Thursday, March 27, 2008

I may get in trouble.....

...for highlighting and discussing this comment I found at KWTX's website:

Posted by: JK Location: Waco on Mar 27, 2008 at 06:39 PM
Sadly, the DA isn't up for re-election until 2010. And you know, it wasn't that they didn't have the evidence to indict. It was that they hadn't even worked on the case yet. Hewitt PD and Rangers both said they haven't been asked for anything! How sad.
Message from the McLennan County voters:
Hewitt PD and the Texas Rangers have info/facts/evidence/testimony you don't want leave your job without. Pick. Up. The. Phone.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sshannon, do you not know more about law than your postings show? The HPD and TX Rangers have been asked for nothing??? They would have had to turn over everything they had when they turned the case over to the DA. IF not, then they withheld evidence? How long had they worked on this case, over a year?

Anonymous said...

News flash! The DA has only had all the information since Matt was arrested. If you know wnything about the DA's office, you know that they're usually not in a hurry to do much! However, they have began investigating and the investigation continues! The case has not been dropped! Matt's in for a rude awakening when he's arrested again, and his good friend doesn't come to the rescue!

Anonymous said...

I do know a little about law and in Texas there is the speedy trial law that says the DA has to bring charges within 180 days or drop charges. As you said, the DA has had this case for 6 months (180 days) and had all the time that the law allows them to take to Grand Jury. Thus, the DA does have to be in a little hurry and begin their investigation. Plus, they had handed to them all of the HPD and Texas Rangers investigation of over a year. So it would appear they had ample time. I must be missing something that you seem to know. Yes, IF NEW evidence appears and there is proof of HOW the death was caused, then the DA has the power to re-open the case.

Anonymous said...

When my grandmother died at home on Hospice the JP came and counted every pill. He questioned all of us who were there including our hospice nurse and home health aid. And even though she was on hospice and had fought it for 5 years he insisted that a blood sample be taken and the contents of her stomach be examined before he would sign off on the cause of death. No one in my family objected to any of it because we had nothing to hide. We thought it was just all routine and we were grateful for his throughness.
Matt Baker would be behind bars or have his named cleared if Justice of the Peace Martin did his job. I think someone should look at placing some blame on the JP.
I too remember every detail of that day. I do not know how Matt could have such a scketchy memory of that night.

Shannon said...

I'm quoting the Waco Trib:
***Segrest declined additional comment about the case. However, Hewitt police Capt. Tuck Saunders and Texas Ranger Matt Cawthon both said Tuesday that the district attorney’s office has not asked them to conduct additional investigations in the case since Baker was arrested in Kerrville in September. “We are waiting to hear back from them, but we haven’t heard anything. Not yet,” Saunders said.***

And then another article shows:
***In the application for habeas corpus, Gray continued his aggressive defense of Baker, which has included making Baker available for media interviews and volunteering him for polygraph tests, police interviews or grand jury testimony.
The district attorney’s office has not accepted any of those offers.***

First, I'm now wondering if Gray knew his offers wouldn't be taken up on. Second, I still can't figure out why the heck the DA didn't dig into this case before this week.

Another article says that JP Martin said this order he sigend for Gray was the first such writ in his more than ten years as justice of the peace. Why is that? What's different about this case than all the others he's been involved with in the last 10 years? Does he mean there are cases that go before the grand jury within 180 days and are carried out AND there are cases that are dropped before that deadline AND that this case just sat there past the 180 days and a writ such as this had to be signed because of the deadline? If this case was looked at and had NO merit whatsoever, why wasn't it disposed of LONG AGO? Why was it left to sit? Those are questions I would like answered.

Shannon said...

The DA doesn't have to RE-open the case. It's an OPEN murder case pending investigation. Not closed. Call and ask. I did. Those were their exact words.

Anonymous said...

You're awesome, Shannon!

Anonymous said...

I'll add to my last post by saying that crime authors and journalists often carry the influence (or pressure) to move things.

Matt's certainly used them for his gain, it's time for you to do the same.

Shannon said...

Thank you Anonymous, 12:19 - I am keeping that link close by and thank you for it. If you want to email me, I will let you know more why I deleted your first comment.

Shannon said...

I don't know about awesome. But I am stubborn. And determined. Thanks, though. ;)

Anonymous said...

You have to wonder if Waco and the DA are so convinced Matt is guilty why would they wait this out the 180 days???? If it is so "cut and dry" with all the evidence then why wait?

Anonymous said...

If it's so "cut and dry" in Matt's favor, why didn't they dispose of it the day it was brought to them? That question goes both ways.

Anonymous said...

Well if you read my post again it is referring to the Dulins and Waco not Matt. In saying that if they are so convinced he is guilty (cut and dry) then why wait!

Shannon said...

I read your comment correctly. I was just turning it around back to you. I believe "cut and dry" were your words. I've made it pretty clear here that I don't think the DA put time and energy into the case when they got it 6 months ago. That, I don't know why. They didn't dispose of it either way, for or against Matt. They didn't do anything with it. Had they looked into the evidence given them by Hewitt PD and the Texas Rangers and other experts and found there was nothing there, they would have disposed of it and let Matt be. But they didn't. That all goes both ways. What I do believe is that they are looking into it now. I guess we will all soon see what their thoughts are on this matter. It's an open murder case pending investigation.

SG said...

Trouble/ You? No! :)

Anonymous said...

Yes, it will always be an open case, pending investigation, but any opening of this case has to be done thru the DA's office and not some police or Texas Ranger thinking they have new evidence. That is just the law. The DA could not dismiss the case. He could have sent it to a Grand Jury before the 180 days, but for reasons only his office must know, he chose not to, thus he let the time run out. After the 180 days goes by the case cannot be taken to a Grand Jury without new evidence, way over what has already been shown by HPD and TX Rangers. All of these steps are in our legal system to protect both the innocent and the guilty.

Shannon said...

I personally don't think it will be always be an open case.

DA's office isn't sitting still these days.

4truth said...

I think Matt Baker should not get too comfortable. Can you say civil case? Can you say on-going investigation? Can you say, "you look so good in stripes."

Anonymous said...

I think the Dulins should not get too comfortable. Can you say "with held evidence" but "wait for civil case" Can you say "this whole conversation sounds like a pre-teen"?

Anonymous said...

Can you say, "I sound scared"?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 8:44--how ridiculous that you said the Dulins should not get too comfortable. Where did you get the idea that they are at a comfortable place--I certainly don't sense that from what I've read and heard. If you think this sounds like a pre-teen blog then why are you reading it and submitting a comment?

Anonymous said...

It is stuff like this that limits my visit here. I like that Shannon is willing to post the negative to keep perspective fair. But some of you need to step out of your comfort zone of growing up with Matt and sit in the shoes of his victims. Those he made sexual advances at, the congregation he misled, and the woman he murdered. If Matt were a complete stranger, would you be so confident that your buddy didn't do this? The facts are there, the evidence is there. What isn't there is a DA who cares one way or the other. The solution to the negative rantings from the Matt supporters would be to create your own blog in support of Matt. Why hasn't that been done? Every blog I have seen is just the opposite. Is it that you really aren't sure what to think because we all know he did it. We were all here, we knew the Kari of those days, we saw the emotionless Matt meet and greet at the visitation while the rest of us fell to pieces, and we witnessed Matt prance around with his new woman. I realize there is that little question of free speech but come on, that isn't why you come here. You come here to cause trouble, pick fights, and to be just plain rude. The rest of us come here to share memories and find support yet we often find ourselves defending the very woman we are trying to remember.
KB

Anonymous said...

I read your entry with interest and complete agreement, 7:13. It is my firm belief that the negative comments are coming from no more than about three individuals. One, I believe to be Matt himself...

Having been a writing instructor for many, many years, I can just about identify by tone and grammatical quirks the posts by each author. Really, I don't think any of us who read the various blogs have any difficulty picking out the three biggest bloviators. There is a particularly annoying one who likes to "give strokes" to journalists and the inept DA's office for "good work." She/he wants to impress us all with a goofy half-quote from Shakespeare now and then, too. Yech!!