Friday 3-7-08 a.m. [Archive] - In Session Message Boards

henry

03-07-2008, 05:40 AM

good morning . . . thought a historical perspective might be appropriate for this morning . . . here it goes.

on saturday, 3-1 maka made the following post: " He's awesome for doing that. I wish we could have a Q&A with him ....organize our questions and e-mail a list so he can take a few days to sort out what he can and cannot answer. "

on sunday 3-2 i mentioned maka's post in my opening comments & a couple questions were posted.

on monday 3-3 i posted: "don't forget to throw out your questions to rsoutherland . . . or pm me with them. a poster (not me) will be submitting them to him this week.

as a haha . . . i'm going to suggest a code also be provided for yes/no/i don't know questions, like . . . yes = sorry, i can't answer that, etc."

editorial note: i preceeded the last statement with a "haha" = joke . also, if all of you will remember prior to this date, i made reference/summarized a quote from a very well respected poster - won't direct you back to the comments that were made - it's too embarrassing.

then, all heck broke loose after that & some posters were scared to post their questions . . . i will refrain from interjecting my personal opinion here.

respecting the IS board and its rules, we decided to carry the questions outside of the board . . . and the rest is history. if one did read c/w's quote on email communications, which i have posted in past week(s?) regarding ncmostwanted email, one would realize that i was not the "author" or "sender". it was also our intent to present an organized, well-thought out question list to rsutherland . . . and hopefully develop a trusting and open relationship . . . nothing covert, secret or underhanded.

IMO so many good, honest, dedicated posters get bashed here . . . so sad.

in closing, the above is JMO . . . and i may edit the above 'cause i can't read it for "sense" when it's all squished together.

edit: the q&a may be found here
http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?threadid=325989

edit edit: my apologies for misspelling rsutherland's name in prior posts.

edit edit edit: if anyone has any other questions, please feel free to post them.

henry

03-07-2008, 06:03 AM

crap . . . i'm too late in editing the above

it should also be noted that the response to the questions was quite rapid . . . and, in deference and respect to those that did submit questions, the responses were sent to them. some posters wanted to reference the email . . . not having adequate time to decide how to do that, i decided to post the "for your info" to allow/open the door to get the info out.

as for timeliness . . . yes, we do have lives outside the message board . . . and hopefully others will respect that as well . . . the end. :)

caejde

03-07-2008, 08:17 AM

Good morning! Thanks to you and nuttin for doing this.

marinewife5

03-07-2008, 08:22 AM

Good morning...my laptop died so i'll be spending the day finding someone to fix it. Have we set a deadline date for more questions for rick?

crymeariver2006

03-07-2008, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by marinewife5
Good morning...my laptop died so i'll be spending the day finding someone to fix it. Have we set a deadline date for more questions for rick? [/*]

I don't know about the deadline date. But I've got at least one more question to ask.

Sorry about the laptop! PM me and if it's something I can help you with, I'll be glad to!

:seeya:

henry

03-07-2008, 08:33 AM

:) how about putting up a poll for when the deadline should be . . . i guess my sarcastic side is getting the better of me this morning.

i know what your question crymeariver is . . . did they check the landfill for the rug?

marinewife5

03-07-2008, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by henry
:) how about putting up a poll for when the deadline should be . . . i guess my sarcastic side is getting the better of me this morning.

i know what your question crymeariver is . . . did they check the landfill for the rug? [/*]

lol...i hope rick wasn't lurking last night...i would hate to scare him away from the board

crymeariver2006

03-07-2008, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by marinewife5

lol...i hope rick wasn't lurking last night...i would hate to scare him away from the board [/*]

Yeah, I know. I wasn't wearing makeup! :D

crymeariver2006

03-07-2008, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by henry
:) how about putting up a poll for when the deadline should be . . . i guess my sarcastic side is getting the better of me this morning.

i know what your question crymeariver is . . . did they check the landfill for the rug? [/*]

Okay, that's TWO questions I want to ask.

:tongue:

marinewife5

03-07-2008, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by crymeariver2006

Yeah, I know. I wasn't wearing makeup! :D [/*]

i didn't want to say anything, but...:rolleyes:

i want to know if they are considering the possiblility that cl is still/back in the area or possibly dead.

crymeariver2006

03-07-2008, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by marinewife5

i didn't want to say anything, but...:rolleyes:

i want to know if they are considering the possiblility that cl is still/back in the area or possibly dead. [/*]

I want to know if they are 100% convinced, beyond any doubt, that Cesar is still alive.

<puts lip gloss on desk in case Rick shows up to post>

:D

marinewife5

03-07-2008, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by crymeariver2006

I want to know if they are 100% convinced, beyond any doubt, that Cesar is still alive.

<puts lip gloss on desk in case Rick shows up to post>

:D [/*]

I also wonder who's blood was on the sole of that shoe, and if that was all a setup for gvs's show.

<sets freshly ironed white capri pants by computer in case i gotta "dress up">

crymeariver2006

03-07-2008, 09:43 AM

I want to know if all the forensics testing results received to date point to Cesar, or continue to point to Cesar, as being the murderer?

What evidence to charge him with murder (as the investigation was only just begun) was presented to the grand jury?

Was the rush to the grand jury because he ran?

Can we trust anything coming from "a source close to the investigation" (i.e., throat cut post mortem, money transfers in Houston)?

Was the cousin in Mexico legit?

marinewife5

03-07-2008, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by crymeariver2006

<sees those white capris and raises you a low cut blouse>

;) [/*]

i think the grand jury evidence was just enough to indict in case he was in mexico. but that is just my opinion

<i can't compete with a low cut blouse...:eek: >

and...laptop fixed...took a good whack and that seemed to do it

crymeariver2006

03-07-2008, 09:54 AM

And ITA about the rush to the grand jury.

bkwits

03-07-2008, 09:55 AM

Mornin' all. I hope I don't give you the bug I have by breathing on the laptop.:seeya:

marinewife5

03-07-2008, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by bkwits

Mornin' all. I hope I don't give you the bug I have by breathing on the laptop.:seeya: [/*]

i hope youre feeling better...and i guess it was just a matter of time for the computer to get sick with what's been going around.

oohh...we should also ask about the photos shown to the bus station guy.

henry

03-07-2008, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by bkwits

Mornin' all. I hope I don't give you the bug I have by breathing on the laptop.:seeya: [/*]

got my mask on my face and fingers . . . so i'm safe . . . hope you're up & about soon.

what i found interesting about rs's responses is that he did not give the "no comment" canned response. also look at the turnaround time . . . faster than i can locate my glasses! talking about glasses, hehe, look at #7 and compare it to #24 . . . wonder what items have not been recovered?

edit . . . thank goodness the questions were numbered!

edit edit . . . off to grocery store to fill up our new LG refridgerator . . . bblater

bkwits

03-07-2008, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by marinewife5

i hope youre feeling better...and i guess it was just a matter of time for the computer to get sick with what's been going around.

oohh...we should also ask about the photos shown to the bus station guy. [/*]

Yes, I agree about the photos. I really don't think yellowjacket could remember that much. First he said no one was with her, and later he said he wasn't sure because that was a long time ago.

MY gson was so cute. I'm always pushing o.j. on him when he is sick. He asked me if I wanted o.j. and I said no. He talked me into drinking it. Vitamin C you know, he said. Sometimes the child does have to be the parent. He is a young 17.

caejde

03-07-2008, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by bkwits

Yes, I agree about the photos. I really don't think yellowjacket could remember that much. First he said no one was with her, and later he said he wasn't sure because that was a long time ago.

MY gson was so cute. I'm always pushing o.j. on him when he is sick. He asked me if I wanted o.j. and I said no. He talked me into drinking it. Vitamin C you know, he said. Sometimes the child does have to be the parent. He is a young 17. [/*]

Pedialyte is really good so you don't get dehydrated. Doesn't taste the best but I would mix it with a little juice. We all drank it here.

bkwits

03-07-2008, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by caejde

Pedialyte is really good so you don't get dehydrated. Doesn't taste the best but I would mix it with a little juice. We all drank it here. [/*]

Thanks Caejde, you are so thoughtful..:rose:

crymeariver2006

03-07-2008, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by marinewife5

i hope youre feeling better...and i guess it was just a matter of time for the computer to get sick with what's been going around.

oohh...we should also ask about the photos shown to the bus station guy. [/*]

Didn't we hear early on that the bus station guy had seen Maria's picture on tv and called in?

Seems like I remember that's how they even knew about a bus ticket to El Paso.

:shrug:

JanDoe

03-07-2008, 10:57 AM

.

QUESTIONS for Rick:

Did Maria and Cesar meet at the
bus station in seperate vehicles?

caejde

03-07-2008, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by bkwits

Thanks Caejde, you are so thoughtful..:rose: [/*]

You're welcome! We had pedialyte when we had food poisoning which was right before the flu hit here.

Lynn Gweeny

03-07-2008, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by crymeariver2006

Didn't we hear early on that the bus station guy had seen Maria's picture on tv and called in?

Seems like I remember that's how they even knew about a bus ticket to El Paso.

:shrug: [/*]

:seeya: cryme. The article which had the interview of Roshaun Hames at wnct and the video of him is no longer available, but if you google the article title, you can access just the article but not the video. The title: Ticket Agent: Lauterbach Bought One-Way Ticket to El Paso. I recall the video camera above his head in the interview and always wondered if they had videotape of Maria being there or if that video was just a real time video that didn't record. JMO

From the article:

Hames says he thinks Maria was alone when she bought the ticket on Dec. 14th. He says she asked him if it would be OK for her to leave her car parked at the station, but drove away from the station that day.

“There’s nothing to it, really,” Hames said. “She came in, she bought the ticket, and she asked me if she could leave her car out there. That’s pretty much it.”

BTW ~ :beer: to nuttintodo and henry for organizing and sending the questions to Capt. Sutherland. ^5 to all the posters who submitted such GREAT questions. Hats off to Capt. Sutherland for taking the time to answer them.

GentleBreeze

03-07-2008, 11:17 AM

Good Morning Everyone!

Last night was exciting, huh?

I think we need to give Captain Sutherland a little breathing room and at least make it a week or so before we ask further questions. That will give all of us ample time to think carefully what we really want to ask.

I think the questions where a "yes" or "no" may be good ones. That way he doesn't have to elaborate and divulge why it is yes or no. Just my opinion tho.

I am going to try to think of questions that would only pertain to him and his department. He is not going to answer for another agency or department I wouldn't think ..........like the DAs position or the agencies that are over the manhunt especially if it has not been reported before.

imo

crymeariver2006

03-07-2008, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by Lynn Gweeny

:seeya: cryme. The article which had the interview of Roshaun Hames at wnct and the video of him is no longer available, but if you google the article title, you can access just the article but not the video. The title: Ticket Agent: Lauterbach Bought One-Way Ticket to El Paso. I recall the video camera above his head in the interview and always wondered if they had videotape of Maria being there or if that video was just a real time video that didn't record. JMO

From the article:

Hames says he thinks Maria was alone when she bought the ticket on Dec. 14th. He says she asked him if it would be OK for her to leave her car parked at the station, but drove away from the station that day.

“There’s nothing to it, really,” Hames said. “She came in, she bought the ticket, and she asked me if she could leave her car out there. That’s pretty much it.”

BTW ~ :beer: to nuttintodo and henry for organizing and sending the questions to Capt. Sutherland. ^5 to all the posters who submitted such GREAT questions. Hats off to Capt. Sutherland for taking the time to answer them. [/*]

Thanks Lynn! I guess my question needs to be "When did they find out about a bus ticket and from whom"? I don't think they had found the car or the ticket at the time they (LE) interviewed him, that's why I'm thinking he called them. And if they were only going by the "notes", what led them to that particular station? Surely the notes didn't say she bought a bus ticket to El Paso?

SavannahStar

03-07-2008, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by GentleBreeze
Good Morning Everyone!

Last night was exciting, huh?

I think we need to give Captain Sutherland a little breathing room and at least make it a week or so before we ask further questions. That will give all of us ample time to think carefully what we really want to ask.

I think the questions where a "yes" or "no" may be good ones. That way he doesn't have to elaborate and divulge why it is yes or no. Just my opinion tho.

I am going to try to think of questions that would only pertain to him and his department. He is not going to answer for another agency or department I wouldn't think ..........like the DAs position or the agencies that are over the manhunt especially if it has not been reported before.

imo [/*]

I totally agree, GB. Questions should be short and sweet, with "yes" or "no" being the answers expected.

One question I felt from the original list which was a bit "over the top" in its wording IMO was:

15) Why would Laurean write 'notes' to his wife when he had supposedly already told her his version of events on the way to Mark Raynor's office on 1/10/08? Do you feel this was an attempt for Laurean to distance his wife's involvement completely? Or is Laurean just a writing kind of guy? (Many posters feel that Mrs. Laurean was involved but feel her involvement was after the fact)

That one gave me a chuckle!

JanDoe

03-07-2008, 11:37 AM

.
when Maria asked the station attendant if she could leave her
car parked there....I think she meant right at that time....
otherwise, why would she care what happened to the car
once she was on the bus?

if Cesar was in his own vehicle, waiting outside the station, and
she was planning to get into his vehicle but found he had left...
that would explain why she was "acting strange" and "showed
up at his house - plans had changed"....

just some random thoughts of mine....

Did Maria and Cesar meet at the bus
station in seperate vehicles?

GentleBreeze

03-07-2008, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by SavannahStar

I totally agree, GB. Questions should be short and sweet, with "yes" or "no" being the answers expected.

One question I felt from the original list which was a bit "over the top" in its wording IMO was:

15) Why would Laurean write 'notes' to his wife when he had supposedly already told her his version of events on the way to Mark Raynor's office on 1/10/08? Do you feel this was an attempt for Laurean to distance his wife's involvement completely? Or is Laurean just a writing kind of guy? (Many posters feel that Mrs. Laurean was involved but feel her involvement was after the fact)

That one gave me a chuckle! [/*]

LOL I thought that was a very good question and IMO Captain Sutherland is very well aware that many are very interested in CSL and her involvement. I am sure he is asked these same questions constantly by his own community. He is not a stupid man and I think he has his own suspicions but knows until he finds solid probable cause he cannot arrest her on a gut feeling they may have.

I really thought all of the list was outstanding and thought provoking.

Hats off to Nuttin and Henry.:hat:

imoo:seeya:

bkwits

03-07-2008, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by crymeariver2006

Thanks Lynn! I guess my question needs to be "When did they find out about a bus ticket and from whom"? I don't think they had found the car or the ticket at the time they (LE) interviewed him, that's why I'm thinking he called them. And if they were only going by the "notes", what led them to that particular station? Surely the notes didn't say she bought a bus ticket to El Paso? [/*]

Now, I'm not sure but I think when they found the car on Jan 7, and the bus ticket in the car. An investigator saw the car parked at the Checkers. IMo

crymeariver2006

03-07-2008, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by bkwits

Now, I'm not sure but I think when they found the car on Jan 7, and the bus ticket in the car. An investigator saw the car parked at the Checkers. IMo [/*]

So you're thinking that they found the bus ticket and then contacted the yellow jacket guy?

Why am I thinking he called in when he saw Maria's picture on tv? I'm pretty sure I heard/read/saw that somewhere.

(And Rick says the car wasn't there the whole time from 12/14 to 1/7. I wonder where it was the whole time?)

nuttintodo

03-07-2008, 12:29 PM

Also in Hames' interview with wnct.com, he was asked about Maria being able to move around and he told the reporter that she was moving very well to be pregnant (I'm paraphrasing).

My feeling about the camera above his head during the interview is probably one of those that records that day and then loops back and records the next day (not sure about this but maybe MW5 can go back and ask him). And MW5 if you would like someone to go with you, let me know and I'll be glad to go with you.

One thing I would like to add to the next round of questions---I was in the Triangle area this past Monday and we stopped at the Kangaroo/whatever name convenience store that is located next to the Microtel. You can clearly see the back parking area of the motel from the convenience store. While sitting there I noticed the store had surveillance cameras, wonder if LE asked to see the footage?

So that's why the thought popped into my mind, plus I watched 48 Hours on A&E last night in which a trucker shot in the cab of his truck and what was next door----a convenience store. The Memphis LE went inside the store and watched the surveillance tapes and developed their suspect from those recordings (they watched both the outside and inside recordings).

JMO

GentleBreeze

03-07-2008, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by crymeariver2006

So you're thinking that they found the bus ticket and then contacted the yellow jacket guy?

Why am I thinking he called in when he saw Maria's picture on tv? I'm pretty sure I heard/read/saw that somewhere.

(And Rick says the car wasn't there the whole time from 12/14 to 1/7. I wonder where it was the whole time?) [/*]

See Cryme...you were right.......there should have been a rug BOLO put out immediately. I betcha that rug is long gone by now.:D

I think her car was at his residence where she drove it and it stayed there until he drove it back in a day or two to the parking lot after he murdered her.

I have often wondered if it was in the garage until then and when he took it back to the parking lot he then came back and put all sorts of stuff spread out in the garage to make it look like cars hadn't been parked in there.

imoo

Lynn Gweeny

03-07-2008, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by bkwits

Now, I'm not sure but I think when they found the car on Jan 7, and the bus ticket in the car. An investigator saw the car parked at the Checkers. IMo [/*]

Going back and listening to one of the PC's with Sheriff Brown, this is what he says about the bus ticket bought in Maria's name.

@10:40 in the video stream ... "don’t have the ticket and not redeemed"

Onslow County News Conference on Pregnant Marine (Jan. 13) (15:47)

http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/2296564/

The only information about possibly finding the ticket IN Maria's car was reported by Rusty Dornin on 1/15 and again on 1/16:

BROOKS: Rusty, again, the ticket -- the one-way ticket to El Paso, it wasn`t used, but was it recovered in her car or recovered anywhere?

DORNIN: It was -- I`m pretty sure it was recovered from her car.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0801/15/ng.01.html

GRACE: You know, it`s very interesting that that ticket, I believe Rusty Dornin told me last night, was recovered in her car. Right, Rusty?

DORNIN: From what I understand it was never used and it was recovered in her car.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0801/16/ng.01.html

SavannahStar

03-07-2008, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by GentleBreeze

LOL I thought that was a very good question and IMO Captain Sutherland is very well aware that many are very interested in CSL and her involvement. I am sure he is asked these same questions constantly by his own community. He is not a stupid man and I think he has his own suspicions but knows until he finds solid probable cause he cannot arrest her on a gut feeling they may have.

I really thought all of the list was outstanding and thought provoking.

Hats off to Nuttin and Henry.:hat:

imoo:seeya: [/*]

Oh it's not just that the question was about CSL in a round-about way.....I guess I'm not explaining it correctly. Just that the question almost seemed to beg a "conversational" answer and some personal opinion from RS, which I don't think we can or should rightfully expect. As I said, your idea of "yes"/"no" type questions is a better idea, I think.

What I also found VERY interesting about his answers to the questions is that even they are interpreted differently by different posters, depending upon their point of view. That's not at all surprising, of course. But makes it all the more imperative that his answers were put up here verbatim.

bkwits

03-07-2008, 12:43 PM

crymeariver2006

03-07-2008, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by GentleBreeze

See Cryme...you were right.......there should have been a rug BOLO put out immediately. I betcha that rug is long gone by now.:D

I think her car was at his residence where she drove it and it stayed there until he drove it back in a day or two to the parking lot after he murdered her.

I have often wondered if it was in the garage until then and when he took it back to the parking lot he then came back and put all sorts of stuff spread out in the garage to make it look like cars hadn't been parked in there.

imoo [/*]

But if it was at the residence for even one day after 12/14, then Christina should have noticed it?

(And that's my thinking on the stuff in the garage. It was a month later and they were "painting" so I can see where the furniture got moved back and forth between the rooms and the garage. My own storage building looks pretty pristine during the holidays 'cause all the decorations are out.)

Yeah, I thought it was pretty ??? how he mentions "crime scene" when answering questions about the rug. Either there's not one, never has been one, one was there but maybe someone tracked blood on it and it couldn't be cleaned and was disposed of around 12/14, or was there until 1/11 or thereabouts. I mean, the living room was never spoken of as being the "crime scene" except for SB or someone saying there was blood in the living room. Whose blood was it?

nuttintodo

03-07-2008, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by SavannahStar

Oh it's not just that the question was about CSL in a round-about way.....I guess I'm not explaining it correctly. Just that the question almost seemed to beg a "conversational" answer and some personal opinion from RS, which I don't think we can or should rightfully expect. As I said, your idea of "yes"/"no" type questions is a better idea, I think.

What I also found VERY interesting about his answers to the questions is that even they are interpreted differently by different posters, depending upon their point of view. That's not at all surprising, of course. But makes it all the more imperative that his answers were put up here verbatim. [/*]

I just found it unusual in this day and age that he would take the time to write those 'notes' after he's already allegedly told CSL his version of events of 12//14/07. I was being totally sarcastic when I said was CAL a writing kind of guy. And there have been several posters who have asked the same thing and was this an attempt on his part to further distance CSL from any involvement.

I knew Sutherland wasn't going to say anything out of the way about CSL since she's still a cooperating witness and I also know until there is probable cause, she won't be charged with anything. But I also think DA Hudson will have the last word on that.

But you have to admit there are a lot of posters here who feel CSL was involved some how, but mainly after the fact.

Please understand I wasn't trying to illicit Sutherland's personal opinion, I was totally curious that's all.

JMO

SavannahStar

03-07-2008, 12:49 PM

mini-me

03-07-2008, 12:49 PM

SavannahStar

03-07-2008, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by nuttintodo

I just found it unusual in this day and age that he would take the time to write those 'notes' after he's already allegedly told CSL his version of events of 12//14/07. I was being totally sarcastic when I said was CAL a writing kind of guy. And there have been several posters who have asked the same thing and was this an attempt on his part to further distance CSL from any involvement.

I knew Sutherland wasn't going to say anything out of the way about CSL since she's still a cooperating witness and I also know until there is probable cause, she won't be charged with anything. But I also think DA Hudson will have the last word on that.

But you have to admit there are a lot of posters here who feel CSL was involved some how, but mainly after the fact.

Please understand I wasn't trying to illicit Sutherland's personal opinion, I was totally curious that's all.

JMO [/*]

Nuttin, no problem. And of course I realize there are posters who are convinced of CSL's involvement....they are in the vast majority, in fact.

I just thought the question was worded funny...and yes, at least sure sounded like wanting his personal opinion. But no matter, it didn't get answered in that way.

As far as "UNTIL" probable cause....well see that's one example of how posters interpret his answers differently. I agree with Chicky's take on that. There IS no probably cause. CSL has not been charged. I didn't get any sense at all of "until" or "if" or anything like that.

nuttintodo

03-07-2008, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by crymeariver2006

But if it was at the residence for even one day after 12/14, then Christina should have noticed it?

(And that's my thinking on the stuff in the garage. It was a month later and they were "painting" so I can see where the furniture got moved back and forth between the rooms and the garage. My own storage building looks pretty pristine during the holidays 'cause all the decorations are out.)

Yeah, I thought it was pretty ??? how he mentions "crime scene" when answering questions about the rug. Either there's not one, never has been one, one was there but maybe someone tracked blood on it and it couldn't be cleaned and was disposed of around 12/14, or was there until 1/11 or thereabouts. I mean, the living room was never spoken of as being the "crime scene" except for SB or someone saying there was blood in the living room. Whose blood was it? [/*]

I'm going to bring Malo back in this. Remember Malo was the one who said he saw CAL driving Maria's car after the 14th because he thought it was either an ex or his neice's car.

And we must keep in mind that CAL had three days shy of a month to rearrange the garage, clean up and paint---basically do whatever before the noose tightened around his neck and he made the choice to run.

There may or may not have been a rug in the LR. He didn't discount the rug so it's open for interpretation as to whether one was present during the crime. And I would think the nosey neighbors would have noticed a rug in the LR since Wanda was over there during the holidays visiting (and when CSL told her they were painting).

JMO

SavannahStar

03-07-2008, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by nuttintodo

*snipped*

There may or may not have been a rug in the LR. He didn't discount the rug so it's open for interpretation as to whether one was present during the crime.

JMO [/*]

Well therein lies the entire problem with the questions/answers. All are up to interpretation, as I said....and we don't know a whole heck of a lot more than we ever did. :shrug:

bkwits

03-07-2008, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by SavannahStar

Nuttin, no problem. And of course I realize there are posters who are convinced of CSL's involvement....they are in the vast majority, in fact.

I just thought the question was worded funny...and yes, at least sure sounded like wanting his personal opinion. But no matter, it didn't get answered in that way.

As far as "UNTIL" probable cause....well see that's one example of how posters interpret his answers differently. I agree with Chicky's take on that. There IS no probably cause. CSL has not been charged. I didn't get any sense at all of "until" or "if" or anything like that. [/*]

Do you really think the "vast majority" are convinced of Ctina's involvement? I could go either way although I really think that Cesar did the murder alone. JMO

SavannahStar

03-07-2008, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by bkwits

Do you really think the "vast majority" are convinced of Ctina's involvement? I could go either way although I really think that Cesar did the murder alone. JMO [/*]

I do get that impression, bk. I could be wrong though. The only ones I really see that are pretty adament that she is NOT involved is me and Chicky. Maybe there are a few, like you, on the fence.

GentleBreeze

03-07-2008, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by SavannahStar

Well therein lies the entire problem with the questions/answers. All are up to interpretation, as I said....and we don't know a whole heck of a lot more than we ever did. :shrug: [/*]

Well see I don't look at it that negatively. If we got one question confirmed then I think it was very well worth contacting CS.

He confirmed that contact was made prior to her coming to the home.

He did confirm that Maria was found with clothing on.

And I would have to read the list again to see if there are others.

So imo it was well worth Nuttin and Henry's time to do it and it opens the door to further email interviews and imo that is so unique to have about any case we are discussing here.

And yes you are correct that how others interpret it will vary. IMO it is because LE very much speaks in a very guarded code and sometimes it is not what they say but what they don't say or the way they say it.

imoo

GentleBreeze

03-07-2008, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by bkwits

Do you really think the "vast majority" are convinced of Ctina's involvement? I could go either way although I really think that Cesar did the murder alone. JMO [/*]

I don't even think we count....take us out of the equation. I think the very citizens of Jacksonville do suspect Christina.

There was a poll posted on the Jacksonville Daily News site and it is the first time ever that I can remember seeing this rarity on the poll results.

100% of the people who voted thought Christina was involved. I have never seen a poll before that had a 100% to 0% results.

imoo

SavannahStar

03-07-2008, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Chicky

GB, I have no idea what you mean by LE's guarded code and it is not what they say, but the way they say it. First I have ever heard of that.:D [/*]

:D

GentleBreeze

03-07-2008, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by Chicky

GB, I have no idea what you mean by LE's guarded code and it is not what they say, but the way they say it. First I have ever heard of that.:D [/*]

Well I bet you have heard that many times before if you were a cop.

That is what cops do and we see them and their guarded words continuously in PCs.

CS is certainly not the only one. I have been hearing other cops for years do the same and I don't fault them at all.

imoo

SavannahStar

03-07-2008, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by GentleBreeze

I don't even think we count....take us out of the equation. I think the very citizens of Jacksonville do suspect Christina.

There was a poll posted on the Jacksonville Daily News site and it is the first time ever that I can remember seeing this rarity on the poll results.

100% of the people who voted thought Christina was involved. I have never seen a poll before that had a 100% to 0% results.

imoo [/*]

But still, that does not at all mean she was involved. 100% of those polled could indeed be wrong. And I bet it will turn out that way.

:biggrin:

Lynn Gweeny

03-07-2008, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by GentleBreeze

Well see I don't look at it that negatively. If we got one question confirmed then I think it was very well worth contacting CS.

He confirmed that contact was made prior to her coming to the home.

He did confirm that Maria was found with clothing on.

And I would have to read the list again to see if there are others.

So imo it was well worth Nuttin and Henry's time to do it and it opens the door to further email interviews and imo that is so unique to have about any case we are discussing here.

And yes you are correct that how others interpret it will vary. IMO it is because LE very much speaks in a very guarded code and sometimes it is not what they say but what they don't say or the way they say it.

imoo [/*]

I agree, Gentle. Sometimes the wording in the Search Warrants can be confusing until more information is given either in a PC or in an interview where the actual words or phraseology can be heard.

There were 2 answers given that provided more info than was available anywhere that I had read or heard.

1) Sgt. Durham arriving home from the Dec. 14th Christmas party at 5:30 p.m. .... knowing that, it puts the information in the search warrant about Maria being upset about the 'adoption' in question as occurring in the conversation on Dec. 14th and possibly at another time. Reading the SW, it seemed to imply that Durham was privy to that conversation ON December 14th at 2:30 p.m. and adoption was one of the topics. Further, it led to speculation that Durham had seem Maria at the house later that day after the party.

2) Maria's car not being located at the bus station the entire time from 12/14/07 to 1/7/08 .... Sheriff Brown had answered a question early on about how Maria's car wound up at the bus station and he replied "she drove it there". Knowing that the car wasn't there the entire time, now puts more weight to the fact that neighbors saw Laurean driving the car possibly. JMO

GentleBreeze

03-07-2008, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by SavannahStar

But still, that does not at all mean she was involved. 100% of those polled could indeed be wrong. And I bet it will turn out that way.

:biggrin: [/*]

Could be but it is very strange that so many do think she is involved including the media that couldn't do one presser without it being more about CSL than CL.

But it sure never means that she isn't involved either. In the Shawna Nelson case there was a plea deal struck the day before the witness was to testify.

So there is plenty of time for it to come to that.

imoo

GentleBreeze

03-07-2008, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Lynn Gweeny

I agree, Gentle. Sometimes the wording in the Search Warrants can be confusing until more information is given either in a PC or in an interview where the actual words or phraseology can be heard.

There were 2 answers given that provided more info than was available anywhere that I had read or heard.

1) Sgt. Durham arriving home from the Dec. 14th Christmas party at 5:30 p.m. .... knowing that, it puts the information in the search warrant about Maria being upset about the 'adoption' in question as occurring in the conversation on Dec. 14th and possibly at another time. Reading the SW, it seemed to imply that Durham was privy to that conversation ON December 14th at 2:30 p.m. and adoption was one of the topics. Further, it led to speculation that Durham had seem Maria at the house later that day after the party.

2) Maria's car not being located at the bus station the entire time from 12/14/07 to 1/7/08 .... Sheriff Brown had answered a question early on about how Maria's car wound up at the bus station and he replied "she drove it there". Knowing that the car wasn't there the entire time, now puts more weight to the fact that neighbors saw Laurean driving the car possibly. JMO [/*]

Thank you Lynn,

And you are right about the ones you have listed above and Captain Sutherland has confirmed that some of the things first thought have been found not to be factual but just the beginning of a long investigation that continues to gather further solid evidence now.

I think it was so gracious of CS to take his time to answer what he could without jeopardizing their case.

imoo

GentleBreeze

03-07-2008, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Chicky

Yes, I was a cop and no I have never heard of any "guarded code". They just say plainly they can not answer that question.:shrug: [/*]

Well IMO Chicky. They speak in guarded police lingo (code).

If you don't think so then so be it but I do and that perception sure didn't start with this case and CS. It has been discussed for years concerning other cases by other posters.:shrug:

imoo

CanCan

03-07-2008, 02:22 PM

henry

03-07-2008, 02:28 PM

:seeya: crymeariver - could you please stop cracking jokes and read your pms - thanks

edit :)

henry

03-07-2008, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by SavannahStar

Nuttin, no problem. And of course I realize there are posters who are convinced of CSL's involvement....they are in the vast majority, in fact.

I just thought the question was worded funny...and yes, at least sure sounded like wanting his personal opinion. But no matter, it didn't get answered in that way.

As far as "UNTIL" probable cause....well see that's one example of how posters interpret his answers differently. I agree with Chicky's take on that. There IS no probably cause. CSL has not been charged. I didn't get any sense at all of "until" or "if" or anything like that. [/*]

my next ? to captain sutherland will be along the lines of defining what a "cooperating witness" is.

IvySterling

03-07-2008, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by nuttintodo

I'm going to bring Malo back in this. Remember Malo was the one who said he saw CAL driving Maria's car after the 14th because he thought it was either an ex or his neice's car.

And we must keep in mind that CAL had three days shy of a month to rearrange the garage, clean up and paint---basically do whatever before the noose tightened around his neck and he made the choice to run.

There may or may not have been a rug in the LR. He didn't discount the rug so it's open for interpretation as to whether one was present during the crime. And I would think the nosey neighbors would have noticed a rug in the LR since Wanda was over there during the holidays visiting (and when CSL told her they were painting).

JMO [/*]
Actually it was Richard Alander who thought it was his niece's car. Said he was standing out in front with his buddie when he saw the car come around the turn.

Then Malo Menard said he thought the car was his ex's.

So, was CAL seen more than once driving Maria's car :shrug:

bkwits

03-07-2008, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Chicky

Good one Henry. He may just say it is a witness who is cooperating, but I like the question. I have one. Please ask him if Maria and CL had contact on December 14th prior to her going to his house. Just a yes or no. I want to pin it down to that day for sure. Thanks. [/*]

That's what I asked him and he said yes.

Sheriff Brown stated that in a pc, but I haven't been able to find it.

Lynn Gweeny

03-07-2008, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by bkwits

That's what I asked him and he said yes.

Sheriff Brown stated that in a pc, but I haven't been able to find it. [/*]

From the PC on 1/11 with Sheriff Brown and NCIS Agent Ciccarelli:

BROWN: .... This morning you were talking to me and I was ready to tell you that, man, we got good news.

So this thing has gone this way, it's gone this way, but I believe I can say this -- from what we understand right now, the relationship that brought them together has happened since her disappearance. Since the 14th. Let me say this -- their relationship seems to have gotten together since the 14th.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0801/11/ywt.01.html

Lynn Gweeny

03-07-2008, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Chicky

No, not quite. You didn't pin it down to 12/14 good enough. imo

"5) Is there any evidence that shows contact between Laurean and Maria prior to Maria's arrival at the Laurean home? (I'm sure you can't answer this directly but the posters would just like a yes or no answer)"

When was the contact? It is not narrowed down enough to 12/14. It could have been on the 13th or the 12th.

imo [/*]

Adding to that specific day, December 14th and if the answer is 'yes', then a follow up to that would be a simple yes or no to this question .... Is that based on information other than the note left by Cesar Laurean?

bkwits

03-07-2008, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Chicky

No, not quite. You didn't pin it down to 12/14 good enough. imo

"5) Is there any evidence that shows contact between Laurean and Maria prior to Maria's arrival at the Laurean home? (I'm sure you can't answer this directly but the posters would just like a yes or no answer)"

When was the contact? It is not narrowed down enough to 12/14. It could have been on the 13th or the 12th.

imo [/*]

I did ask were there any phone contacts between Maria and Cesar on 12/14 prior to her being at his house?

bkwits

03-07-2008, 03:25 PM

I specifically remember Sheriff Brown addressing this. He didn't say there were phone calls, but in answer to a question by media, he said there was contact that day prior to when Maria was at the L house. SB said the contact was initiated by Maria. I may have seen it on TV. But I definitely remember that and that is why I asked the question.

Rick S. said the info he gives us is limited to what's already been released.

You can choose to believe that or not. It is up to you. I wish I could supply a link.

bkwits

03-07-2008, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by Jas.S

He did not answer any question save one that I can think of. Just said "yes we know" or whatever but would not give the answer.

Did I miss some? :confused:

Other than yes, ML and CL had been in contact prior to her going to the house, did RS answer any question?

TIA [/*]

He answered another question that I aske.
What time did Durham come home and find the note. He said 5:30pm

bkwits

03-07-2008, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Chicky

This has nothing to do with believing you or not. Again Lynn posted the link up thread. [/*]

That's not the one. I've read that about 5 times. It doesn't address that issue.

JanDoe

03-07-2008, 04:55 PM

.

I wish we could all come to post and not have the personal
cut-lows directed at another's intelligence, or the secret
put-downs that have been brought about over time.

I have enjoyed the differing view points.

Sometimes, I post and no one even responds....
sometimes, a debate will occur......
that doesn't stop me from coming in here.

I just want to say that I enjoy each and every one
who comes to post and I value each and every one
of your views. With all the different ideas about
this case...I have to admit, I have changed my views.

That's all.....thanks

strick10

03-07-2008, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by JanDoe
.

II just want to say that I enjoy each and every one
who comes to post and I value each and every one
of your views. With all the different ideas about
this case...I have to admit, I have changed my views.

That's all.....thanks [/*]

ITA. I for one enjoy your posts so....keep posting.

JanDoe

03-07-2008, 06:13 PM

.
Thanks strick10, I really appreciate that you
have responded with such kindness......

This is such an interesting case and all
posters have passion in wanting to see
justice done......imo

GentleBreeze

03-07-2008, 06:21 PM

I found the (#31) answer interesting.

It seems they have other eye witnesses to certain things besides the neighbors right around the Laureans home.

31) We have received several statements from numerous neighbors. We have to weigh all of their statements against physical evidence and other witness statements.

GentleBreeze

03-07-2008, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by JanDoe
.
Thanks strick10, I really appreciate that you
have responded with such kindness......

This is such an interesting case and all
posters have passion in wanting to see
justice done......imo [/*]

I enjoy reading your post Jan. I may not respond to everyone of them but I assure you, I always read them.

imoo

mini-me

03-07-2008, 06:24 PM

I have never ever purchased a bus ticket before..Can someone tell me if they actually put a name on the ticket. TYIA

IvySterling

03-07-2008, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by GentleBreeze
I found the (#31) answer interesting.

It seems they have other eye witnesses to certain things besides the neighbors right around the Laureans home.

31) We have received several statements from numerous neighbors. We have to weigh all of their statements against physical evidence and other witness statements. [/*]
Yeah, maybe for one, Ruth Hughs who's mentioned in this article
http://www.enctoday.com/articles/lauterbach_54424_jdn__article.html/home_neighbors.html
While you're there, check out the fence in the photo from the Alander's side of the yard. It doesn't look like the original fencing seen elsewhere and looks like it's falling off.

CanCan

03-07-2008, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by JanDoe
.

I wish we could all come to post and not have the personal
cut-lows directed at another's intelligence, or the secret
put-downs that have been brought about over time.

I have enjoyed the differing view points.

Sometimes, I post and no one even responds....
sometimes, a debate will occur......
that doesn't stop me from coming in here.

I just want to say that I enjoy each and every one
who comes to post and I value each and every one
of your views. With all the different ideas about
this case...I have to admit, I have changed my views.

That's all.....thanks [/*]

:seeya: I'd like to hear how your views have changed.......if you don't mind sharing, that is.

Thanks!!

IvySterling

03-07-2008, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by mini-me
I have never ever purchased a bus ticket before..Can someone tell me if they actually put a name on the ticket. TYIA [/*]
I don't know if this applies also to tickets purchased in person or not, but assuming so.

Greyhound.com : Ticket Center : e-tickets
The passenger's ID must match the name on the ticket

Info. from:http://www.greyhound.com/etickets/

JanDoe

03-07-2008, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by GentleBreeze

I enjoy reading your post Jan. I may not respond to everyone of them but I assure you, I always read them.

imoo [/*]

Thanks GB

henry

03-07-2008, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by JanDoe
.
Thanks strick10, I really appreciate that you
have responded with such kindness......

This is such an interesting case and all
posters have passion in wanting to see
justice done......imo [/*]

there are lots of readers & lurkers out there/here . . . i see new names & people that haven't posted here reading early in the morning. and i know IMO that lots of them have the same sentiments, but if this is the small contribution we can make . . . to keep this going (i think a lot of posters have said this more eloquently than this) . . .

i just watched this a.m. an interview w/ ray kelly (NYC police commissioner) and the questions he answered . . . what they're doing, who's doing what, etc. i just pray that LE will accomplish their mission, but it'd be nice if LE would raise the public's confidence/awareness and provide an update/status report on cesar's whereabouts and what's been done in the past 2 months. JMO

mini-me

03-07-2008, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by AnnieBean

I don't know.. My brother rode greyhound and his ticket was linked somehow to his legal name, because he had some problems with lost luggage. I don't know if the name itself is on the ticket, but its linked to the ticket number.
And even if a name was on it, I can't see the bus drivers checking to be sure its actually you. [/*]Thanks for the information. I was just wondering if the name wasn't on it then anyone could use. Maybe CAl actually used that ticket.

JanDoe

03-07-2008, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by CanCan

:seeya: I'd like to hear how your views have changed.......if you don't mind sharing, that is.

Thanks!! [/*]

Once I was sure that CSL was not involved....but now
I have changed that view and just wonder who was
involved in helping CL.....it occurs to me now that he
had help.....imo now

GentleBreeze

03-07-2008, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by IvySterling

Yeah, maybe for one, Ruth Hughs who's mentioned in this article
http://www.enctoday.com/articles/lauterbach_54424_jdn__article.html/home_neighbors.html
While you're there, check out the fence in the photo from the Alander's side of the yard. It doesn't look like the original fencing seen elsewhere and looks like it's falling off. [/*]

Thanks, Ivy.

Yes, I see what you mean and I agree.

imoo

GentleBreeze

03-07-2008, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by AnnieBean

I don't know.. My brother rode greyhound and his ticket was linked somehow to his legal name, because he had some problems with lost luggage. I don't know if the name itself is on the ticket, but its linked to the ticket number.
And even if a name was on it, I can't see the bus drivers checking to be sure its actually you. [/*]

It is tracked to him Annie because the bus ticket number correlates with the baggage ticket put on the luggage. All he would have to do is tell them or show them the ticket number and they give him a stub off of the luggage before boarding and they locate it by that number.

imoo

IvySterling

03-07-2008, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by mini-me
Thanks for the information. I was just wondering if the name wasn't on it then anyone could use. Maybe CAl actually used that ticket. [/*]
It was reported that the ticket had not been used IIRC

JanDoe

03-07-2008, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by Chicky

Quote:
"30) In Laurean's 'notes', he states that everything occurred on 12/15/07, did he simply have the date wrong or did this further lessen Mrs. Laurean's involvement?"

"We believe that Maria was murdered on the 14th. If we had probable cause that Mrs. Laurean was involved, she would be charged."

________________________________
Again judging from this question and answer, it is clear if they had anything on Christina she would be charged. This means they are not giving her a pass or immunity. imo

I believe enough time has passed they have investigated this case for her involvement to completion. I also believe that after this much time they have enough forensics back to clear her.

I think the answer from CS is clear in regard to Christina.

JMO [/*]

I understand that......and whether CSL is charged or not....
I think she knows more than what we have been told..

my opinion has changed as to her involvement and degree of...
it is LE and DA choice to not charge her.....imo

IvySterling

03-07-2008, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by AnnieBean

Please Forgive me for asking:o but is there one concise place I can go to to read his answers, I have been off/on last 24 hours...thanks in advance!! [/*]
On this page AB
http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?threadid=325989&perpage=40&pagenumber=2

JanDoe

03-07-2008, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by Chicky

I don't believe it is a choice not to charge her. It is the lack of evidence or probable cause to charge her. It stands to reason LE has been told everything by her and we are not privy to it. She is still not charged so it must not be anything showing her involvement. CS said what he could say which was quite strong in regard to Christina.

He could have just said she is a cooperating witness as usual, but he went a strong step forward saying they had nothing on her to charge.

JMO [/*]

in the question it was stated "further lessening her involvement"
maybe he focused on that part as that it implyed that they were
giving her a pass on any kind of involvement.....jmo

Cardinal

03-07-2008, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by bkwits
I specifically remember Sheriff Brown addressing this. He didn't say there were phone calls, but in answer to a question by media, he said there was contact that day prior to when Maria was at the L house. SB said the contact was initiated by Maria. I may have seen it on TV. But I definitely remember that and that is why I asked the question.

Rick S. said the info he gives us is limited to what's already been released.

You can choose to believe that or not. It is up to you. I wish I could supply a link. [/*]

FWIW, bk, I remember it that way too.

Nuttin and henry, thanks again for the Q&A with Sutherland, and thanks to CW for the thread.

Good evening, everyone. :seeya:

JanDoe

03-07-2008, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by Chicky

I think that could be true. I don't believe LE would like being thought of as giving anyone a pass especially in a crime such as this. So he came out saying basically no way. If they had probable cause she would be charged. imo [/*]

I just go back to the fact they've stated every time:

"This is an ongoing investigation"

IvySterling

03-07-2008, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by Chicky

I think that could be true. I don't believe LE would like being thought of as giving anyone a pass especially in a crime such as this. So he came out saying basically no way. If they had probable cause she would be charged. imo [/*]
The answer "If we had probable cause that Mrs. Laurean was involved, she would be charged" means to me in the murder itself, not after the fact, which they may be letting her slide on at this time.

IMO

Cardinal

03-07-2008, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by IvySterling

The answer "If we had probable cause that Mrs. Laurean was involved, she would be charged" means to me in the murder itself, not after the fact, which they may be letting her slide on at this time.

IMO [/*]

What's the difference between "probable cause" and "suspicion"?

crymeariver2006

03-07-2008, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by AnnieBean
OMG nuttin thatys awesome, thanks so much for doing that. IF he only knew how much some of hang on each and every word fro some questions. But he gave us alot, really.

{Notice he said nobody from the SHERIFFS department was watching XTina, he didn't say anything about the MC or FBI. You know she can't be just coming and going like a regular person w/ Cesar out there on the loose, what if he comes back and finds her...good Lord. Plus watching her might give LE a chance to actually CATCH Cesar. Hope they have her phone lines bugged, computers hacked into, everything. I think CL and CSL will be in contact again if they can find a way possible} JMO [/*]

Yeah, and he didn't say anything about the Jacksonville Police Department either.

I would say FBI if I was a betting woman. OCSD probably doesn't have the resources to keep constant tabs on Christina.

Cardinal

03-07-2008, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by Chicky

I highly doubt that. Being involved in the cover up of a murder is a very serious crime. That is not a slidable type of crime at any time. There is no probable cause to charge her. That is what he said.

JMO [/*]

No, Chicky, he didn't say "there is no" probable cause. He said, "if we had probable cause". There's a difference, imo.

gaelicpeas

03-07-2008, 07:41 PM

hello everybody :seeya: I am back after having spent the better part of the day in a corner facing a wall... :eek:

Anyway, the Q&A session with Sutherland was wonderful, and I want to again thank Henry and Nuttin for doing it. We didn't get answers to all of our questions, but we did get assurances on most questions that LE has indeed looked into these things.

We did get some very definite answers on a few things. There was contact prior to ML being at CL's house (and yes, you are correct, Chicky, his answer does not tell us what day that contact occurred). We know that some of her possessions, e.g. possibly her glasses, have not all been recovered. We know Durham returned home at 5:30 pm, and therefore was possibly apprised by ML of an earlier "upsetting" conversation with her mom (although the possibility still exists that he found out about the upsetting convo with mom from either mom or sister).

I think Gentle's idea about asking yes/no questions is a good one.

I also think all of the questions asked were excellent, and I don't understand why some posters choose to criticize the questions. My response to that is next time, contribute some questions! I know I contributed several (well, okay, more than several :), and I hope to contribute more.

Again, thanks to Henry and Nuttin for this effort!

caejde

03-07-2008, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by Cardinal

What's the difference between "probable cause" and "suspicion"? [/*]

From Wikipedia:

probable cause refers to the standard by which a police officer has the right to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search or obtain a warrant.

Edited to add: I forgot to link this. It has some other good info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

IvySterling

03-07-2008, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by Cardinal

What's the difference between "probable cause" and "suspicion"? [/*]
Aah, had to look it up, not the best source of info. but it's a quick find.

"Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction

wikipedia

Cardinal

03-07-2008, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by caejde

From Wikipedia:

probable cause refers to the standard by which a police officer has the right to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search or obtain a warrant. [/*]

TY caejde :seeya:

So Sutherland may be saying that they don't have evidence that meets the standard for an arrest, not that they don't have evidence, correct?

gaelicpeas

03-07-2008, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by AnnieBean
OMG nuttin thatys awesome, thanks so much for doing that. IF he only knew how much some of hang on each and every word fro some questions. But he gave us alot, really.

{Notice he said nobody from the SHERIFFS department was watching XTina, he didn't say anything about the MC or FBI. You know she can't be just coming and going like a regular person w/ Cesar out there on the loose, what if he comes back and finds her...good Lord. Plus watching her might give LE a chance to actually CATCH Cesar. Hope they have her phone lines bugged, computers hacked into, everything. I think CL and CSL will be in contact again if they can find a way possible} JMO [/*]

Also, he said nobody was being given 24/7 "protection" by LE (other than prisoners). He made no mention of "surveillance".

Next set of questions should include one that specifically refers to surveillance.. :)

Cardinal

03-07-2008, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Chicky

What's the difference? [/*]

The first is a definite statement that says the evidence has been examined and there is no evidence to implicate her. The second is a subjunctive statement that indicates there is insufficient evidence at this time. IMO

caejde

03-07-2008, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Cardinal

TY caejde :seeya:

So Sutherland may be saying that they don't have evidence that meets the standard for an arrest, not that they don't have evidence, correct? [/*]

I don't know. In my opinion they may be suspicious of her but until they have probable cause-i.e. forensics coming back to place her at the scene, they can't do anything. JMO though.

Cardinal

03-07-2008, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by caejde

I don't know. In my opinion they may be suspicious of her but until they have probable cause-i.e. forensics coming back to place her at the scene, they can't do anything. JMO though. [/*]

ITA But not having probable cause is not the same thing as "innocent". IMO

Cardinal

03-07-2008, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by AnnieBean

"We have no" means they have none.

"If we had probable cause" means they don't have enough probable cause / evidence against her yet, but since the investigation is ongoing I am sure they are not through with her.

I think they have alot to nail her with but need Cesar to complete the pcture.
I think when they get them back in NC they will nail both of them to the wall and I really hope they do.
JMO [/*]

ITA

gaelicpeas

03-07-2008, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by caejde

I don't know. In my opinion they may be suspicious of her but until they have probable cause-i.e. forensics coming back to place her at the scene, they can't do anything. JMO though. [/*]

Speaking of forensics, I think this would be a good question for Sutherland:

Have all the forensics come back? (just a yes/no question)

caejde

03-07-2008, 07:52 PM

gaelicpeas

03-07-2008, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by AnnieBean

Yes, whose writing these down? [/*]

lol, my guess is Henry, who is very good at compiling stuff...

CanCan

03-07-2008, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by JanDoe

Once I was sure that CSL was not involved....but now
I have changed that view and just wonder who was
involved in helping CL.....it occurs to me now that he
had help.....imo now [/*]

Thanks, Jan. I, too, believe that CSL was involved.

jmo

Cardinal

03-07-2008, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Chicky

:rolleyes: What is the use of asking questions if the answers mean nothing? Whoever on here wants this girl guilty will somehow twist what he meant. jmo [/*]

Excuse me, I'm not twisting anything. I'm simply pointing out that his answer is very much subject to interpretation and is not a definitive declaration of CSL's innocence.

Regina.Lampert

03-07-2008, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by Chicky

CS said if they had probable cause to charge her she would be charged. I don't have to twist that. It is his answer. jmo [/*]

Guess the IUPG only applies to cesar.......lol.

:tongue:

GentleBreeze

03-07-2008, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by AnnieBean
OMG nuttin thats awesome, thanks so much for doing that. IF he only knew how much some of hang on each and every word fro some questions. But he gave us alot, really.

{Notice he said nobody from the SHERIFFS department was watching XTina, he didn't say anything about the MC or FBI. You know she can't be just coming and going like a regular person w/ Cesar out there on the loose, what if he comes back and finds her...good Lord. Plus watching her might give LE a chance to actually CATCH Cesar. Hope they have her phone lines bugged, computers hacked into, everything. I think CL and CSL will be in contact again if they can find a way possible} JMO [/*]

BINGO!

And it is very obvious CS is not going to divulge anything he knows that is being done by another agency.

He is way too intelligent for that imo.

Cardinal

03-07-2008, 08:01 PM

Good night :seeya:

henry

03-07-2008, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by AnnieBean

Yes, whose writing these down? [/*]

right here reading & pasting :)

edit - 1.25 pages filled up as of this time/date

CanCan

03-07-2008, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by JanDoe

I understand that......and whether CSL is charged or not....
I think she knows more than what we have been told..

my opinion has changed as to her involvement and degree of...
it is LE and DA choice to not charge her.....imo [/*]

And who knows.....maybe RS says they don't have probable cause to arrest CSL..........actually translates to mean, "we don't have the forensics back from the lab yet. Maybe they are awaiting those results.

Also, maybe they are awaiting CL's capture to fill in the missing pieces.

Saying they don't have probable cause to arrest CSL, imo, could very well be just a SMOKE SCREEN to further make CSL feel comfortable. Suspects imo tend to make slips when they feel comfortable.

jmo :)

henry

03-07-2008, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by GentleBreeze

BINGO!

And it is very obvious CS is not going to divulge anything he knows that is being done by another agency.

He is way too intelligent for that imo. [/*]

am i correct in assuming he wouldn't divulge anything he knows from the DA's office?

henry

03-07-2008, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by Chicky

Reading and pasting what and for what reason? I am not breaking TOS henry. [/*]

the questions some posters are asking for the next possible/probable email.

gaelicpeas

03-07-2008, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by henry

right here reading & pasting :)

edit - 1.25 pages filled up as of this time/date [/*]

Thanks, Henry - I knew you were out there somewhere coming to the rescue!

gaelicpeas

03-07-2008, 08:09 PM

GentleBreeze

03-07-2008, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by henry

am i correct in assuming he wouldn't divulge anything he knows from the DA's office? [/*]

I think he may comment on somethings but if it is a question that only the DA has the authority to do then he will not.

Just like when he mentioned the desecrating of the body........he side stepped that and said that would be up to the DA and he never confirmed if she was burned or charred before she was covered up or after.

So things to do with charges, plea deals etc. would come from the DAs office only and not from Sutherland.

imoo

GentleBreeze

03-07-2008, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by henry

the questions some posters are asking for the next possible/probable email. [/*]

Henry, are you going to place all the ones you have gathered on the board up until now and then add to it? It is hard to try to remember them all so we don't have duplicates.

Thanks.

imoo

henry

03-07-2008, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by GentleBreeze

Henry, are you going to place all the ones you have gathered on the board up until now and then add to it? It is hard to try to remember them all so we don't have duplicates.

Thanks.

imoo [/*]

sure - i'll be right back

SavannahStar

03-07-2008, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by AnnieBean

*snipped*

"If we had probable cause" means they don't have enough probable cause / evidence against her yet, [/*]

What?????????????? :lol:

henry

03-07-2008, 08:21 PM

here's what i've got so far . . . i do no interpretation . . . no guesswork . . . just what's typed

MORE QUESTIONS FOR RICKSUTHERLAND
Crymeariver: Oh, you could ask him about Jenny Renner.....did everything she tell them/us check out?
Gpleas: Mine would be how was the phone tampered with, and how was the car tampered with?
And : My question on the Houston wire transfer would be who sent it, and did the money actually go to the lawyer in NC? (and was it CL or CSL's lawyer?)
Henry: how do we reconcile the email statement from ncmostwanted with your office’s statement that xtina is a “cooperating witness”.
Henry: regarding the jrenner poster & pdf file that captured the now deleted conversations on the IS message board – are the statements she made on the IS board in-line, close to, or in opposition . . . or to what degree . . . with those provided to your office.
Mw5: want to know if they are considering the possiblility that cl is still/back in the area or possibly dead.w5:
My question guessing crymeariver’s question: i know what your question crymeariver is . . . did they check the landfill for the rug?
Crymeariver: I want to know if they are 100% convinced, beyond any doubt, that Cesar is still alive.

<puts lip gloss on desk in case Rick shows up to post>
Mw5: I also wonder who's blood was on the sole of that shoe, and if that was all a setup for gvs's show.

<sets freshly ironed white capri pants by computer in case i gotta "dress up">
Crymeariver: I want to know if all the forensics testing results received to date point to Cesar, or continue to point to Cesar, as being the murderer?

What evidence to charge him with murder (as the investigation was only just begun) was presented to the grand jury?

Was the rush to the grand jury because he ran?

Can we trust anything coming from "a source close to the investigation" (i.e., throat cut post mortem, money transfers in Houston)?

Was the cousin in Mexico legit?
Mw5: oohh...we should also ask about the photos shown to the bus station guy.
Janedoe: QUESTIONS for Rick:

Did Maria and Cesar meet at the
bus station in seperate vehicles?
crymeariver: Thanks Lynn! I guess my question needs to be "When did they find out about a bus ticket and from whom"? I don't think they had found the car or the ticket at the time they (LE) interviewed him, that's why I'm thinking he called them. And if they were only going by the "notes", what led them to that particular station? Surely the notes didn't say she bought a bus ticket to El Paso?
Henry: my next ? to captain sutherland will be along the lines of defining what a "cooperating witness" is
Chicky: I have one. Please ask him if Maria and CL had contact on December 14th prior to her going to his house. Just a yes or no. I want to pin it down to that day for sure. Thanks.
LG: Adding to that specific day, December 14th and if the answer is 'yes', then a follow up to that would be a simple yes or no to this question .... Is that based on information other than the note left by Cesar Laurean?
Gpeas: Also, he said nobody was being given 24/7 "protection" by LE (other than prisoners). He made no mention of "surveillance". Next set of questions should include one that specifically refers to surveillance..

IvySterling

03-07-2008, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Cardinal

Excuse me, I'm not twisting anything. I'm simply pointing out that his answer is very much subject to interpretation and is not a definitive declaration of CSL's innocence. [/*]
Like this question, and his answer:

15) Why would Laurean write 'notes' to his wife when he had supposedly already told her his version of events on the way to Mark Raynor's office on 1/10/08? Do you feel this was an attempt for Laurean to distance his wife's involvement completely? Or is Laurean just a writing kind of guy? (Many posters feel that Mrs. Laurean was involved but feel her involvement was after the fact)

ANSWER:
"We probably won't know the answer to that until we interview him"

henry

03-07-2008, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by gaelicpeas

Thanks, Henry - I knew you were out there somewhere coming to the rescue! [/*]

:seeya: i didn't get your last ? on the list i just posted . . . but will be going there ASAP

SavannahStar

03-07-2008, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Chicky

I don't believe it is a choice not to charge her. It is the lack of evidence or probable cause to charge her. It stands to reason LE has been told everything by her and we are not privy to it. She is still not charged so it must not be anything showing her involvement. CS said what he could say which was quite strong in regard to Christina.

He could have just said she is a cooperating witness as usual, but he went a strong step forward saying they had nothing on her to charge.

JMO [/*]

As you state, Chicky, there is much they know that we do not know.

henry

03-07-2008, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by Chicky

Oh, well you can copy the whole thread at once. Maybe make your job easier. I though we were to submit questions to Nuttin. Has that changed? [/*]

whatever is your pleasure.

caejde

03-07-2008, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Chicky

CS said if they had probable cause to charge her she would be charged. I don't have to twist that. It is his answer. jmo [/*]

And IF is the key word. If evidence from the lab comes back and places her at the scene...she could be charged. If evidence comes back and doesn't...she won't. If evidence shows she helped cover up...she will. If evidence shows she didn't...she won't. All of the forensics are probably not back yet. And if they are, law enforcement surely won't tell us...it will be at trial. So, to me with him saying IF they had probably cause tells me that IF they find probable cause, they will.

IvySterling

03-07-2008, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by henry
[
MORE QUESTIONS FOR RICKSUTHERLAND
~snipped to reflect one specific question

Mw5: I also wonder who's blood was on the sole of that shoe, and if that was all a setup for gvs's show. [/*]
He already said about the shoe being a males, and also said:
"I can't really discuss anything else about the shoe."

Jan Powell

03-07-2008, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by CanCan

And who knows.....maybe RS says they don't have probable cause to arrest CSL..........actually translates to mean, "we don't have the forensics back from the lab yet. Maybe they are awaiting those results.

Also, maybe they are awaiting CL's capture to fill in the missing pieces.

Saying they don't have probable cause to arrest CSL, imo, could very well be just a SMOKE SCREEN to further make CSL feel comfortable. Suspects imo tend to make slips when they feel comfortable.

jmo :) [/*]

ITA, it's the forensics they are waiting for on an attempted murder charge or murder charge. IMO, then depending on that the DA will tell them how many additional charges to add to what he is already contemplating. They'll turn the heat up another notch.

If she assisted in his flight to avoid prosecution, she may have the feds looking at her too. And, I don't know how she avoids that since the murder was apparently 12/14 in/at her house. She does have some spousal immunity at trial but she could also be a co-defendant.

caejde

03-07-2008, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Regina.Lampert

Guess the IUPG only applies to cesar.......lol.

:tongue: [/*]

Nope, it applies to everyone. Some believe Christina had some involvement to some degree...it's just their belief...plain and simple.

caejde

03-07-2008, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by Chicky

There are no "ifs" in his answer. It is plain and straight forward. imo

If it makes you feel better to think that it is no problem for me. [/*]

I am free to believe and think whatever I choose, just as you. He specifically said..."If there is probable cause." And MY interpretation is that currently they don't have that. Will they? Maybe, maybe not.

Jan Powell

03-07-2008, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by Chicky

They have to wait to ask him why he wrote the notes and letters. jmo [/*]

Or wait until they are analized and ask CSL why she wrote them. JMO

caejde

03-07-2008, 08:36 PM

Honestly, I don't think it matters what questions are submitted and what Captain Sutherland says to them. It seems as though his answers are going to be skewed in whatever way is necessary to make "theories" or "beliefs" fit.

SavannahStar

03-07-2008, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by caejde
Honestly, I don't think it matters what questions are submitted and what Captain Sutherland says to them. It seems as though his answers are going to be skewed in whatever way is necessary to make "theories" or "beliefs" fit. [/*]

Well BINGO! I think I said that hours ago. In different words. :D

henry

03-07-2008, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by IvySterling

He already said about the shoe being a males, and also said:
"I can't really discuss anything else about the shoe." [/*]

thanks

caejde

03-07-2008, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by SavannahStar

Well BINGO! I think I said that hours ago. In different words. :D [/*]

I'm not trying to be mean about it. But anything that he says is going to be interpreted by everyone differently, based on how they feel/believe/think. And since he can't sit down and explain to us in depth what he means exactly, I just don't know what good it will be to have his responses.

caejde

03-07-2008, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by Chicky

I have noticed over the course of this forum, posters were feeling Christina was guilty and the police were just sitting back waiting to charge her. Many posters thought she was getting free passes and immunity.

Now along comes an answer from CS which is saying if they had probable cause she would be charged. When he says if they had probable cause, that means they have none.

JMO [/*]

I don't have a set belief on Christina. I haven't made up my mind on her yet. Capt. Sutherland says If they had probably cause. To me that means they don't have it but it doesn't mean they couldn't get it in the future.

IvySterling

03-07-2008, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by henry

thanks [/*]
LOL, YW henry.

I think a few things to remember when submitting a new set of questions to RS is NOT to repeat, or re-word a question he has already indicated he can not answer.

Asking anything to do with forensics is out of the question, he won't answer even if he knows, so no need in asking. Questions should be short and to the point, no questions within questions.

SavannahStar

03-07-2008, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by caejde

I'm not trying to be mean about it. But anything that he says is going to be interpreted by everyone differently, based on how they feel/believe/think. And since he can't sit down and explain to us in depth what he means exactly, I just don't know what good it will be to have his responses. [/*]

I know you're not trying to be mean......nor was I! What you say is exactly true and that was obvious the minute the answers were posted and people started responding to them.

SavannahStar

03-07-2008, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by Chicky

I have noticed over the course of this forum, posters were feeling Christina was guilty and the police were just sitting back waiting to charge her. Many posters thought she was getting free passes and immunity.

Now along comes an answer from CS which is saying if they had probable cause she would be charged. When he says if they had probable cause, that means they have none.

JMO [/*]

Well you know I agree with you. And I think if they don't have it now (probable cause) it's pretty certain they will not in the future. Because (hate to sound like a broken record), they do know so much more than we know, even now. But yet to hear some posters on here.....ooh no, WE know better, they don't. (Not meaning to be insulting....that's just the way I see it.)

crymeariver2006

03-07-2008, 09:01 PM

And I believe it serves absolutely no purpose to arrest Christina now and charge her with anything. Her arrest is NOT going to bring Cesar back nor put them any closer to finding him.

If they charge her with 1st Degree Murder, Dewey Parramore is going to be the first one in the courtroom arguing that charges against his client be dismissed because "they obviously have their man, and it's not my client". The judge may agree. Then what do they do?

If she's charged with lesser offenses, they're only going to get one shot at Christina. That one shot should count for something, not merely something she can plead down.

In any event, no arrest will be made of Christina until Cesar is in custody. Bank on it.

She can cooperate all day long, but how do you turn witness for the prosecution for a crime that you supposedly only knew about 24 hours before you went to the police? Besides, it's easy for Christina to cooperate and tell police anything as long as Cesar's not around to refute it. When he's found, the finger pointing will begin in earnest.

I can already bet that Cesar's defense is going to be "SODDI", only in this case, it's not some other dude, it's some other dudette and that dudette is Christina.

gaelicpeas

03-07-2008, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by IvySterling

He already said about the shoe being a males, and also said:
"I can't really discuss anything else about the shoe." [/*]

As I posted last night, before I had to sit in the corner, Sutherland specified it was a male shoe. He did not specify to whom that shoe belonged.

I am a female, and I wear a size 10 men's shoe. And I am/(well probably should say "was") an athlete. And ML was an athlete.

So, basically what I am saying is that could have been a "men's" shoe but could have belonged to a female. IOW, I do not find that to be a definitive answer. JMO

IvySterling

03-07-2008, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by Chicky

Do you believe CS lied when he said if they had probable cause she would be charged?

You think they are taking Christina at her word without cooberating evidence she was not involved?

What do you mean one shot at Christina? Do you mean for a charge? That doesn't make sense.

Cesar will have a hard time overcoming forensic evidence to blame someone else.

Do you think Cesar will even talk to police?

What is "SODDI"?

JMO [/*]
I'm confused, who is CS:shrug:

SODDI-Some other dude did it

gaelicpeas

03-07-2008, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by IvySterling

I'm confused, who is CS:shrug: [/*]

CS is Captain Sutherland, aka RS.

crymeariver2006

03-07-2008, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by Chicky

Do you believe CS lied when he said if they had probable cause she would be charged?

You think they are taking Christina at her word without coberating evidence she was not involved?

What do you mean one shot at Christina? Do you mean for a charge?

Cesar will have a hard time overcoming forensic evidence to blame someone else.

JMO [/*]

I don't have any idea what forensic evidence they have. Do you? I doubt much of it has come back from testing and what they do have *could* point to either one of them or *could* point to neither one of them. I'm merely pointing out that arresting Christina and charging her with anything does nothing to the pursuit of Cesar. Nothing.

Yes, one shot at Christina means they're only going to get to charge her once. One bite at the apple.

As I say, the day they come out and declare that Christina is cleared of any and all involvement in Maria's murder, I will no longer believe she is involved. But that day hasn't come yet, has it?

IvySterling

03-07-2008, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by gaelicpeas

CS is Captain Sutherland, aka RS. [/*]
TY gp

GentleBreeze

03-07-2008, 09:19 PM

This is a great question but I don't see CS answering it in great detail like we desire.

Mw5: I also wonder who's blood was on the sole of that shoe, and if that was all a setup for gvs's show.

Don't you think he may answer if we put it.

Was there forensic evidence found on the shoe that was discovered when doing Greta's show? Answer "Yes or No"

I think he may be offended at the suggestion that it was a setup but thats just MO tho,

Just a suggestion.

imoo

IvySterling

03-07-2008, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by Chicky

Captain Sutherland [/*]
TY

crymeariver2006

03-07-2008, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by henry

am i correct in assuming he wouldn't divulge anything he knows from the DA's office? [/*]

You are correct. It would be up to the DA to respond to what his office has done or not done.

GentleBreeze

03-07-2008, 09:25 PM

Here is two questions I would like to ask.

Have you ruled Christina Laurean out from having any involvement in this crime whatsoever?

Is there a possibility that more arrests can be forthcoming at a later date?

bkwits

03-07-2008, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by caejde

I don't have a set belief on Christina. I haven't made up my mind on her yet. Capt. Sutherland says If they had probably cause. To me that means they don't have it but it doesn't mean they couldn't get it in the future. [/*]

Neither do I, Caejde. I am feeling less like she participated in the cover-up, but I'm
not sure.

I feel strongly that she did not kill Maria nor did she help in the murder.

One thing is glaringly obvious she's still there and Cesar has run away. That says a lot to me. IMO

baywench

03-07-2008, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by caejde

And IF is the key word. If evidence from the lab comes back and places her at the scene...she could be charged. If evidence comes back and doesn't...she won't. If evidence shows she helped cover up...she will. If evidence shows she didn't...she won't. All of the forensics are probably not back yet. And if they are, law enforcement surely won't tell us...it will be at trial. So, to me with him saying IF they had probably cause tells me that IF they find probable cause, they will. [/*]

Hi everyone back after a week and I was so excited about the Sutherland answers. Nutin and Henry what a great job! How many times have you seen us posting on the board "oh I just wish we knew if they had anything" now we do. Why all the bickering? THis is great! And there are some real answers here. ITA Caejde when the time is right if there is evidence they will present it. How many guilty husbands are deemed "not a suspect" until the cuffs are put on? Hats off to you guys...please don't get a bad taste in your mouth for this...it was incredible. Thank you!!!

crymeariver2006

03-07-2008, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by Chicky

If you believe Captain Sutherland, it has as far as I'm concerned. jmo

One bite of the apple is when you are in trial. If she is tried and found not guilty she cannot be tried again for the same crime. Thus one bite of the apple.

As far a charges go they can be amended to another charge before trial.

I asked you if you feel CS lied when he said if they had probable cause they would charge her. If they don't have probable cause to charge, they sure don't have evidence to try.

Even if they wanted to charge her they don't have enough to charge her.

As far as forensic evidence goes, I bet they have plenty.

JMO [/*]

I'm not going to argue with you about Christina. You're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours.

I DO NOT believe that CS said anything of the sort that Christina was innocent. If that's your interpretation of it, then so be it.

As of this day, Christina has not been officially cleared of any involvement in the murder. Period.

henry

03-07-2008, 09:33 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by baywench

Hi everyone back after a week and I was so excited about the Sutherland answers.

snip

welcome back . . . H&N or N&H thank all for submitting the questions . . . it couldn't have been done with out them . . .

gaelicpeas

03-07-2008, 09:35 PM

good questions.. it will be interesting to see how he responds...

GentleBreeze

03-07-2008, 09:37 PM

IvySterling

03-07-2008, 09:39 PM

IvySterling

03-07-2008, 09:44 PM

gaelicpeas

03-07-2008, 09:45 PM

henry

03-07-2008, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by Chicky
I'm sorry, but I just don't understand how some posters seem to get upset that Christina may just be totally innocent.

I don't understand why posters get so upset with me when I put out my opinions on her. I have that right.

There is a little girl who needs her mother and I hope she is completely innocent.

JMO [/*]

there's one statement in your 2nd paragraph that i totally agree with . . . yes, the little girl needs her mother . . . wish sometimes families/mothers/fathers/ would put their children's needs above their own.

IvySterling

03-07-2008, 09:53 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chicky
I'm sorry, but I just don't understand how some posters seem to get upset that Christina may just be totally innocent.
Not upset, some just don't agree

I don't understand why posters get so upset with me when I put out my opinions on her. I have that right.
Not upset, some have thier own opinions and the right also

There is a little girl who needs her mother and I hope she is completely innocent.
On this I think we all agree

Kel65

03-07-2008, 10:16 PM

I'm trying and I repeat trying to do some research to find more out about CAL. Anyone have any insight as to why Cesar might use an alias of Cesar Gudino?

baywench

03-07-2008, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by IvySterling
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chicky
I'm sorry, but I just don't understand how some posters seem to get upset that Christina may just be totally innocent.
Not upset, some just don't agree

I don't understand why posters get so upset with me when I put out my opinions on her. I have that right.
Not upset, some have thier own opinions and the right also

There is a little girl who needs her mother and I hope she is completely innocent.
On this I think we all agree [/*]

Yikes Ivy I saw the blue and got scared!!!!!

gaelicpeas

03-07-2008, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by Kel65
I'm trying and I repeat trying to do some research to find more out about CAL. Anyone have any insight as to why Cesar might use an alias of Cesar Gudino? [/*]

excellent, Kel.. you seem to have superb searching capabilities.

And no, I have no idea why Gudino would be an alias.. I have seen lots of other names.. but not that one..

IvySterling

03-07-2008, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by baywench

Yikes Ivy I saw the blue and got scared!!!!! [/*]
:D :D :D

baywench

03-07-2008, 10:34 PM

I haven't been here since Saturday and since it's kinda quiet.....can anyone tell me if anything happened other than the usual arguments by the usual suspects? Please don't make me go read it all....pleazzzzzze!

nuttintodo

03-07-2008, 10:35 PM

IvySterling

03-07-2008, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Kel65
I'm trying and I repeat trying to do some research to find more out about CAL. Anyone have any insight as to why Cesar might use an alias of Cesar Gudino? [/*]
The only thing I can think of it's a name from somewhere within the family, like maybe someone's middle name :shrug:

nuttintodo

03-07-2008, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by baywench
I haven't been here since Saturday and since it's kinda quiet.....can anyone tell me if anything happened other than the usual arguments by the usual suspects? Please don't make me go read it all....pleazzzzzze! [/*]

Nothing other than the fact that some questions were emailed to Capt. Sutherland and now there's a big brouhaha over the way the questions were worded and each individuals interpretation of his answers.

So nothing has changed---same ole same ole.

jmo

IvySterling

03-07-2008, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by baywench
I haven't been here since Saturday and since it's kinda quiet.....can anyone tell me if anything happened other than the usual arguments by the usual suspects? Please don't make me go read it all....pleazzzzzze! [/*]
About the only thing new that I can think of is the list of questions submitted to Rick Sutherland, and his answers.

IvySterling

03-07-2008, 10:39 PM

Getting spooky nuttin, we're posting almost the same thing at the same time :)

gaelicpeas

03-07-2008, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by nuttintodo

Nothing other than the fact that some questions were emailed to Capt. Sutherland and now there's a big brouhaha over the way the questions were worded and each individuals interpretation of his answers.

So nothing has changed---same ole same ole.

jmo [/*]

don't sell yourself short, Nuttin. The questions and answers were great.

nuttintodo

03-07-2008, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by IvySterling
Getting spooky nuttin, we're posting almost the same thing at the same time :) [/*]

I don't know about you but I'm beginning to hear the Twilight Zone music..... :chicken:

GentleBreeze

03-07-2008, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by Chicky

:shrug: Is this a discussion board? Just because someone does not like my points or my questions does not mean I am arguing and I resent that implication. imo [/*]

This is a board where people express their own opinions, Chicky. No one says you are not entitled to believe as you wish and I haven't seen one poster tell you that.

I don't see anyone arguing with you. I do see them disagreeing with your opinion and that is perfectly acceptable as I do believe you do the same and come back every time to once again voice your opinion about CSL.

That is the way it goes on a message board. Honestly you seem to be sort of arguing with yourself. You are the only one that seems to be complaining because others don't interpret things as you do.:shrug:

I don't care how many times you want to post it...that is your right but you are not entitled to my opinion. I am entitled to believe as I wish ...just like you or anyone else here and I no more believe CSL is out of the woods than I think Smokey the Bear is...... lol

JMO tho

IvySterling

03-07-2008, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by nuttintodo

Ivy, when you do a search, type in the poster's name, then click on 'show results as posts' and it will bring you directly to the post, not the entire thread. [/*]
I knew I worded it wrong, I'm not looking/searching.

What I meant was sometimes I would like to refer to a specific post, so what do I click on when I have the post to get that????

baywench

03-07-2008, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by AnnieBean

Go to the thread where Rick Sutherland answers nuttins 30 some odd questions- very interesting. [/*]

Yes AB that was really was interesting. Thanks!

baywench

03-07-2008, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by gaelicpeas

don't sell yourself short, Nuttin. The questions and answers were great. [/*]

They were amazing...as I was reading them I can't saying out loud "Yes, that's great...great question". What an oppurtunity even if he couldn't tell us much. You know how this works Nuttin....there's always gonna someone that disagrees or sees a conspiracy. You did a great thing. Hope you do it again.:cool:

donna

03-07-2008, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by crymeariver2006

I'm not going to argue with you about Christina. You're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours.

I DO NOT believe that CS said anything of the sort that Christina was innocent. If that's your interpretation of it, then so be it.

As of this day, Christina has not been officially cleared of any involvement in the murder. Period. [/*]

crymeariver, I am in total agreement with you. Captain Sutherland did NOT say that Christina was innocent. He did say IF ...
That tells me that LE is smart enough to keep their options open if and when any evidence (forensics) might point toward any possible involvement of Christina in the COVERUP! I am not going to argue with anyone either, but this is my true interpretation of Captain Sutherland's statement.

Also, you do have a great point concerning the rug!

baywench

03-07-2008, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by donna

crymeariver, I am in total agreement with you. Captain Sutherland did NOT say that Christina was innocent. He did say IF ...
That tells me that LE is smart enough to keep their options open if and when any evidence (forensics) might point toward any possible involvement of Christina in the COVERUP! I am not going to argue with anyone either, but this is my true interpretation of Captain Sutherland's statement.

Also, you do have a great point concerning the rug! [/*]

Yep she'll be a cooperating witness right until they slap the cuffs on!!!!

donna

03-07-2008, 11:48 PM

Hello, everyone! I have been busy, but have read every post. There is snow in North Louisiana!

Thank you, henry and nuttintodo!!!! I was really excited to see the questions and answers in regard to Captain Sutherland! Both of you did an excellent job and I thank you so much!!!!!

donna

03-07-2008, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by baywench

Yep she'll be a cooperating witness right until they slap the cuffs on!!!! [/*]

;) .. hello, baywench!!!

Exactly!

CanCan

03-07-2008, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by baywench

Yikes Ivy I saw the blue and got scared!!!!! [/*]

:lol: LMAO

GentleBreeze

03-07-2008, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by IvySterling

Like this question, and his answer:

15) Why would Laurean write 'notes' to his wife when he had supposedly already told her his version of events on the way to Mark Raynor's office on 1/10/08? Do you feel this was an attempt for Laurean to distance his wife's involvement completely? Or is Laurean just a writing kind of guy? (Many posters feel that Mrs. Laurean was involved but feel her involvement was after the fact)

ANSWER:
"We probably won't know the answer to that until we interview him" [/*]

I can tell they sure want to get him back and are hoping he talks even if it is with his attorney present. I think there are still many things that don't quite fit like they are supposed to do and it is gnawing at them.

And when and if he comes back what he may tell may explain some of the things they are struggling with now imo and who knows it may be to do with the forensics in the case.

I don't think they are comfortable at all with just relying on CSLs story. They may think by now the notes written were nothing more than to give her an alibi to make sure they didn't suspect her.

They don't need to arrest CSL now. Ample time for that to happen. Heck they don't even have him back in Jax yet. It is much more beneficial imo for them to have open communication with her even though her attorney is present than for them to have further questions and she has lawyered up and gone silent.

imoo

nuttintodo

03-07-2008, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by IvySterling

I knew I worded it wrong, I'm not looking/searching.

What I meant was sometimes I would like to refer to a specific post, so what do I click on when I have the post to get that???? [/*]

If you know the poster who made the post, click on search for posts by this poster.

Either way you'll have to do a search of some sort, just remember to click on show as posts instead of threads.

Or am I totally confused on what you are trying to do? (It wouldn't be the first time and it surely won't be the last, LOL)

CanCan

03-07-2008, 11:55 PM

IvySterling

03-08-2008, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by CanCan

:shrug: Maybe just cut & paste the post?? [/*]
Yeah, I could do that, but when someone asks a question it would be nice to just post a link instead of the entire post. OR, when someone says "where was that posted".

CanCan gets me, she really, really gets me :biggrin:

nuttintodo

03-08-2008, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by GentleBreeze

I can tell they sure want to get him back and are hoping he talks even if it is with his attorney present. I think there are still many things that don't quite fit like they are supposed to do and it is gnawing at them.

And when and if he comes back what he may tell may explain some of the things they are struggling with now imo and who knows it may be to do with the forensics in the case.

I don't think they are comfortable at all with just relying on CSLs story. They may think by now the notes written were nothing more than to give her an alibi to make sure they didn't suspect her.

They don't need to arrest CSL now. Ample time for that to happen. Heck they don't even have him back in Jax yet. It is much more beneficial imo for them to have open communication with her even though her attorney is present than for them to have further questions and she has lawyered up and gone silent.

imoo [/*]

And those bloodhounds at OCSD won't back down until they have CAL in custody!

I hope CAL will be eating his Easter dinner back in Jacksonville, compliments of the OCSD and the taxpayers of Onslow County.

I still say that DA Hudson will have the last word on whether to charge the Mrs. or not.

I'm going out on a limb here---but if CSL is never charged with anything in regards to this case, I'll the first one to come and publicly post that I was wrong. I wear my big girl britches just like everyone else and I am capable of admitting it when I'm wrong.

jmo

CanCan

03-08-2008, 12:04 AM

donna

03-08-2008, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by GentleBreeze

I can tell they sure want to get him back and are hoping he talks even if it is with his attorney present. I think there are still many things that don't quite fit like they are supposed to do and it is gnawing at them.

And when and if he comes back what he may tell may explain some of the things they are struggling with now imo and who knows it may be to do with the forensics in the case.

I don't think they are comfortable at all with just relying on CSLs story. They may think by now the notes written were nothing more than to give her an alibi to make sure they didn't suspect her.

They don't need to arrest CSL now. Ample time for that to happen. Heck they don't even have him back in Jax yet. It is much more beneficial imo for them to have open communication with her even though her attorney is present than for them to have further questions and she has lawyered up and gone silent.

imoo [/*]

Hi, GB! You said it all in your post as to how I have felt about Christina from the beginning of when CAL went on the run and she was left to tell her story as well as present CAL's notes to LE. I have enough faith and belief in LE to know that they will leave their options open where CSL is concerned!

CanCan

03-08-2008, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by IvySterling

Yeah, I could do that, but when someone asks a question it would be nice to just post a link instead of the entire post. OR, when someone says "where was that posted".

CanCan gets me, she really, really gets me :biggrin: [/*]

I get ya, girl! :biggrin:

donna

03-08-2008, 12:11 AM

Originally posted by nuttintodo

And those bloodhounds at OCSD won't back down until they have CAL in custody!

I hope CAL will be eating his Easter dinner back in Jacksonville, compliments of the OCSD and the taxpayers of Onslow County.

I still say that DA Hudson will have the last word on whether to charge the Mrs. or not.

I'm going out on a limb here---but if CSL is never charged with anything in regards to this case, I'll the first one to come and publicly post that I was wrong. I wear my big girl britches just like everyone else and I am capable of admitting it when I'm wrong.

jmo [/*]

I got some big girl britches also, nuttin, and I do not hesitate to admit it when I am wrong!

Christina more or less locked herself into her initial story. So much more is known now by LE. IMO, she is not out of the woods yet!

IvySterling

03-08-2008, 12:11 AM

About the notes.

Maybe they were misdated on purpose and CSL wasn't going to tell the LE until a day later to ensure CAL got away.

Something may have spooked her into going to the LE a day sooner than she and CAL had planned.

CanCan

03-08-2008, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by nuttintodo

And those bloodhounds at OCSD won't back down until they have CAL in custody!

I hope CAL will be eating his Easter dinner back in Jacksonville, compliments of the OCSD and the taxpayers of Onslow County.

I still say that DA Hudson will have the last word on whether to charge the Mrs. or not.

I'm going out on a limb here---but if CSL is never charged with anything in regards to this case, I'll the first one to come and publicly post that I was wrong. I wear my big girl britches just like everyone else and I am capable of admitting it when I'm wrong.

jmo [/*]

:o And if CSL is never charged, I'll be in line directly behind you, nuttin, admitting publicly that I was wrong.

donna

03-08-2008, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by IvySterling
About the notes.

Maybe they were misdated on purpose and CSL wasn't going to tell the LE until a day later to ensure CAL got away.

Something may have spooked her into going to the LE a day sooner than she and CAL had planned. [/*]

I think the date in question is that CAL had said that Maria had come to his house and cut her throat ON the 15th of December.
LE believes that Maria was killed in December 14th. That is the conflicts in the dates.

donna

03-08-2008, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by CanCan

:o And if CSL is never charged, I'll be in line directly behind you, nuttin, admitting publicly that I was wrong. [/*]

Then all three of us have some big girl britches, and I will be in line behind you!

:D

CanCan

03-08-2008, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by IvySterling
About the notes.

Maybe they were misdated on purpose and CSL wasn't going to tell the LE until a day later to ensure CAL got away.

Something may have spooked her into going to the LE a day sooner than she and CAL had planned. [/*]

O - M - G !!!

Now THAT'S a possibility I sure never thought of - and it's a darn GOOD one, too Ivy! :patriot:

jmo

IvySterling

03-08-2008, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by donna

I think the date in question is that CAL had said that Maria had come to his house and cut her throat ON the 15th of December.
LE believes that Maria was killed in December 14th. That is the conflicts in the dates. [/*]
But the 14th was determined afterward due to no contact with Maria. In this video Ed Brown even misquotes dates of events as the 15th.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/raw-videotimeline-pregnant-marine-slaying/3085585087

CanCan

03-08-2008, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by donna

Then all three of us have some big girl britches, and I will be in line behind you!

[/*]

:D :D :D
nuttin
cancan
donna

<all wearing their big girl britches>

donna

03-08-2008, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by IvySterling

But the 14th was determined afterward due to no contact with Maria. In this video Ed Brown even misquotes dates of events as the 15th.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/raw-videotimeline-pregnant-marine-slaying/3085585087 [/*]

I see, Ivy!!!
Thanks!

:D

IvySterling

03-08-2008, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by CanCan

(psssst - sitting at your computer all day posting on the CTV Board??? J/K LOL ;) ) [/*]
Yep, but mostly from sitting here reading ..............CW is going to shut us down for going O/T, but I just can't help myself for some reason :D

CanCan

03-08-2008, 12:42 AM

Minnesota State High School Hockey Tournament is on TV - gotta watch the rest of this game - it's smokin'!

Nite, all :seeya:

IvySterling

03-08-2008, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by CanCan
Minnesota State High School Hockey Tournament is on TV - gotta watch the rest of this game - it's smokin'!

Nite, all :seeya: [/*]
Nite CanCan, I outta here too :seeya:

donna

03-08-2008, 12:46 AM

:seeya:

G'Night Ladies!

GentleBreeze

03-08-2008, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by donna

Hi, GB! You said it all in your post as to how I have felt about Christina from the beginning of when CAL went on the run and she was left to tell her story as well as present CAL's notes to LE. I have enough faith and belief in LE to know that they will leave their options open where CSL is concerned! [/*]

Well hi there Donna!

I think I came back here too late and everyone has gone night night.:D but I just wanted to say it is nice to see you.

Oh yeah there is absolutely no reason at this time to rush this case. Just keep that woman talking!:tongue:

imoo

chance

03-08-2008, 01:01 AM

I have been reading and reading. I kinda had a feeling the Q and A was going to spark a few flames. And it sure has. This board is never disappointing thats a FACT. IMO of course.

I also think the CSL debate will be the biggest debate about this case. MOO.

I have built a fence with a comfy seat.

I just have a hard time believe all these things happened in her own home and she doesn't have a clue.

I mean if this happened in a flash like a day or two. I could buy it.

But these two had almost a month! (Which FWIW I that find Incredible). To cover their tracks. If we ever know the truth I will be amazed.

I just think if my husband were accused of rape and the girl was pregnant. This would be our ONLY topic of discussion!
And OMG if she was to come up missing I would freak the hell out!!

Come on ladies think about it WHAT would you do if YOU heard your hubby or SO was accused of rape? Would you just let it go? And if the girl was pregnant and suddenly disappeared. You would not question it? No forensics, facts, no witnesses just your gut! Could you let it go?

I have a hard time believing she knew nothing.

moo
chance

gaelicpeas

03-08-2008, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by chance
I have been reading and reading. I kinda had a feeling the Q and A was going to spark a few flames. And it sure has. This board is never disappointing thats a FACT. IMO of course.

I also think the CSL debate will be the biggest debate about this case. MOO.

I have built a fence with a comfy seat.

I just have a hard time believe all these things happened in her own home and she doesn't have a clue.

I mean if this happened in a flash like a day or two. I could buy it.

But these two had almost a month! (Which FWIW I that find Incredible). To cover their tracks. If we ever know the truth I will be amazed.

I just think if my husband were accused of rape and the girl was pregnant. This would be our ONLY topic of discussion!
And OMG if she was to come up missing I would freak the hell out!!

Come on ladies think about it WHAT would you do if YOU heard your hubby or SO was accused of rape? Would you just let it go? And if the girl was pregnant and suddenly disappeared. You would not question it? No forensics, facts, no witnesses just your gut! Could you let it go?

I have a hard time believing she knew nothing.

moo
chance [/*]

Either she knew or she was dumber than those fence sections.. IMO

chance

03-08-2008, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by gaelicpeas

Either she knew or she was dumber than those fence sections.. IMO [/*]

I keep trying to imagine if this happened in my house and I can not wrap by brain around it.

There is no way I would not suspect something!

But you may be onto something I have heard of being dumber than a post.

moo
chance

Oregongal

03-08-2008, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by Jas.S

Thx! I missed that. Let me get the answers again. Oops, he did answer that the shoes were men's, as well.

1) We know the answers to these questions, we can not release the info at this time.

2) I do not know. NCIS conducted the interviews of people from this party. They know the answer to that question, I have not personally asked that question.

3) Same answer as above

4) We know the answers to these questions, we can not release the info at this time.

5) Yes

6) We know the answers to these questions, we can not release the info at this time.

7) We recovered a number of items. We have not released a list of the items recovered. We have only released that we located the military protective order in the vehicle.

8) Handwriting analysis is being conducted on a number of items. The status of the vehicle is a decision for the family to make.

9) We know the answers to these questions, we can not release the info at this time.

10) The info on the bus ticket is being withheld for operational purposes.

11) Our office has never released info on wire transfers. Can you source this info for me?

12) I believe it was around 5:30pm

13) We know the answers to these questions, we can not release the info at this time.

14) The shoe is a male's. We know who it belongs to. I can't really discuss anything else about the shoe.

15) We probably won't know the answer to that until we interview him

16) The cell phone was found by a citizen. The citizen tried to find the owner by calling some people stored in the phone. We know that the vehicle was not located at the bus station the entire time from 12/14/07 to 1/7/08.

17) The family stated that the child was a male. I am not sure when the paternity of the child will be revealed. That will probably be determined by the DA.

18) . The letter from Lauterbach to Moore has not been released.

19) We know the answers to these questions, we can not release the info at this time.

20) The FBI is the lead on the fugitive case for everything outside of Onslow County. I do not believe that they have released that info.

21) Charges will be determined by the DA. The Pathologists reports will address the burning issue. I do not anticipate those being released prior to trial.

22) I do not personally know the answer to that question.

23) We know the answers to these questions, we can not release the info at this time.

24) Not all of her personal property has been recovered to date. We will not address exactly what has been recovered.

=====
Also, remember that I can not release any new information that we have not already released.
=====

25) The clothing that she was wearing is something that will be admitted at trial.

26) I won't release any info on the crime scene that has not been discussed already.

27) I will address questions via email, and I will check the jdnews boards when I can. I do not anticipate setting up a web page.

28) There is no person in this County receiving 24/7 protection from the Sheriff's Office (other than the inmates in our Jail)

29) We recovered evidence from his vehicle. We have not released what that evidence is.

30) We believe that Maria was murdered on the 14th. If we had probable cause that Mrs. Laurean was involved, she would be charged.

31) We have received several statements from numerous neighbors. We have to weigh all of their statements against physical evidence and other witness statements. [/*]

I just signed on, I saw the link on the q&a's to RS.
First, thank you henry and nuttin for doing this. Second, kudos to RS for aswering. I think it's great that a member of LE would even take the time to do this. I'm still catching up on today's posts and
as I read this post Jas.S, with just the answers...all I could think was, LE knows WAY more than has been released. Probably more than questions were even asked of him.
I've thought and said before that LE is continuing the investigation on more levels than we can imagine. As his answers show, imo, they are keeping it all close so it doesn't hinder further investigation and taint the jury pool when this hopefully comes to trial.
As much as we would like to know everything, If you all are like me, I would much rather not know if it means the evidence they have and may not be releasing will be brought out in trial so justice for Maria and Gabriel's death will happen. I start everyday looking in the news to see if CL has been caught and can not wait for that to happen! As much as I want to know 'everything' I want more for a trial and conviction.
So many of RS's answers told me they do know alot and that somehow comforts me. They know the answers but cannot release that info. That means they are really planning for a trial. It means they are not dropping the ball and are as intense as we are to get CL, get him to trial and convict him.
He gave as much info as he could and ya never know, CL or wifey could be reading these boards as well, so it could well be that not only for trial or further charges, they may not want the info they do know out there to help the enemy, so to speak. JMO of course.

gaelicpeas

03-08-2008, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by Oregongal

I just signed on, I saw the link on the q&a's to RS.
First, thank you henry and nuttin for doing this. Second, kudos to RS for aswering. I think it's great that a member of LE would even take the time to do this. I'm still catching up on today's posts and
as I read this post Jas.S, with just the answers...all I could think was, LE knows WAY more than has been released. Probably more than questions were even asked of him.
I've thought and said before that LE is continuing the investigation on more levels than we can imagine. As his answers show, imo, they are keeping it all close so it doesn't hinder further investigation and taint the jury pool when this hopefully comes to trial.
As much as we would like to know everything, If you all are like me, I would much rather not know if it means the evidence they have and may not be releasing will be brought out in trial so justice for Maria and Gabriel's death will happen. I start everyday looking in the news to see if CL has been caught and can not wait for that to happen! As much as I want to know 'everything' I want more for a trial and conviction.
So many of RS's answers told me they do know alot and that somehow comforts me. They know the answers but cannot release that info. That means they are really planning for a trial. It means they are not dropping the ball and are as intense as we are to get CL, get him to trial and convict him.
He gave as much info as he could and ya never know, CL or wifey could be reading these boards as well, so it could well be that not only for trial or further charges, they may not want the info they do know out there to help the enemy, so to speak. JMO of course. [/*]

Good points, Oregongal..

We originally posed these questions as questions that we thought LE could answer without hindering the investigation...

We obviously have a lot more questions, but I think we as a group did good on a first shot at questions of Sutherland.

gaelicpeas

03-08-2008, 01:24 AM

And I should add.. kudos to Henry and Nuttin for getting all the questions together and submitting them!

donna

03-08-2008, 01:31 AM

:seeya:

Hello right back to you, GB! Good to 'see' you also!

I have been thinking about the floor in the living room. crymeariver is probably right about there having been one there, IMO. That bare floor is just begging for a rug! Also, where is the coffee table?

Just a year before my husband died, we had all of the carpet taken out of our house and had wood floors put down as well as slate floors in the dining room and kitchen. I bought a huge rug to put under the dining table and a rug for the center of the kitchen.

The Laurean's floor in the living room looks new to my old eyes! Men do not care about rugs, but women do, and I think there just might have been a rug there!

I want CAL to be apprehended, like NOW! The longer he is gone, the more worried I am! CSL is not out of the woods yet, IMO.

chance

03-08-2008, 01:43 AM

Ya' ll go to bed tooooo early! Try sleeping in. It is good for you.

moo
chance

donna

03-08-2008, 01:49 AM

I see that Captain Sutherland said that Sgt. Daniel Durham arrived home at around 5:30 PM on December 14th. IIRC, Maria had been at the ATM somewhere around 4:30 PM. Then she goes to CAL's. She could have found that since she could not leave until the 15th, she may have left CAL's to go back to Sgt. Daniel Durham's house, saw that he was home and knew he had read her note by that time. So she goes back to CAL's and tells him her plan to stay in her room that night (her plan had fallen through cause he was home) had fallen through and he would be telling anyone in her family that called there that she was gone and had left that note.

She really was probably upset. What happened that escalated into murder may never be known, but I do think Maria did make a second trip to CAL's house on the 14th, and it WAS frightfully close to Christina's arriving back home! I do not know if Christina participated in the murder, but I do feel that she certainly participated in the coverup.

crymeariver2006

03-08-2008, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by Oregongal

I just signed on, I saw the link on the q&a's to RS.
First, thank you henry and nuttin for doing this. Second, kudos to RS for aswering. I think it's great that a member of LE would even take the time to do this. I'm still catching up on today's posts and
as I read this post Jas.S, with just the answers...all I could think was, LE knows WAY more than has been released. Probably more than questions were even asked of him.
I've thought and said before that LE is continuing the investigation on more levels than we can imagine. As his answers show, imo, they are keeping it all close so it doesn't hinder further investigation and taint the jury pool when this hopefully comes to trial.
As much as we would like to know everything, If you all are like me, I would much rather not know if it means the evidence they have and may not be releasing will be brought out in trial so justice for Maria and Gabriel's death will happen. I start everyday looking in the news to see if CL has been caught and can not wait for that to happen! As much as I want to know 'everything' I want more for a trial and conviction.
So many of RS's answers told me they do know alot and that somehow comforts me. They know the answers but cannot release that info. That means they are really planning for a trial. It means they are not dropping the ball and are as intense as we are to get CL, get him to trial and convict him.
He gave as much info as he could and ya never know, CL or wifey could be reading these boards as well, so it could well be that not only for trial or further charges, they may not want the info they do know out there to help the enemy, so to speak. JMO of course. [/*]

ITA

As to your last paragraph, you are absolutely right. Not only do they not know if Christina is reading this board, they don't know if she herself posted any of the questions! Especially the ones about her.

And add me to the big girl britches club. I would love nothing better than to refine my multiple theories/suspects into just one.

Cardinal

03-08-2008, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by donna
I see that Captain Sutherland said that Sgt. Daniel Durham arrived home at around 5:30 PM on December 14th. IIRC, Maria had been at the ATM somewhere around 4:30 PM. Then she goes to CAL's. She could have found that since she could not leave until the 15th, she may have left CAL's to go back to Sgt. Daniel Durham's house, saw that he was home and knew he had read her note by that time. So she goes back to CAL's and tells him her plan to stay in her room that night (her plan had fallen through cause he was home) had fallen through and he would be telling anyone in her family that called there that she was gone and had left that note.

She really was probably upset. What happened that escalated into murder may never be known, but I do think Maria did make a second trip to CAL's house on the 14th, and it WAS frightfully close to Christina's arriving back home! I do not know if Christina participated in the murder, but I do feel that she certainly participated in the coverup. [/*]

Donna, this makes a lot of sense to me, and I've only had one cup of coffee yet! It's simple, and logical.

And in response to several other posts, my big girl britches are always at the ready, and I will have no trouble admitting I was wrong if the facts of this case prove to be different than any of my speculation.

More coffee.............