240 - Enough is enough on Matt Kline

[Norton]

Who do you want to work for?  The New York Times, or the National Enquirer??

They are both full of shit so take your choice.

[Norton]

Matt is definitely a part of this and he will undoubtedly be called in to testify.  That is why it is not in his best interest to comply or deny anything on the boards regarding his involvement in this situation.  I am just not interested in hearing about those he "possibly" screwed over in the past.

Sorry, but it does lead to character.

[bigdumbbell]

I don't think so. I think that perhaps they didn't realize how fast the police and the FBI was moving. Honestly, do you think they were in the right state of mind after what (which we don't know exactly) happened. No sleep, driving a few days, etc.

once the criminals cross a stateline.  the FBI moves fast.

[Laura Lee]

Sorry, but it does lead to character.

again...it's all hearsay.

[Norton]

again...it's all hearsay.

Hearsay can be and in many cases is 100% factual.

[Laura Lee]

Your correct on that part but how do you know for sure that he did not set anybody up? Obviously you can not.

Let me offer you my thought on the possible set up.  If he did, I would say I am glad he did.  I am glad for the family of the victim as they now can see the murderer/s held accountable for their actions.  If they were not nabbed, then who knows.  Maybe they could have fled the country and never be caught.  Truly gotten away with murder. 

If he lied and said he had nothing to do with a set up, it will all come out in testimony at the trial.

[Disgusted]

Let me offer you my thought on the possible set up.  If he did, I would say I am glad he did.  I am glad for the family of the victim as they now can see the murderer/s held accountable for their actions.  If they were not nabbed, then who knows.  Maybe they could have fled the country and never be caught.  Truly gotten away with murder. 

If he lied and said he had nothing to do with a set up, it will all come out in testimony at the trial.

Like I said in a previous post, if he set them up I don't blame him regardless of what he might have done in the past.

[bigdumbbell]

please do underestimate the ability of the FBI. 
with enactment of The Patriot Act police surveillance effectiveness has dramatically improved.

[Laura Lee]

please do underestimate the ability of the FBI. 
with enactment of The Patriot Act police surveillance effectiveness has dramatically improved.

Do you mean "don't" underestimate ...

[bigdumbbell]

yes  thanks for correction  thinking about dinner tonight got distracted   lol

[Tre]

I certainly do not know Matt and I am NOT accusing him of anything but something does not add up for me. Supposedly Matt was the guy that Craig and Kelly were supposed to meet and liquidate some things, possibly drugs. The feds want Matt to set up Craig. Now here's where for me it gets odd. IF Matt did not set up Craig then the FBI must have gotten in touch with Matt first. IF this is true then they must have known the Matt was going to help Craig correct? IF Matt was going to help Craig then he was committing a serious crime and I see him as having no choice but to set Craig up. If Matt  refuses he goes to jail, period!

There are not too many possible scenarios as to how this went down. If I was Matt I would have refused to meet Craig from the beginning. Obviously he didn't since Craig drove all the way to Boston. Personally I think Matt went along with the feds and regardless of what he is like I can't say I blame him. Craig and Kelly were going down anyway. It was just a matter of time.

Assuming that they were not already being followed by the FBI, all they had to do was long onto GetBig.com to get Craig & Kelly's complete itinerary.

The fact that they turned up in Boston - as was advertised on GetBig.com - is a clear indication that they were not trying all that hard to "get away". 

[bigdumbbell]

then i imagine they went on the scenic route through albany and across the Berkshires to beantown

[Aido]

Hearsay can be and in many cases is 100% factual.

No it's not. Thats why it's called hearsay. If it was 100% factual it would be called fact. Something can only be called fact if, at the time of it's disclosure or declaration factual evidence can be provided.

Something appearing on an internet site, or in a newspaper as a rumour, which later may turn out to be true, is still a rumour until proven otherwise.

You can't listen to or read some rumour and say "Well, i'd better believe this as it MAY turn out to be true down the line".