Re: FAQs About Leah Freeman Case ???

by Justice4all Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:05 pm

awaiting justice wrote:Are you going to let a sensationalized show, casue you uncertainty?

I already had uncertainty before watching 20/20. Neither the affidavits nor the 20/20 episode have presented the entire case against Nick. 20/20 was all over the place and did not lay out a step-by-step timeline of what the prosecution thinks happened. I've tried to take things from 20/20 and the original affidavits to figure out how they prosecution may lay out their case against Nick. If you watch the first segment where they are talking about Nick looking for Leah, they didn't even make it clear that Nick visited the Mitchell's twice that night, and they made it sound like Nick called Cory an hour after Cheri suggested he call Cory. Later on in the show, they finally mentioned Nick's second visit to the Mitchell's house.

by Justice4all Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:32 pm

awaiting justice wrote:Have you considered that Nick may have missed Leah by 20 minutes??

We originally heard that Leah left B4 9 and that Nick got there at about 9:05...

Cud it not mean that there was a bigger gap than that???

If it said that Nick went to BBs at about 9:30 and we know he had been to Dennys between 9:15 and 9:30 and we know Leah was last seen at about 9:15...

It cud see,m very likely that Nick didnt get to Dennys till 9:20ish from Sherrys and that Leah wud have already been at elm street (from the credit union at 9:15... at 9:20 which is the time that Nick wud have been leaving Sherris or at Dennys...

It seems that if we look at the time line without injecting any deception in anyones times and events.. I cant see why you dont think Nick cud have LIKELY missed Leah altogether...

We originally heard that Leah left at at approximately 9 PM. Depending on which part of the affidavits you read, it is said that Nick returned to the Mitchell's at approximately 9 PM or at approximately 9:05.

Nick obviously missed Leah by more then five minutes at the Mitchell's or he probably would have seen her on 4th just before she got to the corner of 4th and Central. I have considered that Nick could have missed her by 10, 15, or even 20 minutes. If he missed her by 10 minutes, he probably caught up with her. If he missed her by 15 minutes, he may or may not have caught up with her before the spot on Elm where her shoe was found. If he missed her by 20 minutes, he probably didn't catch up with her before the spot where her shoe was found.

If you want to take times from the affidavits, one witness puts Leah in front of Hunter's at 9:05 and another witness puts her near the Credit Union at 9:15. Hunter's is about 11 minutes from the Mitchell's house on foot. If you use the Hunter's time, Leah would have left the Mitchell's around 8:54, and made it to the spot where her shoe was found by 9:16. The Credit Union is about 12 minutes from the Mitchell's house on foot. If you use the Credit Union time, she would have left the Mitchell's around 9:03 and made it to the spot where her shoe was found by 9:25.

If you remember, I haven't decided whether Nick is guilty or not. I know that some people read my posts and think I'm insisting that he's innocent while others read my posts and think I'm insisting that he is guilty. We have to wait until May until we see everything the prosecution has, and to hear from the witnesses who placed Nick with Leah after 9 that night.

by prayerbone Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:26 pm

J4all whats ur opinion that Nick, never knocked on Cories door he had been told Leah was going home

by Justice4all Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:05 pm

I think Leah told Cheri that she was going home, but then decided to walk to BB's grandparent's house and hoped Nick would pick her up along the way.

If what Nick said was true and he drove to Bartley's grandparent's house and up and down Central and failed to find Leah, I think he should have been concerned enough to knock on Cory's door or at least call. I find it strange that he didn't, but like AJ said sometimes teenagers are afraid of getting each other in trouble. I've also read somewhere that Cory had already made them break up once, so he might have been hesitant about contacting Cory and telling her he didn't know where Leah was.

The main reason I have suspicions about Nick is that his girlfriend was missing, and his main alibi was that he was driving around looking for her around the same time frame that she went missing. He also said on 20/20 that he spent about four hours looking for her that night. I find it weird that after calling Cory shortly after 10, he spent another three hours or so looking for Leah without calling Cory back or going to her house, but then he finally checked her house at 2:30 AM, saw a light in Leah's bedroom, and was convinced that Leah had made it home safely.

The affidavits also say that Nick made inconsistent statements to police about that night. I would have to see full transcripts of his statements to determine how inconsistent his story was. The only inconsistency they specifically mentioned was the following:

Chief Reeves has informed me that McGuffin did not tell him about being at Denny's Pizza nor that he had anyone in the car with him during the time he was driving up and down Central looking for Leah. Indeed, the only person McGuffin ever mentioned to Chief Reeves being in his car while he was engaged in searching for Leah was Brent Bartley.

by prayerbone Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:27 pm

We know from Cory that it is cited in her own words that she USED to drink.

We dont know if Cory had a boyfriend and if so

she said she went back to sleep KNOWING HER DAUGHTER WASNT AROUND...

Leahs father was also being rumoured to have been involved... .

U really are a piece of works AJ , im out of here

by prayerbone Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:40 pm

Its not that u think Nicks innocent that worrys me AT ALL, its that whatever someones says to u , u turn around..

Quote "theres no way he swapped cars" "oh if he did swap cars that just helps his defense more"

Its one of them win win arguments

Bottom line there's a court case and everyone will get there day.. Bye

ps'ssssssssss for the 1000times You have no problem wanting to see Nick as guilty, and feeling that there is a reason for him to be looked that way... ive always stated i thought his behavior warranted his arrest and a interview , ive stated he was involved in some ways, ive never stated he murdered Leah

by FystyAngel Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:48 pm

Prayerbone....I truly hope you don't leave. I hope you'll stay & discuss. That is what "forums" are for. Whether of not you agree with another poster, shouldn't deter you from writing what YOUR OPINION is. I would hope that you would not want to prove AJ's point.

I would like to say that we are all adults here. This forum is an 18 & above & we do not name call here. Please refrain from doing so. I know you are new & so I would like to point out that we have very few rules, please take a moment to read them.

We try to look at ALL cases the same way. Giving both sides the most indepth research that we can.

by prayerbone Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:56 pm

Angel i changed my post to take out the sarcastic remark thks night

by FystyAngel Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:04 pm

prayerbone wrote:Angel i changed my post to take out the sarcastic remark thks night

Thank you. Hope you have a great nights sleep. good night

by Justice4all Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:03 pm

prayerbone wrote:Its not that u think Nicks innocent that worrys me AT ALL, its that whatever someones says to u , u turn around..

Quote "theres no way he swapped cars" "oh if he did swap cars that just helps his defense more"

Its one of them win win arguments

This one may be my fault. According to the timeline, it looks like Nick drove the Thunderbird into town once, and then within minutes, switched back to the Mustang. I couldn't see the logic for him doing that in either the innocent or guilty scenarios. I noticed that 20/20 didn't mention the Thunderbird and that Nick's family denied he was in the Thunderbird that night. I also heard that somebody in town had a similar Thunderbird, so I started questioning whether the witnesses actually saw Nick in the Thunderbird in the dark, or whether they saw somebody else in a similar Thunderbird and assumed it was Nick.

I'm curious to know Nick's explanation for the temporary switch, or if he denies it. If he is innocent, why did he go home while searching, drive the Thunderbird into town, drive back home, and then start driving the Mustang again? If he is guilty and had killed Leah rather quickly and put her in the trunk of the Mustang, why would he drive into town once in the Thunderbird, and then start driving the Mustang again? If he drove the Thunderbird into town to help his alibi, why would he deny driving it that night?

I'm curious to know if LE still claims he was in the Thunderbird that night sometime between 9:45 and 10. According to my calculations, he probably wouldn't have caught up with Leah until sometime between 9:20 and 9:30 if it's true that she was last seen alone near the Shell, and we know Nick was back at the Mitchell's between 10:07 and 10:15 in the Mustang.

PB, if Nick was involved, do you think Leah was killed almost immediately, 300 feet from the Shell near the spot where her shoe was found, and if not, do you think she was killed before Nick's 10:07 visit to the Mitchell's or after?

by littlethings Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:02 pm

AJ,

Thanks for the welcome and the discussion. I clearly have different thoughts on this case than you do, so I appreciate your response.

I think the likelihood of Nick being a scapegoat in this case is zero. What I see is a case that went cold when it didn’t have to and then finally fell into the right hands. The formation of the cold case task force was the turning point, I think. I am not sure what you refer to in this sentence: “If you are aware of all the writing on the subject from the new chief himslef leta lone a big majority of the community including Cory, it is beyond me how you cud not question the accuracy, and integrity of a decade old case... “ Would you mind clarifying that for me?

I have to disagree that the “new” chief of police is only looking for a notch in his belt. If it was going to be so easy to simply pin the crime on Nick, then it could have happened long ago, since no new evidence has developed, right? According to your logic, Nick is being railroaded and has an airtight alibi. If that were true, the case would have gone in a totally different direction, but it didn’t. I have “faith” because I believe that the 35 or so law enforcement officers involved know more than I ever could by reading on the internet.

There is no doubt the community was rocked by this murder, just as it was rocked by the disappearance of Jeremy Bright, the murder of Daniella Elder, and the murder of Jayme Austin, to name a few off the top of my head. I can’t believe one single person in the community would want to see an innocent man go to prison. That is why I said that a potential juror would not make a final judgment based on what they read on this forum or any other. They will make it based on the evidence presented to them in a court of law. There is a plethora of information that we have never even seen that the jury will get to see. The airing of 20/20, the blogs, the forums, none of that will matter at trial, in my opinion.
I don’t see this as a case of evidence being changed. I see it as a case of an investigation unfolding and the police following the evidence, just like they’re supposed to do. Through the years other suspects have been investigated and eliminated and that could be interpreted as ‘there is no one else it could be, so let’s blame Nick,’ or it could be just what the state says it is…and Nick will have his chance to answer the charges against him.

by Justice4all Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:49 am

awaiting justice wrote:One more point... are you aware that Nick told LE that when he left Sherries he drove to Knott (Leahs ) to see if she was there ... Did you know this??

" Affidavit for Seach warrant - jul 6/2000 ..
McGuffin indicated that he learned that Leah had all ready left on foot. He then indicated that he drove north on Central and drove to Knott Street. McGuffin indicated that he did not see Leah and that he then turned around and drove south on Central looking for Leah. McGuffin indicated that he did not find her."

He cud have actually pased Leah being taken or shortly thereafter when he passed Elm @ W. Central...

From the slide they showed on 20/20, I was under the impression that Nick stating he went to BB's at 9:30 was purposely left out of the affidavits. The slide said he went to BB's and then retraced Leah's route.

If he went straight from the Mitchell's to Knott, according to estimated walking and driving times, he would've had to leave the Mitchell's house about 19 minutes after Leah did to not catch up with her before she was on Elm.

by littlethings Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:51 am

awaitingjustice wrote:Littlethings,

Im glad you are open to a new look into this case...
I will try and reply to your post in some kind of order...

So that I can estblish what you know about this case..let me ask some questions .. your answers will point me to what kind of links and previous comments will be required...

Are you aware that the new chief was interviewed (20/20) and said that one of the pre requisites of the job, wud be to resolve this case?

I think that’s open to interpretation. The applicants for police chief were asked, among other things, how they would handle the Leah Freeman case. It was not a job requirement that the case be solved. Dannels made it his personal goal to see a resolution in the case.

Are you aware of the anger that the community feels because this case hasnt been solved?
The Coquille community was angry with the police department under Reaves for numerous reasons, the early handling of Leah’s case being only one of them. It is no different than the anger felt in the Jeremy Bright case, which is still unsolved. Bright was mistakenly treated as a runaway also.

There are allegations that the cpd were not qualified/skilled/experienced, and botched the investigation, and wud not take/get outside help?
I know of the allegations and feel there is some truth to them.

Do you know that the affidavit released from July 2000, states that the shoes were found and that they were sent to the Crime Lab?

Are you aware that it was stated by the crime lab that the left shoe found last had blood on it?

Are you aware that the chief and the vid soc spoke of how the right shoe (found first) is the one they believe the blood was on?
I have read the docs available online. I put very little stock in what aired on 20/20. If you’re suggesting that evidence was tampered with to fit the state’s case, I won’t buy that. If you’re suggesting that there was an error made on the show by the chief, then okay, that is fodder for a defense attorney at trial.

Are you aware that the new chief says Chief Reaves resigned becasue of failing Cory and the investigation where public anger against the coucil is clearly noted re: this case and against the cpd in general ?
I am not aware of the new chief saying that Reaves resigned over Leah’s case.

Little, if we cud start hear.. I will address all your questions but it will be helpful if we cud start with these and I will get the backup for anything you disagree with...

If you quote my post, you can answer in diff color....if you like

by littlethings Wed Oct 27, 2010 5:19 pm

I don’t recall saying that I did not watch the 20/20 episode. I have watched it. What I said was I don’t put much stock in it.
I agree that in the beginning the investigation by the CPD was ineffective. I think if it hadn’t been, the case would have been solved a decade ago. Inexperience, lack of interrogation skills, lack of motivation- whatever you want to call it, it fell short of what it should have been.
I would have to disagree that the documents available online may be the closest to the truth that we can get. Like I said, the investigation unfolded, revealing more that we don’t have available to see. If you believe Nick added that he was at Johnson Pond in a subsequent interview, then it can also be believed that statements by others were elaborated on as well, revealing new information.
I’m not sure I follow your reasoning on questioning the qualifications of the current police chief or the cold case task force…I have never seen anything to indicate that the investigators were anything but qualified. I’m not sure what V S is so that may be a good starting point to help me understand.
Reopening a cold case would be like starting over from scratch so I don’t think the original lackluster investigation ruined the case forever. And I don’t believe that if Nick is convicted it will be on hearsay since I assume many key players will be testifying at the trial themselves.
I don’t discount the documents on Leah’s website. It shows an investigation in its infancy and that is all. I agree that the info from the crime lab regarding the shoe is factual info, that the left shoe did have blood on it. But does that mean we can assume that the right shoe did not have blood on it? I have never seen the actual report from the crime lab regarding any of the physical evidence, have you?
I’m still very curious about the remarks you say Chief Dannels made about Reaves…where can I find a link to that info?

by littlethings Wed Oct 27, 2010 5:49 pm

I don't feel that the initial investigation muddied the waters for Nick. I feel that it denied swift justice to Leah. If Nick is innocent, that will stand the test of time and no amount of investigating, then or now, is going to show otherwise. The lie detector is a useful investigative tool but won't be used as circumstantial evidence in court.

It's my understanding that Chief Dannels is an experienced law enforcement officer and a skilled professional. I do not know if he is experienced in homicide investigations (although he's had his share already in Coquille and all of those cases were handled swiftly) but the team of investigators he assembled certainly did the experience required to crack the case. I believe it is untrue that the original investigators had spots on the cold case team, and definitely don't believe Reaves was one of them. New investigators, new energy. New hope that Leah will have justice.

by littlethings Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:08 pm

I do recall hearing that the evidence and files were disorganized. For me, that lends credibility to the recent investigation, that they compiled and compared info, followed up on leads, and brought organization to the investigation.

Reaves has been criticized for the way the case was handled, and rightfully so, I think, but I don't believe that early delay made the case unsolvable. Like I said before, Dannels was not required to solve the case in order to be chief of police, but he has done nothing but show he has what it takes to oversee investigations in that community. Reaves was not toppled, he retired, and it was the best thing that could have happened for Coquille given the mess the police department was in, and not just with Leah's case.

Also, you have mentioned several times that Nick was the only suspect, ever. This case was worked over the years, although it was called a cold case, and leads were investigated, including the suspect in the Elder murder, as well as the suspects in the Wilberger and Condon cases, and probably many others. A lot of the questions that you bring up are inherent to any investigation and surely have been thoroughly checked out.

The only case that I can recall off hand where the guilty party passed the poly is in the case of the Green River killer.

by littlethings Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:09 pm

Now this is something we can agree on! Polygraphs are useful tools not for measuring truthfulness, but for the psychological effect they can have on suspects. Many have crumbled and confessed following a failed poly and that is always helpful during a criminal investigation. I don't think they should be banned, but that is the reason they are not admissible in court.

Knowing that it's not admissible, how does this effect Nick? If he has a solid alibi, by being seen by so many witnesses on the night in question, is it going to matter to the jury (if they are already aware) that he failed a lie detector?

Also, when you said “If you are aware of all the writing on the subject from the new chief himslef leta lone a big majority of the community including Cory, it is beyond me how you cud not question the accuracy, and integrity of a decade old case... “, what did you mean by that?

by Justice4all Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:39 pm

awaiting justice wrote:J4A,

You said...
" I was under the impression that Nick stating he went to BB's at 9:30 was purposely left out of the affidavits"

----

Purposely left out by who?

I should have phrased it better. I believe that affidavits are written only to obtain search warrants and they don't include all the evidence in the case or entire statements from the witnesses. The affidavit that describes Nick's route was written to show probable cause to obtain a search warrant on the Mustang. The officer writing the warrant was describing what Chief Reeves had told him about Nick's interview. From the chart shown on 20/20, it looks like at one point Nick told police that he went to BB's house, and then drove the route Leah would have taken had she decided to walk home from the Mitchell's. Since we don't have full transcripts of Nick's interviews, I can't be sure if Nick told them this later or in his initial interview. It's possible Nick hadn't told them this story when they wrote the affidavit to obtain the warrant for the Mustang.

FAQs About Leah Freeman Case ??? - Page 2 Timeli13

FAQs About Leah Freeman Case ??? - Page 2 Timeli13

No matter what scenario you test, Nick had to miss Leah by 15-20 minutes at the Mitchell's for there to be a reasonable chance that he didn't catch up with Leah before she got to the corner of Elm and Central.

by Justice4all Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:05 pm

I think the whole case boils down to the witnesses who are now placing Nick with Leah after 9 PM, and if the jury believes their stories.

There probably wasn't much hope for a conviction with no physical evidence or witnesses linking Nick to Leah after 9 PM that night. I don't think you could get a conviction just based on doubts about Nick's story of not finding her and statements from witnesses saying they think Nick did something to her based on the way he was acting that night.

I think the prosecution is going to lay out a very specific scenario of what happened that night, and use the witnesses who placed Nick with Leah after 9 to back it up. If the prosecution goes into court and says we think Nick killed Leah but we aren't sure of the details, but here is scenario A, scenario B, and scenario C of how it may have happened, they will probably have a tough time getting a conviction.

by Justice4all Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:27 pm

awaiting justice wrote:Im also wondering if there is anyway Hutchinson can remeber what she bought at McKays groc... I am thinking she might because it may have been even discussed as to what she was doing and buying there..

If they can figure out what she bought.. there cud even be record tapes of the puchase with a time stamp..

Unfortunately, if police didn't obtain any kind of time stamped records such as receipts or surveillance video back in 2000, there is probably very little chance of those records still existing. I also wonder if they bothered asking Nick's father for receipts to verify the dates of the car repairs he told them about.

by littlethings Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:41 pm

There wasn't any new info given on the 20/20 show, and the state's case and evidence was not highlighted, in my opinion. It was hinted at, though, and J4A's post about the scenario is right on.

I see your point about the evidence AJ, but I see the other side of the coin- that the case was approached as though it was brand new and worked from the ground up. Whether or not any evidence was lost, or if the degraded Polaroids made any difference, we may never know. You know I don't share your doubts about the very basic questions being addressed during the investigation (I remember even in the initial investigation, the case was worked from the inside out, starting at home, branching out from there.) I do believe the case was worked over the years, albeit not full time, even though 20/20 worded it as being suspended.

I'm still a little confused as to just who is lying? The veteran law enforcement officers on the cold case team? The new chief? The key witnesses? All of them?

There was a lot of talk about surveillance video, receipts, etc. back in 2000...whether or not they were obtained may have to wait for trial, but there is a reason that Nick is sitting in jail and I don't think it's because of fabricated evidence.

by littlethings Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:19 pm

I don’t believe Sherri Mitchell changed her story to bring closure to Leah’s family, if that’s what you are saying.

Steinhoff and info about the Kia is not new to the investigation either. As for the interview clips from the TV show, a person can speculate all day, and a defense attorney would set out to discredit her using your questions of the interview process, I would think. The revelation that time has passed and people have come forward is not new either; it has been reported from the beginning that some people were not talking, which I took to mean that law enforcement could have connected the dots earlier to prosecute if they had not been hindered by certain individuals.

It seems to me that Dannels advising his team that Nick might be armed is a routine remark. We are talking about law enforcement officers going to arrest a murder suspect so the safety of the officers is important. I don’t read anything more into that.

The “cold case investigator” from the link you provided is just not important. If that was an applicant for the police chief position, it is obvious why he would not have gotten the position.

The rest is rumors and supposition. Just as Nick undoubtedly provided more information as the case progressed, so did others. We don’t know because we do not have access to actual police reports and interviews, just the info needed to obtain search warrants, which tells us the direction of the early investigation, but not details about why the police were headed that way. This demonstrates to me that the police have protected the facts of the case very well.

You surmise that the evidence is botched, that leads were not investigated, and that because of a witch hunt an innocent man is behind bars. I surmise that the case was still solvable, that every lead was investigated, and that the police got it right. We can’t know which one of us is right because you have no proof of your allegations and I have no proof of mine. There is just not enough info available to either one of us to come to any steadfast conclusion about this case.

by littlethings Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:12 pm

Litte says...

" The “cold case investigator” from the link you provided is just not important. If that was an applicant for the police chief position, it is obvious why he would not have gotten the position. ..."

AJ says..

Do you know that Chief Dannels did not write the post we are discussing? Yes, I do know that it wasn’t him since the poster was identified by name on that same site and turned out to be a law enforcement officer with significant problems that would have made him undesirable for the chief’s position, anyway. Has Dannels taken to the blogs or forums that you know of?

Do you think whoever it was, cud help influence and perpetuate a common belief that Nick is guilty in some way.... No more than you stating your opinion here could perpetuate the common belief that Nick is innocent…

Wud you agree that statements like this are dangerous and influencial ? Not in a world full of people that can think for themselves when presented with real evidence.
------------------------------
Little says...

" Steinhoff and info about the Kia is not new to the investigation either."
AJ says..

Yes it is.... I don’t know why you would argue a point that you can’t possibly be sure about, but okay. This info is from the original investigation.
-----------------------------
Little said .....

" It seems to me that Dannels advising his team that Nick might be armed is a routine remark. We are talking about law enforcement officers going to arrest a murder suspect so the safety of the officers is important. I don’t read anything more into that."

AJ says...

Do you think a statement like that is influencial ??? Do you think having a show filminig during an investigation is professional???? What were the motives? Has chief Dannels done a show before on any other cases? It is not unusual for TV shows to follow criminal investigations…

Do you think that statement was said specifically to add to the drama? No, I think that statement is used routinely in law enforcement, from a chief to his officers, and the motive is safety for all involved.
-----------------------------------

Little says ..

"You surmise that the evidence is botched, that leads were not investigated, and that because of a witch hunt an innocent man is behind bars.
There is just not enough info available to either one of us to come to any steadfast conclusion about this case."

AJ says...

I wud suggest a fair surmise cud be obtained by having read the affidavit for warrant, where the reasons set out were foolish, along with the fact that in talking to and reading Corys allegations along witrh many others, that the investigation was biased and handled by ppl who did not know what they were doing...

I believe also, that the case was prolly solvable back then (or at least where a determination cud have been made as to whether it was an abduction by a stranger/acquaintance or Nick or one of the town thugs..

I believe that many investigative aveneues were not taken which continued to lead the investigation around Nick.. I doubt that anyone got any receipts from the ppl who saw Leah and the ppl who claim to have seen Nick,.... where a proper timeline cud have been esztablished.. I also doubt rso offenders were ever questioned (especilly in that area of Fairview) .. I also doubt anyone took any casts of prints and tiretracks around either one of where the shoe was found.. I also doubt that the alibis were checked out by anyone who was connected to Leah or her shoes, after 7 pm, including Sherris family and acquaintances and potentially even visitors...

On account of this.. I have no confidence that the perp willl ever be determined..

I dont believe a house can be built on a broken foundation....

It is a hoorrible tragedy that this young girl lost her life so senselessly.... I believe she may never get justice.. I pray that Nick is going to be acquitted, as had there been physical evidence, i suspect it wud have been found at the time....

It is said that there is no physical evidence...

IMO a ten yr old case that was admnittedly botched from the start by juniors suggests to me that enough good evidence wud never have been determined to rule out any one else (and their circumstances) therefore, I do not think Nick shud have ever been charged..

I suspect a circumstantial case cud have been made against anyone inclu the original last known person to have seen Leah walking..

It is a crying shame that this happened.. and kmowing that professionals like the FBI shud have been involved the day Leahs remains were found, and werent suggests liability for a priceless mistake...

So sad...

The info that is available, is enough for me to suggest that Nick was prolly railroaded, and used as a scapegoat to get this case put to bed either way...
There is no way for me or you to be sure what was or was not done in the investigation until this case is presented at trial. Like I said before, circumstantial cases go to trial every day in America. You are fearful of wrongful conviction and I’ll give you that. It does happen, but there are also circumstantial cases where the accused is found guilty and evidence later surfaces that supports the conviction. Just about any scenario you can imagine has played out already in courtrooms across the country. Nick has the right to defend himself against the charges so I think it’s too early to say that he is a scapegoat.
We have two different opinions of what the information available suggests. If these kinds of cases were open and shut, forums like this would be very boring. We can agree to disagree.

by littlethings Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:26 pm

I stated that wrongful convictions do happen. Murderers also get acquitted...see my point? It's all speculation.

Leah's mother did get her opinions out there, but the McGuffins also responded...tit for tat that serves only to divide people before any concrete facts are laid out in a courtroom. For all the people you say support Leah's mom, couldn't there be many others that support the McGuffins and just aren't posting?

by littlethings Thu Oct 28, 2010 10:21 pm

AJ said...
How wud you know that this " potential candidate's identity" was correct? How wud you know he had problems? If he was on the force, how do you know he did an accurate good job? You have made my point again..
You are clearly influenced and believe much of what you read...

I had no reason to doubt that he wasn’t who he said he was. I suppose it could have been a coincidence that it just happened to be the name of a law enforcement officer from across the country who also applied to be the chief of police in Coquille. Although, that does seem more likely than it was Dannels himself. I’ll ask again: do you know if Dannels has posted about this case in blogs or forums? You’ve referenced his writings before so is that what you’re implying?

AJ said..

I can be sure about what I heard Chief Dannels describe about how the evidence was kept. I can be sure about hearing from Cory that the investigation was botched...
That is enough for me to say that I have good reason to believe the investigation was polluted and many things were inevitably missed.. I have read the warrants and can see that the warrants listed reasons to go after Nick that were UNFOUNDED.. this is enough for me to say ...
" i AM SURE ENOUGH, THAT THERE SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ARREST IN THIS CASE WITHOUT VERY STRONG PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. BY THAT I DO NOT MEAN EYEWITNESSES ... AND HE SAID SHE SAID...

CLEARLY TOO MUCH TIME HAS GONE BY THAT THERE IS TOO MUCH TRUST/INTEGRITY BROKEN

I can be sure that I heard Dannels announce the formation of a cold case task force that would work this case from the ground up. I can be sure that none of the original investigators were on the team and that it was comprised of experienced law enforcement.
That is enough reason for me to say that I believe the investigation was recharged, regrouped, and refocused by competent investigators. I AM SURE ENOUGH THAT THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AN ARREST IN THIS CASE 10 YEARS AGO. THERE ARE CASES THAT ARE 30 YEARS OLD THAT ARE SOLVED BY COLD CASE TEAMS, AND QUITE OFTEN THE GUILTY PARTY IS THE ORIGINAL PERSONAL OF INTEREST.

You say that I believe too much in what I read, but it seems clear that you only read about the track coach on the other thread…isn’t that how we get our info, by reading? Also, you are the one relying on what you have read online in incomplete documents as your basis for saying that Nick’s arrest was unfounded and that he has been unfairly accused.

What should have been done about this case after the original investigation fell part? Nothing?

It looks to me like we have two very different but very valid viewpoints, but that’s what discussion is all about.

by littlethings Fri Oct 29, 2010 2:12 am

Actually, I meant that the case could have been resolved 10 years ago, but I can see how you could interpret that to mean that I have already judged Nick (although it is no different than you judging the investigation, Leah’s mom, Dannels, etc.)

I am not surprised that the cold case team investigation led to the original person of interest, but I have already said that there is no way for me to reach a steadfast conclusion before the trial. I do have opinions, but I enjoy this discussion because I’m open to other people’s perspectives. That said, if your perspective is that the multi-agency cold case team was lazy and simply picked up where the original investigation left off, zeroing in only on Nick, and that all of the witnesses are lying, and there is a huge conspiracy, then I would say I strongly disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion and I respect that.

by FystyAngel Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:12 am

IMO, The biggest point that AJ is trying to make is that from ALL of the information that we DO have...It doesn't appear that Nick should have been the ONLY person looked at & investigated. I know that from what I have read & heard (news video's, etc.) there doesn't appear TO ME that Nick should have been the only POI. The things that LE has used as "probable cause" are (again...IMO) nothing more than little things that don't make "Probable Cause" at all.

Again, IMO....Now that 20/20 has gotten involved & aired, It seems TO ME that there are even more questions than answers. Sherrie & her mom changing their story (or adding to it)...no matter how you put it, it is NOT the same as it was that night. This is just one small example...IMO.

Let us not forget, either, that it was Nicks parents that went to LE & ASKED LE to clear him already. It was said that was why LE started investigating again. Instead, LE used BS (IMO) to hang Nick.

by littlethings Fri Oct 29, 2010 1:40 pm

Again, I’ll ask: What should have been done with this case after the original case fell apart?

by littlethings Fri Oct 29, 2010 1:44 pm

Fysty,

I have to ask then, from the info that we do have, how do you come to the conclusion that Nick was the only person investigated? What we see are affidavits for search warrants in which the officer laid out some facts of the investigation thus far, enough to satisfy the warrant requirement and have a completely neutral magistrate approve those warrants. There are so many other documents that we haven’t seen, including other search warrant affidavits, that I don’t know how any conclusion can be reached as to whether the police had sufficient cause or not.

Without the benefit of actual police reports or complete statements, I can’t say for certain who’s story changed when or how.

IMO, law enforcement was already actively investigating the case and the cold case team had already been formed when the McGuffins asked LE to clear Nick once and for all. It makes me wonder why then wasn’t LE able to do just that?

If I’m missing the whole point here, that we are discussing only what’s in the documents online, just for the sake of discussing, then I apologize for being a buzzkill.

by FystyAngel Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:28 pm

Little...we discuss it all here, lol. We try to keep it in order (somewhat) but don't even enforce that.

As for what I base my opinion on...well, there are no documents where it appears that LE investigated anyone else. No documents for search warrants for anyone else. IMO...the first place I would have started was the last known place Leah was alive. Sherrie's house. Then Cory's, as well as Nicks, his grandparents & BB's house. But the first place would have been Sherrie's.

by prayerbone Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:57 pm

If you read the rumour thread.. you will see that allegedly the story that Cory believed/believes is that someone hit Leah with a car..... (for a reason having to do with Kristen liking Nick and not liking Leah) ..It is alleged that someone hit leah with a car, hence the blood splatter on the left shoe...

After Leah was allegedly hit, it is said in the rumour that she wasnt dead...
It is alleged that Nick et al.. called the town thug grug dealer who immediately came to Nick etals aid, and took her somewhere .. allegedly she was given drugs ... there is no specific reason other than to keep her " out of it" and out of pain.. where the drugs didnt work and she was then taken and DUMPED after she died..

Where exactly was this posted AJ what forums? I was under the impression this was what the PI indicated, but i'm not aware its ever been mentioned online..

by FystyAngel Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:06 pm

Thanks for the question Prayerbone. Though I know I have "heard" this story too, I don't know where it is posted. Maybe AJ can provide the link. ???

tish...you raise some good questions too. IMO, Dannels doesn't really care if he gets Nick "convicted". It's more of a "solve the cold case". Again...that's just my opinion.

by prayerbone Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:13 pm

I don't think its posted anywhere that specifically, other then maybe victim heartland, and obviously if your not a member there you couldn't of read it, but i'm 99.9 % sure its not there either

So i'd be interested to know where that's posted ...

by khintx Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:17 pm

prayerbone wrote:If you read the rumour thread.. you will see that allegedly the story that Cory believed/believes is that someone hit Leah with a car..... (for a reason having to do with Kristen liking Nick and not liking Leah) ..It is alleged that someone hit leah with a car, hence the blood splatter on the left shoe...

After Leah was allegedly hit, it is said in the rumour that she wasnt dead...
It is alleged that Nick et al.. called the town thug grug dealer who immediately came to Nick etals aid, and took her somewhere .. allegedly she was given drugs ... there is no specific reason other than to keep her " out of it" and out of pain.. where the drugs didnt work and she was then taken and DUMPED after she died..

Where exactly was this posted AJ what forums? I was under the impression this was what the PI indicated, but i'm not aware its ever been mentioned online..

I have read that theory. I didn't find it terribly plausible. I'll look for a link. kh

by khintx Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:22 pm

I actually think that was posted at Websleuths...... kh

by prayerbone Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:23 pm

Is there a link ?

by FystyAngel Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:24 pm

Prayerbone....some of us have had the privilege of speaking to Cory personally at one time or another. When I brought this thread back...I had decided that I would never post anything that Cory had told me, while speaking to her on the phone. It is a personal decision. Cory & I's friendship was severed when I began believing that Nick wasn't as guilty as LE was trying to make him look. This is why I will not post about something, if I don't see it posted elsewhere online.

I still try not to say anything that would hurt Cory because I do feel for her. I would never want to walk in her shoes EVER.

by prayerbone Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:26 pm

answered

by Justice4all Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:28 pm

It looks like Bruce McGuffin believes Leah was hit with a car, and at least at one time, Cory believed Leah was hit with a car.

~Snipped~

He has an alternate theory for the crime: Bruce McGuffin believes that several people struck Leah with a car, tortured her, and then dumped her body. Those people were granted immunity, he contends, and the homicide was pinned on Nick 'because he's the boyfriend."

http://www.theworldlink.com/news/local/article_5e99c78b-3b8a-5de2-b0af-a58c9b97efa4.html

~Snipped~

It is very much my opinion that she was hit by a car. Whose car I don't know but there are alot of rumors about that happening.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73767

by prayerbone Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:29 pm

Thks J4ALL

by khintx Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:29 pm

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73767 *

*Leah's mom has communicated with posters at Websleuths for some time.

10/30/2008: Posted by: Chicagofa13

Today is Leah's birthday. I've been in touch with her Mother by email over the last week. She looked through everything I've written so far making sure it was accurate and graciously answered many questions. She's given me permission to post some of her thoughts and opinions. Everything here is just opinion, there has never been a suspect or POI named in this case.

No one in Leah's immediate or extended family was ever suspected of any involvement in her disappearance or murder. There were no tips that she knows of about a stranger in the area.

She believes Leah may have been hit by a car. There were rumors around town that she was held and tortured for weeks but never really believed that, and "hopes" she died that night and in that case was placed over the embankment on Lee Valley Road that night or early that morning.

While searching the next morning, she didn't notice the boyfriend acting strange, but she wasn't really focusing on his behavior.

As she recalls the damage to his car on the rear quarter panel was there previously. She thinks his headlight was also out, which may be why he was stopped by police twice. The contents of the trunk are still unknown, the family said it was to do repairs to the car, including the gas tank. The FBI told her in their opinion there was no reason to be in the trunk to repair the gas tank.

The "authority figures" referred to by LE in the media may have been school counselors. These people were supposedly hindering the investigation by advising kids not to speak to police. It is possible there are adults covering up for kids in this case and know what happened, or at least know who is responsible.

Leah admitted to having tried cigarettes, her mother guesses she probably had tried pot, but she doesn't think it went any further than that.

The relationship between the family and local LE has improved with the new Police Chief. She thinks the lockdown on info about the case comes from higher up, probably the DA's office. Unfortunately this is a case that may only be solved when someone gets a conscience.

Now for some of my opinions...

The local PD was in way over its head in the early days. When her body was found 5 weeks after she went missing the major crimes team was activated, they needed MAJOR help in the first couple days. The FBI came in since there was a missing juvenile, but I get the distinct feeling there was animosity about them being there (and I have no idea when they showed up to assist). Typical cop mentality, locals vs. Feds. The local detective was on his first case as the "lead", a rookie was assisting him.

The timeline is very hard to pin down. My mind goes in circles.

He's been smoking pot (maybe even other drugs involved), possibly drinking too (beer cans at the Fir St house), and he sees her and picks her up while she is walking, they have a fight of some type, she's killed ("homicidal violence" could be anything???) and then he panics and doesn't know what to do with the body.

Car accident? He sees her, she won't get in the car or he's simply goofing off, he hits her with the car and injures her badly or kills her. But this doesn't really fit with "homicidal violence" and blood spatter on one or both shoes. The shoe is found about 1130pm so we can assume she is dead or injured by that time. (Not to mention the white men's t-shirt she was wearing all day is PROBABLY the same white shirt seen by the cops the next day at the Fir St house, but they fail to collect it as evidence.)

Now he's driving a car with a broken headlight, and can't afford to be pulled over, but he is. The body could have been in the trunk. Hate to think the cops let that one by, but how would they know. I think the body was moved to its final location in the 1130p-230a time period. No one mentions seeing them around town during that period. Prior to that he seemed to take time to be seen, by Leah's friend, her sister, and others. Driving two different cars.

The car switching is really baffling me. Goes back to his house, maybe his clothes are bloody so he changes clothes (?), takes out the other car and back to town to "search" and create a plan? So he has the other car, now why go back and switch again? Was the body up at his house still in the Mustang? Or was the body over at the friend's house? For some reason he wanted to get rid of the Mustang, even if just for a little while. By 1030p he is back in the Mustang. It is a very short time frame with a lot going on.

Another scenario, she somehow avoids being seen walking along Central. I find this unlikely, since it's pretty hard to hide when you are walking along this sidewalk (I've walked it many times myself). So she makes it over to the Fir St house where they were partying. Now she's over there and he really IS looking for her around town. When he finds her, something happens, he is very angry, fight ensues, she's killed. Now he has to hide the body.

So if it's not him, then WHO IS IT? There are zero other leads that anyone is aware of. After all these years there are no whispers in town of anyone else doing it. Local or outsider. If you want the killer to be found, do you hire a big out-of-town defense attorney? Not assist in trying to find her? Clearly he is innocent until proven guilty, and rumors are hurtful. HOWEVER, clearing your name is the best way to be found innocent of a crime.

I see there are a lot of views to this story, thank you. Leah's mom appreciated the work I did and is glad someone is trying to help out. Really just want justice for her, no matter who did it. I'm open to someone else being the killer. Just have to find him/her.

by prayerbone Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:30 pm

Thks KH

by Justice4all Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:32 pm

I can't find anything where it mentioned Leah being hit with a car had something to do with Kristin liking Nick and not liking Leah.

by FystyAngel Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:33 pm

prayerbone wrote:So thats information that Corys told AJ or you privately , and its not online??

Oh, no, it's not something that I was privy to & I have no idea if it was something she said to AJ. I'm hoping it's online somewhere, so AJ can point it out to us both.

by prayerbone Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:33 pm

He has an alternate theory for the crime: Bruce McGuffin believes that several people struck Leah with a car, tortured her, and then dumped her body. Those people were granted immunity, he contends, and the homicide was pinned on Nick 'because he's the boyfriend."

That's a seriously whacked theory, i know not everyones an admire of the police but sheesh

by prayerbone Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:34 pm

Yah edit my question to you Angel, saw the replies showing me where its listed

by prayerbone Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:36 pm

I can't find anything where it mentioned Leah being hit with a car had something to do with Kristin liking Nick and not liking Leah.

Right that's more personal and im sure that's not listed anywhere...Could be wrong

by khintx Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:36 pm

prayerbone wrote:Thks KH

You're welcome. I knew I read it somewhere! kh

by prayerbone Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:39 pm

Not to be rude but does anyone believe this???

Bruce McGuffin believed those people were granted immunity, he contends, and the homicide was pinned on Nick 'because he's the boyfriend."

Don't they offer immunity to the least guilty person??

by khintx Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:42 pm

prayerbone wrote:Not to be rude but does anyone believe this???

Bruce McGuffin believed those people were granted immunity, he contends, and the homicide was pinned on Nick 'because he's the boyfriend."

Don't they offer immunity to the least guilty person??

No. They offer immunity to people who can best prove their case but don't want to get in trouble for their complicity in or knowledge of it.
kh

by Sponsored content