tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post5750167511109307247..comments2020-04-11T03:30:02.282-05:00Gary R. Welshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-91136711660798314392011-08-24T02:55:09.079-05:002011-08-24T02:55:09.079-05:00IMPD can investigate whatever it wants. It doesn&#39;t need a complaint.<br /><br />The young man has already denied he was exchanging money for sex. (This was his third version of the story.) Hinkle denies it as well. Now I&#39;m as skeptical as anyone about that, but when the only two witnesses to what happened are saying no crime was involved, any prosecution would fall flat. Plus, Hinkle, if <br />charged, wouldn&#39;t have to testify, and the entire state&#39;s case that it was sex for money would be based on what the young man testifies to and he is denying the key facts and has credibility problems.<br /><br />I do not know of a single prostitution case that was ever prosecuted where a police officer wasn&#39;t part of the attempted transaction - either pretending to be the &quot;john&quot; or pretending to the be the prostitute. There is always a cop who is one of the witnesses at trial. Without a police officer to testify regarding the exchange of money for sex, I don&#39;t know how a prosecution is ever going to work.Paul K. Ogdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16137003328850866711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-80438940978957271372011-08-23T21:09:40.245-05:002011-08-23T21:09:40.245-05:00Yes. In this matter, who does IMPD and the Ma. Co. Prosecutor&#39;s Office think that they are fooling?Marycatherine Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14674049191412285346noreply@blogger.com