[tuccillo]

I suspect nobody outside of the sheriff's office knows exactly what evidence, if any, exists and whether it is sufficient to obtain a subpoena. Let the speculations, including my own, continue.

Originally Posted by Advogado

Contrary to the misstatements about criminal-procedure and constitutional law set forth in responses to my above post, the kinds of investigative steps I outline in that post are both legal and common. This crime has not been solved because the Sheriff's Department has made a decision not to solve it. Why? I don' t know. There is a range of possible explanations.

[fred53]

Time to move on you've wasted enough of your life on a useless pursuit....

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

But applicable to this case? You've watched too many CSI's.

No, I have conducted too many real-life criminal investigations and put too many real-life criminals in prison. The suggested investigative steps are applicable to this case if the Sheriff's Office wants to devote the time and resources to apply them.

[Cedwards38]

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.

[manaboutown]

Of great concern to me is that not relentlessly pursuing the guilty party or parties sets a precedent which is all too likely to encourage others to criminally and/or tortiously act to rid themselves of perceived nuisances such as view blocking trees without fear of reprisals.

For whatever reason(s) it seems the powers that be have been attempting to sweep this under the rug in hopes it will soon be forgotten. Unfortunately, it will not.

[billethkid]

Does anybody recall how the the cut trees were discovered?

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by Cedwards38

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.

I agree with most of the above, but you are mistaken when you say that probable cause is necessary for a subpoena to issue. That is true for search warrants. If that were true for subpoenas, the investigative process would be crippled. Subpoenas just require that the subpoenaed items/testimony be relevant to the investigation.

[Wavy Chips]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

Of great concern to me is that not relentlessly pursuing the guilty party or parties sets a precedent which is all too likely to encourage others to criminally and/or tortiously act to rid themselves of perceived nuisances such as view blocking trees without fear of reprisals.

1. Exactly!

2. If residents continue to call the sheriff to get updates on the progress of the investigation, the squeaky wheel will get greased.

3. If stacked wood from the trees was found on a residents property, and that resident did not report the fact that wood mysteriously showed up on his/her property, would that not fall under "receiving stolen property"? If so, that might be the first person to investigate.

[tuccillo]

I understand that the "burden" for getting a subpoena for phone records is much less than a wire tap and other searches. This leads to a couple of possible conclusions:

1) The sheriff's department could not make the case that a subpoena of phone records was relevant to the investigation.

2) They chose not to pursue a subpoena of phone records for some unknown reason. Perhaps they did not want to expend the resources. The most nefarious reason would be that they were told to back off.

3) They did obtain a subpoena for phone records but there wasn't a smoking gun.


If someone really wants to know what is going on they could try to FOIA the investigation. I have no idea if that would be successful.

Originally Posted by Advogado

I agree with most of the above, but you are mistaken when you say that probable cause is necessary for a subpoena to issue. That is true for search warrants. If that were true for subpoenas, the investigative process would be crippled. Subpoenas just require that the subpoenaed items/testimony be relevant to the investigation.

[Challenger]

Originally Posted by Wavy Chips

1. Exactly!

2. If residents continue to call the sheriff to get updates on the progress of the investigation, the squeaky wheel will get greased.

3. If stacked wood from the trees was found on a residents property, and that resident did not report the fact that wood mysteriously showed up on his/her property, would that not fall under "receiving stolen property"? If so, that might be the first person to investigate.

Finally ,people are beginning to ask the right questions. Continued public pressure will bring a break in this case. Unlike the painting ot the MM paths,
the money is not the main concern for me here. What is important is that people get the message " no one is above the law"

[manaboutown]

By an amusing coincidence when I pulled up this web page to check on its latests posts the ad at the top read "Quotes for tree trimming"! I cannot stop chuckling.

[redwitch]

The fines, to me, are irrelevant. The cutting down of perfectly healthy trees is a true obscenity. I'm probably the only person you know that literally cried when the beautiful pines were torched in a sci-fi movie (Blade Runner? Soylent Green? One of that era, anyway.) so, it is a big deal to me.

Do I think my scenarios of vandalism or accidental cutting are likely? Not in the least. Do I think a good defense attorney could use these arguments to create reasonable doubt? You betchya.

I have no idea how much or little investigation was done by the Sheriff's Department but I'd prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt and leave it that they have a pretty good idea who did this but not enough proof to do anything about it.

The pragmatic side of me understands these jerks got away with it and, barring some incredible luck on the part of investigators, will never be convicted of a dang thing. A true travesty but I, personally, refuse to let this ruin one iota of the good things here. So, I stand by my post of way back when and say, "Let it go." Sucks, but it is what it is.

[shanson99]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

I understand that the "burden" for getting a subpoena for phone records is much less than a wire tap and other searches. This leads to a couple of possible conclusions:

1) The sheriff's department could not make the case that a subpoena of phone records was relevant to the investigation.

2) They chose not to pursue a subpoena of phone records for some unknown reason. Perhaps they did not want to expend the resources. The most nefarious reason would be that they were told to back off.

3) They did obtain a subpoena for phone records but there wasn't a smoking gun.


If someone really wants to know what is gon they could try to FOIA the investigation. I have no idea if that would be successful.

Whatever happened to the agency who was supposed to investigate this case. They are also certified law enforcers, namely, Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission? They mysteriously disappeared.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by Advogado

...The suggested investigative steps are applicable to this case if the Sheriff's Office wants to devote the time and resources to apply them.

Couldn't agree more...and there's the rub. It's rarely going to happen in a case of this nature. And I'm not sure it should. It would put a lot of innocent people out, risking legal action which would probably be warranted.

[Villageswimmer]

Originally Posted by Cedwards38

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.

Thanks for your post. You sound far more knowledgeable about criminal investigations than just about all of us who have posted. Would you be willing to call the Sheriff and ask a few questions? Perhaps they'd be willing to shed some light on their findings.

They likely don't enjoy looking like they dropped the ball and might be eager to share some information that might finally put this to bed. We all pay their salaries and, IMHO, they should be accountable, right?

You, clearly, would know what questions to ask in a respectful manner.