Re: FAQs About Leah Freeman Case ???

by noagenda Mon Nov 01, 2010 1:06 am

For AJ,

You've accused me of painting Nick McGuffin as being guilty. I am innocent. Do I have opinions? Sure I do, but I'm not going to reveal what I think about this case because it's pointless to do so. I don't have access to all the information.

That said, I do have a hypothesis about what happened that night and who the culprit is and why the crime was committed. I don't share my hypothesis because it's my own opinion and I don't want to contribute to any misinformation one way or the other about this case.

Some people take the opinions of others as fact. Some people don't even take the time to properly research information and hearsay before offering information/hearsay as fact to support their point of view. Please don't confuse me with "one of those guys."

by littlethings Mon Nov 01, 2010 2:20 am

Well, I was most definitely attacked! And I feel violated! Sad

I'm only halfway joking...AJ's most recent comments to me were uncalled for but this a heavy topic and it's easy to get carried away, I suppose. I'd rather get carried away on case discussion, though, so I am so happy that this forum is moderated the way it is. I knew I liked it here! We could learn a lot from Mr. Do-Bee and Mr. Don't Bee (I loved Romper Room, lol) I was wondering why there weren't very many posters on this topic...now I think I know.

Noagenda,

I am not a copper but I (allegedly) play one on this forum! Very Happy

If you're the Lone Ranger, can I be Tonto? It's not satisfying if there's not real discussion happening, so I do hope you stick around.

by noagenda Mon Nov 01, 2010 2:26 am

AJ says in reference to me:

"You have basically smeared the coach and explained why the charges were dismissed yet where you practically convicted her and her character in the post that you wrote"

My response:

You brought this case up, not me. You brought this case up to discredit the Police Chief. I defended the PC because there was an admission by the victim that the incident had occurred and statements from other student witnesses as well which provided adequate "probable cause" that a crime had been committed. You neglected to mention the victim and witness statements in your attempt to use this case to slam Chief Dannels for, in essence. a "false arrest." Just my attempt to provide "missing" facts in the case presented by you.

The coaches admission to having sex with a former student after that student turned 18 was widely reported in the media here if you'd have taken the time to do some research. The fact that she was married when this event occurred is obvious. The extra martial affair she was having during the time of her arrest wasn't real news around these parts, although it was not reported in the media.

AJ said I wrote:

"You also wrote about another case where you too pretty well convicted the guy already.. or at least seemed to be happy with what allears to be a potential knee jerk arrest

My Response:

What case was that? Was that about the 11 year old child molestation case which happened recently? I cited that case as an example of why arrests can and should be made based on circumstantial evidence. I could go into the actual events of this case, but only summarized it in a sentence or two.

AJ said I wrote:

"You said Nick shud have been arrested 10 yrs ago"

Nope, not me, never said that here or anywhere else. I invite you to show me where I wrote that. Date and time of entry please...I'd really like to see it. But I suppose you will ignore this request, like you do so many others.

AJ said I wrote:

"You said you know things about the case"

Guilty. I do know some things about this case. You know some things about this case as well. Neither of us know all there is to know about this case, which is my whole reason for being in forums such as this one....to discuss "things about the case"....sheeeeesh

Have a good night hun

by noagenda Mon Nov 01, 2010 2:28 am

AJ:

I like how you think everyone "makes your point" for you. Can't you make your own points?

by Justice4all Mon Nov 01, 2010 4:45 am

I happen to think people should be entitled to an opinion without having to write a dissertation to support it. Some people think different because they believe popular opinion on a forum can result in a potentially innocent man being arrested, convicted, and sent to prison. If popular opinion on forums and blogs can cause convictions, why is Joshua Powell still walking around as a free man?

by noagenda Mon Nov 01, 2010 11:06 am

AJ Wrote:

"My attempt is to show ppl that an arrest have been made in your community where it appears that it was totally knee jerk where an investigation was not done with unbias, or support..and where there was no evidence"

An arrest was made because the police received information that a crime had occurred. They interviewed the victim and he confirmed it was true. They make an arrest. This constitutes Probably Cause. Under these circumstances, the police have no choice but to make an arrest.

You just don't get it, but that's ok, I wouldn't expect you to get it because it doesn't support the reason you brought this case up in the first place.

I'm still waiting for you to show me here I wrote that McGuffin should have been arrested 10 years ago.....

I think admitting to having an affair with a student she coached after he turned 18 (he was 18 incidentally...not "used to be a student and now 25" by the way), speaks volumes about her moral character. I didn't say she was guilty of the crime she was arrested for, I simply challenge her moral fiber since you try and paint her as a "victim."

This is all becoming very tiring for me. Now show me where I said what you say I said! I knew you would "gloss" right over that...

by noagenda Mon Nov 01, 2010 11:22 am

For AJ:

Did you know that accusing someone of something that isn't true (me writing that McGuffin should have been arrested 10 years ago for instance) tends to make you lose any form of credibility?

by sitemama Mon Nov 01, 2010 11:45 am

Quoted from AJ, red remarks are mine. I hope this makes sense:

I have not gone back and read all the articles, but just going by what Cory has said, so you guys may be correct, BUT, Cory thinks they have the right person, and I am inclined to go along with her.

I noticed you bolded parts of my comment, but not all. I also said: YOU GUYS MAY BE CORRECT.

You pick out what you want to emphasize to show that "we prove your points". However, you left out the part where I said you may be correct.

I know Cory knows a lot more about this case than you or I do. I know this for a fact, as I was privy to more info in my daughter's case when they arrested her husband for killing her. I'm sorry, but Cory and I are parents of murdered children and we do have a bond that someone like you could never understand. And I will never apologize for standing up for Cory, not to you or to anyone else on this site or any other site.

by littlethings Mon Nov 01, 2010 11:50 am

awaiting justice wrote:LT,

If WB admitted to having an affair with someone over 18 HOW IS THIS AN ADMISSION OF GUILT??? WTH?

WE were all students at ONE TIME werent we????

As far as my knowing any information, I have said what my sources are..

You havent which suggests that you have been caught up in rumours and believe things that you heard 3rd hand..

You also told me ypou knew the coach and that is how you were privvy to EXTRA information (which I will remind is not incriminating information.. married ppl who have affairs with adults are not committing a crime...
You judged her, and you know her, which reaffirms my position that residents like you have been polluted with rumours and prolly know Leaha family and like many, want to see a conviction as like you, believe he shud have been arrested 10 yrs ago..

Many ppl dont post on this subject because, like Sitemama, have taken Corys stand and beliefs, in their warped sense of empathy, where they will pray for Nick to be convicted because Cory believes he is the perp, (where many of these ppl ADMITTEDLY dont even know the case..

It is the same on many different forums..

In fact ppl who didnt agree or even raised the question of " maybe Nick didnt do it, were scrutinized, and even banned..

Also, in a facebook message Cory has asked her supporters to not write on this subject while their is a pending trial.. There are also comments in your WORLD newspaper, from readers who when asked questions had replies from several others, that inferred...no one shud write about the topic in fear of the trial being moved..

So you are kidding yourself as to why ppl arent posting ..

which also reiterates that many ppl on the net, and prolly your community, which is to believe everything that Cory has stated..

Hopefully some big network will look at the case from A REAL standpoint and question how a man cud be charged with a murder when the police chief admitts how the evidence was all over the place, and when a previous police chief writes that he thought Nick was guilty, as soon as the chief believed foul play was involved ...

Cllearly ..he did not in vestigate anyone else.. Why wud he when he thought he knew who the perp was ?????

I personally think you may want ppl to believe you are a cop, but I dont buy it... maybe a wannabee or a spouse or someone who has an interest in defending their community police... your " secret revelations where you admittedly say you know " some things" wiothout saying the source is where you may catch a gullable reader.. Im not one of them..

AJ-

I have discussed my views on the track coach case in depth with you, so I don’t see the need to rehash my posts on that because you are either not reading them or not understanding them. I will remind you, however, that I did name my source and there was no trickery there…and point out that you and I and everyone else receive info on Leah’s case “3rd” hand, to use your words.

You say "many, want to see a conviction as like you, believe he shud have been arrested 10 yrs ago..” I’ve said repeatedly that YOU said I believe Nick should have been arrested a decade ago.

You’re saying people don’t know the case (so they shouldn’t give an opinion and post here?) and yet you’ve demonstrated several times that you yourself don’t know the case (and that you don't know the WB case, as well.) You say “In fact ppl who didnt agree or even raised the question of " maybe Nick didnt do it, were scrutinized, and even banned..,” yet you are scrutinizing and attacking me for not agreeing with you on everything.

You make it sound as if the community wouldn’t support a change of venue. I’ve already stated that a change of venue will not change the evidence that is presented, so it’s not like I am against it.

Again, you have no way of knowing that no one else was ever investigated in Leah’s case.

You said I” personally think you may want ppl to believe you are a cop, but I dont buy it... maybe a wannabee or a spouse or someone who has an interest in defending their community police...” I don’t question you or your motives here, so knock off the personal attacks.

by littlethings Mon Nov 01, 2010 11:57 am

Justice4all wrote:I happen to think people should be entitled to an opinion without having to write a dissertation to support it. Some people think different because they believe popular opinion on a forum can result in a potentially innocent man being arrested, convicted, and sent to prison. If popular opinion on forums and blogs can cause convictions, why is Joshua Powell still walking around as a free man?

FAQs About Leah Freeman Case ??? - Page 4 88030

by sitemama Mon Nov 01, 2010 12:45 pm

awaiting justice wrote:Sitemama,

I believe you were offended when I quoted your below post, and made a point of it.. I dont think it had anything to do with feeling like you cudnt exppress yourself.. It was more that you have to be accountible for what you wrote.. and what you wrote made the point that I have been expressing ..

by sitemama on Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:27 pm

I have not gone back and read all the articles, but just going by what Cory has said, so you guys may be correct, BUT, Cory thinks they have the right person, and I am inclined to go along with her. Here is a message from Cory today:"

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

I copied part of your remarks from the previous page where you were quoting me. But you bolded all of that remark except the part where I said 'so you guys may be correct'. And by the way, you are not my teacher, so you have no right to order me to 'go back and fix my post'. Try remembering your past posts. But, while I am at it, I am asking you not to comment on any posts I write, and don't use my name in any of your posts. We disagree, so let it be.

by littlethings Mon Nov 01, 2010 1:09 pm

awaiting justice wrote:lol.. Little Agenda... No agenda... Agenda things or whatever your name is..lol...
Have I confused the (2) of you??????

Sorry if I did..

Its just that on account that ytou both claim to know the same information on the cases we have been discussing... and you claim to not know anyone on this board(((??)))

yet you BOTH sow up at the same place on the map ????

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
ANyway..

I believe I have brought valid points to this case..

I have shown where LE have cited that the integrity evidence and the investigation LACKED...

I have also shown an example of a case that where charges were brought forward, and later dismissed (after smearing a waomans name) where aparently the only person who was ever involved in the accusatory stages ..was never going to be involved (from the reading I assume it was the ADULT X student)

I was brought forward the remarks made by the defense attorney that the charges were (paraphrasing here..)
KNEEJERK, and harsh without warrant.. where it appeared to the defense that the motive was for media attention and notoriety... This is my opinion.. any reader has the benefit of reading the posted articles and can decide for themselves..

Before, you (guys?? lol) joined .. the point I have written on in Nicks case, is that there has been much APPARENT pollution of rumours and followers have been created based on specualtion and rumours where the original affidavit for warrant done even justify why Nick was a POI bedsides a keystone cops reliability of assessing the situation, which has clearlt lacked (even you have said this)...

Which of course ASSIST in leading to WRONGFUL convictions as a result of TOO MANY PPL having all heard diofferent stories over the last decade.. (where you have admitted that you too have " heard thing" ...

Respectfully, by the way you have freely shared your opinion of the coachs arrest (and her character) gives me the idea that being impartial wud not come easy for you, yet you write here that you dont know if he is guilty or innocent..

I pray the trial is moved far far far away.. so that the ppl who will judge him, have never heard the rumours and innuendo set out by LE and the biased media where many ppl have clearly followed the lead..

Whether you are/were/wannabbee a cop is irrelevant and you shudnt take offence as none was meant..

These are the points I write about

I have no idea who this post is directed to, and frankly don't appreciate the insinuation. It wouldn't be hard to keep us straight as there aren't many different posters on this topic. Two locals that are commenting on a local case that is heading to trial...and you think there's something odd about that? Where's the pitcher of Kool-Aid; don't drink it all!

I don't even know where or how to respond (hey noagenda, what's the name of that broken record you had as a kid?) since I see you are being less than genuine about your respect for other posters.

If you do want to actually engage in a discussion about the case with someone other than yourself, though, I'm all ears.

by littlethings Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:01 pm

Yes, I'm aware of your points. I just don't find them compelling and we have discussed them ad nauseam. I'll stay tuned, though.

by noagenda Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:23 pm

I can see nothings new here...same poster, same tired remarks...

For your information...The interview with the alleged victim in the WB case is confirmed information, not speculation, it is fact and it was reported by the media, so please do just a little bit of research before you post, it's apparent there are many THINGS you don't know and like to post "half cocked" so to speak...I'll stay turned as well, to see if anyone really wants to discuss this case.

by Justice4all Mon Nov 01, 2010 10:37 pm

We can discuss this noagenda, but every scenario I can think of leaves me with many questions that probably won't be answered until trial. From everything I've seen and read, it appears that Leah made it to Elm and was headed to the Haga residence.

If an unknown person abducted her, it's easy to see how they snatched her and took Coquille-Fairview Rd straight out of town. If Nick caught up with Leah, it was most likely between 9:20 and 9:30. If Nick is responsible, do you think he visited Denny's Pizza before or after catching up with her, and do you think he killed her before or after his 10:07-10:15 visit to the Mitchell's?

Do you think the witnesses actually spotted Nick in his parent's Thunderbird or do you think it was somebody else in a similar looking Thunderbird that was spotted between 9:45 and 10? Did Leah lose the shoe by the cemetery in a struggle or was it placed there later? If Nick was responsible, when do you think he took her to Lee Valley Rd, and what vehicle do you think he used to take her there?

by noagenda Mon Nov 01, 2010 11:22 pm

You want the last word on this AJ, is that it....fine you can have the last word, I'm tired of posting back and forth on this, especially when you ignore specific questions I ask you. We all have our own opinions, you have yours, I have mine. You know what they say about opinions, right? So can we file this away now?

by noagenda Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:54 am

For Justice 4 All:

I realize probably all of us want justice in this case. Some of us have undertaken our own little investigation to see if we could help solve the case. Although well intentioned, I think attempts to solve this case, or even to "prove this" or "disprove that" by constructing our own little time lines are fruitless.

Here's the major problem I have with all these "time lines." They are all constructed without access to all the information that's been developed. These time lines are based on a few affidavits which have been made public. These are the only documents in this case which have been made public. They are not the holy grail, they are simply a summary of events that were necessary in order to obtain a search warrant on July 6, 2000 and an affidavit for a supplemental search warrant on July 27, 2000....I believe those dates are correct. The police still thought they had a missing person on July 6. Leah's body wasn't discovered until August 3, 2000.

I guess my point is...the affidavits do list certain time lines and statements from various people. I don't believe the affidavits contain all the interviews and time lines, or that any of these time lines were adequately investigated and substantiated when presented on July 6. I don't think the investigation began in earnest until much later in the month. So we've all tried to build "accurate" time lines without having "all" the information.

I've been as guilty as the next person for having fallen into the "time line" trap. I have many, many pages of type written notes and observations based on the affidavits and even the Private Investigator's report.

I try to stay out of the time line business on this case. I don't think the time lines are accurate or complete. The time lines in the affidavits and the Private Investigator's report are different, which is troubling. Where people "were" "when" is different. I believe the time line is a trap and you can consume yourself trying to figure it out based solely on what's available to the public.

Here's what I do believe. The case was reorganized by a multi-agency task force. Evidence, witness statements and police reports were consolidated and members went through everything as if it were being investigated for the first time. Witnesses were re-interviewed. New reports were originated and included based on the reinvestigation. All the evidence was wrapped up and presented to the grand jury. The grand jury heard all the evidence and issued an indictment for murder. McGuffin was the subject of that indictment. Now it's time for a jury to be presented with this evidence at trial under full scrutiny of the defense team.

In essence, I gave up trying to solve this case based on evidence because I don't have all the evidence. I haven't judged McGuffin one way or the other. Like I said in my other post, I have a theory and I'm very interested to see if my theory is accurate or not. I won't know until the trial.

by littlethings Tue Nov 02, 2010 3:15 am

I have difficulty with the time lines as well because it's impossible for me to know what info was later corroborated by concrete proof of times, like receipts. It could be that some of it had been proven already and Nick's statements were inconsistent with that proof. I do believe certain things in the affidavit will always remain fact but I think other info could have been developed as each claim was investigated. It's a sneak peek into the investigation but I don't want to be misled by the info contained there. It could be that some important info or witness was left out.

I wonder if Nick and Leah did meet up around 9:20 or 9:30 pm, argue, and then she took off on foot, which would leave him searching for her at the places he thinks she might have gone to cool off. In that scenario, what happened after that- did he find her or did someone else?
It's said there are witnesses that place them together after 9 pm (is this purposely not mentioned in the affidavits because Nick denies seeing her after dropping her off at the Mitchell's?) and grand jury testimony has already resulted in an indictment. I am very curious to hear the prosecution's version of events and how the defense contends with it.

While I do enjoy a good discussion, I must say the tragedy of this case makes me so sad.

by littlethings Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:59 pm

In my opinion it’s possible that Nick gave statements thatwere contrary to what the police already knew to be true at the time. Besides Nick, others were also beinginterviewed and, like Nick’s, their statements may have been initiallyincomplete, and more info evolved from all sides as the investigation went on.
I don’t feel like I can say one way or another if the grandjury would have indicted back in 2000, since it wasn’t brought to a conclusion.Although the grand jury had been convened back then, one could say that Nickdid get the benefit of LE waiting for more evidence to develop before proceedingwith the case against him after Leah’s body was found. It would have beeninteresting to know what Bartley would have testified to back then.
The switching of the cars is a perplexing development asoutlined in the docs. Was it ever stated by Sherry what Nick was driving whenhe returned to pick Leah up? I can’t recall if it said that in the online docs ornot, but I will check.
Based on the docs and that time line, Lewis is the lastperson that saw Leah but that raises questions. Where was Lewis driving to, didhe arrive there shortly after seeing Leah as corroborated by other witnesses,and therefore did his statement pan out so he could be eliminated as a suspect?
I don’t see any mention in the docs about if or when LE mayhave checked Nick’s body for defensive wounds in the first days of investigation.
Like you said, AJ, the traffic stops can be accepted asfacts and wouldn’t be changed during the investigation. I would be interestedin knowing where in town the stops occurred. I also thought Nick told LE he waslooking for Leah at the time of the 10:30 stop only, but did he do that on theother one as well? I can’t recall.
I am not arguing that your beliefs cannot be inferred fromthe docs. I just have more questions than answers at this point to be able toreach any definitive conclusion.

by noagenda Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:38 am

For Aj:

You're correct, the shoe's became a factor on July 3rd and July 4th. So the investigation would have begun to turn "serious" at that point. There was no real action on the case, other than some cursory interviews and reports from June 29th to July 3rd. That's a larger window than most folks could wish for in order to clean up their involvement in any crime...again, pointing no fingers at anyone in particular.

Suspects are virtually always given an opportunity to "eliminate" themselves from an investigation by cooperating in an honest and truthful way with those conducting the investigation. I believe other persons of potential interest were looked at and dismissed. Law Enforcement or the DA isn't going to give us a list of potential persons of interest if they've eliminated them from contention.

According to the material I've been able to gather, McGuffin had given a statement to police early on. On July 5th McGuffin was reinterviewed by due to some "inconsistencies" in his original statement. He was offered a polygraph and took it. We all know the outcome of the polygraph, it indicated deception. None of this information is new and although it doesn't necessarily indicate he's guilty of anything, it doesn't do anything positive in the area of eliminating him as a suspect "early on" in the investigation.

Based on the information that we do have, and I'm the first to say we have VERY LITTLE INFORMATION in the big scheme of things, but...the matter of the Thunderbird bothers me. Nick McGuffin denied ever switching cars that night. BUT, a total of five people testified to the grand jury on 7/20/10 that they saw McGuffin driving the Thunderbird. Three of the five were with him earlier in the evening at Johnson Mill Pond and stated he was driving the Mustang at the Pond and the Thunderbird later in that evening in town. I don't believe these five witnesses are mistaken. Small town, not a whole lot of Thunderbirds to chose from and only one Nick McGuffin to choose from. Again, doesn't mean Nick is guilty of anything and I stress that....but why lie about that fact to police? Again, not doing himself any favors with respect to getting off the "person of interest list."

Anyway, I'm pretty tired so I'm going to call it a night I think. But let's do discuss this case, and without attempting to get tied down to time line that might not be worth a hill of beans when all is said and done.

by littlethings Wed Nov 03, 2010 3:57 am

Noagenda,

I know your post was for AJ, but what do you think about the possibility that Nick took his parent's car after going to his house to get movies on the day Leah disappeared? I know that I'm asking you to speculate about info that's in the docs that we both seem to agree are incomplete but I'd be interested in your opinion on that.

by littlethings Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:20 pm

awaiting justice wrote:LT,

LE said in their documents that the inconsistencies were that he never mentioned Dennys in his statement.. and the tbird ... (which wud mean if the 5 ppl were correct, then of course it wud be an inconsistency as clearly Nick never said he switched and his family has denied he switched..

I believe it wwud be safe to say that these (listed inconsistencies) where LE's concerns..

I dont feel that there were any others as I believe they wud have been listed.. as the 2 I mentioned above were both moot..

Cory has written that Nick Denise and herslef, discussed the evening of Jun 28, the next morning and Dennys was no secret.. I blieive it is plausible to think that he anyone (especicially under the pressure of being looked at as well as being worried sick) cud easily leave something out where I wud not expect that Nick wud have " proofread" with any kind of efficiency...

AJ,
I am not convinced that the listed inconsistencies are the only ones LE had. I feel that the documents are a glimpse to what was happening in the investigation…why, for instance, LE would want to search the Thunderbird, because witnesses claimed Nick was driving it, for example. Like you said, that would be an inconsistency, but I can’t rely on the docs to rule out that there were others,since I am only reading affidavits for search warrants.

I think info was purposely omitted from the docs and that in some places the docs are purposely vague to protect info that was crucial to the investigation.

I agree it is plausible that Nick did not intentionally leave info out of his discussions with police. Since I don’t know because I’ve never seen any actual complete witness statements, I also think it’s plausible that statements from others were also developed throughout the investigative process.

by littlethings Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:31 pm

awaiting justice wrote:LT,

In regards to BB, I think it is clear that he wud have testified and corroborated everything that Nick told them (about him going bak to BB's at approx 9:30, as well as picking up BB at approx 11 and returning him home in the wee hours.. before Nick went home at allegedly 2:30..

Heres why I have drawn that conclusion.. (and yes..I am trying in under 500 ...lol)

We see an immunity letter and clearly the immunity was declined, which suggests to me it was declined because there was nothing BB knew, and nothing BB needed..

We see that BB took 2 polys and were both claimed to fail in the areas of BB " knowing something" ...

We also know he had a lawyer .. I feel that he got a lawyer after he saw what happened to Nick.. He saw he had no lawyer and was being accused of having something to do with Leahs disappearance..

I believe that if BB knew anything especially that Leah was dead and that eventually there wud be a murder investigation... this wud have been the time where he wud have taken the immunity ..and with counsel...

I hear speculation that he signed the immunity where I feel this is just ridiculous...

Had BB kmown ANYTHING at all... especially where he was given immunity... there is no way in the world that the GJ wud have stopped..

We know they found Leahs remains on Aug 3 and allegedly BB and NM were supposed to testify on Aug 4...

I dont believe that the GJ wud have NEVER heard from BB even if LE and the coroner cud jnot determine a cause of death ..(which I believe is the case ..)

If he has flipped now.. (the only reasons I cud see wud be that if he didnt comply with LE, that he wud be charged too...) Im not suggesting this has happened but I wud be suspicious of why he wud flip now, as clearly there was no way he didnt corroborate Nicks timeline back then or it wud have been heard at the GJ in Aug 2000

AJ,
I feel that the grand jury proceedings that were stopped were a fact finding mission to determine Leah’s whereabouts before her body was found. There were complaints that people weren’t talking.

It’s hard for me to say if Bartley would have corroborated everything that Nick said happened. I think there was a reason that Bartley was only thought to “know something” while Nick was suspected of the actual crime. I’m not sure I could view Bartley as flipping now since I don’t know everything that Bartley has said in actual police reports or on the record. I think it’s logical to assume that he will testify at the upcoming trial. That may answer some puzzling things about this case.

I don’t fault Bartley or anyone else involved in a criminal investigation for retaining a lawyer so the fact that he had one doesn’t move me one way or the other. I do believe that the immunity agreement was left on the table back then and if that’s true,that could be interpreted two ways in my opinion: that Bartley knew nothing like you say, or that Bartley did not want to say everything that he knew, even if in hindsight it would have made the most sense to just spill it and get it over with. I can’t understand why if someone had important info they wouldn’t say so but it has happened in other cases and I can’t rule out that possibility in my mind just yet.

As for the cause of death, it may be that they don’t know,and that a theory (possibly from both sides) will emerge at trial. It could also be that they do know and that info is purposely kept closely guarded because it is crucial to the state being able to prove their case.

by littlethings Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:43 pm

awaiting justice wrote:LT,

Im trying to figure out the point you are making about LE checking the tbird.. (sorry)....

Can you elaborate

What I'm trying to convey about the Thunderbird is that LE wanted to search the car so all info in the docs is related to why they should be permitted to search it, and not necessarily how they feel it fits into the overall investigation.

by littlethings Wed Nov 03, 2010 11:19 pm

awaiting justice wrote:

Why wud Nick have been telling ppl that he is looking for Leah?

I've considered the possibility that Leah did not want to be around Nick that night, and in that case he would have been being truthful when he told people he was looking for her.

by littlethings Thu Nov 04, 2010 6:21 pm

I agree that Leah leaving Sherry’s before Nick was supposed to pick her up can be easily explained just like you said. She is mad at Sherry to the point of tears and figured she and Nick would meet up, so she got out of there, and started walking.

Because the affidavit time lines are only approximate and in my opinion do not account for every statement LE had, it’s possible now to manipulate the time lines to either demonstrate that there was no way Nick saw her, or to demonstrate that there is no way he did not see her. This can be done by changing the time line in certain places by 10 or 15 minutes here and there,and maybe by even less time in some places. It can also depend on whose version of events we’re following in the affidavits. The times listed in my opinion were only used to demonstrate LE’s doubt of Nick’s story back in 2000, that at the times he claimed to be searching for Leah on Central and didn’t see her,others saw her there, and so that warranted further investigation. I have no idea what info in the time line or in the snips of witness statements was confirmed or ruled out. To sum it up in a way that I hope makes sense,if we can rule out the Thunderbird sightings, what else can we rule out? If the witnesses at Hunter’s are accurate, where was Nick at exactly 9:05 pm?

I have a sneaking suspicion that there was a lot of teen drama going on that night. If I was going to suggest that Nick found her and harmed her, I would say that it may have happened after he left Denny’s for the final time and before the first shoe was found. I also agree that it is possible that she wasn’t going home, but to the Haga’s.

by noagenda Thu Nov 04, 2010 11:56 pm

For Little Things:

I agree with your observation that the time line in the affidavits aren't the only "times" law enforcement had available to them. The object of an affidavit is produce "just enough" information, which is truthful to the best of the originator's knowledge, to obtain a search warrant. These affidavits are only going to contain the information necessary for a search warrant to be granted.

The 20/20 show didn't yield much new information to me concerning the case EXCEPT I could see statements from various people on the time line posted in the "Leah Room" which ARE NOT contained in any of the affidavits. There's a whole host of witness names listed on that board that are new to me, and I've been following this case for a LONG time. I paused these frames and I could only read certain parts of these time line statements. The camera work was very crafty in that the "important" portions of these time line statements weren't visible on the frames.

So, in my opinion, there is probably VOLUMES of evidence, statements and interrogation documents the public are not privy to.

I'm not sure how the Thunderbird plays into this case, if at all and heck I'm not convinced McGuffin is guilty. There just isn't enough evidence available for me to make a decision. However, I believe he was driving the Thunderbird in town that night. Too many people saw him driving the Thunderbird for it not to be true. So I ask, if he has nothing to hide, why is McGuffin denying he drove the Thunderbird that night? As a matter of fact, his entire family denies he drove the Thunderbird.

Someone said if McGuffin was driving the Thunderbird that night it would tighten the time line in favor of Nick. I say not so fast my friend...we don't have a real time line because in the big scheme of things we see nothing except what law enforcement wants us to see. Let's remember, they released the information we have access to and regardless of what some people may think, they aren't stupid...they aren't going to release their "case" for all to see prior to any potential arrest or trial. They released these affidavits when they didn't "have" to, and they must have had a reason for doing so! Think about that for a moment or two.

The same with 20/20, they planted some seeds with some very general information, but really gave us nothing specific and nothing most of us didn't already know.

by noagenda Fri Nov 05, 2010 1:46 am

AJ:

It's getting late here and past my bedtime, but I'd like to quickly make a comment or two in regards to your post before I call it a night.

You wrote: "Also, the shoe revelation was new as well.. it had never been said that there was blood on the right shoe, as well seeing as the the shoe wasnt turned into LE for 5 days makes me wonder what damage/contamination was endured to the shoe.."

To use your own words: "You make my point for me" ...
Although this is new information for you and me, it's more than likely not new information to LE. I'll bet they knew there was blood on the shoe as soon as it was examined....they just didn't TELL US, the public. That's what I mean by we don't have all the pieces to this puzzle. It seems to me that anything you specifically haven't read in the affidavits is new information. You're correct, it is new for you...but not necessarily for LE.

In response to the affidavits being released to the public, you said: "It was imperative to get out to the public where she was seen and by who.. It cud have meant the difference of someone recalling something they may have saw..I dont believe it wud have benefitted LE at all by holding back on the timeline.."

I'm not absolutely certain on this, but I don't believe these affidavits were released until sometime in 2004. If LE was trying to keep the public "informed" as you say, they certainly took their time.

I don't work in LE, but I do know that LE doesn't give two hoots in hell if the public is informed about the status of a case. I'm sure if they had their "drothers", they wouldn't talk to the media at all. Their job is to investigate and solve cases. They would never reveal anything that could jeopardize or otherwise compromise their investigation. They talk to the media in generalities during an ongoing investigation and aren't going to reveal anything other than what they want the public to know. That's "Investigation and Public Relations 101".

You wrote: "Leah wasnt seen agaon after 9:15 pm and that is what the pretense of the investigation was ..If that is different now, it is NEW information (10 yrs old)"

That's correct, that would be new information. BUT.....How new was it? The fact that it was revealed on 20/20 doesn't mean LE didn't have this information 9 or 10 years ago....we just know they didn't have this information at the time those affidavits were written which was back in July of 2000.

That's it for me tonight. I hope everyone sleeps well...I will, g'nite

by littlethings Fri Nov 05, 2010 1:57 am

My responses are in bold

awaiting justice wrote:I believe that the times we have seen in the docs..
is the complete times that LE had .... and for a very long time.. I believe if there are any changes, they came much later..

The timeline we see was used by LE while Leah was missing... The community was involved.. The timeline was aired on the radio, tv and in the newspapaer.. If there were changes to it .. I cant see that they wud not have added to it..

it wud have been beneificial if they knew anything more..

Also the affidavit was filed July 27, with the timeline that we have in the docs.. I dont think anything wud have been " held back" ..

So it seemed for over a month nothing was changed in the timeline from Jun 28 went Leah went missing...

LT says

I disagree that the info in the affidavits made public is everything LE had at the time, so we will have to agree to disagree on that one.
To reveal everything on the radio, TV, and newspaper would have been very beneficial indeed—to the suspect. Also, it would have made it nearly impossible for LE to gauge who was telling the truth if they did not hold out some information. Stating a few instances of sightings would be plenty to encourage people with new info to come forward.

Also, had the timleline had any major discrepencies, the GJ wud have resumed, especially since they had Leahs remains and knew very soon, that Leahs death was by homicidal violence.. I believe the GJ wud have absolutely resumed shortly afterward to get an indictment..

LT says

I do believe there were discrepancies, but that it didn’t rise to the level of proof needed in acourt case. I also believe key people weren’t talking. The DA could have risked losing the case and not being able to retry it because of double jeopardy.

About the sightings.. I actually think this " tbird" is somekind of a lead that absolutley shud have been persued...

I have written before..I pray that LE checked out any other tbirds in that area... same make and color.. it may have belonged to the perp..

I remember reading that registered owners of that type of vehicle were checked through DMV.

In anything I write .. I usually say that I believe Nick and his family that he never switched cars, and that the tbird switching actually seems to work in his favor..in terms of locking the timeline even tighter.. but I do use it as I am not being " selective..."

In reply to your question.. " where was Nick at 9:05... (when she was seen at Hunters.. )

I imagine he was enroute back from Johnsons Pond..

I figure he likely left there at 9 or very close to it..

Also thanks for your answer.. I will quote you...

Littlethings said..

" If I was going to suggest that Nick found her and harmed her, I would say that it may have happened after he left Denny’s for the final time and before the first shoe was found. I also agree that it is possible that she wasn’t going home, but to the Haga’s."

---------------------------------------
So if we go with your kinda scenario my problem wud be...

Why wasnt Leah seen again after RL reportedly saw her at approx 9:15? There are apparently several witnesses that claim Nick was seen with Leah after 9 pm. We don’t know when that information was developed, or if LE had to fully develop other leads before revealing that info.

Where was she between 9:15 and to Nicks last trip to Dennys .. ? She could have been by herself crying for all I know…she was an upset teenage girl.

Also, if she was heading to Haga's it wud be plausible to think that she wasnt avoiding Nick at all...
If Nick and Leah had seen each other and had an argument, that wouldn’t necessarily mean she was done with him enough to go home. She could have only needed a break to think.

How did her shoe get to Elm, enroute to the Haga's? I’m thinking this is where someone took her from….I just am not feeling that the shoe was planted, but my mind can change.

Also, if Nick caught up with her sometime after his last trip to Dennys and when her shoe was found ..it wud only leave maybe 20ish minutes and itr alleged he picked up BB at around 11... If we go by the time line like you want to that’strue. I’m not sure 20 minutes would not be enough time as I don’t believe Leahwas killed where her first shoe was found. I read somewhere that in a statementNick said that sometime after 10 pm he went to the Haga’s. If he drove the same route as TM and Leah hadalready met foul play, would he have seen Leah’s shoe when he was either going thereor when he was on his way to Denny’s?

He was still allegedly looking for Leah at midnight when he and BB were driving, as well when he was stopped in the wee hours of the morning... This is another reason I feel I can’t rely onlyon the docs. We know from the docs that BB said he rode around with Nick, butnow there is more info from Steinhoff that might disprove that info- if BB hasn’tdisproved it himself already. LE knows the location of those traffic stops and whether or not Nick may have been alone during them, and I don't. Perhaps the locale or Nick's company (if anyone) is meaningful to their theory.

The oppurtunity wudnt really be there, as well as the behavior.. this wud have to mean that BB wud have had to be there and wud have to mean that the 2 of them committed a heinous crime in a very short period of time and had no defensive wounds...

and why???

If I am understanding you .. I wud have to believe that ..

Nick went to pick up Leah and she wasnt there, and he went looking for her..

For someone reason Leah went missing at 9:15 and then somehow concealed her location till sometime after 11 where Nick caught up with her sometime after 11 and struggled with her on Elm while with BB and her shoe was left there,

where 10 min later..a passerby came by and picked up her shoe..

Then Nick had Leah or something.. he hid her and maybe hid blood in (any) car and from hid it from being on his person.. and even saw LE again in the wee hours (in his mustang)

after this wud have taken place and then went by Leahs for some reason where he cud even confirm the light was on at 2:30 where Cory corroborates this... and then goes to sleep and then goes to corys the next morning to help look for her in his mustang???

I just done buy it .. If he was a Ted Bundy, maybe..

But nothing about Nick suggests that he is someone who can conceal his emotions...

Also, the property report from jun 29 is off the net but it contained Nicks clothes from the night before ???

I just cant see how he pulled this off.. in very little time and then still went looking for her...

I don’t think it’spossible to know if Nick had defensive wounds since it doesn’t seem LE checkedright away. I also don’t think we can say from what little we know that therewould have been a lot of blood. If Nick had done something to Leah, he couldhave driven past her house just…because. There is only his claim that he went to the window and tried to make contactand he may have done that, I don’t know.

by littlethings Fri Nov 05, 2010 2:09 am

noagenda wrote:For Little Things:

I agree with your observation that the time line in the affidavits aren't the only "times" law enforcement had available to them. The object of an affidavit is produce "just enough" information, which is truthful to the best of the originator's knowledge, to obtain a search warrant. These affidavits are only going to contain the information necessary for a search warrant to be granted.

The 20/20 show didn't yield much new information to me concerning the case EXCEPT I could see statements from various people on the time line posted in the "Leah Room" which ARE NOT contained in any of the affidavits. There's a whole host of witness names listed on that board that are new to me, and I've been following this case for a LONG time. I paused these frames and I could only read certain parts of these time line statements. The camera work was very crafty in that the "important" portions of these time line statements weren't visible on the frames.

So, in my opinion, there is probably VOLUMES of evidence, statements and interrogation documents the public are not privy to.

I'm not sure how the Thunderbird plays into this case, if at all and heck I'm not convinced McGuffin is guilty. There just isn't enough evidence available for me to make a decision. However, I believe he was driving the Thunderbird in town that night. Too many people saw him driving the Thunderbird for it not to be true. So I ask, if he has nothing to hide, why is McGuffin denying he drove the Thunderbird that night? As a matter of fact, his entire family denies he drove the Thunderbird.

Someone said if McGuffin was driving the Thunderbird that night it would tighten the time line in favor of Nick. I say not so fast my friend...we don't have a real time line because in the big scheme of things we see nothing except what law enforcement wants us to see. Let's remember, they released the information we have access to and regardless of what some people may think, they aren't stupid...they aren't going to release their "case" for all to see prior to any potential arrest or trial. They released these affidavits when they didn't "have" to, and they must have had a reason for doing so! Think about that for a moment or two.

The same with 20/20, they planted some seeds with some very general information, but really gave us nothing specific and nothing most of us didn't already know.

This makes sense to me. If Nick's whereabouts had been confirmed and the time line "tight" to show Nick had no opportunity at all, then the grand jury would not have indicted and I would expect to see a motion to dismiss from the defense.

by littlethings Fri Nov 05, 2010 1:05 pm

I've already commented on most of your questions in one way or another, so I won't repeat, but I will add:

I agree that if the general location or dates of sightings of Leah had changed, that info would have been put out in an effort to find her.

The "incorrect" article concerning the shoes may have also been a media leak that was plugged. Just saying.

If Nick is guilty, I don't think the crime was premeditated. Also, it would not have been smart for him to have disposed of her body on his own property. But that may have saved investigators a lot of time and effort, and spared the family a lot of grief. I would say he is decidedly unlucky that his alibi ultimately did not check out.

LE and the FBI have ruled out individuals over the years. The possibility of a stranger abduction is always open, I think. It was said that the defense attorney had a list a possible suspects for the authorities to check out as well.

There are so many variables and possible scenarios in this case. The trial may be the only way the family of Leah Freeman can finally get any answers, and it won't be a one-sided trial, so I would expect every angle to be covered.

by littlethings Fri Nov 05, 2010 5:59 pm

Look at that, you've gone on a rant again. I will answer your questions, though, since they sorta resemble discussion, in an unhinged sorta way.

AJ said

If he really did it... do you really think he or the ppl involved wudhave EVER talked ?????? especially in the first DAYS of herdisappearance when all the rumours started???????

LT says

No, and I think what they did or didn't say helped complicate the investigation. It would have been suspicious if Nick hadn't talked at all in the first days.

AJ said
His alibi didnt check out??????

LT says

No. He is awaiting trial.

AJ said
Leah wud have went off BY HERSELF UPSET, CRYING IN THE DARK ALONE FOR 2 HOURS where noone saw her...?????????

LT says

I already commented on this. No, she was not alone that whole time.

The blood spatter is described as "small droplets of blood," but the docs don't go into detail about the size, so unless you know something that I don't, that is subject to interpretation. My interpretation would be that I don't know if there would have been a lot of blood.

As far as defensive wounds, they may not have been obvious and could have been on concealed places on his body (chest, shoulder, etc.) I can't therefore say that he had none, and I can't say he had any, either. Leah was reportedly very small.

The docs state "I caused a check to be made with the Department of MotorVehicles and learned that Bruce and Kathleen McGuffin of Baker Road, Coquille,Oregon are the registered owners of a 1991 Ford Thunderbird." Spin it however you like. I say LE most likely got a print out of registered owners. But, hey, there may have been a Dodge driving around somewhere that night, too, with a culprit in it.

I don't know what your issue is with other people proposing scenarios or sharing their opinion, you have generously posted enough of your own. If you want to act like this is a competition then I have to say I'm not interested. And if you want to make comments like "(clearly, imo you/ NOAGENDA are very close to the invvestigation ..employees, maybe even Cory...or someone very close to her..)" then I have to say that I don't care what you think. Stick to the case, you know?

by littlethings Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:11 pm

tish wrote:alot has transpired since i posted last - i am even further disappointed to learn that evidence has also been "lost" in addition to what we found out from 20/20 that evidence was not contained or locked up - so it was "scattered" is what I think Dannels called it. How can anyone believe what LE says at this point? they have shot themself in the foot - this is like watching the Andy Griffith show w/ Barney Fife as the lead detective, I mean really??

So LE MUST have not found conclusive DNA in any vehicles that Nick had access to that night - the tbird or the mustang, and they go on a witch hunt to find another vehicle and the DNA in that one is inconclusive as well, so we're back to square one - and I can't believe for one second that w/ med to high velocity blood spatter on the bottom of Leah's shoe that there would NOT be DNA evidence - so where was leah?? I furthermore don't believe that nick could have cleaned all that up without leaving a trace. so who had leah??

The DA certainly has his work cut out for him trying the case with no physical evidence. Nick has one of the best defense attorneys in the state. It will be interesting to see what deficiencies on the part of LE will be brought to light at trial. I bet the discovery process is a daunting task for the defense right now, and I heard the trial is scheduled for only 9 days or so. I'm curious to see what the pre-trial motions will be, if any.

I wouldn't want any juror voting for conviction if they weren't 100% sure of guilt.

by noagenda Fri Nov 05, 2010 11:53 pm

AJ Wrote: "I suspect there will be someone to contridict that too... this case has clearly been made around Nick.. He has been made to fit the evidence..."

I don't contradict anything, I only make my own observations and I won't say I'm sorry if my observations are different than yours.

I say this...

(1) Neither you, I or anyone else know with any degree of certainty what evidence LE has or doesn't have. They haven't and will not lay their case out for us to dissect. Once they do lay it all out for us, then we can comment intelligently, one way or the other.

(2) What evidence we see that appears to be "new" to us may not be new to LE.

(3) I believe LE had a great deal of evidence but were reluctant to take it to a GJ until they had a chance to go through it all with a special task force and some outside agencies.

You Wrote: "All because he had no spare parts.. and no trunk mat"

I doubt that's the only reason. Also, to tell the entire story about the trunk...Nick McGuffin's own father gave a statement that the trunk mat and contents of the trunk had been "recently removed" to facilitate repairs (perhaps true, this isn't my point). My point is your "incomplete" statement above leaves the impression the mat and trunk contents may have been missing from the car for years! Funny how it's easy to slant things one way or the other, isn't it?

You criticize others for speculating on this, that and the other thing, but that's ALL you do. Among other things, you've accused me of being in Law Enforcement and employed by CPD. What a joke. What revelation did you base that statement on? Easy for you to deny posting that since I notice that post has now been deleted.

You paste posts from other forums that are critical of LE, the DA, evidence handling, etc...that support your "angle" on this case. You and at least one other reader here take these "posts" as the holy grail! I say forum posts are about as reliable as what can read in a tabloid newspaper. We know nothing about who posted on any forum or what their motive may be. I can make any claim I want on a forum and no one would be able to dispute it. If I hate the police, and believe me plenty of folks do until they need one, I can write anything I want in an attempt to slander them. I could even make something up. I might even "say" I gave them evidence which they "lost". Maybe true, maybe not, but I'm not ready to criticize the police over something an anonymous individual posts on an internet forum.

Even though I find your posts very tedious to read, and I don't read much of them because I can't...sorry, I do support your right to post them so long as they are based on something tangible. I feel you have the right to have your own ideas on this case, you're basing it on something (affidavits, statements, etc). You don't have the right to speculate on what I do for a living or what my motives are.

That's about all I have to say on the matter.

One more thing...I grew up in this area and am old enough to be retired. It's been my experience the best use of "The World" newspaper is for the Saturday coupons. That newspaper hasn't had a real journalist writing for them in more than 25 years.

Have a nice evening.

.

by littlethings Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:00 am

awaiting justice wrote:How do you know that Nick has one of the best defense lawyers on the state?

I heard that line used on the 20/20 show by the narrator...

I am wondering how you wud know such thing... In looking at their bio, theirs isnt any different from any other local lawyers..

You say ...
" I wouldn't want any juror voting for conviction if they weren't 100% sure of guilt."

Seems to me many rez (like you and Noagenda... already have your mind made up...)

Funny how both of you come here, claiming to have followed the case from day one where you have all the scenario down to a tee... claiming not to know each other.... both defending LE who have admittedly scattered the evidence where its whereabouts werent even known.. Sure you slam the first chief but praise this one...Why??? That seems to be ok in your books too..

Then you mention that they have no physical evidence...

How do you know that??? Your beliefs are inconsistent.. you say you cant believe what they say, yet you seem to be confidanr with their claim of having no physical evidence ...

Well, I will tell you that I wudnt even be surprised if all of a sudden physical evidence miraculously turned up...

Not that i think it was legit though...

How many ppl do you think had access to the evidence that was strewn all over the building???? Visitors? Maintenance workers, the meter man???? Maybe even the ppl who were in there being interrogated...

I cant believe you talk as though this case deserves any kind of respect....

The charges in this case shud have never been brought forward, and it shud have been a crime for the case to be sensentionalized (and prolly for money) ..

Deficiencies????? That word doesnt capture the tip!
How sad... Leah.. victim no 1.. Nick victim no 2....

Sickening...

What the junk? Attorneys have reputations, this one noted, and he's not even local.

Stop telling me what I think or feel or believe. You're so wrapped up in your own beliefs you can't even have a decent discussion or allow any free exchange of ideas on this thread. Some discussion forum this is... I think you ruin any chance of anything productive happening here with your endless diatribe about wrongful convictions-- and Nick's trial hasn't even started yet!

Go to it, I'm sure you have another epic post ready to flame me, noagenda, LE, the FBI, Cory, the DA, etc., etc., etc. Throw a little Obama in there just to be fair, ok? Bottoms up! FAQs About Leah Freeman Case ??? - Page 4 904296

FAQs About Leah Freeman Case ??? - Page 4 904296

by FystyAngel Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:08 am

I want to ask ALL posters to please refrain from making personal attacks. I know that some of you....LT & NA, at the very least, feel that AJ is attacking you but...I see that there are personal attacks being made to her as well. (comments about her tediously long posts, rants, etc.)

I will again, point you ALL in the direction of the "Rules"....I don't have many, please no more attacks on anyone.

~Fysty~

by noagenda Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:38 am

"You have consistently shown your admiration of LE and Nicks arrest"

I support LE, do I admire them? I admire the job they do and I appreciate their sacrifice and willingness to protect and serve. Have they made mistakes in the case? probably. Can they overcome what mistakes have been made? Remains to be seen. Are they always perfect? No, are you?

"You sure are protective of LE and Im not sure why??"

Not protective, I simply choose not to attack them at every corner. The public isn't entitled to know the inter workings of any case. I'll wait to hear the evidence before i pass judgment one way or the other.

"Also, funny how you are so convinced that LE ALWAYS had evidence and so much of it"

There was volumes of evidence I'm sure. I'm not sure of the quality of the evidence, good or bad. I'm content to wait and see because what other choice to I have? I could speculate and accuse, but you do enough of that for everyone.

"I doubt LE had any evidence bak then... You seem to suggest they did and for some reason help back from a GJ"

I am "speculating" you meant "held back"? Assuming so, they wouldn't hold back...it's up to the DA to go forward...if the DA isn't 100% satisfied the case doesn't go forward. The DA only gets one chance to try a case, so he has the final word on what's enough.

"I also heard that one of the witnesses may have some TIES to LE, or their daughters"

I heard it froze in hell yesterday...doesn't make it so.

"Nicks father NEVER gave a statement that said any such thing.. He simply said that there were repairs and work being done on the trunk He never specified any listed content"

You need to go back and reread the affidavit...which states:

When the officer made a comment that it was curious there was nothing in the trunk..."Mr. McGuffin explained that the items had been removed from the trunk as the car was in need of repair"... the officer went on to write that the trunk looked to have been recently repaired and there was evidence of a gas leak. That statement indicates to me that there were items in the trunk until recently. My point was not so much what might have been in the trunk, but with your observation that it wouldn't be strange for there to be nothing in the trunk of a 30 year-old car.

I have my opinion about how I choose to interpret certain things. You are entitled to how you choose to interpret things as well. I have no problem with that...I do have a problem with all the personal attacks and assumptions about me personally.

I make no accusations about you as to why you think McGuffin is being framed. I've never said I thought he was guilty or innocent, even though you did wrongly accuse me of writing he should have been arrested 10 years ago. All I've ever said is I'll wait to see what is presented at trial.

Now, I believe we've exhausted all avenues of constructive criticism with one another. I do not plan to converse with you any further. We just disagree...so if you feel the need for the "last word"...have at it. I so look forward to each and every one of your misspelled words.

by littlethings Sat Nov 06, 2010 3:25 am

AJ said

Little..

I never said a word about the FBI, other than it is very unfortunate they werent called in....

LT says

I apologize. I must have misunderstood when you said this:

awaiting justice wrote:
You must know that the FBI worked on this case very early.. so they too missed it..

by noagenda Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:17 pm

For LT

+1

by FystyAngel Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:56 pm

FystyAngel wrote:I want to ask ALL posters to please refrain from making personal attacks. I know that some of you....LT & NA, at the very least, feel that AJ is attacking you but...I see that there are personal attacks being made to her as well. (comments about her tediously long posts, rants, etc.)

I will again, point you ALL in the direction of the "Rules"....I don't have many, please no more attacks on anyone.

~Fysty~

noagenda....In case you MISSED this post....I'm reposting it. I do NOT appreciate the comment made about AJ's spelling. We have no "spelling police" here at RC. If you want to criticize the comments she makes, then fine, but please refrain from personal attacks.

I am getting REALLY tired of having to post stupid shit like this post, every time I turn around. This site is an 18+ site...can't we ALL act like adults???

by noagenda Sat Nov 06, 2010 3:11 pm

FystyAngel

I didn't miss your post; however, I'd like to remind you I didn't start these personal attacks. You have a poster here who attacks anyone who doesn't agree with their take on this case. I'm not going to let someone attack me, make totally inaccurate posts telling me I posted things I didn't post, denies making posts that are obviously there for everyone to read, modifies her posts after being called on things, refuses to answer questions that don't support her take...sorry, can't let that "shit" slide.

You have a nice day.

by Justice4all Sat Nov 06, 2010 5:05 pm

There isn't much more I can say about this case until I see it presented at trial. I'm not going to make my mind up based on a couple of search warrant affidavits and a 20/20 episode.

After studying Google street view, it is very doubtful that Nick could've drove past Leah walking on Central without seeing her. It is about a 21 minute walk from the Mitchell's to the corner of Elm and Central. It is about a 3 minute car ride from the Mitchell's to the corner of Elm and Central, and it is about a 2 minute car ride from Denny's Pizza to the corner of Elm and Central.

Nick had to either leave the Mitchell's about 19 minutes after Leah did, or leave Denny's Pizza about 20 minutes after Leah left the Mitchell's in order to not catch up with her on his way to Knott before she started walking on Elm.

I don't think the affidavits make it clear how long he missed Leah by at the Mitchell's house. Also, since he didn't tell Chief Reeves about stopping by Denny's Pizza, it's not clear if he drove from the Mitchell's to Denny's and then up to Knott, or if he drove from the Mitchell's straight to Knott.

Once Leah was on Elm, she could've been abducted by an unknown perp where her shoe was found, or Nick could've caught up to her at any point on Elm, 18th, or N. Fir on her way to the Haga residence, since at some point it looks like Nick told police that he stopped by Bartley's at 9:30 while looking for Leah. Most likely if Nick was the perp, someone placed Leah's shoe on Elm later that night before 11:30. It wouldn't make sense for him to physically attack her 300 feet down the road from a gas station when she most likely would've been willing to get in the car with him.

The attorneys have until December 15 to file any pretrial motions and there may be another 20/20 episode since I've read they were going to spend 2 to 3 episodes covering Leah's case, but we probably won't learn too much more before the trial.

Most scenarios lead me to more questions, many of which have probably been answered during the course of the investigation without the answers being made public. I look forward to seeing both sides present their case. I haven't seen enough information to come to the conclusion that Nick should've never been a suspect or never been charged. If anybody wants to question my intelligence or accuse me of making excuses of wanting to wait for the trial to draw any definite conclusions about this case, that is their prerogative.

by littlethings Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:24 pm

Well put, J4A.
The one true known victim in this case is Leah Freeman. FAQs About Leah Freeman Case ??? - Page 4 442181

Anything beyond that remains to be seen.

by khintx Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:36 am

I think Steven Robertson should certainly have been considered and investigated as a possible suspect. kh

See thread for details:

http://www.realitychatter.com/leah-freeman-f22/similar-murder-6-months-later-bombshell-same-community-t2847.htm

by Justice4all Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:10 am

awaiting justice wrote:J4A said..

" After studying Google street view, it is very doubtful that Nick could've drove past Leah walking on Central without seeing her."

It is very possible... If Leah left Sherri's at 8:50, and Nick didnt get to Sherris till 9:07 or later, it is extremely possible.. In fact based on Leahs sighting at Hunters at 9:05 by Kirn and McAdams... it suggests that Leah left Sherris at approx 8:50 maybe 8:52... and puts her at Hunters at 9:05.. This was the only sighting of Leah that more than one person corroborated the tiime..

It makes perfect sense that Nick did not see Leah and these ppl didnt see Nick...

Clearly he was farther behind than just a few minutes..

It's possible the 9:05 siting is more accurate than the 9:15 siting, but we don't know that for sure. The correct time could also be anywhere between those two times. It's possible Nick missed Leah if she had a big enough head start and was already on Elm before he passed Elm on his way to Knott. All I'm saying is it's not likely he would miss her if he physically drove past her while she was still walking on Central.

by Justice4all Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:31 am

awaiting justice wrote:J4A,

Do you think the person who allegedly found the shoe,
in the dark ( I believe the street isnt lit)

at 11:30 pm, the night she went missing

while he was on his way home from work

and turned it in 5 days later

where it is said the person who found the shoe,(allegedly at the side of the road) where he suspected the shoe may have belonged to his kids or the neighbor kids, (where they lived WAYYYYY down the street?

If so, what wud you have expected in their investigation...

Based on this info (which is all we had) ... do you think this person shud have been a suspect too?

I would've checked his alibi and hopefully LE did. It should have been pretty easy to check his time punches and check with his supervisor to determine if he was at work until sometime between 11:00 PM and 11:30 PM like he claimed.

khintx wrote:I think Steven Robertson should certainly have been considered and investigated as a possible suspect. kh

See thread for details:

http://www.realitychatter.com/leah-freeman-f22/similar-murder-6-months-later-bombshell-same-community-t2847.htm

I also think Steven Robertson should have been investigated. I would like to know what made them dismiss his possible involvement so quickly. I hope they had a better reason to dismiss his involvement besides the fact that he knew his other victim and dumped her body close to his home.

by littlethings Sun Nov 07, 2010 4:13 pm

J4A said of Robertson

I would like to know what made them dismiss his possible involvement soquickly. I hope they had a better reason to dismiss his involvementbesides the fact that he knew his other victim and dumped her bodyclose to his home.

LT says

I hope so, too. Maybe he was in jail or confirmed to be in another county at the time of Leah's murder. That could lead to a quick conclusion that he could not have killed Leah.

If it can be speculated that Leah fought violently against her killer, leaving defensive wounds on him, I think it would be curious that no foreign hairs or fibers would be found on her or her clothing. If that's even the case- the defense may find something in the crime lab results that point away from Nick or others that Leah was around that night.

The sightings of Leah from Hunter's got me wondering...if the guys that saw her knew her, I wondered if they knew Nick, too, and may have claimed to see him driving on Central around that time, as well. From the docs that were showed on 20/20 (what little we can see of some of them) it appears that in a roadblock interview one of the guys (I think it's Kirn) may have spoken to Nick later in the evening at McKay's, that Nick was driving the Thunderbird, and possibly that Nick had someone in the vehicle. It would be interesting to know what Kirn's version of events was and what Nick's version was. It can all be very confusing without all of the pieces.

by khintx Sun Nov 07, 2010 4:48 pm

littlethings wrote:..........
If it can be speculated that Leah fought violently against her killer, leaving defensive wounds on him, I think it would be curious that no foreign hairs or fibers would be found on her or her clothing. If that's even the case- the defense may find something in the crime lab results that point away from Nick or others that Leah was around that night..............

But if Leah fought violently against her attacker, would not Nick have had cuts, bruises, scrapes, (DNA) etc on him? And I don't see anything that says he did? kh

by littlethings Sun Nov 07, 2010 5:11 pm

I didn't see anything that said he had defensive wounds either, and since he was seen the day after Leah went missing, it's probably safe to say he had no obvious ones.

I could speculate that he may have had bruises or scratches somewhere that was hidden since I don't see where anyone checked his body in the early investigation. It's been said that Leah was small, and therefore maybe she was easily overpowered and so her killer had no defensive wounds.

To me it's another one of those things that could go either way.

by khintx Sun Nov 07, 2010 5:19 pm

They should have, yes? They suspected him very early on in the investigation? kh

by Sponsored content