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.
But is there truth to the story? What's the source?
Edit
Wow....heres one source from '91, LA Times.
In 1984 and 1985, he talked to someone in his office about what it would cost to have her killed," Earley said, "what guarantees he would have that it would not get back to him and how it would be done. He told a number of people it wouldn't be over until one of them was gone."
The judge said that, since the defendant was unaware of the alleged murder-for-hire scheme until recently, it could not have been relevant to her state of mind at the time of the slayings.
I don't care what list the gun was or wasn't on. She's a women with multiple disorders threatening 2 lives on at least 4 different occasions.
Sorry you don't get that!?
"I don't care what list the gun was or wasn't on." Then why did you ask? That WAS the context of my response. Can't you keep up with this thread?
What is your point? That she was guilty of threats so shouldn't have been allowed to buy a gun?
Again, take it up with California. Gun control and gun laws are NOT the topic of this thread. That is a debate for another time and place.
It came out during the trial, but again, the evidence was not admitted.
There is MUCH more to this story that most people know; however, that doesn't stop them from proferring uninformed opinions and villifying those who hold a different opinion (who just MAY know more than they do). Usually those folks watched the (very biased) Lifetime movies, then consider themselves "experts."
I am not pointing a finger at you; I'm just venting.
But is there truth to the story? What's the source?
Edit
Wow....heres one source from '91, LA Times.
In 1984 and 1985, he talked to someone in his office about what it would cost to have her killed," Earley said, "what guarantees he would have that it would not get back to him and how it would be done. He told a number of people it wouldn't be over until one of them was gone."
The judge said that, since the defendant was unaware of the alleged murder-for-hire scheme until recently, it could not have been relevant to her state of mind at the time of the slayings.
"I don't care what list the gun was or wasn't on. She's a women with multiple disorders threatening 2 lives on at least 4 different occasions."
Again, know the difference between statements and questions.
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.
