Bonhomme Richard fire

[nodropinufaka]

I don’t know why everyone getting all bent out of shape.

I just don’t think they’re going to be able to secure a conviction on the individual. The DNA didn’t even match him.

I don’t see what they’re going to be able to prove being that the first witness said it may be him and was unsure at first and DNA of the bottle belonging to someone else.

Oh it’s a disgruntled sailor from deck department according to the CMC. Almost everyone is deck is disgruntled that doesn’t prove motive to torch the ship.

 

[Griz882]

I don’t know why everyone getting all bent out of shape.

I just don’t think they’re going to be able to secure a conviction on the individual. The DNA didn’t even match him.

I don’t see what they’re going to be able to prove being that the first witness said it may be him and was unsure at first and DNA of the bottle belonging to someone else.

Oh it’s a disgruntled sailor from deck department according to the CMC. Almost everyone is deck is disgruntled that doesn’t prove motive to torch the ship.

Thus the search warrant focused on his online discussions.

 

[nodropinufaka]

Thus the search warrant focused on his online discussions.

It’ll be interesting to see what they find.

The DNA thing is going to be difficult to figure out and why they had evidence and left it unsecured is beyond me.

 

[nodropinufaka]

Joint task force meaning US law enforcement is one element in a force of others operating in a foreign country, presumably to aid and liaison with host country law enforcement. And they were arrested for breaking US laws to be extradited to the US, or they were arrested for breaking a host country's laws. Nothing like we are talking about, nor what you implied. One DEA agent accompanying a number of federales to arrest a narco does not confer any sort of US civil rights protections to the suspect. No shit.

I don’t think I said or implied otherwise?

 

[Brett327]

I don’t know why everyone getting all bent out of shape.

I just don’t think they’re going to be able to secure a conviction on the individual. The DNA didn’t even match him.

I don’t see what they’re going to be able to prove being that the first witness said it may be him and was unsure at first and DNA of the bottle belonging to someone else.

Oh it’s a disgruntled sailor from deck department according to the CMC. Almost everyone is deck is disgruntled that doesn’t prove motive to torch the ship.

You aren’t able to draw that kind of conclusion without hearing the government’s case. Until you do, you’re just engaging in wild speculation.

 

[robav8r]

I don’t know why everyone getting all bent out of shape.

Because your grammar sucks, and your arguing with people who have a tremendous amount of experience and expertise wrt the U.S. Navy. STFU already . . .

Edit: sorry, that was a cocktail speaking on my behalf ?

 

[wink]

I don’t think I said or implied otherwise?

You opined on Mirandizing suspects in the context of this case, saying citizenship makes a difference. It doesn't. It doesn't in all of law enforcement anywhere in the whole wide world where the US Constitution reigns supreme.

 

[nodropinufaka]

You aren’t able to draw that kind of conclusion without hearing the government’s case. Until you do, you’re just engaging in wild speculation.

Is it not speculation on your end as well?

 

[nittany03]

You aren’t able to draw that kind of conclusion without hearing the government’s case. Until you do, you’re just engaging in wild speculation.

☝ ☝ This up here. The only thing that's come out is one application for a warrant, and everyone's just assuming that's the Government's entire case and going ZOMG IOWA TAKE 2 ZOMG!

All that application had to do was include just enough of a peek behind the prosecution's curtain for a judge to read it and go "yep, they're not just doing this for funsies. There's probable cause here to go serve Google, Apple, and Facebook with subpoenas for data, and deal with their in-house legal teams."

I mean, as I've said before, OJAG blew a ton of credibility on the Gallagher affair, so I can't dismiss out of hand that there's a chance they'll screw the pooch. But let's also not act like they had to put all their cards on the table just to get a search warrant that could result in them getting even more cards dealt.

 

[Brett327]

Is it not speculation on your end as well?

No, I'm not speculating, or drawing conclusions. You really are a malignant idiot.

 

[wink]

☝☝ This up here. The only thing that's come out is one application for a warrant, and everyone's just assuming that's the Government's entire case and going ZOMG IOWA TAKE 2 ZOMG!

All that application had to do was include just enough of a peek behind the prosecution's curtain for a judge to read it and go "yep, they're not just doing this for funsies. There's probable cause here to go serve Google, Apple, and Facebook with subpoenas for data, and deal with their in-house legal teams."

I mean, as I've said before, OJAG blew a ton of credibility on the Gallagher affair, so I can't dismiss out of hand that there's a chance they'll screw the pooch. But let's also not act like they had to put all their cards on the table just to get a search warrant that could result in them getting even more cards dealt.

My son’s job includes issuing warrants for searches and arrest. Search warrants are all about building a case, developing evidence. Not providing proof of quilt and is not inclusive of all the evidence the police may have. The officer or agent, not usually a prosecutor, only offers as little as possible to obtain a warrant. That is because it is a public document and revealing too much can hamper the investigation by tipping the target or compromising the prosecutions case. He has rejected warrant affidavits as thin on probable cause only to have it come back with more compelling evidence a short time later. All because the police are holding cards close to their vest.

 

[Hair Warrior]

It’s kind of a lose-lose at this point. If the sailor is found not guilty, then JAGC missed another target they took aim at. If the sailor is found guilty, he’s got no money so there’s no restitution to the govt for the loss of a capital ship.

 

[nodropinufaka]

What was the point of putting him in pre trial confinement for 3 months if they didn’t have enough evidence to hold him there? They held the guy for 3 months and then just let him walk.

And only now are they putting together this search warrant?

Seems odd

 

[Brett327]

he’s got no money so there’s no restitution to the govt for the loss of a capital ship.

Not really the point of holding someone accountable for a serious crime.

 

[nittany03]

What was the point of putting him in pre trial confinement for 3 months if they didn’t have enough evidence to hold him there? They held the guy for 3 months and then just let him walk.

Because holding someone in pretrial confinement has nothing to do with having "enough evidence to hold them there." It requires:

1. A reasonable belief that a crime has been committed, AND
2. A reasonable belief that the accused committed the crime, AND
3. That in the absence of confinement, the accused will commit more crimes or is a flight risk, AND
4. That lesser means of restraint won't prevent 3.

If they're no longer deemed a flight risk, or one of the multiple reviewing authorities of the pretrial confinement says "no, I don't agree, you didn't prove 1-4 to my satisfaction," the accused is released before trial. This is a state that can change. Someone can be a flight risk and then change their mind. Or, they can get put on pre-trial restriction, violate it, and then get thrown in the clink.

And only now are they putting together this search warrant?

Look at the warrant. Look at the first page of the warrant. Look at the very top line of the first page of the warrant. Look at literally the first thing you see. It was filed under seal 11 months ago.