"Laura M. Young" <bridgeplayer60@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:C4092D9E.937A%bridgeplayer60@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 3/21/08 7:32 AM,"PJ" <pjmott@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> All true but, so far, no proof of whom in the hit and run so Sam has
>> no charges to press. She would be as easily discredited since her
>> grudge against Liz and Jason is well known by a lot of people. It's
>> all so Pot & Kettle. It's crap. Next story, please!!
>>
>> PJ
>
>
> And, I'm so sick of hearing that they can't get a conviction because
> people will lie and contradict each other! Hello! That's what
detectives
> are for. They find EVIDENCE that helps sort out who is lying! That
was
> the excuse for Rik never being convicted of kidnapping Carly. Wouldn't
> you
> think a good detective with some CSI buddies could find enough evidence
in
> that panic room to prove it? With the case of Sam standing by and
> watching
> the kidnapping, you'd think that the testimony of Jason, Amelia, AND
> Colleen
> (was that her name?), plus the simple fact that Jason and Amelia KNEW
> where
> to go find Jake because of what Sam had said would counteract Sam's "I
> didn't see nuthin'!"
>
> As for the hit and run, the inept PCPD has yet to come up with the
> evidence
> which proves whether it was Nik, Monica, Carly or Liz or someone else
who
> actually KNEW they hit someone and took off anyway!
>
> But I agree...next story, please!
Plus Sam admitted it to Lucky. The detective would be a witness against
her!? And, based on the truth (as opposed to the evidence) we know that
there was no hit and run. No one knew, no intent, no hit and run. Please
writers, find something else for Sam to do. Next...
Zac
|
