How Can Nick McGuffin Ever Get A Fair Trial? - How Much Influence did Cory (Leahs Mother) Have on Nicks Arrest?

Awaiting.....

You are caught up in the timeline as your reason for thinking Nick is innocent.
You need to go reread all the original search warrants. Remember these were filed after she went missing and before her body was even found.
There was plenty of time for him to pick her up while walking away from her friend's house, drive her to the cemetary, kill her with his tire iron, drive to the dumping spot, dump her, clean up his car and then go visit with the other girl he tried to make out with before going out and later try to search for her.

It's one of the reasons why the initial focus of the investigation was so strong on him. He had the motive and opportunity to commit this and apparently the grand jury agrees.

Well, if you read the very first search warrant, you'll see the witnesses last saw her at 9:15 pm on the road.
Nick's alibi from that night has a gap from 9 p.m. when he said he went to pick her up from her friends house and 10:15 when he said he stopped back by the friend's house after 'driving around' looking for her.
You seem to dismiss this as not being enough time. But if you look at how close in proximity all this is, there would be plenty of time for him.
Why don't you understand what happens next?
She was upset and he drove by to pick her up. They are boyfriend and girlfriend....of course if he sees her and she sees him....she's going to get into the car.
That part is easy.
It's what's next that is not able to be confirmed by the evidence.
He took her to the cemetery (where one of her shoes was found). That's where he may have killed her. Then he had plenty of time to drive 10 miles dump the body and drive back to town to continue to 'look' for her.
In another search warrant, you can see the suspicion of police when they note that despite her being 'missing' and him driving around town for 'hours' looking for her, he never once went to her house in person to see if she was there. What does that tell you?

Welcome markmywordz. I agree that there was enough time for Nick to catch Leah and possibly kill her by the cemetery, but I don't think there was enough time for him to dump her body outside of town before he returned to her friend's house at 10:15.

Nick started out driving a Mustang. You have to account for Leah's sister reporting that Nick came into Denny's Pizza looking for Leah between 9:15 and 9:30, and account for Nick being spotted in a Thunderbird between 9:45 and 10.

To fit Denny's Pizza into the timeline, I think you would have to have Nick in the Mustang going from Leah's friend's house straight to Denny's Pizza and arriving there around 9:15, and then driving up Central and finding Leah near Elm or on Elm by the cemetery sometime between 9:20 and 9:30. Then you have to account for Nick being spotted in a Thunderbird sometime between 9:45 and 10, and then being back at her friend's house, I think in the Mustang, around 10:15, and then being pulled over in the Mustang around 10:30.

I don't see enough time for him to spend 30-40 minutes driving 9 miles out of town to dump Leah's body before he showed back up at her friend's house around 10:15.

I'm not saying that Nick is guilty or that things happened this way, but there is enough time for this scenario. It depends on Nick arriving at and leaving Denny's in the early part of the 9:15 to 9:30 range. Cory has said you can make the drive from town to Nick's house and back in 15 minutes, and Google confirms all the other times. He could have caught up to Leah at any point on Central or Elm by the cemetery in less than five minutes. I don't know the cause of death, but there are many ways to kill somebody in less than five minutes. I'll take you all the way back to the Mitchell's at 10:15, but I'm not going to try to guess the whole night without seeing the thousands of pages of documents and the transcripts of all the interviews.

• Leah is spotted by the Credit Union around 9:15.
• Nick arrives at Denny's Pizza sometime between 9:15 and 9:20.
• Nick leaves Denny's around 9:22.
• Nick catches up to Leah by the cemetery around 9:25.
• Nick kills Leah between 9:26 and 9:30 and throws her in the trunk.
• Nick drives the Mustang home and takes off in the Thunderbird.
• Nick is spotted in the Thunderbird by the Fast Mart between 9:45 and 10.
• Nick drives the Thunderbird home and takes off in the Mustang.
• Nick shows up at the Mitchell's at 10:15 in the Mustang.

Justice4all wrote:I'm not saying that Nick is guilty or that things happened this way, but there is enough time for this scenario. It depends on Nick arriving at and leaving Denny's in the early part of the 9:15 to 9:30 range. Cory has said you can make the drive from town to Nick's house and back in 15 minutes, and Google confirms all the other times. He could have caught up to Leah at any point on Central or Elm by the cemetery in less than five minutes. I don't know the cause of death, but there are many ways to kill somebody in less than five minutes. I'll take you all the way back to the Mitchell's at 10:15, but I'm not going to try to guess the whole night without seeing the thousands of pages of documents and the transcripts of all the interviews.

• Leah is spotted by the Credit Union around 9:15.
• Nick arrives at Denny's Pizza sometime between 9:15 and 9:20.
• Nick leaves Denny's around 9:22.
• Nick catches up to Leah by the cemetery around 9:25.
• Nick kills Leah between 9:26 and 9:30 and throws her in the trunk.
• Nick drives the Mustang home and takes off in the Thunderbird.
• Nick is spotted in the Thunderbird by the Fast Mart between 9:45 and 10.
• Nick drives the Thunderbird home and takes off in the Mustang.
• Nick shows up at the Mitchell's at 10:15 in the Mustang.

We know that Cadaver dogs were used....how is it that they found NOTHING? How is it that there would be no blood in Nicks car? If he killed her in that four or five minute time frame, as you suggest....he definately would not have had time to clean it up (or himself) and we know by Leah's SECOND found shoe, that there was medium to high velocity blod splatter. Nick would have HAD to be covered in blood.

The main problem with this case is that only about 1% of the docs have been released and there are many unanswered questions, overlapping timelines depending on which witnesses remembered times more accurately, etc.

My answers are in blue.

FystyAngel wrote:We know that Cadaver dogs were used....how is it that they found NOTHING?

The only thing I can find in the docs is that cadaver dogs were used at Hudson Ridge where the second shoe was found. It makes sense they didn't find anything because Leah's body wasn't dumped at Hudson Ridge with the shoe. If the dogs were used in any other part of the investigation, they weren't mentioned in the limited docs we have. I don't remember if any newspaper articles mentioned them.

How is it that there would be no blood in Nicks car?

Good question that I can't answer. The police claim it's because the trunk was totally cleaned out.

If he killed her in that four or five minute time frame, as you suggest....he definately would not have had time to clean it up (or himself) and we know by Leah's SECOND found shoe, that there was medium to high velocity blod splatter. Nick would have HAD to be covered in blood.

It's possible. It doesn't mean it makes sense, but I don't know how the mind of a killer works and I don't know the cause of death. It doesn't make sense for Nick or anybody else to kill Leah 300 feet down the road from a gas station when it wasn't totally dark yet. Sunset was 9:01, but it wasn't said to get totally dark until around 9:45. An abduction where Leah was pulled into a vehicle makes more sense.

The profiler's theory seems to indicate a premeditated ambush without an argument. I don't know if they are going to go with the profiler's theory. They might say Leah got in the car with Nick willingly and he took her somewhere else and killed her. Where? When? I don't know. They claim they have witnesses placing Nick with Leah after 9 PM. 20/20 said there was blood on the first shoe. The docs we saw only mentioned blood on the second shoe found at Hudson Ridge. If there was blood on the first shoe indicating she still had it on when she was killed, I think they might say the shoe was placed by the cemetery later that night. It would have to be there by 11:30 PM when a local resident found it.

Quote: "In all the reading I have done in this case (local articles) and many different websites it appears that a poster named Cory Courtright (who claims to be Leahs mother)"

I've read through as much of these threads on Leah Freeman as I possibly could Saturday afternoon/night and I just can't take anymore. The quote above about Cory Courtright who *claims* to be Leah's Mother sounds so hostile, who do you think she is? In fact, being fairly new to these types of blogs I'm not so sure that a couple of these people posting aren't Nick's family, close friend(s) or maybe girlfriend.

Is this site sort of a public forum for a public lynching of Cory? It sure seems so to me and yes of course I do see where every now and then someone professes sympathy for Cory and what's she's been through but maybe that's because it's against the TOU's to malign someone.

I for one am grateful and very appreciative that Chief Mark Dannels chose to take on the Leah Freeman case when he took over as Chief, it was about time to get some new eyes on this case, get serious and focused.

I don't know Cory personally, I don't even live in her state but I thank my lucky stars that I've never been in her shoes but if I were to be, I wouldn't quit fighting either. She should be *proud* that she fought all the way to have this cold case re-opened and in no way do I think Cory wanted to achieve *celebrity* status as mentioned in one of your posts, not for the reason she did anyway. I can only hope those of you who are so condemning of Cory would have 1/10th of what Cory has to hang on for so long to bring justice to a little girl who was murdered so long ago.
Shame on those of you who sit in such judgement.
I was going to try to answer several of the posts but there are just too many, besides I have no faith that many of you are willing to look at the other side of this.
I really do hope that Cory does not read this site, she doesn't need to read some of these horrible things and I think she's better than this.

Erinnsrose...As owner of this site...I guess I'll be the first to answer your post & some of your comments.

First of all, yes, I can vouch for some of the posts that have been copied & posted here (that they are written by Cory herself). Yes, Cory is sometimes bitter & angry. I have spoken to Cory myself & have also been the brunt of some of her angry, vile emails, etc. I absolutely understand her anger.

You see, I used to be friends with Cory & the more she told of the case & the more I investigated into it, the more I realized that it seems (IMO) that Nick could NOT have been the killer. Yes, this conclusion took it's tole on Cory & I's friendship.

I don't think our site is a "lynching" of Cory AT ALL. This site was created so that EVERYONE can voice their opinions. It's a site that allows discussions about ALL of the cases & opinions. No matter what that is.

Let me ask you this.....Do you honestly believe that it's OK to hang an innocent man? Is it OK to have another family lose a child? Because, that is IMO, what is happening. YOU are entitled to YOUR opinion.

I believe that Nick is innocent or at the very least, been used as a scapegoat. I believe that the new Sheriff in town, needed to solve this case, so badly in fact, that he used Nick McGuffin to do it. For Cory, I hope that LE has REAL evidence against Nick. It's just MY OPINION, that they do NOT.

erinnsrose wrote:In fact, being fairly new to these types of blogs I'm not so sure that a couple of these people posting aren't Nick's family, close friend(s) or maybe girlfriend.

I'm positive that me, sitemama, tish, khintx, FystyAngel, and awaiting justice are not family, close friends, or girlfriends of Nick.

Justice4all wrote:

erinnsrose wrote:In fact, being fairly new to these types of blogs I'm not so sure that a couple of these people posting aren't Nick's family, close friend(s) or maybe girlfriend.

I'm positive that me, sitemama, tish, khintx, FystyAngel, and awaiting justice are not family, close friends, or girlfriends of Nick.

Thanks J4A...I forgot to mention that, LOL.

The arrest was warranted and the lady that was dragged through the mud was an admitted adulterer. Too bad the kid(s) involved didn't stick to their guns.

The charges could not be proven in a court of law without the testimony of the victim(s). That is all. And that is how teachers, coaches, etc. get away with this crap…and just move on to do it again somewhere else. She did do something that was against the law, even if it was with at least one minor that had issues. If he didn’t have issues, he wouldn’t have made a very good victim for her, and if he didn’t have issues he would have pursued the charges against her.

I don’t base my judgment of her on the media. If I did that, I would accept her at her word while she was flanked by her loving husband during interviews. Rather, I base it on what the media did not report, which is that while she was pretending to be an honest married woman that made a mistake or two or three, she was at that same time involved in a clandestine relationship. Sometimes the media just doesn’t get the whole story and I think most people are aware of that and can still be impartial in a court of law. I would have never sat on this woman’s jury knowing what I know; that’s what jury selection is all about.

I do not know if Dannels has been on any other show besides 20/20.

Can you not admit that cases exist where wrong was done and it can't be proven in court? There is no pre-judging or judging of this accused woman on my part. It is a fact that I know info that would influence my opinion.

That is where we differ greatly: I believe that is people have knowledge they will state it during jury selection. If not, it is grounds for an appeal and the accused would get his/her day in court over it. There are protections in place, like the appeals process, or in Nick's case, a change in venue if it is warranted.

I don't find all these links that you find online to be disturbing. This case has been discussed just like we're doing...will it matter in court? You say yes, because people are judgmental and easily influenced. I say no, because people are honest and take their civic duty seriously.

Maybe I didn’t make myself clear or you missed it: It is a fact that I know info that would influence my opinion. Meaning I had personal knowledge of the accused in this case, and therefore I could have never impartially served as a juror on her case given what I knew for myself to be true. This in my opinion backs up what I say, that people will be honest and will not serve their civic duty being unduly influenced.

There is nothing inappropriate about a law enforcement officer enforcing the law. It would be wonderful if all criminals videotaped their crimes and there would be irrefutable proof of their guilt, but that doesn’t happen in most cases, so can you imagine how many guilty folks would be running around if only hard evidence was taken seriously? I’m assuming by hard evidence you mean something like DNA, photographs, video…anything but the human element, so please let me know if I’m wrong on that.

You picked a case that you hoped would portray Dannels as blood hungry, out to ruin the lives of innocent people. You picked it by reading on the internet. It happened to be a case where I know the accused and know things that the average citizen would not know from what’s posted on the internet or any other media source. I wouldn’t say at all that the population of Coos County could claim that they know details about Leah’s case that haven’t been aired publicly.

Dannels’ job is to serve and protect and the seriousness of the accusations warranted an arrest. He is there to enforce the law, not prosecute a case, so I don’t know how Dannels would be to blame for the case being dismissed. I suppose if he hadn’t made the arrest and there had been another victim then that would be fuel for your fire.

Answer this.. why wud a new chief coming into office, go bak to a closed file where the accused passed a poly given by Ranger, the same one who did Nicks and BBs...and go to her 2 days later and arrest and charge her becasue of what some kid had said @ 2YRS PRIOR???

Before Dannels was there it was Reaves who worked a case and closed it because he felt there was no probable cause ...

I wonder if the GJ indicted her??? or was it Dannels and Frazier???
Please show me where Reaves worked this case and closed it as I don’t recall that. My recollection is that the incident happened perhaps 3 years prior to her being arrested, after an investigation uncovered more potential victims.
When you say I read it on the net... lets be clear that it was on the front page of your newspaper.. whether it saw a copy on line or at your library archives.. it was a big story where the DA , Dannels, and the accused and the accuser (AND HER LAWYER) ALL GAVE STATEMENTS..

I suspect had any of the statements been wrong. innacurate or mistakes... they wud have been retracted/fixed... I checked and there was nothing retracted..

Your writing (Little) suggests that you condone the arrest and you even go on to testify against her as you claom to KNOW PERSONAL things about her... You are adding to the drama and perpetuating the assumed guilt that Dannels saw in her before seeing her as innocent..
I condone the police actively pursuing a tip that a coach is having sex with students. Wouldn’t you?

If one person (the accused) decides to not testify in court.. HOW DOES THE WHOLE CASE CRUMBLE???
I’m thinking you mean the accuser here, and not the accused. Without the victim’s testimony and cooperation how can any sexual abuse case like this be prosecuted?

doiES THAT NNOT SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THE CHARGES SHUD HAVE NEVER BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD, AS CLEARLY THEY WERE BROUGHT FORWARD WITH NO EVIDENCE ....

THAT POOR WOMAN.. WHAT A NIGHTMARE..

The victim(s) did not ask for the police to investigate the matter in the first place so it’s understandable to me that they did not want the burden of the trial.

So its pretty easy to apply this type of LE behavior in a 10 yr old case, where rumours were and still are rampant..

Clearly you seem to have been affected by the rumours as you have even tolkd me that Nick shud have been arrested 10 yrs ago ...

I suspect you are not the only citizen there to feel the same way... where the rumours clearly gave you enough to make your opinion..that you still have...

Poor Leah, Poor Nick, and Poor W.B. oh and poor Coquille! what a mess!
What LE behavior are you referring to and claiming is a mess? That the police chose not to ignore serious allegations and investigate to protect the citizens?
Again, I said an arrest could have been made 10 years ago. Whether that means Nick or not, I can’t say, but you said that for me, so okay. The recent investigation led to his arrest so I won’t argue the point.
It’s ridiculous for you to say I am affected by rumors when I have only stated my opinion from my point of view.

tish...I couldn't have said that better myself.

AJ said....

I will clarify .. closed meaning inactive //dead in the water ... gone... if no further cause was issued..

why wud the file have been REACTIVATED because of a " tip"
iT DOESNT MAKE ANY SENSE.......WHY THE CASE WUD HAVE BEEN REOPENED ....
do you see my point???????
Inactive, reactivated, reopened? You are distorting the facts of this case to try to make a point. This case wasn’t handled by Reaves; the only connection is that the alleged incident happened when Reaves was chief and one of the victims was still a minor. You make it sound as if Dannels handpicked the case and went after the coach as a target because you want it to look like he is overly aggressive. If he were running the whole show it seems like he would have have intimidated, interrogated, coerced that victim right into telling what he knew in a court of law. I don’t fault LE for trying to persuade a victim of a crime to testify. Many victims are reluctant to go to trial. The fact that this case was dismissed goes to show that the CPD under Dannels would not railroad, fabricate, or otherwise be underhanded.
I would see your point if you hadn’t tried to tailor it.

For you to opine that there CUD have been anb arrest ..means that you believe that there waqs PROBABLE CAUSE... which makes my point... that you judged the case 10 yrs ago assuming guilt on someone (namely Nick) as you have not talked of any other known POI in fact ..I believe you have said in another post that the same poi from the start is the one who usually is arrested which is this case..

I’m a little tired of making your points, lol. You do always say that.. I make my own points just fine, you just don’t acknowledge it. So you’re going to tell me what I believe even though I can and have told you myself? Due to numerous problems with the original investigation which we mostly agree on, the case was not resolved. It could have been if things had been done differently but they weren’t. SOMEONE killed Leah Freeman and that is ALL I have believed for the last decade.

AJ said
Im not distorting any facts... the allegations made about the woman (were made under Reaves watch 2 or 3 yrs before Dannels came in.... )

"Coquille police arrested Boutiette in February, alleging she had sexual contact with a former athlete. Police arrested her on charges of second-degree sexual abuse, contributing to the sexual delinquency of a minor and sexual misconduct. The charges stem from an incident in 2006 involving a teenage boy who was on the Coquille High School track team."

http://www.theworldlink.com/news/local/article_0f7c1ce2-378a-5b5d-b76e-95c550aea5a0.html?mode=story

The above story is from 2009. Clearly the incident in question occurred in 2006 but came to light following the investigation that began in 2009.

Again, I don't fault LE for urging the victim to testify to prevent any further misconduct by a woman who worked with students.

AJ said
Also, I will acknowledge that the points you try and make are that you are impartial, you know more about this case, and the other case we are talking about, and that Nick shud have been arrested..

Those are the points I have seen you try and get across..


IMO, your points have come across to me as though maybe you havent been honest with yourself enough..

You say you are impartial yet you say Nick shud.cud have been arrested..
I already told you that someone could have been arrested if the original investigation had proceeded as it should have...you said it was Nick that I was talking about

IMO that suggests you see/saw probable cause a decade ago, yet you say you dont believ the rumours and have not been influenced..
Again, I saw an investigation that fell apart a decade ago and that is all

You say that the CPD wud have investigated other ppl...
so you have formed that opinion for some reason.. ( I have provided a link where one of the rumoured ppl involved stated that he had never been even asked about this case, when he was talked to on Aug 4 2000, by LE

You say that you dont jusge ppl guilty before proven innocent yet the other case on W B that we are also talking about ... where her charges were dismissed..

you say that she was guilty anyway................And Bill Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman.

So respectfully, you have not got any point across to me that I have/am open to hearing.. I have answered all of your questions and acknowledge what you say...so that hurts my feelings...on the other hand, I'm happy I have an open mind

I do acknowledge that your comment " food for thought" on the other thread (SIMILAR MURDER MONTHS LATER) gave me hope that maybe you can truly see that there were other ppl more likely to have committed this crime (like ped/killers) than Nick and even the drug thugs who were also rumoured to have been involved.. Interesting, since the parallels I drew would support Nick being a viable suspect, but thanks for proving that you're open-minded only if I seem to agree with you.

Since you appear to think that LE is looking for the easiest out, why wouldn't they just pick a random guy (say one of the hundreds of sex offenders around the area) and pin the crime on him? That way, the townfolk, Cory, the McGuffins, and the nation can be at peace and all elected officials in town and the CPD can save face?

And Bill Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman.

awaiting justice wrote:Littlethings..

My point again... Are you going to tell me that an allegation of a female coach made in 2006 where under Reaves watch, a poly was given she passed and was sent packing....
all of a sudden came bak to haunt her 3 yrs later after Dannles had been in office for just months????

I dont buy that .... clearly no common sense was used .. 1 kid ..three yrs before ..then all of a sudden big headlines .. dont get me wrong.. i dont condone child molesters etc.. but I think if she was a perp, it wud have been determined pretty quick ... 3 yrs and by the next chief in charge only month later..sorry not sold

I'm telling you that the allegation was NOT made in 2006, that is only when the alleged incident occurred for which she was charged, after a complaint was received in 2009 that she was having sex with a current male student. In that case, to say under Reaves' watch is misleading...this investigation, including poly, took place under Dannels in 2009.

AJ says...
OK so you are saying that an ALLEGATION came in 2009, where an accusation had been made about something that happened 3 yrs prior....
Correct, except it was alleged to have been going on since 2006, meaning that the sexual relationship began when the student (for which she was charged) was a minor and then continued

After a passed lie detector test, the accused was arrested anyway when there was only one person who made the allegations ????????

There were up to 3 victims uncovered by the investigation, which led to the arrest

If it was a current minor as you suggest, I wud imagine that it wud have been easy to get a confirmation of this alleged affair with DNA, tapes, etc ...

Clearly they didnt have any of that as they wud have never needed the " victim" ....
The victims did not want to be involved in any kind of court case. The charges that were brought were supported by a victim that backed out after the others had refused to come forward, too.

So again we are talking about " kids" 17 yr old kids who made an allegation for whatever reason .. maybe a bad mark, maybe rejection maybe anything.. and there was only their word and a passed poly and they went and arrested her anyway... dont get me wrong.. I am not saying the word shud have been discredidted but there cud have been many things done to ensure evidence.. If no evidence then no dice.. unfortunatley kids have been known to say horrible things for no good reason..

Im sorry but this is even WORSE... Now you are saying that the call was made about sometihng that allegedly happened 3 yrs ago with a person where there was not one shred of evidence other than one word??

I think it horrible.. I think if she was a ped. or was having relationships with minors, it wud have been easy to get hard evidence where there wud not be the need for any witness statements..

Which brings me to say that a horrible investigation failed everyone .. It wud have been more effective to do an ongoing investigation where if it was true about about liking 17 yr olds, Im sure it wud not take long before solid proof cud be obtained...

We’re talking about consensual sex, not rape, so a “sting” like that would have created more problems than it solved…LE couldn’t be responsible for letting her continue to have inappropriate contact with any other students. They did the appropriate thing and put a stop to it.

I think this case from start to finish was horrific...
It’s horrific on many levels, but not where Dannels is concerned.

AJ,

From the same article you posted:
“Since then, police have interviewed two other male students who said they also had sexual contact with Boutiette…” and it states that “Boutiette has worked as the head track coach or assistant coach off and on since 2002.”

That would suggest that this was more than rumor once it was investigated. Also, working off and on and being in a volunteer position where she had access to young male athletes might be a red flag. For at least 3 years of that time she may have engaged in inappropriate contact with students, so it’s not a stretch that it may have been taking place before that as well. No different than you saying the murderer of Daniella Elder must have been a pedophile and must have done it before, with no proof of that.

AJ says
“on account that it is said that the students didnt cooperate..suggests to me thhat they denied the rumour in the first place.. the article also stated that they didnt even know if one was a minor..”

LT says
We already know that it wasn’t denied as rumor since two male students said they had sexual contact with her when questioned. The article you provided states : “One of the students may no longer be a minor, and it was unclear Tuesday whether Boutiette is alleged to have had sex with that student before or after he turned 18.” Since she admitted to having sexual relations with one student, the only point of contention was whether or not that student was a minor when the relationship began.
I don’t believe that any responsible contributing member of the community would condone the police NOT investigating these serious charges to determine if a crime had occurred.

AJ says
Ruined family, 2 alleged ppl who may not have ever existed, a letter from a victim claiming that LE are harrassing him ...and dismissed charges... all at the taxpayers expense...

LT says
The victim that did not testify did not want the case pursued in the first place, which is not unusual at all considering it would have revealed his identity and splashed everything on the front pages of newspapers. From what I recall, the victim felt “harassed” because of LE wanting him to take a polygraph. So are you influenced by poly results, or by whether someone takes a poly or not? That’s rhetorical; you know as well as I do that you can’t have it both ways.

AJ says
You already said yourself that the ALLEGED victims werent cooperating.. so why the arrest????
Did LE feel they wud arrest now and worry about getting the ppl to testify in the meantime??? what was le going to do to force them to comply????

LT says
Because the arrest was warranted once victims were discovered. Obviously LE did not force anyone to comply since the case was dismissed.

So to recap from your original postings on this case, which you brought up to show that “This is an example of how this woman and apparently her private life got muddied for EVIDENTLY... nothing..and no good reason..” by Dannels, it would seem that there is whole other side to the story, and one that would not support your cursory conclusions that Dannels has EVER gone on a witch hunt.

A change of venue won't change the case presented, and I already answered your judgments on the other thread.

I think it sounds like Reaves is lamenting the case. How sad. He’s definitely taken lumps over this and he retired with unfinished business, although I think he can only blame himself for that. It makes sense to me that he would support the CPD’s renewed investigation of the case, and my impression from his comments is not so much that he’d like to see Nick be guilty, even if he did suspect him, but that he would like for Leah to have justice.

One thing that I noticed, too, in the article is that it said “When Dannels and Frasier assembled a cold case team of retired officers from various agencies that participated in the 2000 case, it did not include any from the original Coquille team.” A step in the right direction for the new investigation from the get-go.

Also, I was really pleased to read the outline of how the department under Dannels will handle missing persons cases. It is reassuring that changes have been made to prevent delays in cases like Leah’s.

awaiting justice wrote:I doubt not even the last known person was cheked out.

Who do you mean by this? The last witness who saw her on Central St?

awaiting justice wrote:Lt...

Re the cold case team.... I read that too... I have to wonder about these RETIRED PPL.. hmmm
one comes to MIND..

MIKE COOK???

ya know the guy who wud postr at the Worlds forum and make statements that support Corys beliefs..

RING ANY BELLS?????????????

The retired sheriff showed sympathy and support for the mother of a murdered teen...not exactly suspicious in my opinion, and if you want to know who's on the multi-agency task force, ask the powers that be.