Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to comment and join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. If you become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

Sadly, I thought this might be the case in Menifee


Recommended Posts

The first rule of missing-person cases is conducting a search of the residence/property.  But that search can range from a single Officer doing a walk-through to something you probably expect from watching CSI.  Even if a thorough multiple-Officer search is done, kids sometimes have better hiding places.

 

Lawrence assumed from the start that no one even looked in the house.  Or did some of us read that wrong too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think that the house and surrounding property should have been searched thoroughly for the kid early on in the investigation. Is there something wrong with that point of view?

OK, well we don't know if they searched in and around the house prior to that but we do know that the available information had them looking mostly elsewhere. Obviously something changed that brought them back to the house and more specifically the pepper tree area of the yard. You don't focus your efforts to find a missing child looking in places other than where he was believed to be last unless something points you there. They are going on the assumption that the boy was alive and had wandered off or been abducted. You focus your efforts where the information tells you to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first rule of missing-person cases is conducting a search of the residence/property.  But that search can range from a single Officer doing a walk-through to something you probably expect from watching CSI.  Even if a thorough multiple-Officer search is done, kids sometimes have better hiding places.

 

Lawrence assumed from the start that no one even looked in the house.  Or did some of us read that wrong too?

No, most of us read that you were being a giant douche.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, most of us read that you were being a giant douche.

Wow.  Don't get hurt throwing your internet tantrum.  Wonder what your infantile definition of douche is?  Maybe it means "not assuming information not included in articles" like I did about Lawrences' assuming no one ever searched the house.  Or maybe you just read it off your name tag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Larry.

I'd focus on witness accounts, but after so much time elapsed it's plausible the kid made his way around the perimeter. I'd focus efforts on info presented, but also have a person or two check the home and perimeter. At worst case it's just easy to look and rule out the home and vicinity early on in the investigation. It makes sense to start at a core premise and work your way out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All ML teams should wear pinstriped uniforms with #2 this weekend to commemorate this historical moment.

"Smith – who said he had last spoken with his son a couple of months ago" - ah, good old fashioned American parenting!!

Also, the dad couldn't get out here from WV when his son went missing?

WTF YK? The guy is divorced from his wife and didn't have custody. When his ex called she tried to find out if he was in California, probably to cast suspicion on him as the murderer. You don't know the circumstances of their relationship but by his statement his wife was lying about her son being autistic to get money from the state.

Also according to Dad his son wanted to live with him but I am guessing a divorce settlement left his youngest with mom sincethe courts obviously know what is best for kids. Like leave the kid with a vicious older step brother that would bash his brains with a rock.

This is a mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Larry.

I'd focus on witness accounts, but after so much time elapsed it's plausible the kid made his way around the perimeter. I'd focus efforts on info presented, but also have a person or two check the home and perimeter. At worst case it's just easy to look and rule out the home and vicinity early on in the investigation. It makes sense to start at a core premise and work your way out.

isn't that what happened?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow.  Don't get hurt throwing your internet tantrum.  Wonder what your infantile definition of douche is?  Maybe it means "not assuming information not included in articles" like I did about Lawrences' assuming no one ever searched the house.  Or maybe you just read it off your name tag.

 

The only person throwing a tantrum here is you, dude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WTF YK? The guy is divorced from his wife and didn't have custody. When his ex called she tried to find out if he was in California, probably to cast suspicion on him as the murderer. You don't know the circumstances of their relationship but by his statement his wife was lying about her son being autistic to get money from the state.

Also according to Dad his son wanted to live with him but I am guessing a divorce settlement left his youngest with mom sincethe courts obviously know what is best for kids. Like leave the kid with a vicious older step brother that would bash his brains with a rock.

This is a mess.

 

Hasn't spoken with his 11 year old in a couple of months - you think this is healthy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...