stranger than fiction.

Perhaps HBO could use this incident for a plot for next season's "True Detective." That is, if there is a third season.

This season has been pretty sucky so far, IMO.

.

Sunday's episode even got me to look a bit more closely and realize Colin Farrell's last name is Velcoro, not Velcro.
I think the ramifications of the rapist being found pulled me in. I kinda like that little boy.

recent episode being an improvement. Of course, after the previous episode's seemingly senseless bloodbath, anything would be an improvement. But the story is still so disjointed that I am having difficulty following it.

Of course, that may just be me. I'll probably stick with it just to see whether it continues to improve.

I didn't even know that was a thing. I obviously need to get out more!

It pulls in combustion air from about the roofline of the SUV. So you can drive through water, as long as it isn't deeper than the SUV is tall.

(The SUV also has to be modified to sink instead of float. Basically, drain holes in the bottom of the body so water can flow in)

The car doesn't "drive underwater" like James Bond in a submarine.

The air intake is elevated with a snorkel, and there are some other minor mods to the intake and exhaust so that the car can drive through deep water.

Useful in hurricanes, floods, and crossing areas with streams or pools of water.

She wants people to think she accepted that she could just walk away from a dead body, and that 'authorities' would take care of everything?

We need a cause of death. We need the movements of the 'fiancee' for the 10 days. The police seem far too trusting of her("no foul play&quot .

But, anyway, all she had to do was call 911. Hell, she could do that and ask for the police first, to get advice on what the law says.

And if she thought he died so soon after becoming unresponsive, I would think she would still have a legal obligation, not to mention an ethical one, to report the death.

But the claim that he wanted to die from a sudden illness sounds highly dubious to me. Though I suppose that, even without her claims, his life was very weird, so maybe he would make a spur of the moment decision for suicide like that. It needs thorough investigation, anyway, and a cause of death, before you can say 'no foul play'.

"ask for the police first, to get advice on what the law says"

That's not what the police do.

You have no, none, zero, zip, obligation or responsibility to call 911 if some person unrelated to you is in distress. The claim here is that he was in distress and specifically said he did not want 911 called.

But if someone over whom I have no legal responsibility is dying of a heart attack, I can stand there, take selfies, and send them to all my friends if I want to, and then just walk away. Now, I wouldn't do that, but as I've often said - what's legally required of someone is a poor guide to morality.

"And if she thought he died so soon after becoming unresponsive, I would think she would still have a legal obligation, not to mention an ethical one, to report the death."

Well you had charged her with manslaughter, as if she had caused his death.

Every version of this story is so horribly written, it is difficult to figure out the sequence of events. It's not clear to me whose car they were in, either.

But, in general, if someone (to whom you have no legal responsibility) drops dead in your presence, you are free to carry about your business in whatever manner you see fit.

before you can say 'no foul play'

I'm sure there will be an investigation. Again, I was responding to you claiming she should be charged with manslaughter. The way things work is that you need evidence of a crime before charging someone with one. Not the other way around.

I did not say "no foul play". I said, taking the story as true (pace the horrible writing about the sequence of events) on the facts given, I don't see a crime. Sure, one might come up as the details become clearer. But you don't get "manslaughter" out of walking away from someone who is in some sort of terminal distress.

(on edit: states vary wildly on failing to report an actual death or location of a corpse. It just recently because a misdemeanor in Michigan, for example: http://archive.freep.com/article/20130102/NEWS06/130102065/Failure-to-report-dead-body-becomes-misdemeanor-under-new-Michigan-law - "Failure to report dead body now a misdemeanor under new Michigan law" )

and a sequence of events that involves strange goings-on and someone walking away from the death of their apparent fiancee, claiming to be under the impression that authorities just deal with everything without them being told.

Failure to report a death seems to be illegal in most places, to me. It does, after all, make it far too easy to cover up the cause of death.

I suppose being someone's fiancee doesn't put you in a formal position of a duty of care, so you're right, it wouldn't be manslaughter. The idea that he suddenly decided he wanted to die from a mysterious cause stinks to high heaven, though, so I think her role is still highly suspicious.

ask for the police first, to get advice on what the law says"

That's not what the police do.

Whether something is illegal is not up to you, it's up to the statutes. As I had pointed out above, it only became a misdemeanor in Michigan two years ago, and I've been looking for a corresponding CA statute. I have not, as yet, found one.

But even that brings me back to whether he was dead when she left him. Even if there is a CA misdemeanor of failing to report a death, he'd have to be dead when she left him. No version of the story I have read is unambiguous on that point. If someone is in physical distress and says they don't want 911 called, they don't want to go to the hospital, just leave me alone, and you leave, then you haven't even "failed to report a death" because one hasn't happened yet.

And by having "legal responsibility", I mean under any condition that might impose one, not some formal arrangement. For example, you have responsibilities to passengers in your car, guests in your home, etc., that inhere under those sorts of circumstances.

But, again, absent someone coming up with a CA statute on failure to report a death, then it is not a matter of opinion whether it "seems to be illegal" or seems that way to anyone in particular. There may be one, and there are in many states, but I have not found one in California.

Another problem here is that if she believed he was an alien lizard being, then even if she thought he was dead, that's not the death of a person. Perhaps she might have known of the death of an alien lizard being, and would have otherwise reported it if she believed he was human.

But, again, (a) I can't find a California statute on point (there's a whole lot about reporting child abuse, injury and death) and (b) I'm not clear on what was his condition when she left him.

There is a general bias - in civilized countries - to not impose criminal penalties for "failure to act" absent specific kinds of legal relationships. Criminal law generally looks at what people affirmatively do, and not things that they don't do but "should".

Tons of guns and ammo and cash
no clear source of income that would explain these assets
'CIA' cover story to explain strange visitors and strange behaviors
offroad 4x4 modified for deep water fording, sounds like a good gun running vehicle
dies under mysterious circumstances

it would all fit

someone is actively erasing the trail and burning documents right now.

I sincerely doubt he was working for our government, he and his 2 lady friends were far too nutty. This sounds like a drug burnout story from the 70s.

He strikes me as a drug lab rat who very likely sampled his own goods while slowly rotting his brain with the chemicals. The drug lab made him very rich and brought him into contact with people who'd deal in guns, a safer commodity for his few remaining brain cells.

Those were the kinds of guns you want to fight a war, not the kind you want to use to maintain every day discipline in a drug cartel.

Were I in Mexico, I think I'd be breathing a lot easier because this guy is dead.

I suspect it will turn out he was the son of some wealthy family, went nuts early on but was kept supplied with money.

in the links.

His parents had enough money to send him to a couple of fancy colleges but not enough to set him up in a gun running operation in LA. His girlfriend was well fixed, but not well enough to set him up in a gun running operation.

You've got the "nutcase" right.

I'm a little surprised nobody in the neighborhood complained about the smell. After 2 weeks in the summer, he had to be really ripe. I know that smell and it is unbearable.

Damn

I'm going with the he's a weapons fence theory.

Unless he was the most active illegal arms dealer in the US, there would be no reason to have that level of inventory. Also, I'd expect an underground arms dealer to have far fewer arms at his actual house. To be an arms dealer of that scale would require some reasonable intelligence, and I can't see someone moving that volume from their home and not attracting the attention of the law. If he was an illegal arms dealer, I'd expect there to be a ton of paperwork pointing back at him from firearms seized at crime scenes.

I would lean towards the notion that at some point he came into a lot of money (lottery, drugs?), and simply became a gun hoarder/collector. It could also have been an investment play. When the US enacts gun legislation, it tends to "grandfather in" arms that were manufactured before the ban. When the US banned the creation of new machine guns in 1986, an M-16 went from costing less than $1000 to $10,000 in a very, very short period of time. He may have been betting on a similar bump for semi-autos.

gun purchasing / collecting.

Freeeeeeeeeduuuumb!

You got that right.