November 01, 2014, 06:05:40 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW SPECIAL SECTION CREATED FOR VIRGINIA AREA MISSING AND MURDERED AND POSSIBLE CONNECTIONS
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Lindsey Baum # 5 9/28/09 - 10/4/09  (Read 284492 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Sister
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8206



« Reply #160 on: September 28, 2009, 04:33:23 PM »

On PAGE 93, shortcake wrote:

shortcake
Scared Monkey

 Offline

Posts: 64

   Re: Lindsey Baum # 4 8/26/09 -
Reply #1843 on: September 27, 2009, 10:25:52 PM  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: JessStar on September 27, 2009, 09:58:25 PM
People, you are reading WAY too much into the search warrant. Yes, they have the ability to tell you to leave. In fact, that's pretty standard procedure, especially when the property is so large. The reason is to secure the site in case anything is there. Taking stuff that might lead to clues, or stuff that is reaonably likely to lead to evidence, is routine in a case full of unsolved mysteries. It may or may not be evidence, but it fits the evidentiary profile. The standard for securing a search warrant isn't probable cause that the custodian of the property committed a crime. It's reasonable probability thay evidence exists there for whatever reason. It could have been deposited there by the perp without knowledge of the owner, for example. So you can't indict these people just because a search warrant was issued.

For those who would just open their doors to law enforcement in a case like this, I hope you would think long and hard about that if you're ever put in that position. There's a reason for a constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. There are such things as dirty cops and overzealous prosecutors looking to raise their conviction rates. Law enforcement are people too, and just because they are law enforcement doesn't mean that they're always there to protect and serve.

Finally, these people were astute in getting an attorney. If someone was targeting your property in a missing child case, I'd hope you'd do the same. Because I doubt anyone on this board knows all of their rights. I've been practicing law for 15 years, I know what I'm talking about.

Ok, let the nanners fly. But that's okay because I think most people on this board aren't nave enough to open their doors to unbridled searches by law enforcement in a case like this where LE is under a great amount of stress and pressure to solve it.

Good point Jess.  Being an attorney, I bet you thought OJ should have retained one of you at the getgo because you never know when someone might plant a glove.  Hmmmmm.  Just a thought, but I do respect your point of view.  shortcake

I was struggling with whether I wanted to respond to this or not and, well, I decided I probably should.  Why? Because I don't know how to take it.  I'm not sure what the phrase "one of you" means.  Is it meant to place the legal profession and ALL the lawyers that populate it in a negative light?  Is it meant to place ME in a negative light?  I'm not sure.  If it was, no offense, but it exhibits a level of ignorance that surpasses anything I've ever seen.  Just ask the guy from Texas who just spent the last 26 years of his life in prison because he was wrongfully convicted by an overzealous prosecutor that hid exculpatory evidence.  Or ask all of those who were wrongfully convicted by testimony offered by the disgraced Fred Zain.  http://www.truthinjustice.org/expertslie.htm   Or ask Bernard Baran who was wrongfully convicted of child molestation because the prosecution edited out exculpatory portions of the video tapes that were used to indict and convict him.   http://www.cfcamerica.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=986:man-served-22-years-on-false-child-molestation-charges-yet-the-prosecutor-who-convicted-him-isnt-even-inconvenienced&catid=14:governmental-corruption&Itemid=11

I can tell you, I never have, and I never will defend a "blue collar" criminal case.  And if I'm ever court appointed and forced to defend a case involving a crime upon a child, I will turn in my law license.  I swear to that, right hand to God.

I don't know whether the references to OJ were intended as pot shots or not.  I think they were.  But I hope everyone realizes that the OJ trial wasn't lost because of the ridiculous argument that the glove was planted.  The OJ case was lost because the seasoned F. Lee Bailey was able to get under "still wet behind the ears" Christopher Darden's skin and bait him into making a fatal mistake--asking OJ to try on the glove.  Let me tell you something--that glove woudn't have fit if it had been custom made to OJ's exacting specifications.  Remember, "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!"  That little stunt gave OJ the opportunity to testify without actually testifying.  Brilliant, huh?  I guess it wasn't Darden's mistake that gave the defense the ammo it needed.  It was the baiting by "one of those" attorney types.

Anyway, I digress.  I'm not really offering my opinion on the topic.  I'm offering fact--there are bad cops, there are overzealous prosecutors and there are bad judges.  People can accept or reject what I said, I really don't care because, quite frankly, you're all adults and can do as you wish.  But I can recall post after post after post where individuals in this very cage suspected that local law enforcement may somehow be culpable in Lindsey's disappearance. Some have recently suggested that the mayor may know something and that LE may be covering for him.  Are those the same law enforcement officers that you would open your doors to for an unbridled search just because they asked?  Are those the same law enforcement officers that you would be 100% certain wouldn't be incentivized to try to frame you?  As you telling me that you would open your doors to a search just because someone happened to knock on your door dressed in a police uniform wearing a badge he or she might have purchased from one of those online spy sites and asked to search your home?  What about the dufus that recently dressed as a CPS officer, arrived at a womans home and presented her with an order to turn over her two young children to him?  He turned out to be a child predator masquerading as a CPS officer.  The order was bogus!  Thank God the woman was astute enough to question it.  So the issue isn't whether you have anything to hide.  The question is "What if they find something?"  There's a not-so-subtle difference there.

So if an officer ever knocks on your door asking to search your residence, and you willingly let him/her in because you have nothing to hide, and much to your amazement, they find something, let me guess who you'll be making one of your first calls to--"one of us."


JessStar, you are absolutely right and I am absolutely wrong.  Of course someone can be masquerading -- truth be told, I hadn't thought of that.  Just because I know most of LE in my community, the truth is I don't know all of them.  Thank you ever so much.  Man, do I have liver on my face or what.  You really don't know how much I appreciate you taking the time to comment.
Yes, I think the comment was meant to offend, but I have read enough of your posts to know you rise above such pettiness and cut to the chase.  I appreciate that as well.
If you have time to answer, can you shed any light on the past search warrants and if that is public information.  The Florida Sunshine Laws spoil us readers.
Logged

Tracygirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6539



« Reply #161 on: September 28, 2009, 04:37:23 PM »

I think Kara needs to answer the question about why Lindsey was out by herself at 9:30....We asked and she said something like, if she knew then what she knows now blah, blah, blah....It is too easy to simply say that in my opinion. She was not from a small town, I don't believe she had that small town mentality to this point. I am not sure what to think about the phone, seems kind of convenient her cell had died and was recharging, maybe I am just being overly suspicious but it does. I suppose Lindsey just had bad luck...She left her phone at home, josh got sent home, she was sent on her marry way alone, Kara's phone didn't work...What about Kayla's phone, does she have one? did MB call Kayla's phone?

*tapping fingers*....something is just not fitting together.

Logged
MelissaMcCann
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


One of the reasons I was born


« Reply #162 on: September 28, 2009, 04:44:38 PM »

i know from my own experience when my cell phone battery dies, and i put it on the charger, i dont always remember to immidately turn it on. and MK doesnt have a cell phone.
Logged
MelissaMcCann
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


One of the reasons I was born


« Reply #163 on: September 28, 2009, 04:57:05 PM »

I also think that even though we know bad things happen, we still think it cant/wont happen to us. this is as close to home as it gets for me outside of my own immidiate family and sad to say I am still doing things i probably shouldnt after what has happened to MB.  My daughter starts college in a week and will be commuting to seattle. I am hoping she meets people right away that maybe want to carpool so they can all save on gas money. My dad said to me 'make sure she carpools with some females and not any creepy males'.  do you think any thought like that even crossed my mind? nope... and  our other 2 girls ages 12 and 10 go out and jump on the trampoline in my front yard.  I have heard about kids getting snagged right out of their yards but i still let them do it. my curtain is open, i can see them but i am not standing out there with them always.  so i guess that makes me a horrible mother in the eyes of many.

and more of my blondeness,, i never realized till right this minute that clicking on those lil monkey things makes them appear in the posts! lol
Logged
Tracygirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6539



« Reply #164 on: September 28, 2009, 04:58:58 PM »

Thank you for that answer MM. I have asked several people, literally, lol. Some of the phones apparently you have to turn on, some you just have to place on the craddle and it will turn on once enough battery power is charged. But at some point the phone did ring because MB got through, am I too assume she turned it on? she also states she didn't have much battery power, only one bar although it sat on the craddle. Hmmmm I still have not put my finger on what is it about this taht has me questioning.   
Do you know if there was a plan in place in the case Linsdey was ever to walk home from Kayla's and Josh was not with her? If it was something done for Kayla, then was it something done for Lindsey usually?

Am I correct in my thinking that MB believed there was a plan in place to prevent LB from walking home alone that night....
Logged
JessStar
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 1487


Please Help Find Justice for Nevaeh


WWW
« Reply #165 on: September 28, 2009, 05:00:54 PM »

On PAGE 93, shortcake wrote:

shortcake
Scared Monkey

 Offline

Posts: 64

   Re: Lindsey Baum # 4 8/26/09 -
Reply #1843 on: September 27, 2009, 10:25:52 PM  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: JessStar on September 27, 2009, 09:58:25 PM
People, you are reading WAY too much into the search warrant. Yes, they have the ability to tell you to leave. In fact, that's pretty standard procedure, especially when the property is so large. The reason is to secure the site in case anything is there. Taking stuff that might lead to clues, or stuff that is reaonably likely to lead to evidence, is routine in a case full of unsolved mysteries. It may or may not be evidence, but it fits the evidentiary profile. The standard for securing a search warrant isn't probable cause that the custodian of the property committed a crime. It's reasonable probability thay evidence exists there for whatever reason. It could have been deposited there by the perp without knowledge of the owner, for example. So you can't indict these people just because a search warrant was issued.

For those who would just open their doors to law enforcement in a case like this, I hope you would think long and hard about that if you're ever put in that position. There's a reason for a constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. There are such things as dirty cops and overzealous prosecutors looking to raise their conviction rates. Law enforcement are people too, and just because they are law enforcement doesn't mean that they're always there to protect and serve.

Finally, these people were astute in getting an attorney. If someone was targeting your property in a missing child case, I'd hope you'd do the same. Because I doubt anyone on this board knows all of their rights. I've been practicing law for 15 years, I know what I'm talking about.

Ok, let the nanners fly. But that's okay because I think most people on this board aren't nave enough to open their doors to unbridled searches by law enforcement in a case like this where LE is under a great amount of stress and pressure to solve it.

Good point Jess.  Being an attorney, I bet you thought OJ should have retained one of you at the getgo because you never know when someone might plant a glove.  Hmmmmm.  Just a thought, but I do respect your point of view.  shortcake

I was struggling with whether I wanted to respond to this or not and, well, I decided I probably should.  Why? Because I don't know how to take it.  I'm not sure what the phrase "one of you" means.  Is it meant to place the legal profession and ALL the lawyers that populate it in a negative light?  Is it meant to place ME in a negative light?  I'm not sure.  If it was, no offense, but it exhibits a level of ignorance that surpasses anything I've ever seen.  Just ask the guy from Texas who just spent the last 26 years of his life in prison because he was wrongfully convicted by an overzealous prosecutor that hid exculpatory evidence.  Or ask all of those who were wrongfully convicted by testimony offered by the disgraced Fred Zain.  http://www.truthinjustice.org/expertslie.htm   Or ask Bernard Baran who was wrongfully convicted of child molestation because the prosecution edited out exculpatory portions of the video tapes that were used to indict and convict him.   http://www.cfcamerica.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=986:man-served-22-years-on-false-child-molestation-charges-yet-the-prosecutor-who-convicted-him-isnt-even-inconvenienced&catid=14:governmental-corruption&Itemid=11

I can tell you, I never have, and I never will defend a "blue collar" criminal case.  And if I'm ever court appointed and forced to defend a case involving a crime upon a child, I will turn in my law license.  I swear to that, right hand to God.

I don't know whether the references to OJ were intended as pot shots or not.  I think they were.  But I hope everyone realizes that the OJ trial wasn't lost because of the ridiculous argument that the glove was planted.  The OJ case was lost because the seasoned F. Lee Bailey was able to get under "still wet behind the ears" Christopher Darden's skin and bait him into making a fatal mistake--asking OJ to try on the glove.  Let me tell you something--that glove woudn't have fit if it had been custom made to OJ's exacting specifications.  Remember, "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!"  That little stunt gave OJ the opportunity to testify without actually testifying.  Brilliant, huh?  I guess it wasn't Darden's mistake that gave the defense the ammo it needed.  It was the baiting by "one of those" attorney types.

Anyway, I digress.  I'm not really offering my opinion on the topic.  I'm offering fact--there are bad cops, there are overzealous prosecutors and there are bad judges.  People can accept or reject what I said, I really don't care because, quite frankly, you're all adults and can do as you wish.  But I can recall post after post after post where individuals in this very cage suspected that local law enforcement may somehow be culpable in Lindsey's disappearance. Some have recently suggested that the mayor may know something and that LE may be covering for him.  Are those the same law enforcement officers that you would open your doors to for an unbridled search just because they asked?  Are those the same law enforcement officers that you would be 100% certain wouldn't be incentivized to try to frame you?  As you telling me that you would open your doors to a search just because someone happened to knock on your door dressed in a police uniform wearing a badge he or she might have purchased from one of those online spy sites and asked to search your home?  What about the dufus that recently dressed as a CPS officer, arrived at a womans home and presented her with an order to turn over her two young children to him?  He turned out to be a child predator masquerading as a CPS officer.  The order was bogus!  Thank God the woman was astute enough to question it.  So the issue isn't whether you have anything to hide.  The question is "What if they find something?"  There's a not-so-subtle difference there.

So if an officer ever knocks on your door asking to search your residence, and you willingly let him/her in because you have nothing to hide, and much to your amazement, they find something, let me guess who you'll be making one of your first calls to--"one of us."


JessStar, you are absolutely right and I am absolutely wrong.  Of course someone can be masquerading -- truth be told, I hadn't thought of that.  Just because I know most of LE in my community, the truth is I don't know all of them.  Thank you ever so much.  Man, do I have liver on my face or what.  You really don't know how much I appreciate you taking the time to comment.
Yes, I think the comment was meant to offend, but I have read enough of your posts to know you rise above such pettiness and cut to the chase.  I appreciate that as well.
If you have time to answer, can you shed any light on the past search warrants and if that is public information.  The Florida Sunshine Laws spoil us readers.

Thank you, everyone, for your kind words.  Sister, it's not really a question of who is right and who is wrong.  It's a question of overcoming our human instincts to trust others and protect ourselves.  It's human nature to (a) want to be helpful (b) respect authority and (c) trust others.  Unfortunately, it is those characteristics that criminals prey upon to successfully commit and hide their crimes.

I'll answer your other question in a separate post.




Logged

      
Tracygirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6539



« Reply #166 on: September 28, 2009, 05:03:19 PM »

I don't think anyone is a terrible mother, we all just come different.
BTW, it took me a few months to see the "more" link by the monkeys. I always wondered where everyone got the little heads from, lol.
Logged
Tracygirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6539



« Reply #167 on: September 28, 2009, 05:04:51 PM »

Oh jess, you know, I know you rock! 
Logged
cookie
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 15625



« Reply #168 on: September 28, 2009, 05:06:02 PM »

I also think that even though we know bad things happen, we still think it cant/wont happen to us. this is as close to home as it gets for me outside of my own immidiate family and sad to say I am still doing things i probably shouldnt after what has happened to MB.  My daughter starts college in a week and will be commuting to seattle. I am hoping she meets people right away that maybe want to carpool so they can all save on gas money. My dad said to me 'make sure she carpools with some females and not any creepy males'.  do you think any thought like that even crossed my mind? nope... and  our other 2 girls ages 12 and 10 go out and jump on the trampoline in my front yard.  I have heard about kids getting snagged right out of their yards but i still let them do it. my curtain is open, i can see them but i am not standing out there with them always.  so i guess that makes me a horrible mother in the eyes of many.

and more of my blondeness,, i never realized till right this minute that clicking on those lil monkey things makes them appear in the posts! lol

nope..don't think that you are a bad mom at all...you just might be a little more trusting than others are.
but jumping on a trampoline in your front yard while you can look out the window to see them is a bit different than walking on neighborhood streets at 9:30 or 10:00 at night alone.. right? .jmo...
I am assuming that you live near where LB  lived? is there any fear to let children out alone since her disappearance? are parents more on guard now or do the locals consider it an isolated incident? with a child missing and no one knowing what happened to her, wouldn't parents be up in arms or are they? thanks for the info....
Logged

MelissaMcCann
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


One of the reasons I was born


« Reply #169 on: September 28, 2009, 05:11:02 PM »

Thank you for that answer MM. I have asked several people, literally, lol. Some of the phones apparently you have to turn on, some you just have to place on the craddle and it will turn on once enough battery power is charged. But at some point the phone did ring because MB got through, am I too assume she turned it on? she also states she didn't have much battery power, only one bar although it sat on the craddle. Hmmmm I still have not put my finger on what is it about this taht has me questioning.   
Do you know if there was a plan in place in the case Linsdey was ever to walk home from Kayla's and Josh was not with her? If it was something done for Kayla, then was it something done for Lindsey usually?

Am I correct in my thinking that MB believed there was a plan in place to prevent LB from walking home alone that night....

I actually do not know the answer to that. I had never met KK prior to this. Outside of the normal griping or bragging about our children, MB and I didnt discuss those kind of things.  My child and hers have a large age span so they didnt hang out except when mine babysat them. Mark's girls that we now have custody of have never met MB's kids because LJ was missing prior to our hearing. So again something we just didnt talk about.  Yes there was a plan in place that night with jb walking with them. no one forsaw the arguement happening and jb going back home.
Logged
AZSunny
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057



« Reply #170 on: September 28, 2009, 05:13:52 PM »

I also think that even though we know bad things happen, we still think it cant/wont happen to us. this is as close to home as it gets for me outside of my own immidiate family and sad to say I am still doing things i probably shouldnt after what has happened to MB.  My daughter starts college in a week and will be commuting to seattle. I am hoping she meets people right away that maybe want to carpool so they can all save on gas money. My dad said to me 'make sure she carpools with some females and not any creepy males'.  do you think any thought like that even crossed my mind? nope... and  our other 2 girls ages 12 and 10 go out and jump on the trampoline in my front yard.  I have heard about kids getting snagged right out of their yards but i still let them do it. my curtain is open, i can see them but i am not standing out there with them always.  so i guess that makes me a horrible mother in the eyes of many.

and more of my blondeness,, i never realized till right this minute that clicking on those lil monkey things makes them appear in the posts! lol

Adorable baby Melissa.     

Perhaps my family is over protective, but although the girls will walk to a friends house after school, they are all tucked in bed by 9 during the school year, and no later than 10 during the summer.  The oldest is 10.  They live in the Seattle area, and there would be no way they would be out of their own home after 7PM on any night, unless they are with their parents. 

My cell phone, even if it is off, still registers calls missed, or messages left. I also do not think to leave it on 'on purpose' while it is charging. 
Logged

~~We cannot direct the wind but we can adjust the sails ~~
JessStar
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 1487


Please Help Find Justice for Nevaeh


WWW
« Reply #171 on: September 28, 2009, 05:16:49 PM »

Here's the answe about the search warrants:

Washington ARLJ Rule 9:  Disclosure of records

   (a) Public records: Unless the trial judge rules otherwise in a particular case, the following are considered public records and may be viewed and copied by the public:

   (5) Search warrants, affidavits, and inventories, after execution and return of the warrant.


Here's how the Washington Supreme Court has interpreted the rule:

. . .indiscriminate disclosure of these records may unnecessarily embarrass the subject of an unfruitful search, may allow a suspect to escape arrest or destroy evidence, and may discourage informants from providing information out of fear for their safety and well-being. These and other interests must be weighed carefully by judges in exercising their discretion.

The public's interest in an open legal process convinces us that our judicial process is best served by ordering that these records should be available to the public. At the same time we recognize that in some cases justice will not be served by public access. We therefore adopt the following procedures for the handling of search warrants:

1. Absent objection, an executed search warrant and the records pertaining thereto should be filed.

2. Interested parties may request that a search warrant not be filed. Those entitled to so request include:

(a) the subject of the search

(b) law enforcement officials

(c) informants upon whose information the affidavit of probable cause was issued. These parties are the ones whose interests would be jeopardized by filing.

3. The objector to the filing must demonstrate that filing of the documents presents a substantial threat to one of the interests outlined above or another significant interest.

The person who objects to the filing of a search warrant must state specific reasons for the need for confidentiality.

4. The magistrate or judge must weigh the competing interests involved with making the documents a matter of public record, and determine whether a substantial threat exists to the interests of effective law enforcement, or individual privacy and safety. In addition, the judge must determine whether these interests might be served by deletion of the harmful material.

(Cowles Publishing Company v. James Murphy, et al.,96 Wn.2d 584; 637 P.2d 966; 1981 Wash. LEXIS 1365; 7 Media L. Rep. 2400 (WA 1981 )

Logged

      
sunshine12
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 1933



« Reply #172 on: September 28, 2009, 05:22:04 PM »

melissa-that baby is adorable! look at those eyes!

okay i hope i dont get anything thrown at me for asking this question, but i'm wonder what kona's son's alibi was the night lb was missing? i am not saying i think he is involved at all, but im wondering what the alibi was if anyone can answer that?
Logged
MelissaMcCann
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


One of the reasons I was born


« Reply #173 on: September 28, 2009, 05:23:47 PM »


nope..don't think that you are a bad mom at all...you just might be a little more trusting than others are.
but jumping on a trampoline in your front yard while you can look out the window to see them is a bit different than walking on neighborhood streets at 9:30 or 10:00 at night alone.. right? .jmo...
I am assuming that you live near where LB  lived? is there any fear to let children out alone since her disappearance? are parents more on guard now or do the locals consider it an isolated incident? with a child missing and no one knowing what happened to her, wouldn't parents be up in arms or are they? thanks for the info....

I live 8 miles away. I have noticed that LJ's disappearnce is a topic of convo every where you go. I have a lot of customers with children who say there keep reiterating to their own children that this situation is exactly why things are done a certain way within their own rules.  Some of those customers who do live right in town McCleary have told me they dont see as many kids out as before or out as late. It wasnt just MB's kids that are out after 9pm in the summer time. with day light lasting til 10pm for part of the summer i see them all over my streets as well. this summer i didnt have nearly half the kids come in alone as i did last summer. I am right center on main st in the couple blocks of businesses and i will be the first to say it would anger me when a 6 or 7 year old would come in alone knowing they walked here alone because of all the traffic on main street.  So in my own oppinion yes this has been a temporary wake up call.  I think once we find out what happened to LJ, depending on the circumstances, many people may go back to their old habits.
Logged
Madre
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #174 on: September 28, 2009, 05:27:17 PM »

Melissa can you answer the following questions:

Are you aware of the other numerous search warrants issued in the past 3 months, other than this weekend?

Do you know who the other 2 eyewitnesses are that saw Lindsey that night?  Have you/MB/KK, etc. talked to them and do you know exactly what was said?   I ask this realizing that a poster at WS (JxxxxO) has posted that she at least knows who 1 is but will not divulge and would not give reasons  as to why.  If SHE knows, I would expect you or your friends, acquaintances(Kara) would  know.  Why the secrecy?

Will Lindsey's mom provide us a timeline of Lindsey's  activities the day she went missing?
Logged
Sister
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8206



« Reply #175 on: September 28, 2009, 05:32:22 PM »

Here's the answe about the search warrants:

Washington ARLJ Rule 9:  Disclosure of records

   (a) Public records: Unless the trial judge rules otherwise in a particular case, the following are considered public records and may be viewed and copied by the public:

   (5) Search warrants, affidavits, and inventories, after execution and return of the warrant.


Here's how the Washington Supreme Court has interpreted the rule:

. . .indiscriminate disclosure of these records may unnecessarily embarrass the subject of an unfruitful search, may allow a suspect to escape arrest or destroy evidence, and may discourage informants from providing information out of fear for their safety and well-being. These and other interests must be weighed carefully by judges in exercising their discretion.

The public's interest in an open legal process convinces us that our judicial process is best served by ordering that these records should be available to the public. At the same time we recognize that in some cases justice will not be served by public access. We therefore adopt the following procedures for the handling of search warrants:

1. Absent objection, an executed search warrant and the records pertaining thereto should be filed.

2. Interested parties may request that a search warrant not be filed. Those entitled to so request include:

(a) the subject of the search

(b) law enforcement officials

(c) informants upon whose information the affidavit of probable cause was issued. These parties are the ones whose interests would be jeopardized by filing.

3. The objector to the filing must demonstrate that filing of the documents presents a substantial threat to one of the interests outlined above or another significant interest.

The person who objects to the filing of a search warrant must state specific reasons for the need for confidentiality.

4. The magistrate or judge must weigh the competing interests involved with making the documents a matter of public record, and determine whether a substantial threat exists to the interests of effective law enforcement, or individual privacy and safety. In addition, the judge must determine whether these interests might be served by deletion of the harmful material.

(Cowles Publishing Company v. James Murphy, et al.,96 Wn.2d 584; 637 P.2d 966; 1981 Wash. LEXIS 1365; 7 Media L. Rep. 2400 (WA 1981 )


Thank you again JessStar.  So the warrants have to be executed and then it is still possible for then not to be filed.  I appreciate this slice of the case law.
Logged

cookie
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 15625



« Reply #176 on: September 28, 2009, 05:32:46 PM »

MM thanks for the reply!
cute cute baby!
Logged

Tamikosmom
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 35461



« Reply #177 on: September 28, 2009, 05:33:42 PM »

Thank you for that answer MM. I have asked several people, literally, lol. Some of the phones apparently you have to turn on, some you just have to place on the craddle and it will turn on once enough battery power is charged. But at some point the phone did ring because MB got through, am I too assume she turned it on? she also states she didn't have much battery power, only one bar although it sat on the craddle. Hmmmm I still have not put my finger on what is it about this taht has me questioning.   
Do you know if there was a plan in place in the case Linsdey was ever to walk home from Kayla's and Josh was not with her? If it was something done for Kayla, then was it something done for Lindsey usually?

Am I correct in my thinking that MB believed there was a plan in place to prevent LB from walking home alone that night....

I actually do not know the answer to that. I had never met KK prior to this. Outside of the normal griping or bragging about our children, MB and I didnt discuss those kind of things.  My child and hers have a large age span so they didnt hang out except when mine babysat them. Mark's girls that we now have custody of have never met MB's kids because LJ was missing prior to our hearing. So again something we just didnt talk about.  Yes there was a plan in place that night with jb walking with them. no one forsaw the arguement happening and jb going back home.

However ... considering Josh Baum was instructed to go home and ... considering it was not a given that Kayla would be allowed to spend the night at the Baum residence ... Melissa Baum must have realized that Lindsey would possibly be returning home on her own.  If Melissa Baum could not contact Kara Kampan on her cell ... then the safety of her daughter dictates that she would have began that walk to the Kampens to escort her daughter home.

On the other hand ... if Josh never returned home as instructed by the family friend who intervened following the argument ... Melissa Baum would be under the false impression that Josh and Lindsey would be together on the walk home from the Kampen/Williams.  Then Tamikosmom would give Melissa's mother get a pass but ... the question would be "Where was Josh ... the brother whose sister and friend got under his skin less than an hour prior."

Janet

++++++

The Daily World - July 3, 2009

Kampen said she has replayed that Friday evening in her head over and over. So has her daughter, Michaela, 10, who spent the day swimming with Lindsey. They walked together with Josh Baum, 13, to the Kampen house. But halfway there, Michaela said they teased Josh, getting under his skin ...

http://**/articles/2009/07/03/local_news/doc4a4e415cdb51d302573546.txt
Logged

Loving Natalee - Beth Holloway
Page 219: I have to make difficult choices every day.  I have to make a conscious decision every morning when I wake up not to be bitter, not to live in resentment and let anger control me.  It's not easy.  I ask God to help me.
_____

A person of integrity expects to be believed and when hes not, he lets time prove him right. -unknown
Tracygirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6539



« Reply #178 on: September 28, 2009, 05:38:04 PM »

Thank you for that answer MM. I have asked several people, literally, lol. Some of the phones apparently you have to turn on, some you just have to place on the craddle and it will turn on once enough battery power is charged. But at some point the phone did ring because MB got through, am I too assume she turned it on? she also states she didn't have much battery power, only one bar although it sat on the craddle. Hmmmm I still have not put my finger on what is it about this taht has me questioning.   
Do you know if there was a plan in place in the case Linsdey was ever to walk home from Kayla's and Josh was not with her? If it was something done for Kayla, then was it something done for Lindsey usually?

Am I correct in my thinking that MB believed there was a plan in place to prevent LB from walking home alone that night....

I actually do not know the answer to that. I had never met KK prior to this. Outside of the normal griping or bragging about our children, MB and I didnt discuss those kind of things.  My child and hers have a large age span so they didnt hang out except when mine babysat them. Mark's girls that we now have custody of have never met MB's kids because LJ was missing prior to our hearing. So again something we just didnt talk about.  Yes there was a plan in place that night with jb walking with them. no one forsaw the arguement happening and jb going back home.

Oh my goodness that baby is just so darn cute!
Thank you for the reply. Do you know if there was a plan in place for the times Lindsey would leave Kara's and Josh was not with her? Did MB call and leave a message on Kara's phone, has that been asked? 
Logged
Madre
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #179 on: September 28, 2009, 05:39:26 PM »

IIRC, someone involved in this case, said that the person who sent Josh home...PAGED MB to let her know she was sending Josh home and again IIRC MB responded back that was OK.   Does anyone else remember this? 

Again, it would be so helpful to know exactly what these eyewitnesses reported, and to have a timeline from MB herself.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 0.131 seconds with 21 queries.