3 ms·
If this is actually a legitimate thing, it sounds like the most ridiculous abuse I've read in this thread. By this logic there is no reasonable concept of 'stat
by nrmitchi 4y ago
If this is actually a legitimate thing, it sounds like the most ridiculous abuse I've read in this thread. By this logic there is no reasonable concept of 'statute of limitations' if a "secret" investigation can always be opened (or assumed to have been opened).
The only reference I can find to what you're describing seems to apply to civil suits only, where the legitimate defendent name is substituted back in during discovery. It does not appear to be a stand-in in criminal investigations.
- paulpauper 4y agoThe biggest misconception is that the statute of limitations means all you need to do is run down the clock. nope. as soon as there is enough evidence to open an investigation there is no expiration unless the investigation is closed and this is all done in secrecy. Rather, the deadline is from when the crime last occurred to when the investigation is opened. For example, the investigation into the identify of the 2011 geezer bandit is still ongoing despite the most recent robbery being a decade ago. Regarding the bank robber, it's not a secret because the feds are looking for leads from the public who have be able to identify him by appearance, but in the case of the hacker it does no good to put up wanted posters.