Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the indictment, the conspiracy charge lists the poaching as part of the conspiracy, so the claims of the fire being set to cover up poaching were not proven in court.
Several different fires, several different charges.
I didn't see poaching listed in the conspiracy charges. I did see " 9. The defendants obliterated, destroyed or secreted evidence of their criminal activities." Which could possible be pertaining to poaching, or it could pertain to something else like covering up the fact that they set the fires. Or it could be in regards to this
Quote:
On or about August 24, 2006, defendants STEVEN DWIGHT HAMMOND and
I
DWIGHT LINCOLN HAMMOND, JR. obliterated and destroyed evidence ofthe boot print
DWIGHT LINCOLN HAMMOND, JR. had made in the soft soil of Bridge Creek Road on
August 23, 2006.
Which is the only other place that mentions covering up or destroying evidence occurs.
Several different fires, several different charges.
I didn't see poaching listed in the conspiracy charges. I did see " 9. The defendants obliterated, destroyed or secreted evidence of their criminal activities." Which could possible be pertaining to poaching, or it could pertain to something else like covering up the fact that they set the fires. Or it could be in regards to this
Which is the only other place that mentions covering up or destroying evidence occurs.
This is listed in the conspircy charge.
"6. On or about September 30,2001, defendant STEVEN DWIGHT HAMMOND was on property owned and possessed by the United States, the DOl and BLM near Bridge Creek Road when he shot into a group of deer.
7.
On or about September 30, 2001, after several deer were shot, defendant STEVEN DWIGHT HAMMOND attempted to hide from the view of Gordon Choate, Dennis and Dustin Nelson.
8.
On or about September 30,2001, at approximately 10:00 am, defendant STEVEN DWIGHT HAMMOND, in the presence of defendant DWIGHT LINCOLN HAMMOND, JR., handed out matches to persons known to the grand jury and directed them to use the matches to start and set multiple fires on the HRI,s "schoolhouse section" of property near property owned and possessed by the United States, the DOl and BLM."
"6. On or about September 30,2001, defendant STEVEN DWIGHT HAMMOND was on property owned and possessed by the United States, the DOl and BLM near Bridge Creek Road when he shot into a group of deer.
7.
On or about September 30, 2001, after several deer were shot, defendant STEVEN DWIGHT HAMMOND attempted to hide from the view of Gordon Choate, Dennis and Dustin Nelson.
8.
On or about September 30,2001, at approximately 10:00 am, defendant STEVEN DWIGHT HAMMOND, in the presence of defendant DWIGHT LINCOLN HAMMOND, JR., handed out matches to persons known to the grand jury and directed them to use the matches to start and set multiple fires on the HRI,s "schoolhouse section" of property near property owned and possessed by the United States, the DOl and BLM."
And that is listed as a "damaged and destroyed property owned and possessed by the
United States, the DOl and BLM " not as a destroying or obscuring evidence.
Each charge is listed, and in the descriptions it states the charge. The one I quoted is the only one that mentions destroying or obscuring evidence, removing a boot print.
That isn't how DEBATES work. They made a claim, they have to back up that claim.
No they don't.... I have yet to see anyone in a debate, wave their proof of what they say.. It is up to the other side in the debate to disprove (or counter) what was said. With their our words.
You have not watched the debates, have you? The prove is not presented by the one answering the question.
The one asking the question for debate, is to have all the answers.
The only charges that the Hammonds were found guilty of was one, a controled burn that they set on their property that spread onto public land, and two, a back burn set on their property to stop a natural wild fire from spreading onto their property and destroying their cattle feed.
The conspiracy charge was brought against the Hammonds pertaining to the allegations that one of the fires was set to cover up poaching.
Count 2. USE OF FIRE TO DAMAGE AND DESTROY PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES: GUILTY
Count 3. USE OF FIRE TO DAMAGE AND DESTROY PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES: NOT GUILTY
Count 4. USING FIRE TO CAUSE MORE THAN $1,000 OF DAMAGE AND DEPREDATION AGAINST PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES: NOT GUILTY
Count 5. USE OF FIRE TO DAMAGE AND DESTROY PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES: GUILTY
Count 6. USE OF FIRE TO CAUSE MORE THAN $1,000 OF DAMAGE AND DEPREDATION AGAINST PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES: NOT GUILTY
Count 7. USE OF FIRE TO DAMAGE AND DESTROY PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES
AND CREATING A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF INJURY TO ANY PERSON: DWIGHT HAMMOND NOT GUILTY, STEVEN HAMMOND, CHARGE DISMISSED
Count 8. USE OF FIRE TO CAUSE MORE THAN $1,000 OF DAMAGE AND DEPREDATION AGAINST PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES: NOT GUILTY
I have no idea what the state of the present argument is about other than some sort of circular argument about.. well I don't know. Anyway here is a link to the full indictment if anyone cares to read it, not that it matters at this point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
