Well, i'm glad you agree with almost all of my substantive points. The only question that we seem to diverge on is whether or not the original poster's coming back to give us detailed updates would make a bad situation worse. You don't seem to see the harm in her doing that.

I've already explained why i think doing so would make things worse for her. But since it seems to have been missed, i'll say it again.

A public confession is only admissible in court if it can be proved that it came from the accused. But the accused did not provide enough details to justify a subpeona. Proving the accused made a confession would require subpeonaing DB's logs as well as (probably) an ISP's logs. Without that proof of origin (if it's not found on her computer's hard drive), anyone who wanted to cause harm could have made a fake confession here pretending to be the accused.

I don't understand why this concept is so hard to grasp. As it is, no judge acting lawfully would find grounds to subpeona anything because the poster did not identify a known crime in a certain jurisdiction. If there's no known jurisdiction, then the judge has no jurisdiction (pun intended).

On the other hand, this would not be true if she had come back and provided enough details to identify her and her case. Then that would be grounds for a subpeona which may or may not substantiate the confession and if so, it would then be an admissible confession. But, as it is, that single post is just drivel on a message board. (Present company included, of course.)

If someone were arrested as described, any competent attorney would advise them to stay off this message board.

I rest my case and am done here. You can have the final word and let's call this discussion a dead horse.

Trampy