|
Post by Milton on Jul 6, 2007 14:09:44 GMT -5
It is starting to sound like more than one person was involved in her disappearance.
We have Sam who appears to be guilty. Sam's divorce lawyer who was fishing with him or not... Sam's buddy who got picked up for lying.
One might keep a secret but three is harder. Someone will maybe take a deal so Teresa can be found.
|
|
|
Post by willow on Jul 6, 2007 15:39:39 GMT -5
Gosh...I hope you are right about getting someone to talk, Milton. In no way do I want to say look at me, I was right all along...But, I hope those who thaught I was just throwing around accusations and had it in for any LE people can now see, I was not just taking digs because my situation made me bitter. Honestly, I wish I were wrong but it " ain't " lookin' like I will get that wish. W
|
|
|
Post by nanas10 on Jul 8, 2007 12:45:36 GMT -5
why did BS say he wasn't representing either one and he turns out to be SP lawyer? And why did BS go into such great detail of a fishing trip. From the bait to eating no detail left out. Even the time date and why he ask SP to go with him . But keep in mind that BS had done work for Theresa family before. Was SP part of this family?And why did Theresa choose MJM for her lawyer if BS had done work for them before normally would you not do business with the same lawyer? Just alot of questions this old woman was thinking.
|
|
|
Post by Milton on Jul 9, 2007 9:49:31 GMT -5
I'm thinking the trip to the courthouse was not known to the SP's lawyer. The fact that SP was seen is just now known. I hope this is the garment starting to unravel.
|
|
|
Post by willow on Jul 9, 2007 22:09:13 GMT -5
Okay...No one is even coming close to helping me out on the apparent not interviewing of Teresa's lawyer , in the SoundOff so, I want to see if any one feels like engaging me in here on my questions.
Does it or does it not , look as if Teresa's lawyer was not interviewed AFTER Slack was. It appears to me , by the transcript of the Nancy Grey interview with Wilson, that investigators and Wilson were " confident " that they alibi story given by Slack and Parker, were taken at face value. End of discussion. Then they move on to other issues. So...How could they have been so confident that Slack and Parker were telling the truth ? Had they interviewed Teresa's lawyer....There would be not a snowballs chance that the alibi checked out. Why give Parker and Slack the benefit of the doubt without good reason ? Come on folks...Let's talk this one out.
W
|
|
|
Post by aleamon98 on Jul 9, 2007 22:55:07 GMT -5
IMO I thnk that bits and pieces are being leaked on purpose for the fact to see what dear sweet Sam's reactions are. I think that is why they are leaking a little information here and there but not everything that they know
|
|
|
Post by romegasir on Jul 9, 2007 23:20:15 GMT -5
Sometimes, the way law enforcement challenges and alibi is to make the alibi public. They had no way of knowing that SP had been at MJM's at 11:30. Investigators take an alibi, a statement, etc and they make it public knowing that if anyone has knowledge otherwise, they will probably contact LE. Let me say one other thing. The investigators are playing this PERFECTLY when it comes to SP. When this thing goes to trial, the investigators want to be able to demonstrate how they gave SP the benefit of the doubt and even tried to rule him out as the perpetrator, but dang it, everytime they turned around there was just more evidence pointing to SP. So much that they FINALLY and reluctantly had to take a long hard look at him. it's such a better case when it's obvious that the investigators did not set out to "pin" the case on the most obvious suspect.
|
|
|
Post by nc911 on Jul 10, 2007 3:50:08 GMT -5
I agree with you 100%
The public does not know what goes on behind the doors of an LE agency. They only know what they should know. At least... if the investigator is a good one.
|
|