[CFrance]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Look. Most of us would like to see the perps pony up. BUT you just can't go subpoenaing innocent people without strong evidence. The problem is that the laws that protect the innocent, protect the guilty.

Someone explained earlier that subpoenas are an investigative tool and don't require the same evidence as a warrant does, as they are a tool for gathering evidence. He also said that without subpoena authority most investigations would get nowhere.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by CFrance

Someone explained earlier that subpoenas are an investigative tool and don't require the same evidence as a warrant does...

That doesn't mean you can get a subpoena without a good reason.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Look. Most of us would like to see the perps pony up. BUT you just can't go subpoenaing innocent people without strong evidence. The problem is that the laws that protect the innocent, protect the guilty.

i am afraid that you have no concept of how the criminal justice system operates. Subpoenas are used to gather information in a criminal investigation. The vast majority of people subpoenaed are innocent. That is how the system works.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by Advogado

i am afraid that you have no concept of how the criminal justice system operates. Subpoenas are used to gather information in a criminal investigation. The vast majority of people subpoenaed are innocent. That is how the system works.

Again, that doesn't mean you can get subpoenas without some sort of justification.

And subpoenas don't usually imply guilt or innocence anyway. It's just a request for information or for an appearance...with some sort of justification.

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

Again, that doesn't mean you can get subpoenas without some sort of justification.

Polar Bear, I think that cut-down and stacked-up trees on the properties would be justification for a subpoena. JMO, but it sure looks suspicious.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by CFrance

Polar Bear, I think that cut-down and stacked-up trees on the properties would be justification for a subpoena. JMO, but it sure looks suspicious.

Maybe. My only point was that subpoenas aren't just issued automatically at someone's request.

[Cedwards38]

Originally Posted by CFrance

Polar Bear, I think that cut-down and stacked-up trees on the properties would be justification for a subpoena. JMO, but it sure looks suspicious.

Yes, that and the fact that you can count on one hand the number of people who would have anything to gain from the cutting of the trees, which goes to motive.

[CFrance]

I get both of you. seems like Advogado knows a lot about what would be appropriate.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by Cedwards38

Yes, that and the fact that you can count on one hand the number of people who would have anything to gain from the cutting of the trees, which goes to motive.

Without evidence, you can count on as many or as few fingers as you like.

And just to be devil's advocate...

I keep hearing that only a few had anything to gain. Wood has value. If a criminal could somehow be clever enough to get away with cutting down those trees and not get caught, doesn't that make every ne're-do-well on the face of the planet a possible suspect?

[WhoDat]

Having been a police officer assigned to the district attorney's office for 8 years I learned that subpoenas are issued to non-suspects to turn over records related to the crime. In order to get records or other evidence from a potential suspect you have to get a warrant which requires you to provide probable cause.

[Madelaine Amee]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

Without evidence, you can count on as many or as few fingers as you like.

And just to be devil's advocate...

I keep hearing that only a few had anything to gain. Wood has value. If a criminal could somehow be clever enough to get away with cutting down those trees and not get caught, doesn't that make every ne're-do-well on the face of the planet a possible suspect?

What are you thinking .............. do you really think a ne're-do-well is likely to leave his ill gotten gains behind someone else's home to come and retrieve them later .......... give me a break!

This is just getting too over the top ridiculous - time to jump off the bridge GG.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by Madelaine Amee

What are you thinking .............. do you really think a ne're-do-well is likely to leave his ill gotten gains behind someone else's home to come and retrieve them later .......... give me a break!



This is just getting too over the top ridiculous - time to jump off the bridge GG.

I said devil's advocate and was just making a point...answering ridiculous with ridiculous. Assuming there are four and only four suspects is just as ridiculous.

( And are you sure they left behind 100% of the wood? Or did they just want it to look that way so everybody would assume there are only four suspects??!!?? [emoji23] )

[Barefoot]

Not to be negative, but is it possible some posters with elaborate theories have been watching too many episodes of CSI?
I'm sure the Detectives have explored all the obvious leads and would love to arrest the perps.
As an elected official said to me several months ago, "We know who did it but there is no proof".

[Cedwards38]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

I said devil's advocate and was just making a point...answering ridiculous with ridiculous. Assuming there are four and only four suspects is just as ridiculous.

( And are you sure they left behind 100% of the wood? Or did they just want it to look that way so everybody would assume there are only four suspects??!!?? [emoji23] )

OK, if that is a "ridiculous" assumption then give me some non-ridiculous reasons why anyone else would have done this, or caused this to be done, other than for the view? And if, in fact, it was for the view, how many homes do you really think had their view improved by the cutting, thus giving them a motive? And I think we've already had the "cutting for the wood" theory adequately addressed by Madelaine Amee.

[Polar Bear]

I think this horse is long dead. Have fun, gang.