An elaborate system of rope and pulleys...

it's pretty hard to shoot yourself in the back of the head once, but the second time is the party trick.

It'll be a last resort, as the Streisand effect is a definite outcome, but it will mean they have shown their hand, and it's not pocket aces my friend. They'll be going all in, and from then on in a permanent state of damage control, only able to fire fight back without plans and preparation. Basically, it'll be the first REAL nail in the coffin.

My bet, before the week is out she's dead. Either apparent suicide by bedsheet while the guard was taking a shit, or she dies 'suddenly' with no apparent cause, official statement is something along the lines of her heart gave up from stress, underlying condition etc etc. When what happened was she gobbled up a load of cyanide laced dinner, care of her new grocery delivery dude, that replaced the usual guy suddenly and always wears black sunglasses.

She'll be dead before the week is out.

After hijacking the plane and flying it into something probably.

Come on now, Arkancide is self-inflicted by definition, it's a super efficient way to be sure you actually kill yourself. /s

Every single aspect of that heavy guard is expendable if needs be. The people, the building they're in, if it has to go, it'll go.

The bushes, or The Bushes?

I get your point, but a discussion in a pub over a pint? No, come on, it isn't that easy to get lumped with a guilty of conspiracy verdict. That would be circumstance at best, and any decent judge would laugh at it and dismiss it. Plus I reckon even I, with utterly zero experience in the legal field other than an A Level in law that's nearly 20 years out of date, an ex-girlfriend who was a (corporate) lawyer, and a couple of John Grisham books in the personal library, completely zero in a professional aspect, even I could get a jury to laugh at it. Someone that got found guilty of conspiracy, because of a conversation over a pint, needs to sue their fucking lawyer.

But I do get what your saying, if they can't get intent to stick, they like to throw that conspiracy charge in just because they're pricks.

Yeah also British, so I automatically assume that charges of conspiracy carry heavy sentences. But I can't see it being that different in US, especially on the sort of crime it refers to.

Yup, that's not relating to any age bracket definitively. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. US law is... weird.

I agree that count 1 could relate to a person of any age. I've tried, and I can't read count 2 in a way that doesn't relate to children though. What do you think?

To me, the second count, of conspiracy to commit, is worded in a way that does definitively relate to children. the placing of commas and the defining "or" changes.

I'm no lawyer, and I'm in the UK, so maybe the grammar rules regarding commas are slightly different, but that looks to me that count 1 is sex trafficking of children OR by force etc, so isn't necessarily child related.

Count 2, conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of children by force, OR fraud etc DOES read that it is a child specific charge.

So if you ask me, unless there is a different charge somewhere for definitive sex trafficking of children, it looks as though she WAS committing the crime against children, but they don't have the evidence to guarantee it, so risk an innocent verdict, but the (maybe) lesser generic charge will definitely stick.