Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Janice Shell who wrote (11190)	3/17/1998 3:05:00 PM
From: RJC2006	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

<<<I do find this disturbing, though: if she's just a simple nutcase, why wasn't this established before Starr's people confiscated all taht stuff? I should think that the credibility of possible witnesses would be an important factor to consided. BEFORE one issues a subpeona.>> It's simple. Just because an investigator confiscates information or property does not mean that said investigator is required to do anything with it in regards to the investigation. Material evidence need not be judged according to the mental state of the possessor. She could be a raving lunatic but if there is substantial evidence not related to her mental capacity then it's a non issue.