Quote:
Originally Posted by redwitch
You really need more than conjecture and supposition to get a judge to sign a subpoena. Let's face it. We have a lot of theories but not one iota of proof that would stand up in court. It could just as easily have been vandals or someone cut the wrong trees.
As to neighbors knowing who the culprits are, I wouldn't bet on it. I know that if I heard someone cutting trees on property owned by a government agency, my first thought would be to wonder why -- disease or maybe something going to be built in that spot. After that, I would grouse about the noise and never think a thing about it unless it was brought up by someone else. All the guilty party has to do is act as bewildered as the rest of the neighborhood.
Whether we like it or not, the odds of solving this crime are slim to none. It will only happen if someone confesses. A neighbor claiming they know who did it without some real proof is worthless. Subpoenaing the records of potentially innocent people is not going to happen. The laws of the United States protect us from things like that happening, as they should.
Feel free to rant, rave and speculate all you want but do try to understand that the Sheriff's hands are tied. There just isn't enough credible proof to charge anyone with anything at this time. Nor is there enough circumstantial evidence to issue subpoenas. Ditto a grand jury. There has to be more than speculation by law.
|
There is no one on TOTV whose opinion I respect more than yours, but please allow me a few observations. You may be right. The odds of solving this crime become longer as time passes, but:
(a) the vandalism speculation seems a long shot. Vandalism is typically a quick crime for the purpose of destruction only. To cut these trees down and stack the wood would have taken a considerable amount of time and more than a little labor. Vandals would probably not have stacked the wood after cutting the trees. A vandal could have picked a much easier means of attacking. The odds of this seem so long it's hardly worth pursuing.
(b) the "someone cut the wrong trees" seems unlikely also. If someone cut the wrong trees, why were they cutting trees at all? And it's pretty unlikely that a contractor hired to cut trees would proceed to cut without a direct confirmation from the payer as to which trees should be cut. Possible? Yes. Likely? Not by any reputable contractor who wants to avoid costly mistakes.
(c) it is correct as to your speculation that the neighbors may well be completely in the dark about what happened, by who, and why, but it seems to me that it would have been very unlikely to happen without some of the neighbors at least witnessing what happened. The action, the time required to complete the action, and the noise would draw attention. In my neighborhood in The Villages, any time someone does something new to their home or yard, good neighbors notice, watch, and often even inquire about what is being done. Maybe the Village where the crime occurred is different, but I doubt it.
(d) you are spot on when you say that "a neighbor claiming they know who did it" will not provide court worthy proof, but suppose an investigation occurred where you found a neighbor who was asked to join in the crime but chose to decline, or a neighbor who saw a truck with a company name, or a neighbor who overheard a conversation between some of the criminal collaborators, or maybe even one of the collaborators whose conscience or sense of security is moved to provide more insight into this crime? Is that not more worthy as probable cause? Are eyewitnesses not considered reliable proof?
(e) as for subpoenaing the records of potentially innocent people, aren't all persons potentially innocent until proven guilty? Thus, law enforcement subpoenas the records of potentially innocent people every day in America in order to investigate crimes. That is often how they are solved. I completely agree that this should not be done without probable cause, but probable cause might exist if all the facts are known and investigated.
I guess I am one of those ranters and ravers, and I plead guilty to being one of the speculators to which you refer. I speculate because the community has never been fully informed about the circumstances for which the "collective we" must pay for this crime instead of the perpetrators.