Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Jezebelle

I got ya. I guess I was adding that the state has learned more about the crime since the warrant was issued (a conviction and admission has occured). State agencies are known for not updating their databases or following up..


452 posted on 05/11/2006 6:06:46 PM PDT by OakOak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies ]


To: All

I don't think anyone on Fox (H C) knows that there was an admission and a conviction in the Cabbie case.

Wish they would spend some time researching.


454 posted on 05/11/2006 6:11:49 PM PDT by OakOak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies ]

To: OakOak

But this would probably have just been a local warrant. It might not have been submitted to a state-wide system. I also expect the cabbie licensing is done by the city or county because I doubt if one needs a special class license (issued by the state) to operate a cab. Further, if one of the other shoplift defendants had named Mostafa as an accomplice, there is no logical reason why they wouldn't have picked him up, prosecuted him, and cleared the case.

Something just isn't adding up. If Mostafa was a cabbie in Durham then, and is a cabbie in Durham now, and has been all along, he wasn't hard to find and, even if they didn't get around to serving the warrant, it should have been discovered during a cabbie permit renewal. It just makes no sense that they would clear part of the (shoplift) case and not the rest of it when you've got a suspect easily located and also needing permit or licensing (assuming NC requires that).


456 posted on 05/11/2006 6:18:30 PM PDT by Jezebelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson