WHAT??? Judge dismisses all charges against 3 'extremist Muslim' New Mexico compound suspects

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: Sublimecraft

This is what i gathered also. With this case being so dann important its hard to fathom how the prosecutor could botch the case over such a simple task. Something is amiss here.

What I am unable to determine, anywhere, is whether:

1. The prosecution scheduled the evidentiary hearing, but didn't turn up.

OR

2. The prosecution did not schedule the evidentiary hearing within the 10 day limit.


IF it is option #2, I'd like to know if they failed to:

a) Have sufficient evidence of child abuse.

OR

b) Remember they had 10 days to get it scheduled for a hearing.

OR

c) Had so much evidence that it would end up opening the largest can of worms in US history, therefore, allow a 'technicality' quash any charges and hope everyone forgets when Trump tweets about Google stopping the bias?

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Good summery.

so this situation is the prosecutions fault, and I'll repeat it again, they can still have the charge reinstated via a grand jury indictment.

It is no ones FAULT if there was no evidence to put forth.

Maybe you are right but at the worst the three could face child neglect charges.

Many people here are thinking those 3 should face some type of charge for the murder but obviously that will not happen. From reports it happened at a park and not at the home. Unless they were involved then there will be no charges and if they were involved then the prosecutor would have raised charges.

It has been the case in most domestic welfare cases that the intent is to get the kids into a secure environment. If they are being taken care of now then likely that will be the end of that if there was no molestation of physical abuse beyond poor conditions.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Alien Abduct

shoot up a school

That does not seem to be supported by facts and it negates the rest of your statement.imo

At home i guess you mean the middle east.

I have never seen a travel trailer in the middle east made into a compound.

Honestly with respect i feel your answers do not equate justification against this judges decision.

Well I dont give a rats ass if you are convinced or not. I'm just stating what i read in reports. Yes at home = middle east, dont believe me? Look it up online. Them teaching the kids to shoot up schools goes against the evidence? You mean the evidence of the kid's first hand testimony stating that they were being taught to shoot up schools? That evidence?

Im done playing your play stupid and act like a troll game, our discussion is terminated. Have a good day.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Yea i found nothing on the middle east travel trailer compounds.

I am interested in details of the children saying they were being trained.

I heard the reports but never anything with details about that.

Seems like something the prosecution would have brought forth in the abuse charges.

Like I said when they were granted bail, the prosecution didn't really have anything to break up their more extreme claims. Everything was alleged with no evidence to back it up.

Either the prosecution and investigators failed to put together a good case or their claims are fallacious. Either way they failed at doing their jobs. Nothing more. Nothing less.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Yea i found nothing on the middle east travel trailer compounds.

I am interested in details of the children saying they were being trained.

I heard the reports but never anything with details about that.

Seems like something the prosecution would have brought forth in the abuse charges.

Dude why don't you do some searching its easy to find...stop posting here for a bit go read a few articles then come back and have an intelligent conversation instead of looking trollish by going against obvious reports and facts.....

In court filings this week, prosecutors allege:

• One of the rescued children told a foster parent the suspects "trained the child in the use of an assault rifle in preparation for future school shootings."

If you don't think thats evidence then perhaps you should go represent the alleged terrorists because the prosecuter seems to think that it is.

SOURCE

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Eyewitness testimony is not enough to prove anything. In this case we're not even talking about eyewitness testimony but second-hand testimony.

I didnt say it was proof of anything. I said it was evidence. Like i told the other poster if you dont like the evidence then go represent the alleged terrorists in court because the prosecutor is the one who submitted it as evidence. Argue with them aboit it.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

What I was getting at is "teaching your kids to shoot up the school" was all that was needed. The rest of it doesn't relate in any way.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Alien Abduct

What I was getting at is "teaching your kids to shoot up the school" was all that was needed. The rest of it doesn't relate in any way.

Oh but it does. Its like paraphernalia. You know, circumstantial evidence?

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Alien Abduct

What I was getting at is "teaching your kids to shoot up the school" was all that was needed. The rest of it doesn't relate in any way.

Oh but it does. Its like paraphernalia. You know, circumstantial evidence?

Good to know you'd not consider these Islamofascists to be extremists had they been living in suburbia, enjoying air conditioned housing with a water feature while teaching kids to shoot up the school, then.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Alien Abduct

What I was getting at is "teaching your kids to shoot up the school" was all that was needed. The rest of it doesn't relate in any way.

Oh but it does. Its like paraphernalia. You know, circumstantial evidence?

Good to know you'd not consider these Islamofascists to be extremists had they been living in suburbia, enjoying air conditioned housing with a water feature while teaching kids to shoot up the school, then.

That was never my argument.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Then what you're calling "circumstantial evidence" is extemperaneous noise that served no purpose.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Then what you're calling "circumstantial evidence" is extemperaneous noise that served no purpose.

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out.

a reply to: howtonhawky

You make some good points. That being said, that still doesn't explain why this crime scene (and so many others) were inexplicably destroyed. Destroyed before the accused even went to trial (when they were still living, that is)

I tend to agree having 5 weapons does not constitute a stockpile, nor would having an actual stockpile be a crime. Nor does living with utilities/off the grid, and even having extreme views.

If there is evidence they intended to train extremists for school shootings, however, that is a crime. My question is where on Earth did the allegations come from if not true? They very well could be unfounded, I fully acknowledge that. But it appears here the prosecution dropped the ball for some reason unknown to the rest of us. And much along the lines of destroying the crime scene I would like to understand why

a reply to: Vasa Croe


I think these guys were working for the government and basically training these kids to do school shootings and mass shootings. Probably CIA operatives. I think something got found out that was not supposed to.

Minutes after Wahhaj and Leveille had the original 11 child abuse charges dropped, they had a 'first appearance' for new charges, of first-degree child abuse resulting in death and second-degree felony conspiracy to commit child abuse.

The defendants did not enter a plea.

Prosecutors filed a motion to keep Wahhaj and Leveille in jail until trial. They will remain locked up until at least September 4, when the motion will be heard in court. At that time, a judge can set conditions of release or grant the motion to keep the suspects in custody. A preliminary hearing for the pair is scheduled for September 7.

www.kob.com...

Because they were CIA..

Dont be fooled... the CIA has the power and information to ensure its people are protected from the law.

originally posted by: Phage

Minutes after Wahhaj and Leveille had the original 11 child abuse charges dropped, they had a 'first appearance' for new charges, of first-degree child abuse resulting in death and second-degree felony conspiracy to commit child abuse.

The defendants did not enter a plea.

Prosecutors filed a motion to keep Wahhaj and Leveille in jail until trial. They will remain locked up until at least September 4, when the motion will be heard in court. At that time, a judge can set conditions of release or grant the motion to keep the suspects in custody. A preliminary hearing for the pair is scheduled for September 7.

www.kob.com...

Thanks for that Phage.

So this all actually makes a lot of sense is what I have gathered...

a reply to: MALBOSIA


No, it makes no sense, I think the prosecutors were made to spike the ball on purpose, they found something they were not supposed to