Lake Pirates?

I call Bull****.

 

Honestly I would be embarrassed if law school felt the need to teach you that things can happen that haven't happened before. I'm slightly puzzled that you seem to be using the "it's never happened before" excuse here though Sam.

Pirates have made attacks on boats on this lake before (allegedly)
Woman claims pirates attacked her on jet ski
Police claim a witness supports her story

Your argument is since pirates had never attacked a jet ski on the lake before this seems unlikely? The only new variable is that it was a jetski instead of a boat. That doesn't seem like a huge leap...

 

No, my argument is pretty clear - "somebody robbed a fisherman before!" is not the same as "somebody randomly shot one or two jet-ski people then hid the body" - you don't have to be a criminal psychologist to discern why.

Pretty simple, I guess Jo mama has a wedgie from another internet battle.

 

Has anyone else noticed that SamFisher's spelling gets worse the more excited and defensive he becomes in a discussion, as he realizes that he is "losing the argument"?

That's not really helpful for a lawyer.

 

I see, but it doesn't seem to be that big of a leap to believe that these pirates were trying to rob this couple and things went bad.

 

then you build in another logical leap that they decide to rob a jet-ski (for what, $100 resale value?) and hide the body but leave a living witness on another jet ski....

 

A jetski is more valuable than $ 100. Also, you are once again changing your argument. Before, you constantly harped on "it has never happened before". Now you are making a somewhat more reasonable argument about why they would hide a body and leave a living witness. But that is not what you were unsuccessfully basing your argument on before.

 

They didn't leave a living witness, she got away. And I don't know, seems like a lot of the murders that are committed south of the border involve hiding bodies somewhere.

 

Some relevant snips from that article.

So there is blood evidence supporting her claim, a witness supporting her claim, and the sheriff supports her claim and accepts it as not only viable, but fact. I don't know anything about the sheriff (maybe Mr. Gonzalez is just a racist teabagger!!!!) but if the story works for him that's good enough for me Mr. Fisher.

 

Maybe she got away because they didn't exist.

There's blood on the lifejacket. This also supports my claim that she and OJ Simpson knifed her husband and hid the body.

Do you see the problem here?

IIRC, she claims there is a witness who says they saw her motoring away and a boat in the vicinity - again, this supports my claim that she and OJ murderd him and stashed his body on the boat.

 

Now you are assuming the pirates were after the jet-ski for monetary value, perhaps they saw it as a fast inconspicuous means to smuggle drugs. Or they could have been after a possible kidnapping for ransom or any money they had on themselves.

Then again, this is what people have been saying from the get-go.

 

Explain to me what you think is happening here because it doesn't make sense to me. Do you think she murdered her husband? Do you think this is all staged to get publicity to Falcon Lake?

I know nothing about Falcon Lake, but apparently there is in fact a drug cartel that uses it and controls the waters. Apparently it got dangerous and the Mexican government stopped searching for this body for a short time. The sheriff on the American side believes the story. There is apparently a history of violence from this group on this lake.

Why is this such a hard story to believe? I am fine with being skeptical, but there doesn't appear to be any significant reason to doubt this woman is telling the truth.

 

From his previous comments on the thread, it seems like his reasons to doubt her story are more political.

 

Except your theory is illogical. Her story isn't illogical except to you.

Shame on both sides of the "immigration debate" that it has come to this. A violent episode occurs on a lake and we have to debate what really happened because anti-illegal immigration people want to use it (falsely) to demonstrate that Mexican immigration is bad and pro illegal immigrant groups want to discredit it to show that Mexicans are violent.

 

Maybe. That's the way it usually happens on CSI.

Oh please, her story and what little you and I know about it can easily be interpreted as logical or illogical...why do deadly paramilitary zetas who are running millions of dollars worth of drugs bother knocking over tourists in order to fence hot used jet skis for a couple of bucks each?

Why does this deadly group of paramilitaries commit an elementary mistake of allowing a live eyewitness to get away, yet bother to cover the tracks anyway with military precision?

Why do they decide to go jetskiing in a lake that you are telling me is a deadly dangerous hellhole?

Maybe she's telling the truth, who knows as of right now.

 

LOL OK. I'm trying to have a serious discussion with you Sam. If you want to resort to this stuff I'll leave you to another fruitless debate with the other guys in the thread.

 

Geeezzzz.... Lets just say that there have been reports of criminal activity targeting watercraft before on the lake which may lend credence to Hartley's claim that her husband was murdered.

I have some skepticism of her story but arguing about jetskis just seems anal.

 

if you want to have a serious discussion - what does this even mean?

It is anal - capital crimes and prosecutions are very anal and detail oriented. See CSI.