FAQs About Leah Freeman Case ???

tish wrote:I don't believe that for one second - however, apparently the statue of limitations for accessory is only 3 yrs in OR - so maybe they weren't granted immunity, but were told that they wouldn't be charged because of the statue of limitations?

There is no statute of limitations for murder. kh

kh...from what I understand...there is no statute for murder but there is a 3 yr statute of limitations for "accessory".

FystyAngel wrote:kh...from what I understand...there is no statute for murder but there is a 3 yr statute of limitations for "accessory".

Then why would they have to offer immunity to anybody? kh

AJ...I didn't mean to imply that you did. I'm sorry if I made it sound that way. I was just explaining why I haven't been posting as much as I probably would like to in this whole Leah Section. Believe me...there is LOTS MORE I'd LIKE to say but because I was privy to some things that Cory & I talked about...I have avoided posting on certain subjects.

Because of your great posts, I haven't had to post. You have done a great job investigating, researching, etc. & have said MANY, MANY things that I would have loved to post. Almost like taking words right out of my mouth.

I know that my judgment on Nick is a sore spot with Cory. She has emailed me & is NOT happy with me at all. I told her that we post both sides here & try to be fair. She does not believe that. She believes that we are pro Nick. IMO, it's not about that. It's about Justice for LEAH. Hanging someone....anyone is NOT (IMO) Justice for Leah.

awaiting justice wrote:KH ... just to reiterate.. Tish was referring to a statute of limitations on an ACCESSORY/ACCOMPLICE....

It is rumoured that this law exists..

I have been reading statutes all day lol..

I know you have. So, when you're done maybe you can splain it to me? (500 words or less would be great!) kh

You know I love you AJ. kh

khintx wrote:

FystyAngel wrote:kh...from what I understand...there is no statute for murder but there is a 3 yr statute of limitations for "accessory".

Then why would they have to offer immunity to anybody? kh

I was wondering about that kh. I've also heard that Oregon has a three year statute of limitations for accessory to murder, but I can't find anything online to confirm it.

Nick's friend was offered immunity back in 2000 before the statute of limitations would apply, but I read a recent article that said somebody else was also offered immunity.

Justice4all wrote:

khintx wrote:

FystyAngel wrote:kh...from what I understand...there is no statute for murder but there is a 3 yr statute of limitations for "accessory".

Then why would they have to offer immunity to anybody? kh

I was wondering about that kh. I've also heard that Oregon has a three year statute of limitations for accessory to murder, but I can't find anything online to confirm it.

Nick's friend was offered immunity back in 2000 before the statute of limitations would apply, but I read a recent article that said somebody else was also offered immunity.

Not a legal eagle......... especially in other states...... but it sounds fishy to me. Does that mean you can be a party to a murder, an accessory (before, after or during the fact), or impede an investigation, and after 3 years you're scott free? kh

awaiting justice wrote:KH SAYS....
" Not a legal eagle......... especially in other states...... but it sounds fishy to me. Does that mean you can be a party to a murder, an accessory (before, after or during the fact), or impede an investigation, and after 3 years you're scott free? kh "


hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm how about not only being protected by a statute, but how about turning around and fingerpointing for a fringe benefits for later on down the road??????????????????????????????????

I'll take "finger pointing" for $200, Alex. [que Jeopardy music here] kh

AJ said

There were other affidavits for warrant on the net... they were against 3 others ..

I do hope there is a link for these...there is no link for this info on Leah's official website. Also, just to play devil's advocate since there are a lot of posters that believe LE is corrupt and Nick is being framed...what is everyone's opinion on the "rumor mill" that AJ talks about? Isn't it possible that a lot of rumors could have been started by Nick himself or others involved to try to throw off the investigation?

littlethings wrote:AJ said

There were other affidavits for warrant on the net... they were against 3 others ..

I do hope there is a link for these...there is no link for this info on Leah's official website. Also, just to play devil's advocate since there are a lot of posters that believe LE is corrupt and Nick is being framed...what is everyone's opinion on the "rumor mill" that AJ talks about? Isn't it possible that a lot of rumors could have been started by Nick himself or others involved to try to throw off the investigation?

I love playing devil's advocate.* I'm on it! kh

*Disclaimer: I am not sure what "rumor mills" you are referring to. Could you elaborate? Thx. kh

If I understand correctly, ORS 131.125 says the statute of limitations for any felony not listed is three years. Accessory to murder isn't specifically listed, so it looks like it falls into the three year category. Conspiracy or solicitation to commit murder is listed and doesn't have a statute of limitations.

http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb3200.dir/hb3263.en.pdf

Justice4all wrote:If I understand correctly, ORS 131.125 says the statute of limitations for any felony not listed is three years. Accessory to murder isn't specifically listed, so it looks like it falls into the three year category. Conspiracy or solicitation to commit murder is listed and doesn't have a statute of limitations.

http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb3200.dir/hb3263.en.pdf

Hmmm............ a "felony" could be a robbery, breaking/entering, Rx fraud, theft, assault, etc, etc. I would find it hard to believe that the statute of limitations for "a felony" would include murder or accessory to murder, or obstructing/impeding a murder investigation. I've been wrong before though. kh

awaiting justice wrote:

khintx wrote:

awaiting justice wrote:KH SAYS....
" Not a legal eagle......... especially in other states...... but it sounds fishy to me. Does that mean you can be a party to a murder, an accessory (before, after or during the fact), or impede an investigation, and after 3 years you're scott free? kh "

AJ says..
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm how about not only being protected by a statute, but how about turning around and fingerpointing for a fringe benefits for later on down the road??????????????????????????????????

KH says...
I'll take "finger pointing" for $200, Alex. [que Jeopardy music here] kh

AJ says..

KH,

You have control of the board...........................

dee nee nee nee,... nee neee neee.... dooot dee doo doo......

Thanks, Alex. I think I'll take my $ and go home! kh

khintx wrote:

Justice4all wrote:If I understand correctly, ORS 131.125 says the statute of limitations for any felony not listed is three years. Accessory to murder isn't specifically listed, so it looks like it falls into the three year category. Conspiracy or solicitation to commit murder is listed and doesn't have a statute of limitations.

http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb3200.dir/hb3263.en.pdf

Hmmm............ a "felony" could be a robbery, breaking/entering, Rx fraud, theft, assault, etc, etc. I would find it hard to believe that the statute of limitations for "a felony" would include murder or accessory to murder, or obstructing/impeding a murder investigation. I've been wrong before though. kh

I've heard that many Oregon residents aren't happy about this and want it changed. The only felonies specified seem to be murder, manslaughter, arson, and sex related crimes.

Here is what it says about murder:

A prosecution for aggravated murder, murder, attempted murder or aggravated murder, conspiracy or solicitation to commit aggravated murder or murder or any degree of manslaughter may be commenced at any time after the commission of the attempt, conspiracy or solicitation to commit aggravated murder or murder, or the death of the person killed.

Justice4all wrote:

khintx wrote:

Justice4all wrote:If I understand correctly, ORS 131.125 says the statute of limitations for any felony not listed is three years. Accessory to murder isn't specifically listed, so it looks like it falls into the three year category. Conspiracy or solicitation to commit murder is listed and doesn't have a statute of limitations.

http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb3200.dir/hb3263.en.pdf

Hmmm............ a "felony" could be a robbery, breaking/entering, Rx fraud, theft, assault, etc, etc. I would find it hard to believe that the statute of limitations for "a felony" would include murder or accessory to murder, or obstructing/impeding a murder investigation. I've been wrong before though. kh

I've heard that many Oregon residents aren't happy about this and want it changed. The only felonies specified seem to be murder, manslaughter, arson, and sex related crimes.

Here is what it says about murder:

A prosecution for aggravated murder, murder, attempted murder or aggravated murder, conspiracy or solicitation to commit aggravated murder or murder or any degree of manslaughter may be commenced at any time after the commission of the attempt, conspiracy or solicitation to commit aggravated murder or murder, or the death of the person killed.

So, you're sayin the above (aggravated murder, murder, attempted murder, etc, etc) ARE covered by the statute of limitations in ORE? kh

khintx wrote:So, you're sayin the above (aggravated murder, murder, attempted murder, etc, etc) ARE covered by the statute of limitations in ORE? kh

Yeah, but accessory to murder isn't.

Justice4all wrote:

khintx wrote:So, you're sayin the above (aggravated murder, murder, attempted murder, etc, etc) ARE covered by the statute of limitations in ORE? kh

Yeah, but accessory to murder isn't.

But, theoretically speaking, if you were never charged as an accessory, then 3+ years later you would have immunity and you could point the fickle finger of fate at whoever you chose, PLUS claim immunity? kh

khintx wrote:

littlethings wrote:AJ said

There were other affidavits for warrant on the net... they were against 3 others ..

I do hope there is a link for these...there is no link for this info on Leah's official website. Also, just to play devil's advocate since there are a lot of posters that believe LE is corrupt and Nick is being framed...what is everyone's opinion on the "rumor mill" that AJ talks about? Isn't it possible that a lot of rumors could have been started by Nick himself or others involved to try to throw off the investigation?

I love playing devil's advocate.* I'm on it! kh

*Disclaimer: I am not sure what "rumor mills" you are referring to. Could you elaborate? Thx. kh

Thanks for playing! Or trying to, I was vague. I forget how many different topics are on this board (and I love it!) There is another thread about rumors in Leah's case and how they have influenced people, etc. Going with that, I wondered if anyone has considered that the people involved in the crime may have started the rumors?

I'm also very curious about the quote from AJ : "There were other affidavits for warrant on the net... they were against 3 others .." Do these affidavits exist or has the info just been discussed on other forums? Anyone know for sure?

[quote="littlethings"][quote="khintx"]

littlethings wrote:
Thanks for playing! Thank you! Or trying to Thank you?, I was vague. I forget how many different topics are on this board (and I love it!) I love it too, but it's hard to keep up with everything sometimes There is another thread about rumors in Leah's case I did not know that and how they have influenced people, etc. Going with that, I wondered if anyone has considered that the people involved in the crime may have started the rumors? Good question! I wonder that too.

I'm also very curious about the quote from AJ : "There were other affidavits for warrant on the net... they were against 3 others .." Do these affidavits exist or has the info just been discussed on other forums? Anyone know for sure? I read about those......... let me try to find a link for you. kh

I am sleuthing for links, but I just have to say this: I think it is very strange (and sad) that 10 years after the fact, even Leah's mother has never even been told the cause of Leah's death, the way she was found, what she was wearing, whether or not she was sexually assaulted, etc.

kh

Thanks AJ.

But just one other thing that really bothers me:

The fact that everyone's memory has suddenly got BETTER after 10 years.

I mean, a lot of defense attorneys try to delay their clients' trial dates for as long as possible because witnesses' memories GET WORSE WITH TIME, NOT BETTER, and they depend on that to chip away at the prosecution. kh

http://www.leahfreeman.com/documents.htm

1.Affidavit, dated July 6, 2000, for search warrant to search 1967 Ford Mustang owned by Nicholas McGuffin
2.Search Warrant issued July 6, 2000 to search 1967 Ford Mustang owned by Nicholas McGuffin and the results of the search
3.Affidavit, dated July 27, 2000, for search warrant to search the person of Nicholas McGuffin, the 1991 Ford Thunderbird owned by the parents of Nicholas McGuffin, the property located at North Fir in Coquille, Oregon and the property located at Baker Road in Coquille, Oregon.
4.Search Warrants issued July 27, 2000 to search the person of Nicholas McGuffin, the 1991 Ford Thunderbird owned by the parents of Nicholas McGuffin and the Property located at Baker Road in Coquille, Oregon
5.Supplement Affidavit for Search Warrant dated July 28, 2000 submitted outlining new information in connection with the Affidavit for Search Warrant submitted on July 27, 2000
6.Results of Search Warrant conducted on July 28, 2000 in connection with the Search Warrants issued on July 27, 2000
7.Copy of Faxed Proposed "Immunity Agreement" offered to Brent Bartley through his attorney by the Coos County Assistant District Attorney, dated July 27, 2000
8.Property Report, dated June 29, 2000 from Leslie Ann Bartley
9.Leah Freeman's Birth & Death Certificates
~~~~~~~~~~

What affidavits are we talkin about? kh

khintx wrote:

Justice4all wrote:

khintx wrote:So, you're sayin the above (aggravated murder, murder, attempted murder, etc, etc) ARE covered by the statute of limitations in ORE? kh

Yeah, but accessory to murder isn't.

But, theoretically speaking, if you were never charged as an accessory, then 3+ years later you would have immunity and you could point the fickle finger of fate at whoever you chose, PLUS claim immunity? kh

My previous answer came out wrong. There is no statute of limitations on aggravated murder, murder, attempted murder, etc, etc. You can be charged with those at anytime. Accessory to murder falls under other felonies and has a statute of limitation of three years. After three years, it looks like you can admit to helping somebody cover up a murder and hide a body and not face any charges.

I wonder if Bartley, Kristin or somebody else talked.

Thanks khintx for the links you provided...but I was hoping to see something new based on what AJ posted. Boo hoo.

AJ said

ABOUT THE AFFIDAVITS .. here is what I think.. I believe they used to be on Leahs website.. I think they have been removed.. the only cahed item i can find is a note allegedly from the DA.

It appears that more affidavits may have been on the leahfreemand website..but may have been taken off..

So you're not referring to affidavits for warrants involving other people at all...you're referring to the PI report.

From Leah's official website: Seven years ago the family retained the services of a private investigator. The findings of the private investigation were independent of any law enforcement investigation into the matter.
Since the private investigator's report does contain information which is not contained in any of the documents released thus far by the District Attorney's office, it has been decided not to publish the report on this website. It could be counter productive to publish information on this website which could compromise or hinder any on-going investigation being conducted by law enforcement personnel.


So it would seem that the official documents are still sealed up nice and tight.

I've been reading the posts on this, as well as the other Leah Freeman topics on this forum for several days now. I'd like to jump in if I could with a few observations and comments and perhaps an opinion or two.

First of all, since I live in the local area, I've been following the Freeman case virtually since day one. I've been visiting the Leah Freeman website for several years; since before it was "redone" a few years ago. The legal documents which are there now, have all been there since it was relaunched back in 2008 or so. The only document that "used" to be there that has since been taken down was a private investigator report which was not part of the official investigation. The family hired a private investigator and put this report up with the affidavits which are currently still there. This report was taken off the website because it wasn't part of the "official" released public information. I did read this report before it was removed and it contained information about the "Kia" and insinuated that Bill Sero and few others should be persons of interest. Nothing else has been added or removed, but one of the links to a Property Report, no longer is active.

Anyone would be very naive if they believe the documents listed on the Leah Freeman website, or any other website for that matter, is the "only" information law enforcement has on this case. These are the only documents which have been released to date. I'd wager law enforcement has volumes of affidavits and reports not yet released. Also, I saw nothing on 20/20 that was "new" evidence and if anyone expected to learn of any new evidence, they would likewise be very naive. Law enforcement isn't going to reveal any new evidence on a television show prior to a trial...so, no surprise there.

Just thought I'd throw my 2 cents into the bucket.

"What did you think of the local law enforcement having 20/20 in town to discuss how the office before him had Leahs evidence all over the place and misplaced files?? or the narrator telling of how his run ins with Cory over a botched investigation toppled the former police chief.. ? Did you think it was good for Coquile or Leah?"

You make it sound as if the former Chief of Police was fired over the investigation. He retired almost 9 years after this crime occurred. Was the investigation botched from the beginning? Most definitely. You had a chief who didn't believe a crime occurred for the longest time. The whole case was treated as a "runaway" for at least three weeks.

What we have on the internet are a few affidavits for search warrants that are based on other documents and police reports which still haven't been made public. There are volumes of reports and investigative reports that the general public isn't privy to.

The PI report was on the website for a short time. It was a shabby document to say the least. The investigator who allegedly did the investigation didn't have a stellar reputation to begin with. All it did was highlight some other individuals who weren't exactly upstanding citizens in the community and outline their "stories" with respect to what happened. It was a completely worthless investigation that looked like it may have taken all of a couple of hours to prepare. I don't think Cory was disenchanted because it didn't name Nick as a prime suspect, I think she was downright pissed off by the quality of effort that was put into this investigation.

I think the city of Coquille now has a police chief who is thoroughly professional and dedicated to his profession. He's set standards for the force that were obviously lacking prior to his hiring. He's dismissed two officers for misconduct and sets a standard that didn't exist before. He's had a stellar law enforcement career prior to being hired as Coquille's police chief. His professional appearance is in stark contrast to the shabby looking former chief who I never recall being in any uniform other than blue jeans and a faded polo shirt. I suppose what I'm attempting to say is this:

I trust the current chief to be qualified to organize the existing evidence, reports and files....to be able to oversee the task force who went through this evidence and conducted new interviews...and to be able to "go where the results take him."

He's made an arrest. Is it the right guy? I don't know, but I'm certainly not going to form an opinion one way or the other based on a few affidavits posted here and there on the internet. Nope, I'll wait for the trial and see what they have. I do plan to attend each and every day of this trial.

This is really all I have to say on the case. I'm not Law Enforcement, the District Attorney, the Jury or the Judge. It's not up to me to determine if someone is innocent or guilty, especially when I'm not privy to all the evidence. It's up the system. The DA thinks he was enough evidence to make an arrest and go to trial. Let's do it and see what he has. Isn't that how the system works?

If you attend the trial, give us updates, would you? Thanx. kh

awaiting justice wrote:ABOUT THE AFFIDAVITS .. here is what I think.. I believe they used to be on Leahs website.. I think they have been removed.. the only cahed item i can find is a note allegedly from the DA.

It appears that more affidavits may have been on the leahfreemand website..but may have been taken off..

----------------------

" A grand jury was scheduled for August 2000, but called off following the discovery of Freeman’s body. No suspects have been named in the case. Coos County District Attorney Paul Frasier recently explained to local media that while the case is considered “cold” investigators remain active following any and all tips they receive. In regards to the search warrant affidavits for McGuffin and Sero and other legal documents released in regards to the case, Frasier told local media that “the persons named have not been excluded as potential suspects.” Those legal documents are available to download and view at http://www.leahfreeman.com Courtright is not alone in seeking justice for Leah. In 2008 the Coquille Valley Crime Stoppers was founded."

here is the link.....
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:G1H0s50kObcJ:crimeshadowsnews.com/main/2009/07/unsolved-homicide-leah-nicole-freeman/+In+regards+to+the+search+warrant+affidavits+for+McGuffin+and+Sero&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

You think this link you posted is from the DA? Bogus. It's from another source reporting what the DA said about the people named in the documents on Leah's website when the PI report had been posted there. And there has never been search warrant affidavits released that refer to 3 other people...that is misinformation if I ever read it. Tsk tsk.

Just a thought, too, that if you want to use things that Cory has said to you or posted elsewhere to support your conclusion that Nick is innocent....well, yuck. That's disrespectful.

Cory has been very vocal, sharing her thoughts with friends, family, community, LE, on the internet and at crimeboards. I don't think discussing things she has said is disrespectful.... and i feel like everyone here is going above and beyond to be respectful and mindful of what both both families are going through/have been going through in this tragic and as yet unproven case. kh

AJ said
Littlethings,

Cory apparently, allegedly, told the same things to many ppl..

LT says
You’ve stated that you feel Cory has enjoyed her local celebrity status and has developed a cult following on the internet. I won’t argue that she hasn’t posted abundantly on the internet so that’s neither here nor there. That’s your take on it and so be it.

How can you say writing what I know and what I can see clearly, is disrespectful to Cory?



LT says

My reservations come from your speculation that she is so consumed with Nick being guilty that she has tunnel vision…yet Nick has been arrested and that development would be something the parent of any murdered child would want, a suspect standing trial. She is not discussing the case here and now, however, and I think it’s disrespectful to use her words to bolster your own argument. Along the same lines, it’s just my opinion that if the victim’s mom did have all the info from the official investigation, perhaps she would not divulge everything to amateur sleuths she met on the internet before the authorities had the opportunity to show their hand.
It goes back to the fact that I know something about the track coach that destroys all of her credibility in my book and because of that you accused me of “adding to the drama and perpetuating the assumed guilt that Dannels saw in her before seeing her as innocent..” How can I be sure that you are not trying to use what Cory has told you to perpetuate your theory that Nick is innocent? I think it’s a slippery slope, that’s all.

AJ says
Have you thought about Nick M. and his family????

I see Nick and the McGuffins in the exact same boat as Cory..
Unfortunatley this is now about another sesnless loss imo, where I have outlined why...

LT says
Of course. It’s a sad situation for all involved. Nick will have the opportunity to answer the charges against him. If any of your theories are correct, I am confident that it will be revealed at trial. Leah Freeman is gone forever. No matter the outcome, the McGuffins will still have their son. Still without a doubt, it is tragic for both sides.

AJ,

Just one question about your post to noagenda so I can be sure I understand your point of view. It's your take that the PI report gives info that other people were involved and pointed away from Nick. Is it your contention that LE was only focused on Nick (you've stated many times that they had no other suspects) and they did not follow up on the people in the PI report?

We can also recognize that in a lot of cases tried in this country every day (not just Oregon), circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused person to a crime. What you would call he said, she said. A solely circumstantial case is hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but the alternative would be to allow guilty parties to go free even in cases where the totality of the circumstances may clearly convince a jury that a defendant is guilty. That’s a scary thought.

Maybe the defense in Nick’s case can show that the investigation was not done properly to begin with, that evidence was contaminated, and that all the state has is finger-pointing witnesses. If your suspicions about witnesses being coerced, harassed, or rewarded for lying are founded, then the state runs the risk of the direct testimony of those witnesses being dismissed completely by the jury and the jury finding reasonable doubt. I see what you’re saying and don’t deny that there is a potential for the scenario you suggest, but it seems very unlikely that it would stand up to scrutiny in a court of law. In other words, the state would not get away with it. There are rules of evidence that have to be followed at trial.

AJ said
IMO, if this is the case, and this is what the case/investigation boils down too, the I wud have to say that charges shud have never been brought forward at all, as there cud be room for enough pollution that it wud become impossible to predict who is telling the truth and what motives are driving a person..

This wud be an example of a circumstantial case, that shud never have had any charges as there wud be just as much CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence to point away from the accused...

LT says
You do know that probable cause is not equal to absolute certainty and that your statements above are the reasons that this case is going to trial, right?

Awaiting Justice

I'm not going to debate you because it would be pointless. I do have a few more comments before I bow out however. It's easy to make judgments about this, that and the other thing based on second hand information you read on the internet or in news stories. It's quite a different situation when you live in the area and know some of the "participants."

I personally know the "young woman" you refer to. I believe the police had to make an arrest based on the information they received...what are they supposed to do, set up a sting? You don't do that in a situation such as this. If the information and investigation warrants an arrest, you make an arrest. Key witnesses refused to testify in this case, so the charges were dismissed. It doesn't mean she was guilty, nor does it mean she was innocent.

She admitted to having a sexual affair with a previous student...had the this affair while she was married. I also know she was having another affair, not with a student, while playing this "innocent victim." This young lady is far from reproach with respect to moral character. She was playing a pretty good role as a victim in the media...all the while continuing to have an extra martial affair at the same time. Do I know this to be fact? You betcha...the guy she was carrying on with was a friend of mine.

There was another situation in the area which occurred last week. It came to light that a step father was molesting his 11 year old step daughter. The information came from another 11 year old student who allegedly learned about it when the victim told her. The information was conveyed to the school and then the authorities. Within a day, the suspect was arrested. I suppose you wouldn't think there was sufficient probable cause to make this arrest either....I mean it's only based on hearsay from an 11 year old child...the actual victim did not report this to anyone but her 11 year old friend.

With respect to the Leah Freeman case, you remind me of a broken record I used to have when I was a kid. Just kept hearing the same thing over and over again whenever I played it.

Good Luck to ya though.

AJ wrote:

"This wud be an example of a circumstantial case, that shud never have had any charges as there wud be just as much CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence to point away from the accused..."

You do realize the defense can exploit any "circumstantial" evidence at trial that points to the innocence of their client, right? I mean it isn't a "one way street" ya know.

awaiting justice wrote:

littlethings wrote:AJ said
IMO, if this is the case, and this is what the case/investigation boils down too, the I wud have to say that charges shud have never been brought forward at all, as there cud be room for enough pollution that it wud become impossible to predict who is telling the truth and what motives are driving a person..

This wud be an example of a circumstantial case, that shud never have had any charges as there wud be just as much CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence to point away from the accused...

LT says
You do know that probable cause is not equal to absolute certainty and that your statements above are the reasons that this case is going to trial, right?

------------------------------------

Sure do!! Also know that "reasonable cause" may have been warranted .. but as soon as a proper investigation and some braisn were put to task, they wud have seen that the circumstances in which they were suspicous about were silly..

A 30 yr old car with no spare parts.. and an exposed trunk with a visable gas leak.. a timeline that clearly shows Nick cud not have done it.. and a bunch of rumours from teenages becasue of LEs suspicion..
Clearly .. it was LE who perpetuated the rumours ..

Again, you’re using only the documents that were released as a basis for screaming wrongful conviction. Open your mind to accept that there are thousands of pages of documents that are sealed that you don’t know about. LE perpetuated the rumors? Yikes! You throw out a lot of accusations!

It’s disturbing to me that you have already decided Nick will be convicted. And very disturbing that in your version of society child molesters would be free to offend again and again, and a man that may have committed murder would never have to answer to the charges against him. I may have nightmares…

Hey noagenda,

Do I know you? If so, let's grab a beer sometime!

noagenda wrote:There was another situation in the area which occurred last week. It came to light that a step father was molesting his 11 year old step daughter. The information came from another 11 year old student who allegedly learned about it when the victim told her. The information was conveyed to the school and then the authorities. Within a day, the suspect was arrested. I suppose you wouldn't think there was sufficient probable cause to make this arrest either....I mean it's only based on hearsay from an 11 year old child...the actual victim did not report this to anyone but her 11 year old friend.

I'm not sure how Oregon does it, but in Michigan a child victim goes through one investigative interview at a Care House. All the professionals involved in the investigation gather to witness this interview so there is no need for the victim to repeat the story and relive the trauma over and over again. I had a friend whose seven-year-old daughter was sexually abused by an uncle-by-marriage who was babysitting her at the time. Almost three months later, she stayed over at a different aunt and uncle's house and told her eight or nine-year-old cousins what happened. The cousins told their mom, who informed the victim's mom.

The victim was interviewed at a Care House, and they decided her story was true and arrested the uncle. The uncle pleaded guilty and was sent to prison, but his family still tries to deny it and says it was a setup by the 7-year-old victim and her mom.

I had no problem with an arrest in this case, but I agree that an arrest in this type of case shouldn't be made without the victim confirming the accusations.

I'm going to make a guess that the 11-year-old victim confirmed the abuse and that led to the arrest. Just like the victims in the track coach case confirmed the sexual contact and that led to that arrest.

If I'm understanding AJ, it would seem that LE is supposed to investigate a tip but are not supposed to make an arrest based on a victim's word alone because that may lead to a wrongful conviction. Interesting point of view but that would just not work and could have scary consequences for victims and society! If I am misunderstanding AJ, then nevermind. One is presumed innocent even if arrested, though.

Here's another thing I don't get, AJ, regarding Leah's case. Based on affidavits for search warrants only, you have decided that LE did not have probable cause. Are you talking about probable cause to get a search warrant? Because that is really all that can be told from the docs you're reading, and a neutral magistrate already approved those warrants.

I did not portray the situation of the 11-year-old girl. It is a reasonable assumption that the victim confirmed the abuse, just like in the case J4A commented on.

AJ said
In regards to the warrants in Leahs case... I dont think there was probable cause in the first place..

LT says
Neutral magistrates disagreed and signed off that the warrant requirements were satisfied.

It's a leap to assume that the warrant wasn't needed...you have no idea what the actual reports contain. The only premature suspicion I see here is that Nick will be wrongfully convicted. There is no clear picture of either side yet.

awaiting justice wrote:Littlethings...

Respectfully...

What ever point you came to discuss and make has failed...

On all threads that we have discussed... here is my opinion...

I believe that you are a current resident based on the way you write..

I believe you do not give anyone the presumption of inncoence..

I bel;ieve you are a gossip and believe and sprwad what you hear..

I believe that you will defend the CPD, no matter what despite the atrocities that we have talked about in all 3 cases...

Hearing you go on about a case ( I have not looked very hard, but I found nothing) on the reporting on this alleged 11 yr olds

You either know someone in LE where you believe everything they tell you, and then take the information and spread smear and cast suspicion agaisnt the accused.. which if tru, wud br the worst betrayal of trust an LE cud do....

I am sickened to hear your convictions on ppl who havent even been tried, and ones where charges were dismissed..

You are portraying to me that Coquille operates on the jury of public opinion, which is clearly rampant based on not only you but another new mwember here, who has your same views and also claims to personally know of the accused in one case we have discussed..

What ever your mission was ... you have reaffirmed to me ..that it was quite possible that rumours are what was used to make a case agaisnt Nick where you have no plrblems for the justice system to work in this capacity.. SHAME ON YOU...!!!

Or you are LE and you are discussing VERY PRIVATE details of cases that you have no business in doing ..which wud be the most unprofessional thing an LE cud do imo..

Aw, you’re just sore because I don’t agree with you on every point. Shame on you for not accepting that there are two sides to every story and being willing to discuss it rationally. Your accusations are baseless- there is nothing to suggest that the investigation under Dannels has been mishandled, like there is nothing to suggest that I am LE or that I am here on a "mission." Keep your thoughts in orbit!

AJ:

Your major problem is that if someone doesn't agree with your point of view, you attempt to discredit or condemn them. I haven't seen to much you have written that I agree with, but I don't condemn you for it. You are entitled to your opinion...I just wish you'd take the advise someone already gave you...which is to keep your responses to 500 words or less. You do tend to ramble quite a bit (I refrained from using the term "rant.").

I rarely read your posts in their entirety because I tend to get "lost" in them.

Here's the bottom line...you think I think that Nick McGuffin is guilty. I never wrote that I thought he was guilty. I only wrote I thought there was enough probable cause to make an arrest. Now it's up to the DA to prove guilt. Circumstantial evidence works both ways. CE is sometimes compelling enough to make the case and sometimes it isn't. If there is enough CE to show that the suspect may not have committed the crime, it would be up to the defense to present that in an attempt to prove innocence. All I've ever said was...Let everyone have their day in court and we'll see what comes of it.

As far a knowing the suspect in the other case I'd like to elaborate a little on what I presented. I wasn't aware I was "reporting" new facts in that case. The suspect did admit to having an affair with a "previous" student she coached AFTER that student turned 18. As far as knowing her....she's a coach for heavens sake, a lot of people know her. I know her perhaps better than others because she became involved "romantically" (I used the term "romantically" in order to put it in the most gentle way possible) with someone I know well. The police investigated the allegations, the victim admitted it happened during a police interview and then refused to testify later. I believe the police acted properly in making the arrest, but without victim testimony there isn't a case in court...so the case was dismissed. Nothing improper with this in my opinion. If you have a problem with it, I have no problem with that. The problem I have is you condemn others for not agreeing with your opinion. You can't discuss things....you point fingers and accuse.

You accuse Little Things of being in Law Enforcement. You think LT's is law enforcement, so therefore it is true. Gimme a break. You assume Little Things and I know each other. Because you think so, does that make it so? You sound somewhat paranoid to me. But I'm not accusing you of being paranoid, I just suspect you are paranoid, no probable cause!



For Little Things: You a copper?

Ok Ladies & Gentlemen.....Lets stick more to the "Topics" & less on each other. Damn, I can't believe that I really am even posting this. I pride myself (and this site) of having very few "Rules" and really never having to enforce any....I remember a little Romper Room Video....Anyone else??? LOL

Please know that I am joking....well...sort of.

For Fysty Angel,

I thought forums were for discussions and expressing opinions. Instead, I get attacked for not agreeing with someone else's opinion.

For AJ,

Again, I never said I thought the accused was guilty or innocent. Instead I will wait for the trial and see precisely what evidence is presented.

With respect to the other case, I haven't presented anything which hasn't already been reported in the local media, except for the extra martial affair. You brought the subject up, not me. You brought it up in attempt to discredit the Police Chief. You like to paint her as an innocent angel who was railroaded by the local police. You know NOTHING about this case. The police simply did their job based on victim and witness testimony obtained via a proper investigation. Then later the victim and witnesses got cold feet and wouldn't testify. Plain and simple. The police did what they are paid to do.

You all can have your forum here. It's dominated by someone who wants to impose her views on everyone else and no one else can have an opinion about anything unless it corresponds with hers.

for the record. I know no one on this forum. But I enjoy a little tongue in cheek, get a life and loosen up a little AJ.

Enjoy, I'm out.

FystyAngel wrote:Ok Ladies & Gentlemen.....Lets stick more to the "Topics" & less on each other. Damn, I can't believe that I really am even posting this. I pride myself (and this site) of having very few "Rules" and really never having to enforce any....I remember a little Romper Room Video....Anyone else??? LOL

Please know that I am joking....well...sort of.

noagenda...I jope you don't feel that I was attacking you with my above post. It was meant for everyone...not a single poster. I don't want anyone to be attacked. You are right...the site IS for DISCUSSIONS...not on each other...but on the cases.

For Fysty Angel,

No, I didn't feel as if you were attacking me at all. But, I find it difficult to express an opinion in this forum. it seems another poster wants to dominate and attempt to discredit anything anyone else might have to say about anything. I and other posters are accused to posting things we never posted....the poster in question seems to feel as if they can post any conclusion they want to without knowing the actual facts and demand everyone else to accept it as fact. This poster has posted much misinformation, quoted people connected to the case as saying things that were not said, etc, etc, etc. When called on it by others, she just ignores it and blows more smoke.

I thought this would be a good place to come and share opinions, etc. it should be, but it isn't. I don't come here to defend anyone, haven't pointed a finger of guilt at anyone...hence my screen name "noagenda". But because I don't necessarily agree with someone, they accuse and condemn and it's actually funny...because they know nothing at all about me.

noagenda, I feel exactly as you do. I have been a member on this site since it started, and I really hate when we get a new member, ready and willing to discuss cases and then get put down by another poster to the point they don't want to comment here any more.

I, like you will wait for the trial. And except for this post, I have stopped commenting on this particular subject. Please try some of our other topics, and please don't leave because of this one topic.

by the way, we have great fun in the game room. Come join us any time. I'm so sorry you have had a bad experience but stick around.

For Sitemama,

Thanks, I was beginning to feel like the "lone ranger." LOL

I will explore the other subjects/topics, but I do have a keen interest in the Leah Freeman topic. Been following it for 10 years, and I know a little about what's going on. There is much more to this case than was presented on 20/20 or what's available to read on the internet. I'm very interested to see what the prosecution has and since I'm retired, I do plan to attend each and every minute of the trial when it begins.

Thanks again for making me feel welcome.

Thanks, I was beginning to feel like the "lone ranger." LOL

You are welcome.

Thanks again for making me feel welcome.

And, again, you are very welcome to RC