Zac wrote:
> "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
Didn't Spinelli also have some video evidence placing Sam at the park at
the
time of the kidnapping?
Alane
|
