât remember that part. Now Iâll have to look it up.
I do totally remember standing at the wash rack at Capital Challenge when they announced the OJ verdict over the PA system during the horse show. That was unreal.
Yes, actually I am. I do not if RC has grandchildren, but them as well. Sorry, these kids are around the same page as my niece and I would be horrified if she were in their shoes and read the things posted here about them, their mother, cps, etc. We, as adults, need to do better. And my message on that was directed to the group at large, so posters on âboth sidesâ.
And you still come back. I donât get it. And when you come back you are generally attacking posters. That hasnât worked in the past and probably wonât going forward.
The good news is HOPEFULLY this will all come to an end in a few months.
And you clearly enjoy reading the posts of the people who enjoy the hobby drama and then stomping your feet about others daring to do something differently than you would be doing itâŠ
And the person saying it is âyou allâ is part of the you all of which they speak.
I remember from the OJ case that dog hairs were found on the bloody gloves. The dog also had blood on itâs paws. I do not remember if the prosecution proved or not that the dog hairs from the glove belonged to the akita.
Is this really a thing on here? Genuine question. I only know about the YankeeDutchess J-Lu thing over in CE. Iâve never had any anonymity challenged or asked questions about my identity. Or if it did happen it was so insignificant that I canât recall.
Itâs not just the blatant nastiness about MHG. Itâs the detailed info and speculation on the cps incident, etc. No parent is perfect, but Iâm sure they love their mom and vis versa. They shouldnât have to stumble on this kind of stuff being discussed publicly.
I totally agree and sure wish the venom toward their mother and a man they knew as their friend wasnât as bad as it is. But trust me, they both are well shielded and protected and have completely moved on.
I am sure they are, for now, and that is completely awesome. My point is, kids do get curious as they get older and so do their friends. Seriously, yeah, itâs none of my businessâŠbut they are just kids on the fringes of a very complicated and ugly situation.
Itâs usually new accounts or not regular cothers that make posts that are the slightest bit empathetic to LK. @Inigo-montoya was the most recent, but there have been others.
From my understanding what KM has written, even if LK and RG had moved into the house in April? May? without a lease and without permission, their having lived there for at least thirty days would have given them rights as tenants. In particular, if Barisone or SGF wanted them out, they would need to issue a demand to vacate at any time, but the vacate day could not be prior to 30 days after the demand date.
Barisone would not need to involve lawyers to issue a demand to vacate. He or SGF could just say at any time âYou need to be out by 30 days from now.â
There is no evidence that eviction papers were ever filed. In Barisoneâs civil suit, his lawyers stated (alleged) that the demand to vacate was made on Aug 5. If his lawyers could have used the fact that Barisone demanded, on June 1 or July 1 or any date prior to Aug 5 that they vacate, donât you think that fact, or claim, would have been in the timeline in the civil suit?
OK, I guess Iâm just repeating myself. From my reading of known facts, the statements of Barisoneâs lawyers, and what IM has written, I think there is less than a .1% that they were asked, prior to Aug 5, to vacate.
You are, of course, free to believe whatever you want to believe.
IM said that lawyers for all parties negotiated an agreement with a mutually agreed upon date for her to leave. It is my speculation that the agreed upon date was after Aug 7 and sooner than Sept 5, and, of course you are free to disagree with that as well.
In my case, it didnât take much effort. I had put my old website in my profile so it was easy to figure it out. I didnât create this profile for this thread so I wasnât really concerned.
Honestly I didnât realize we got credit or a prize for posting or not posting. Maybe I, and others, should install a bell that rings every time we post (so an angel can get their wings)!
