View Full Version : MO-Elizabeth Olten, 9, St. Martin's Thread #13
imamaze
12-02-2009, 11:09 PM
Terms of Service - Short Plain Language Version
Terms of Service - Short, Plain Language Version
We have a detailed, formal Terms of Service (TOS) posted separately, and that TOS is what you will be held to as a member here. It's long and detailed because it has to be in the world we live in, and you are expected to read it, understand it and abide by it. However, we can sum it up as follows:
1) Be a decent human being;
2) Treat your fellow posters as the decent human beings they are;
3) Keep in mind that whatever you post will likely live on forever, so think before you press "Submit Reply".
4) It's a big world. People will disagree with you. You will disagree with them. This can be done with respect, and that's what we expect.
Brought over from previous thread posted by Hoppy.
Terms of Service
Please review them and be sure your posts fall within TOS guidelines.
This is also another important rule to know:
Everyone please read - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
#12
Please Continue...
Can I be first?
LOL, okay....done :-)
Csquare
12-02-2009, 11:19 PM
Can I be first?
LOL, okay....done :-)
Cheater
MDATCA
12-02-2009, 11:21 PM
I think that AB was wanting to talk about it. She had held it in for as long as she could. She was excited and wanted to "brag" about it. I brought this up before, I would love to know her demeanor on the walk to show them the grave site and if she seemed excited at seeing the site again. I doubt that she would have had a chance to return there with LE in the area prior to her taking them there. If her confession turns out to be inadmissable it is a shame. IMO even if there was an atty present she would have ran her mouth. The atty would be the "authority" she doesn't listen to in that situation. Whoever was asking her about her actions and giving her the attention about it would be her "buddy". I don't doubt that LE would use her own attitude to their advantage. But that brings us back to the mental illness.
Csquare
12-02-2009, 11:24 PM
Can I be first?
LOL, okay....done :-)
Technically you were second. HEHEHE sorry couldn't resist.:woohoo:
JLMcKenna83
12-02-2009, 11:24 PM
I think that AB was wanting to talk about it. She had held it in for as long as she could. She was excited and wanted to "brag" about it. I brought this up before, I would love to know her demeanor on the walk to show them the grave site and if she seemed excited at seeing the site again. I doubt that she would have had a chance to return there with LE in the area prior to her taking them there. If her confession turns out to be inadmissable it is a shame. IMO even if there was an atty present she would have ran her mouth. The atty would be the "authority" she doesn't listen to in that situation. Whoever was asking her about her actions and giving her the attention about it would be her "buddy". I don't doubt that LE would use her own attitude to their advantage. But that brings us back to the mental illness.
I was going to bring this over. I'd love to see if she was cocky and proud as she led them to the place they had already searched.. Almost like.. "HA!" Or if she was dragging her butt, knowing that she was about to go to jail, and if she could have just kept her trap shut, they would have never found her..
Search teams searched where Elizabeth had been buried thoroughly. If Alyssa just could have kept it to herself, she'd be a free girl right now..
I guess loose lips really do sink ships..
Technically you were second. HEHEHE sorry couldn't resist.:woohoo:
:croc:
:angel:
Csquare
12-02-2009, 11:30 PM
:croc:
:angel:
OK OK you win. LOL
PAXIMUS
12-02-2009, 11:35 PM
I think that AB was wanting to talk about it. She had held it in for as long as she could. She was excited and wanted to "brag" about it. I brought this up before, I would love to know her demeanor on the walk to show them the grave site and if she seemed excited at seeing the site again. I doubt that she would have had a chance to return there with LE in the area prior to her taking them there. If her confession turns out to be inadmissable it is a shame. IMO even if there was an atty present she would have ran her mouth. The atty would be the "authority" she doesn't listen to in that situation. Whoever was asking her about her actions and giving her the attention about it would be her "buddy". I don't doubt that LE would use her own attitude to their advantage. But that brings us back to the mental illness.
I just want to comment one last time before I take my self imposed exile from this thread for a while that I am indeed very suspicous of LE for many reasons. When I finished law school I wanted nothing more than to rid the streets of criminals and I went to work for the DAs office as a prosecutor believe it or not, after a few years of that I quickly began to lose interest due to the politically motivated nature of many prosecutions, the DA is an elected official and many times the decisions to prosecute are based on politics and sometimes very sloppy police work. I soon left that profession and developed a great distaste for our legal system and pursued a career in journalism which is what I do now, not long ago I renewed my bar membership and started a part time criminal defense practice that mostly deals with DUI representation and other small issues, I dont take major cases because I dont have the time to work two careers but as time goes by I will build up my practice and start working bigger cases. My point in all of this is that I have seen both sides of the justice system and while there are a lot of shady defense attorneys out there, there are just as many shady prosecutors working for an elected DA whose job security depends on prosecuting as many people as possible even if it means putting away people who may sometimes be innocent and yes I have a major problem with that and I dont shy away from expressing it.
Carry on my friends and keep up the good work.
JLMcKenna83
12-02-2009, 11:36 PM
So now, we'll probably have to wait until the trial for more evidence to pick apart.. unless perhaps there will be disclosure hearings like with Casey Anthony.. hmmm.. anyone know if that could possibly happen?
eyes4crime
12-02-2009, 11:43 PM
I am always so appreciative of criminal defense attorneys - they make sure we are afforded our Constitutional rights. Actually, I'm appreciative of all those who value our Constitution.
Csquare
12-02-2009, 11:45 PM
So now, we'll probably have to wait until the trial for more evidence to pick apart.. unless perhaps there will be disclosure hearings like with Casey Anthony.. hmmm.. anyone know if that could possibly happen?
I am not sure. Is that different from pre trial hearing?
JLMcKenna83
12-02-2009, 11:45 PM
I just want to comment one last time before I take my self imposed exile from this thread for a while that I am indeed very suspicous of LE for many reasons. When I finished law school I wanted nothing more than to rid the streets of criminals and I want to work for the DAs office as a prosecutor believe it or not, after a few years of that I quickly began to lose interest due to the politically motivated nature of many prosecutions, the DA is an elected official and many times the decisions to prosecute are based on politics and sometimes very sloppy police work. I soon left that profession and developed a great distaste for our legal system and pursued a career in journalism which is what I do now, not long ago I renewed my bar membership and started a part time criminal defense practice that mostly deals with DUI representation and other small issues, I dont take major cases because I dont have the time to work two careers but as time goes by I will build up my practice and start working bigger cases. My point in all of this is that I have seen both sides of the justice system and while there are a lot of shady defense attorneys out there, there are just as many shadey prosecutors working of an elected DA whose job security depends on prosecuting as many people as possible even if it means putting away people who may sometimes be innocent and yes I have a major problem with that and I dont shy away from expressing it.
Carry on my friends and keep up the good work.
I hope that I have said nothing to offend you. I agree that there is a sort of crookedness on both sides of the spectrum when it comes to the law, and I believe that 90% of it has to do with the politics of it.
And with that being said, I say this... MY OPINION.
I firmly believe that Alyssa Bustamante killed Elizabeth Olten in cold blood. I also believe that her confession and any evidence being used in this matter has been obtained legally and without any sort of deception. As I have stated before, Alyssa's family knows how the judicial system works. Her parents have both been in prison, so they have obviously been through a trial before. If anything was amiss in the way that LE was handling this case, I believe it would have been brought up by now. And we haven't heard anything of it.. yet. With a crime as serious and as sensitive as this, I fully trust that LE is handling this with all of the proper procedures. This is a major major case for them, and I am positive that they don't want to blow it on something as stupid as a technicality.
Now, Paximus, if you would still like your little vacation from the thread, that is your choice, and I hope you will re-join us at some point. But if you would like to stay, and continue to be a part of what were doing here, then you are also more than welcome to do that.
JLMcKenna83
12-02-2009, 11:46 PM
I am not sure. Is that different from pre trial hearing?
I know everytime that there is a disclosure hearing in the Anthony case, we gets piles and piles of evidence and what not to sift through...
So now, we'll probably have to wait until the trial for more evidence to pick apart.. unless perhaps there will be disclosure hearings like with Casey Anthony.. hmmm.. anyone know if that could possibly happen?
Lol, we don't have to WAIT for anything! We can talk about how Wednesday is the top day for murders, or how the color pink enrages people on Prozac. What about grandma's cholesteral levels, we haven't discussed that yet!
Nothing NEW has come out on this case since the PD asked to have AB sent to a mental hospital on 11/20, and we managed to generate nearly 10 pages of discussion today.
With that said, I need to leave...I'll catch up in the morning. Hope I don't miss anything!! Good night all!
vjlaw
12-02-2009, 11:50 PM
I know everytime that there is a disclosure hearing in the Anthony case, we gets piles and piles of evidence and what not to sift through...
Yeh, I think I am going out on a limb here and say I am pretty sure that won't happen in Missouri.
PAXIMUS
12-03-2009, 12:13 AM
I hope that I have said nothing to offend you. I agree that there is a sort of crookedness on both sides of the spectrum when it comes to the law, and I believe that 90% of it has to do with the politics of it.
And with that being said, I say this... MY OPINION.
I firmly believe that Alyssa Bustamante killed Elizabeth Olten in cold blood. I also believe that her confession and any evidence being used in this matter has been obtained legally and without any sort of deception. As I have stated before, Alyssa's family knows how the judicial system works. Her parents have both been in prison, so they have obviously been through a trial before. If anything was amiss in the way that LE was handling this case, I believe it would have been brought up by now. And we haven't heard anything of it.. yet. With a crime as serious and as sensitive as this, I fully trust that LE is handling this with all of the proper procedures. This is a major major case for them, and I am positive that they don't want to blow it on something as stupid as a technicality.
Now, Paximus, if you would still like your little vacation from the thread, that is your choice, and I hope you will re-join us at some point. But if you would like to stay, and continue to be a part of what were doing here, then you are also more than welcome to do that.
Thanks for that. I am not leaving the thread I just wanted things to cool down a little, it was getting a little passionate and I dont want to lose any of our comrades to a ban because of strong opinions on both sides of this issue. Like I said before she is a minor so LE needs parental consent to talk to her, if the GP gave LE consent to speak to her and the GP advised her to talk without an atty present than does present a problem with her confession and it may be something that could overturn any conviction on appeal. IF she did have an atty present then I am concerned that the atty would let her speak freely enough to LE to say something like " I just wanted to know what it feels like to kill someone." IMO if she was allowed to say that with an atty present I would have to question her lawyers competence and again that could pose a problem with the confession. When dealing with issues like this the confession is not what matters to me it is how it is obtained, if a confession has to be thrown out and a guilty person walks free in order to uphold the legal process that both the defense and prosecution MUST follow then I have no problem with that because it is that process that protects you and I and everyone on this forum from being railroaded and accused of crimes we may not have committed. I am a big picture guy thats all.
It may turn out that this entire argument is a moot point but I want to find out myself and I will do so, as a tax paying citizen I have a right to contact those who work for me and ask them if they are doing their jobs and if they arent then it is the job of the media to let the people know about that so that it doesnt continue.
Anyway thanks for the support and I enjoy each and every one of your opinions here, this is a unique group of some very sharp people who all want justice and fairness for all involved.
PAXIMUS
12-03-2009, 12:18 AM
I know everytime that there is a disclosure hearing in the Anthony case, we gets piles and piles of evidence and what not to sift through...
The Anthony case is utter madness and I dont see this case becoming even remotely close to what that case has become but it will be a bitter fight to the end just because she is a minor being tried as an adult and those involved will be very careful to make sure things are done right, at least they are supposed to.
human
12-03-2009, 12:21 AM
Paximus, I just have a little bit of a snarky remark. You said that you don't live in MO so technically you are not a taxpayer that would be paying for the AB case.
PAXIMUS
12-03-2009, 12:27 AM
Paximus, I just have a little bit of a snarky remark. You said that you don't live in MO so technically you are not a taxpayer that would be paying for the AB case.
Ok you got me there =)
JLMcKenna83
12-03-2009, 12:34 AM
Alright all I'm off to bed..
some speed bumps tonight.. hopefully we're back on track in the am :grouphug:
Night!
ynotdivein
12-03-2009, 02:25 AM
Whaaaaat? Whatwhatwhat?
My most esteemed fellow sleuthers, there are
- so many "if's" in this case, plus
- so many of us with deep yet varied experience/credentials (yes including Life Experience Credentials) relating to what we DO know about this case, plus
- the fact that we are a passionate bunch, plus
- the knowledge that we likely won't know more factually until the next hearing and beyond,
that it seems to me the best we can do is stick to what we do know, agree to disagree, keep being respectful of one another, and continue to refine our individual positions based on one another's considered input.
Was amazed to see how many pages were filled just today (thanks W8nC for the count!) and look forward to catching up on what I missed, having skimmed ahead in an ineffectual attempt to catch up. Have to agree with I think it was Andres who pointed out that we are all here for essentially the same reasons. Magnetizing/polarizing case. Lack of immediate info is hard to take. Fertile field for opposing theories and therefore disagreements to take root.
And if I may, a clarifying question: it is my understanding that MO does not have Sunshine Laws, and that we should not expect any doc releases prior to trial. Can any WSer verify or disverify this for me? Many thanks in advance, and to all who are following this case in whatever capacity.
Jodibug
12-03-2009, 08:34 AM
I just want to comment one last time before I take my self imposed exile from this thread for a while that I am indeed very suspicous of LE for many reasons. When I finished law school I wanted nothing more than to rid the streets of criminals and I went to work for the DAs office as a prosecutor believe it or not, after a few years of that I quickly began to lose interest due to the politically motivated nature of many prosecutions, the DA is an elected official and many times the decisions to prosecute are based on politics and sometimes very sloppy police work. I soon left that profession and developed a great distaste for our legal system and pursued a career in journalism which is what I do now, not long ago I renewed my bar membership and started a part time criminal defense practice that mostly deals with DUI representation and other small issues, I dont take major cases because I dont have the time to work two careers but as time goes by I will build up my practice and start working bigger cases. My point in all of this is that I have seen both sides of the justice system and while there are a lot of shady defense attorneys out there, there are just as many shady prosecutors working for an elected DA whose job security depends on prosecuting as many people as possible even if it means putting away people who may sometimes be innocent and yes I have a major problem with that and I dont shy away from expressing it.
Carry on my friends and keep up the good work.
Sorry, not buying it. I'm not saying that it has never happened.... but I don't think that political prosecutions are prevalent. As a taxpayer, I am not willing to foot the bill to house innocent people. I don't think many other taxpayers would be either.
danni
12-03-2009, 09:05 AM
I think the thing that burns my arse with a TENY TINY LITTLE FLAME is the fact that criminals, acused, convicted, whatever the case may be have more rights, and amenities than the victims do. And it seems as if very few people care. Oh poor so and so she had this or he had this. So and so grew up in a bad home. So and so's mom was smokin crack when she was pregnant.
Criminal-
We (the tax payers of the state) more often than not pay for their defense.
We pay for them to be housed in whatever facility they are being kept at.
We pay for their food.
We pay for their food to be cooked.
We pay for their health care.
We pay for their medication.
We pay for their electric, sewage, water, cable tv.
We pay for their clothing. (they walk around in nice thick Carhartt type coat during the winter)
We pay for their laundry to be done.
We pay for their basketball hoops, weights, bats, baseballs, tv's, and yes even the NETFLIX they watch on the weekend (bet ya didn't know that did ya?)
average cost of a first degree murder trial (w/o death penalty) $320,000.
Averal cost of housing a prisoner for a year $45,000.
If a 15 year old female criminal serving LOWP lives to the average life expectancy (80 years old) We will have paid an average of $2,925,000 just to HOUSE her. If you want to add insult to injury you can add the $320,000 to that for the trail and conviction.
$3,245,000
Family of a murder victim-
More often than not they have to ask for donations to bury their loved one because murder is an unexpected death, not something you can save for.
They deal with depression and many other issues surounding the death of their loved one. Who pays for their meds? Either they do or they do without! We make them relive this horrible time in thier life by allowing the murderer to plead not guilty even though they have confessed.
Then if that doesn't beat all, they in the long run are paying for the POS that killed their family member to live better with all the pleasures in life listed above!
My opinion, I am allowed to have one these days right?
Patti deserves to pull the lever that releases the door that causes a rope to tighten around Alyssa's neck!
Think it p!$%es me off.
That is an understatement!
droptoplesabre
12-03-2009, 09:47 AM
I think the thing that burns my arse with a TENY TINY LITTLE FLAME is the fact that criminals, acused, convicted, whatever the case may be have more rights, and amenities than the victims do. And it seems as if very few people care. Oh poor so and so she had this or he had this. So and so grew up in a bad home. So and so's mom was smokin crack when she was pregnant.
Criminal-
We (the tax payers of the state) more often than not pay for their defense.
We pay for them to be housed in whatever facility they are being kept at.
We pay for their food.
We pay for their food to be cooked.
We pay for their health care.
We pay for their medication.
We pay for their electric, sewage, water, cable tv.
We pay for their clothing. (they walk around in nice thick Carhartt type coat during the winter)
We pay for their laundry to be done.
We pay for their basketball hoops, weights, bats, baseballs, tv's, and yes even the NETFLIX they watch on the weekend (bet ya didn't know that did ya?)
average cost of a first degree murder trial (w/o death penalty) $320,000.
Averal cost of housing a prisoner for a year $45,000.
If a 15 year old female criminal serving LOWP lives to the average life expectancy (80 years old) We will have paid an average of $2,925,000 just to HOUSE her. If you want to add insult to injury you can add the $320,000 to that for the trail and conviction.
$3,245,000
Family of a murder victim-
More often than not they have to ask for donations to bury their loved one because murder is an unexpected death, not something you can save for.
They deal with depression and many other issues surounding the death of their loved one. Who pays for their meds? Either they do or they do without! We make them relive this horrible time in thier life by allowing the murderer to plead not guilty even though they have confessed.
Then if that doesn't beat all, they in the long run are paying for the POS that killed their family member to live better with all the pleasures in life listed above!
My opinion, I am allowed to have one these days right?
Patti deserves to pull the lever that releases the door that causes a rope to tighten around Alyssa's neck!
Think it p!$%es me off.
That is an understatement!
bravo danni,,bravo,well said,,IMO.
LadyBug99
12-03-2009, 09:51 AM
Even if the confession is thrown out and LE can’t testify that she made the statement that she wanted to know what it felt like to kill someone. I would think that by now they already have physical evidence tying AB to the murder. I don’t think anyone here believes that AB is innocent and her confession was coerced. I do feel that LE may not have had a clue what was going to take place when they interviewed AB. It came as a shock to her friends, family and the MO community. I want to see AB pay for what she did, however I think some of us here look beyond her guilt and want to know why….we may never know but I believe that is a main reason that this case has caught and held my attention.
I also wonder why she did confess? Without her would EO have been found? Did she lead LE to the body because she was proud/happy about what she did or did she lead them to the body because she felt guilty?
droptoplesabre
12-03-2009, 09:57 AM
Even if the confession is thrown out and LE can’t testify that she made the statement that she wanted to know what it felt like to kill someone. I would think that by now they already have physical evidence tying AB to the murder. I don’t think anyone here believes that AB is innocent and her confession was coerced. I do feel that LE may not have had a clue what was going to take place when they interviewed AB. It came as a shock to her friends, family and the MO community. I want to see AB pay for what she did, however I think some of us here look beyond her guilt and want to know why….we may never know but I believe that is a main reason that this case has caught and held my attention.
I also wonder why she did confess? Without her would EO have been found? Did she lead LE to the body because she was proud/happy about what she did or did she lead them to the body because she felt guilty?
i think i might have to go with what somebody said earlier,,i dont remember who,but they said they thaught she "wanted to talk about it" so i believe, that she may very well have led them to EO as sort of a "braggin right" if ya would..almost like an aniciation thing to a gang. i know (or atleast i think) there is no gang relation to this hienes crime,,but we may never know. i, like everbody else here,,will be very much releaved when/IF we ever find out just WHY she did what she did. and is punished accordingly. JMO.
Csquare
12-03-2009, 09:58 AM
bravo danni,,bravo,well said,,IMO.
I second that and I stand to applaud you. Thank you.
mia g
12-03-2009, 10:12 AM
My personal opinion on her confession IS, she was proud(and hard and just flat doesnt care) She wanted people to know SHE KNEW WHAT IT FELT LIKE.....
I just have this picture in my head of her cocky little self, reclined(kinda slouched down) in an uncomfortable chair, with this cocky little grin on her face. Let us not forgot she had wanted to know what "it" felt like for months before she killed Elizabeth. From atleast January, till October, she had this "desire" in mind, we might even could call it a fantasy, and she had finally accomplished what she wanted to do....
In my days of dealing with criminals, I have seen a few that I wished had had better representation. A 19 year old, cheerleader, track star, and basketball star, who had been raped by an unlce. Her friends and her went in and vandalised his house. Apparently it was pretty bad, even some fire involved... It happened when she was 17, and she was doing 5 years... YES she deserved better representation then she got.. Another very young girl we recieved in the adult prison after she had spent time in TYC, for killing a man that was beating her twin brother... I was she had had a better lawyer.( I also beleive both of these girls deserve punishment, but nothing as severe as they got..IF their story was even true!!) I do not care though what kind of lawyer ANYBODY, who kills in cold blood a innocent child. I just cant feel sorry for Alyssa. Reguardless of the WHYS of what she did, I do not doubt for one second she knew exactly what she had done...Also another OPINION of mine is, I wouldnt doubt she wanted to be more like her parents, who are career criminals.
I AM THE 14 CAR
12-03-2009, 10:26 AM
I have a question.
IF AB admitted to the crime with her attorney present and that was all on the up & up...would her attorney ALSO go along with LE & AB to show the spot where Elizabeth was ?
not_my_kids
12-03-2009, 10:32 AM
More than likely she tripped over her own words and LE proved she wasn't quite as smart as she thought she was.
If they told her that they already knew, and presenting them with the location would make it easier on her, her self preservation instinct would have taken over.
If she smiles and leads them to the body, she has a shot at insanity as a defense. If she hadn't, it would have shown she knew her actions were wrong, thus the continued concealment. They could have told her that, and she decided to save her own skin, thus the confession.
Personal opinion, supported by no facts whatsoever.
I agree, not my kids.....didn't they say they had "been given" written evidence that led to her? It might be a note from a sib saying "I think A killed E", or even just "A dug holes in the woods last week". Maybe someone in the house found something A herself had written about what she did, or planned, or felt. So she figures, they know this much, I'd better spill the rest. Or is it possible they used what they knew to obtain a search warrant, and found her diary, and all the location of the graves, disclosure of motive, etc was all in the diary? Maybe she didn't actually SAY those things to them.
No telling if she was smug/cocky, or excited/bouncy, or frightened/teary, and we'll probably never know, unless they make a TV movie, and then it will be a "dramatization", emphasis here on "drama".
gliving
12-03-2009, 10:56 AM
In book "Under the Banner of Heaven" by Jon Krakauer, he writes of a old Mormon practice of "blood atonement" and telling of vicious murders with the victims' throats being slashed, even the baby's throat slashed, with no remorse from the killers. The only way to salvation is to spill the sinner's blood.
And Mr Currie with a gun shot to the head.
Just throwing my morning thoughts out there. :waitasec:
Csquare
12-03-2009, 11:08 AM
In book "Under the Banner of Heaven" by Jon Krakauer, he writes of a old Mormon practice of "blood atonement" and telling of vicious murders with the victims' throats being slashed, even the baby's throat slashed, with no remorse from the killers. The only way to salvation is to spill the sinner's blood.
And Mr Currie with a gun shot to the head.
Just throwing my morning thoughts out there. :waitasec:
very interesting
In book "Under the Banner of Heaven" by Jon Krakauer, he writes of a old Mormon practice of "blood atonement" and telling of vicious murders with the victims' throats being slashed, even the baby's throat slashed, with no remorse from the killers. The only way to salvation is to spill the sinner's blood.
And Mr Currie with a gun shot to the head.
Just throwing my morning thoughts out there. :waitasec:
Pretty serious thinking for before lunch.
IMO, I'm still not convinced Mr Currie's suicide is related. I agree, it's possible, but I just feel like it's not. There ARE coincidences.
When I was 14 or 15, I told my social studies teacher I practiced witchcraft. Of course, I didn't, it was just a childish story, for attention and shock value. To "prove" it, I made a wax doll and gave it to him, saying it was him and by giving it to him, I was relinquishing my "power" over him. He accidentally broke the foot off the doll, and that same day, fell on the stairs and sprained his ankle pretty badly. COINCIDENCE, but it got his attention, lol. 10 yrs later, I saw him at a JC football game, and he asked me if I was still a witch!!
Csquare
12-03-2009, 11:30 AM
Pretty serious thinking for before lunch.
IMO, I'm still not convinced Mr Currie's suicide is related. I agree, it's possible, but I just feel like it's not. There ARE coincidences.
When I was 14 or 15, I told my social studies teacher I practiced witchcraft. Of course, I didn't, it was just a childish story, for attention and shock value. To "prove" it, I made a wax doll and gave it to him, saying it was him and by giving it to him, I was relinquishing my "power" over him. He accidentally broke the foot off the doll, and that same day, fell on the stairs and sprained his ankle pretty badly. COINCIDENCE, but it got his attention, lol. 10 yrs later, I saw him at a JC football game, and he asked me if I was still a witch!!
That was funny. Remind me not to make you angry at me.
That was funny. Remind me not to make you angry at me.
:angel: I wasn't angry! I liked the guy....maybe "flirting" a little, in a childish way, lol.
Dal Gal
12-03-2009, 11:36 AM
AB was interviewed by FBI on Friday morning, wasn't she? They aren't exactly wet behind the ears...
We know that Cole Co. Sheriffs Dept had received Elizabeth's cell phone records from AT&T at the time of their 10am Friday presser, so if there were a call from AB in there, that would certainly have been a point of questioning that morning. How could she have explained that away? My guess is that she was presented with this plus the diary note, perhaps was told that things would go much easier for her if she just confessed.
The representation thing has me baffled though. I think that they HAD to know they had a legitimate POI in their hands by the time of her interview! I just don't understand why the confession came so easily IF she had representation there!
I honestly hate to continue putting so much weight on ILC's legendary posts, but he did say that when all is said and done, it will come out that LE did a shoddy job from the beginning. If she didn't have representation during her confession, RP would have known about that. Place as much weight on ILC's statements as you wish, but I know that particular statement had us scratching our heads at the time. :banghead:
droptoplesabre
12-03-2009, 11:40 AM
Pretty serious thinking for before lunch.
IMO, I'm still not convinced Mr Currie's suicide is related. I agree, it's possible, but I just feel like it's not. There ARE coincidences.
When I was 14 or 15, I told my social studies teacher I practiced witchcraft. Of course, I didn't, it was just a childish story, for attention and shock value. To "prove" it, I made a wax doll and gave it to him, saying it was him and by giving it to him, I was relinquishing my "power" over him. He accidentally broke the foot off the doll, and that same day, fell on the stairs and sprained his ankle pretty badly. COINCIDENCE, but it got his attention, lol. 10 yrs later, I saw him at a JC football game, and he asked me if I was still a witch!!
are ya?? :waitasec:
are ya?? :waitasec:
Nope. Never was.
droptoplesabre
12-03-2009, 11:43 AM
More than likely she tripped over her own words and LE proved she wasn't quite as smart as she thought she was.
If they told her that they already knew, and presenting them with the location would make it easier on her, her self preservation instinct would have taken over.
If she smiles and leads them to the body, she has a shot at insanity as a defense. If she hadn't, it would have shown she knew her actions were wrong, thus the continued concealment. They could have told her that, and she decided to save her own skin, thus the confession.
Personal opinion, supported by no facts whatsoever.
now that i think of it,,it seems unlikely, to me, that an ATTY would be with LE at her house on friday,,,before they found elizabeth.just a thaught.
Csquare
12-03-2009, 11:46 AM
AB was interviewed by FBI on Friday morning, wasn't she? They aren't exactly wet behind the ears...
We know that Cole Co. Sheriffs Dept had received Elizabeth's cell phone records from AT&T at the time of their 10am Friday presser, so if there were a call from AB in there, that would certainly have been a point of questioning that morning. How could she have explained that away? My guess is that she was presented with this plus the diary note, perhaps was told that things would go much easier for her if she just confessed.
The representation thing has me baffled though. I think that they HAD to know they had a legitimate POI in their hands by the time of her interview! I just don't understand why the confession came so easily IF she had representation there!
I honestly hate to continue putting so much weight on ILC's legendary posts, but he did say that when all is said and done, it will come out that LE did a shoddy job from the beginning. If she didn't have representation during her confession, RP would have known about that. Place as much weight on ILC's statements as you wish, but I know that particular statement had us scratching our heads at the time. :banghead:
This is a HUGE high profile case. Between Sheriff White, MSHP, FBI and any other LE involved I am quite confident that they would make sure they didn't do anything wrong and screw this up. JMO
vjlaw
12-03-2009, 11:53 AM
This is a HUGE high profile case. Between Sheriff White, MSHP, FBI and any other LE involved I am quite confident that they would make sure they didn't do anything wrong and screw this up. JMO
We don't know when LE realized they had a high profile case. Sheriff White wasn't doing the interview, he was in the presser. And the way I understand it Missouri law requires the guardian and juvenile officer to be present. I would think a juvenile officer would know what is going to fly in court and what wouldn't as the juvenile code is his job. They as i think I understand it work through the Division of Youth Services. I think in the end it will be what has been acceptable by Missouri judges as to whether she waived her right to lawyer. jmo
LadyRider
12-03-2009, 11:55 AM
are ya?? :waitasec:
A Charmed One, Maybe?
Csquare
12-03-2009, 11:59 AM
W8nc or JodiBug....Did AB's confession come up during the adult certifaction hearing?
W8nc or JodiBug....Did AB's confession come up during the adult certifaction hearing?
Yes, there was a highway patrolman who discussed it some, but was interrupted repeatedly by Mr Valentine's objections that it was not relevant to, or within the scope of, the adult competency hearing.
I've been wracking my brain trying to recall the exact wording....he talked about the graves being dug, the location of the graves revealed, the 'I wanted to know what it felt like to kill someone' statement......
He was the quietest of the people who spoke, and I was having trouble hearing him. I'd like to defer this question to Jodibug, our official court reporter. :)
vjlaw
12-03-2009, 12:07 PM
Wasn't it reported in the news the officer testified she said she wanted to know what it felt like? Sounds like a confession to me.
Csquare
12-03-2009, 12:08 PM
Yes, there was a highway patrolman who discussed it some, but was interrupted repeatedly by Mr Valentine's objections that it was not relevant to, or within the scope of, the adult competency hearing.
I've been wracking my brain trying to recall the exact wording....he talked about the graves being dug, the location of the graves revealed, the 'I wanted to know what it felt like to kill someone' statement......
He was the quietest of the people who spoke, and I was having trouble hearing him. I'd like to defer this question to Jodibug, our official court reporter. :)
Thank you mam. I take it by what you said the objections were overruled?
Dal Gal
12-03-2009, 12:09 PM
The December 8 hearing will now be a re-arraignment hearing:
http://www.connectmidmissouri.com/news/story.aspx?id=385365
Posting the links to the two different news conferences from the day Elizabeth's body was found just to show that he states that the written evidence that led them to AB arrived after his Friday 10 am presser -- he essentially states that everything that led them to AB happened Friday
So IMO at least one part of the "insider" information that ILC provided does not appear to hold true
Here are the links to the videos:
Friday - October 23 - 10 AM News Conference Sheriff White
http://video.krcg.com/global/video/popup/pop_playerLaunch.asp?vt1=v&clipFormat=flv&clipId1=4238405&at1=News - Special Coverage&h1=10 a.m. Press Conference with the Cole County Sheriff's Department&flvUri=&partnerclipid=
Friday October 23 - 3 PM News Conference - Sheriff Whitehttp://usat.gannett.a.mms.mavenapps.net/mms/rt/1/site/gannett-usatoday-206-pub01-live/current/launch.html?maven_playerId=immersiveproduction&maven_referralObject=1305514121
As far as the FBI -- in the morning presser he states that it was not the FBI's jurisdiction, but that they had offered their resources
As far as the discussion about whether or not AB was in the presense of an attorney or not when she made her confession, I want to believe that she was
It appears that she confessed to the state police, from court testimony?
"Ultimately, she stated she wanted to know what it felt like," Missouri State Highway Patrol Sgt. David Rice testified Wednesday during a court hearing over the slaying. (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/19/crimesider/entry5709430.shtml)
PAXIMUS
12-03-2009, 12:10 PM
We don't know when LE realized they had a high profile case. Sheriff White wasn't doing the interview, he was in the presser. And the way I understand it Missouri law requires the guardian and juvenile officer to be present. I would think a juvenile officer would know what is going to fly in court and what wouldn't as the juvenile code is his job. They as i think I understand it work through the Division of Youth Services. I think in the end it will be what has been acceptable by Missouri judges as to whether she waived her right to lawyer. jmo
Good points but a juvenile officer is not an attorney and it doesnt matter what they know they cannot give the kind of legal advice AB needed at that time. As of this morning I have still gotten no answers from anyone as to whether she had an attorney present during her confession but I will continue to look in to this as time permits. I am on deadline at work today so I will do the best I can to get us an answer, if anyone else finds out in the meantime please let us know.
As far as her waiving her right to an attorney, please note:
A minor may validly waive his or her Miranda rights. The test is whether, under all the circumstances, including age, intelligence, and education, the minor had the ability to comprehend the meaning.
This is quote for you from a lead case decided by our United States Supreme Court:
"To determine whether a suspect has knowingly and intelligently waived Miranda rights, a court must appraise the "totality of the circumstances" including the suspect's "age, experience, education, background and intelligence" and "whether he has the capacity to understand the warnings given him, the nature of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the consequences of waiving those rights" (Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979), p 725)."
I would argue that she did NOT comprehend the consequences of waiving her rights IF she did OR if GP advised her to.
Thank you mam. I take it by what you said the objections were overruled?
Some were, some weren't.
I'm thinking, regarding the 'what it felt like' comment, the wording was tricky. I'm not sure if the question was "did she say why she did it" or "do you know why she did it".....whether the answer was "she said ...or "she told us....or stated differently.
vjlaw
12-03-2009, 12:18 PM
Good points but a juvenile officer is not an attorney and it doesnt matter what they know they cannot give the kind of legal advice AB needed at that time. As of this morning I have still gotten no answers from anyone as to whether she had an attorney present during her confession but I will continue to look in to this as time permits. I am on deadline at work today so I will do the best I can to get us an answer, if anyone else finds out in the meantime please let us know.
As far as her waiving her right to an attorney, please note:
A minor may validly waive his or her Miranda rights. The test is whether, under all the circumstances, including age, intelligence, and education, the minor had the ability to comprehend the meaning.
This is quote for you from a lead case decided by our United States Supreme Court:
"To determine whether a suspect has knowingly and intelligently waived Miranda rights, a court must appraise the "totality of the circumstances" including the suspect's "age, experience, education, background and intelligence" and "whether he has the capacity to understand the warnings given him, the nature of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the consequences of waiving those rights" (Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979), p 725)."
From some things I have been reading, it just sounds to me the juvenile officer being present may satisfy Missouri judges that it is acceptable for a juvenile to waiver her rights. However, I know nothing about law. Missouri law requires the juvenile officer present for some reason. jmo
It appears that she confessed to the state police, from court testimony?
"Ultimately, she stated she wanted to know what it felt like," Missouri State Highway Patrol Sgt. David Rice testified Wednesday during a court hearing over the slaying. (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/19/crimesider/entry5709430.shtml)
Well that answers that!
Thanks Prof!
SHE STATED...sounds to me like she said the words, so that would be a confession.
I do not believe that Sheriff White had any clue that this was a high profile case at 10 am Friday, or anything at all closely related to AB
IMO There was no written evidence in his hands before that presser
IMO There was no mention of any scheduled interview
In fact, the press conference in the afternoon states everything happened after the morning press conference and happened quickly
I had difficulty (as did a few others) with ILC's story on this, and on the night Elizabeth went missing
According to ILC they got the evidence on Thursday and scheduled the interview on Friday morning
Would this Sheriff miss that interview? Would this Sheriff lie in the morning press conference?
ILC had a mix of information and speculation
Well that answers that!
Thanks Prof!
SHE STATED...sounds to me like she said the words, so that would be a confession.
I did not know there was any doubt that she did confess
I don't think there is anyone here that thinks she is not guilty either
but you are welcome! - I had not seen your post, but I think we are all on the same page this morning
Dal Gal
12-03-2009, 12:27 PM
Unless an attorney was omitted by Rice or the reporter, there was testimony as to who was present during the confession.
"Sgt. David Rice of the Missouri Highway Patrol was the chief investigator on the case, and testified that he interviewed Bustamante on Oct. 23, two days after Olten was reported missing. Bustamante, a guardian, and a juvenile officer were all present. She also led authorities to the body."
http://www.komu.com/satellite/SatelliteRender/KOMU.com/ba8a4513-c0a8-2f11-0063-9bd94c70b769/07ae129e-80ce-0971-0113-e864f8522814
vjlaw
12-03-2009, 12:27 PM
I do not believe that Sheriff White had any clue that this was a high profile case at 10 am Friday, or anything at all closely related to AB
IMO There was no written evidence in his hands before that presser
IMO There was no mention of any scheduled interview
In fact, the press conference in the afternoon states everything happened after the morning press conference and happened quickly
I had difficulty (as did a few others) with ILC's story on this, and on the night Elizabeth went missing
According to ILC they got the evidence on Thursday and scheduled the interview on Friday morning
Would this Sheriff miss that interview? Would this Sheriff lie in the morning press conference?
ILC had a mix of information and speculation
I am curious about how and when they realized this also. It was also my impression that the Friday search was mostly LE and not volunteers. So I am thinking they may have know something strange going on and that what they may find would be a crime scene. JMO
PAXIMUS
12-03-2009, 12:27 PM
From some things I have been reading, it just sounds to me the juvenile officer being present may satisfy Missouri judges that it is acceptable for a juvenile to waiver her rights. However, I know nothing about law. Missouri law requires the juvenile officer present for some reason. jmo
MO law does not overturn Constitutional law. she has a right to an attorney and I do not see her waiving that right and if they talked her in to doing so that is a problem.
Since I dont know the facts I am only guessing here but regadless of what MO says a JO cannot advise her as to whether she needs an attorney or not.
not_my_kids
12-03-2009, 12:34 PM
I keep reading that she was interviewed, with no mention of an attorney. There are enough legal eagles here to correct me if I'm wrong...but isn't interviewed a big step from interrogated or arrested or any of the other situations in which she would have been entitled to an attorney?
I'm trying to keep up with the legal details and the case details and failing miserably, lol.
Dal Gal
12-03-2009, 12:34 PM
"Police spent two days searching for the girl in the wooded areas of St. Martins, Missouri before receiving a handwritten note Friday that led them to a 15-year-old juvenile."
BBM
http://www.truecrimereport.com/2009/10/15-year-old_girl_charged_with.php
vjlaw
12-03-2009, 12:36 PM
MO law does not overturn Constitutional law. she has a right to an attorney and I do not see her waiving that right and if they talked her in to doing so that is a problem.
Since I dont know the facts I am only guessing here but regadless of what MO says a JO cannot advise her as to whether she needs an attorney or not.
I just understood MO juvenile code was written with Consitutional law in mind. And what they need to accept as knowingly waive her right to a lawyer. Just curious as why you think she would not understand what that means?
LadyRider
12-03-2009, 12:37 PM
Ok, even if no attorney present, and the confession and what not is dismissed or whatever term, there is still the fact she led them to the body and there would also be other evidence that would be sufficient to use against AB, RIGHT????
Csquare
12-03-2009, 12:38 PM
I keep reading that she was interviewed, with no mention of an attorney. There are enough legal eagles here to correct me if I'm wrong...but isn't interviewed a big step from interrogated or arrested or any of the other situations in which she would have been entitled to an attorney?
I'm trying to keep up with the legal details and the case details and failing miserably, lol.
As long as she was allowed to leave whenever she wished they did not have to Mirandize her.
I am curious about how and when they realized this also. It was also my impression that the Friday search was mostly LE and not volunteers. So I am thinking they may have know something strange going on and that what they may find would be a crime scene. JMO
I was thinking early on (after the Friday stuff, like maybe the following Mon), that it was a little odd, like maybe they had more idea about what was up than they told. First, there was no Amber Alert. They blamed that on not having a description of a suspect or vehicle, or evidence that she was abducted. Okay, I could buy that. Then they kept the search really really close to her house and A's house, the last place she was known to be. Well, I guess you can't know what direction to look without a clue at the start of the trail, but then again, E's house is like INCHES from a highway overpass. That highway goes to St Louis and to KC. Yet people online were saying that, when they asked LE about posting flyers at businesses along the highway, east and west of town, they were met with a lukewarm response.
They turned down tons of people who were willing to search in the rain and in the dark. They kept the search area tight, like maybe they knew she'd be found close by. I haven't heard anything about sex offenders in the area being questioned. Wouldn't that be one of the first things LE would do with a missing 9 yr old girl?
I've heard kids at school were speculating that A might be involved as early as Thursday, but apparently with nothing to go on beyond a creepy feeling.
The press releases don't give anything away, but IMO LE had a creepy feeling, too, and before Friday afternoon.
Dal Gal
12-03-2009, 12:44 PM
Ok, even if no attorney present, and the confession and what not is dismissed or whatever term, there is still the fact she led them to the body and there would also be other evidence that would be sufficient to use against AB, RIGHT????
Besides the "written" evidence that they keep talking about, there's got to be forensic evidence to support the case. Surely!
Csquare
12-03-2009, 12:47 PM
I was thinking early on (after the Friday stuff, like maybe the following Mon), that it was a little odd, like maybe they had more idea about what was up than they told. First, there was no Amber Alert. They blamed that on not having a description of a suspect or vehicle, or evidence that she was abducted. Okay, I could buy that. Then they kept the search really really close to her house and A's house, the last place she was known to be. Well, I guess you can't know what direction to look without a clue at the start of the trail, but then again, E's house is like INCHES from a highway overpass. That highway goes to St Louis and to KC. Yet people online were saying that, when they asked LE about posting flyers at businesses along the highway, east and west of town, they were met with a lukewarm response.
They turned down tons of people who were willing to search in the rain and in the dark. They kept the search area tight, like maybe they knew she'd be found close by. I haven't heard anything about sex offenders in the area being questioned. Wouldn't that be one of the first things LE would do with a missing 9 yr old girl?
I've heard kids at school were speculating that A might be involved as early as Thursday, but apparently with nothing to go on beyond a creepy feeling.
The press releases don't give anything away, but IMO LE had a creepy feeling, too, and before Friday afternoon.
The paper did say that they had questioned RSO in the arean and some of them pretty heavy.
eyes4crime
12-03-2009, 12:47 PM
MO law does not overturn Constitutional law. she has a right to an attorney and I do not see her waiving that right and if they talked her in to doing so that is a problem.
Since I dont know the facts I am only guessing here but regadless of what MO says a JO cannot advise her as to whether she needs an attorney or not.
I do believe this young girl is guilty and would be a danger to society if left to wander around. However, if her Constitutional rights were violated, in any way, I would be sitting in your corner...thanks to all the criminal defense attorneys who are passionate regarding our Constitutional rights. Let's all hope her rights were not violated.
Csquare
12-03-2009, 12:49 PM
Besides the "written" evidence that they keep talking about, there's got to be forensic evidence to support the case. Surely!
I am very confident that enough evidence is there to convict her pretty easy. I just can't understand people that want to see are aquitated.
Court documents on the case and their availability
http://www.colecountycourts.com/courtnews.htm
gliving
12-03-2009, 12:51 PM
Nancy Grace covered Elizabeth's disappearance on Thursday October 22, 2009 and again the next night when her body was found.
I think authorities knew they had an unusual case with a female juvenile offender charged with first degree murder. They knew they had a very high profile case that would be under great scrutiny. No hurry needed where they might miss details, they had their POI and she wasn't going anywhere. Does anyone think the GPs wouldn't call an attorney for her while she answered questions about her role in a murder?
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ng.html
NG transcripts.
LadyBug99
12-03-2009, 12:52 PM
The December 8 hearing will now be a re-arraignment hearing:
http://www.connectmidmissouri.com/news/story.aspx?id=385365
I can't wait to see if she will change her plea to not guilty...
JLMcKenna83
12-03-2009, 12:53 PM
Well I thought about this last night..
Kurt Valentine was appointed to help Alyssa through the juvenile process.. Does that mean she'll be assigned another lawyer once she gets to the adult court?
Teen charged with murder of Elizabeth Olten (http://www.newstribune.com/articles/2009/11/19/news_local/doc4b03e12d78cb3700623688.txt)
Attorney Kurt Valentine, who was appointed by the court to represent Alyssa during the juvenile process....
The paper did say that they had questioned RSO in the arean and some of them pretty heavy.
Okay, thanks....I missed that. Good to know they were looking into that, as well.
Csquare
12-03-2009, 12:56 PM
Well I thought about this last night..
Kurt Valentine was appointed to help Alyssa through the juvenile process.. Does that mean she'll be assigned another lawyer once she gets to the adult court?
Teen charged with murder of Elizabeth Olten (http://www.newstribune.com/articles/2009/11/19/news_local/doc4b03e12d78cb3700623688.txt)
She has been assigned Jan King who is a public defender
PAXIMUS
12-03-2009, 12:59 PM
I just understood MO juvenile code was written with Consitutional law in mind. And what they need to accept as knowingly waive her right to a lawyer. Just curious as why you think she would not understand what that means?
I just personally do not believe a 15 year old, especially one on prozac and with mental problems has the mental capacity to understand the consequences of waiving the right to legal representation and speaking freely and openly to LE.
What I picture is that grandma, LE and juvenile officer told her it was ok to talk just be honest and the police will help you which IMO is about the most ignorant advice that can be offered to someone.
When it comes to a minor the general practice is you do not speak to them until a lawyer is present, period.
JLMcKenna83
12-03-2009, 01:02 PM
White told reporters that Elizabeth knew the suspect, who is not related. White said that physical and written evidence led investigators to question the suspect, who then led them to the location where the body was found.
Teen charged with murder of Elizabeth Olten (http://www.newstribune.com/articles/2009/11/19/news_local/doc4b03e12d78cb3700623688.txt)
So this makes me wonder what the physical evidence is.. clothes? the knife? the scarf?
vjlaw
12-03-2009, 01:05 PM
I just personally do not believe a 15 year old, especially one on prozac and with mental problems has the mental capacity to understand the consequences of waiving the right to legal representation and speaking freely and openly to LE.
What I picture is that grandma, LE and juvenile officer told her it was ok to talk just be honest and the police will help you which IMO is about the most ignorant advice that can be offered to someone.
When it comes to a minor the general practice is you do not speak to them until a lawyer is present, period.
It will be interesting to see what happens to her confession before a judge.
PAXIMUS
12-03-2009, 01:05 PM
Teen charged with murder of Elizabeth Olten (http://www.newstribune.com/articles/2009/11/19/news_local/doc4b03e12d78cb3700623688.txt)
So this makes me wonder what the physical evidence is.. clothes? the knife? the scarf?
And this makes it sound like there was never any time for her to be advised by an attorney which IMO means EVERYTHING from the moment she started talking is fruit of the poison tree and should be tossed.
PAXIMUS
12-03-2009, 01:07 PM
It will be interesting to see what happens to her confession before a judge.
Yes I am willing to admit I may be way off here and maybe she did have an attorney but I havent seen anything to suggest that so I am simply looking at what could happen if she didnt and IF SHE DID I would like to know why that attorney let her speak so freely. This is not indicative of competent representation IMO.
vjlaw
12-03-2009, 01:10 PM
And this makes it sound like there was never any time for her to be advised by an attorney which IMO means EVERYTHING from the moment she started talking is fruit of the poison tree and should be tossed.
Our friend ILC, iirc, said the grandparents allowed them in the house, so may have been something recovered there before AB was found. ILC also said they wanted to wait to talk to her when her head was clear as she had skipped school and was getting high on thurs. This is what I think I remember he said.
JLMcKenna83
12-03-2009, 01:13 PM
And this makes it sound like there was never any time for her to be advised by an attorney which IMO means EVERYTHING from the moment she started talking is fruit of the poison tree and should be tossed.
If you look in the court docs Form 1 - General Docket Entry filed 11/18/09 (http://www.colecountycourts.com/documents%20for%20Alyssa%20Dailen%20Bustamante/Form%201%20-%20General%20Docket%20Entry.pdf) it states that if any taping or recording was taken it cannot be used because AB was not represented by counsel. So, I think that may give an answer to that debate..
JLMcKenna83
12-03-2009, 01:14 PM
Our friend ILC, iirc, said the grandparents allowed them in the house, so may have been something recovered there before AB was found. ILC also said they wanted to wait to talk to her when her head was clear as she had skipped school and was getting high on thurs. This is what I think I remember he said.
I have seen on other sites that ILC was actually a younger girl, and had no association with the family.. I found her myspace listed on a few sites.
LadyBug99
12-03-2009, 01:17 PM
OK so if they can't use her statements and they can't say what led them to the body. What are we left with? Whatever evidence there is tying her to the murder?
Pax- Do you think the PD will change her plea to guilty or argue her innocence? TIA
If you look in the court docs Form 1 - General Docket Entry filed 11/18/09 (http://www.colecountycourts.com/documents%20for%20Alyssa%20Dailen%20Bustamante/Form%201%20-%20General%20Docket%20Entry.pdf) it states that if any taping or recording was taken it cannot be used because AB was not represented by counsel. So, I think that may give an answer to that debate..
That's the arraingment, which was in the early afternoon on 11/18. Valentine was dismissed at the end of the Adult Competency hearing, which took place that morning. So she went into the afternoon arraignment without an attorney.
This doesn't refer to the questioning on that Friday after the murder.
vjlaw
12-03-2009, 01:18 PM
I have seen on other sites that ILC was actually a younger girl, and had no association with the family.. I found her myspace listed on a few sites.
We are pretty sure who HE is on here because we were given his first name and that matches someone in the family. Because of the circumstances Tricia gave his first name.
Csquare
12-03-2009, 01:20 PM
I just spoke to a subject matter expert and they told me her confession will stand regardless if she had an attorney present. I know that will break some peoples heart that she won't be set free on that technicality.
danni
12-03-2009, 01:20 PM
If you look in the court docs Form 1 - General Docket Entry filed 11/18/09 (http://www.colecountycourts.com/documents%20for%20Alyssa%20Dailen%20Bustamante/Form%201%20-%20General%20Docket%20Entry.pdf) it states that if any taping or recording was taken it cannot be used because AB was not represented by counsel. So, I think that may give an answer to that debate..
Docket Entry: Judge/Clerk - Note
Text: If any taping or recording was accomplished during the arraingment, those recordings or tapings cannot be used as the defendant was not represented by counsel at the arraignment. PSJ
Filing Party: JOYCE , PATRICIA S
B&I BM
JLMcKenna83
12-03-2009, 01:22 PM
Ok, so I was mistaken, like I said I'm no lawyer.. :doh:
Ok, so I was mistaken, like I said I'm no lawyer.. :doh:
Lol, that's good cause you're not a very good one :waitasec:
....just kidding.....
I was thinking early on (after the Friday stuff, like maybe the following Mon), that it was a little odd, like maybe they had more idea about what was up than they told. First, there was no Amber Alert. They blamed that on not having a description of a suspect or vehicle, or evidence that she was abducted. Okay, I could buy that. Then they kept the search really really close to her house and A's house, the last place she was known to be. Well, I guess you can't know what direction to look without a clue at the start of the trail, but then again, E's house is like INCHES from a highway overpass. That highway goes to St Louis and to KC. Yet people online were saying that, when they asked LE about posting flyers at businesses along the highway, east and west of town, they were met with a lukewarm response.
They turned down tons of people who were willing to search in the rain and in the dark. They kept the search area tight, like maybe they knew she'd be found close by. I haven't heard anything about sex offenders in the area being questioned. Wouldn't that be one of the first things LE would do with a missing 9 yr old girl?
I've heard kids at school were speculating that A might be involved as early as Thursday, but apparently with nothing to go on beyond a creepy feeling.
The press releases don't give anything away, but IMO LE had a creepy feeling, too, and before Friday afternoon.
I certainly was questioning the search approach, the lack of an Amber Alert, etc both Wednesday and Thursday -- I remember posting upset that on Thursday the Sheriff made a statement that sounded like he thought Elizabeth might be playing in the woods --
also why on earth would Sheriff White state that it is a good possiblity that Elizabeth is not still in the area on Friday morning?
and "The sheriff said it did not appear that the girl had run away from home, and no Amber Alert had been issued because there was no evidence of an abduction or foul play."
And the Sheriff promised Thursday night
"We will be truthful and forthcoming with what we put out."
http://www.newstribune.com/articles/2009/10/22/breaking_news/doc4ae10c83ef680093862382.txt
IDK but here is another link to all of the reported updates from the Sheriff's office those 3 days
http://www.connectmidmissouri.com/news/story.aspx?id=366189
BTW they did question sex offenders -- the Sheriff discusses this in his 10 am Friday News Conference
Here is part of our discussion on this from Friday, October 23rd
Originally Posted by gliving
http://www.komu.com/satellite/Satell...f-bae15c87f75b
"White says searchers covered a wide area on Thursday, the Friday search is more contained to specific areas. White did not give any more details. He did say an abduction is the least likely possibility in Elizabeth's disappearance. He plans to speak to the media again at 3 p.m."
Gliving What is he saying here? If she wasn't abducted, then where is she?
Prof: I find this outrageous. Evidently this Sheriff thinks she is playing in the woods. At once the link states there is very little evidence, and then it states that "an abduction is the least likely possiblity."
He says ""Well, I think the woods are a possibility (where the girl may be). Kids in this area play in the woods and farm areas." This is speculation! Why can he not speculate to benefit the child and the search?
Found Deceased MO-Elizabeth Olten, 9, St. Martins Thread #1 - Page 17 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
PAXIMUS
12-03-2009, 01:27 PM
If you look in the court docs Form 1 - General Docket Entry filed 11/18/09 (http://www.colecountycourts.com/documents%20for%20Alyssa%20Dailen%20Bustamante/Form%201%20-%20General%20Docket%20Entry.pdf) it states that if any taping or recording was taken it cannot be used because AB was not represented by counsel. So, I think that may give an answer to that debate..
That states that she didnt have an attorney during Arraignment so if she didnt have an attorney by then we can assume she didnt have one during police interrogation.
This case is quickly unraveling IMO, if her atty doesnt challenge that confession I am going to have to consider a conspiracy is afoot.
PAXIMUS
12-03-2009, 01:28 PM
Docket Entry: Judge/Clerk - Note
Text: If any taping or recording was accomplished during the arraingment, those recordings or tapings cannot be used as the defendant was not represented by counsel at the arraignment. PSJ
Filing Party: JOYCE , PATRICIA S
B&I BM
EXACTLY so if she didnt have an attorney by the time of the Arraignment why are we to assume she would have had one days/weeks earlier during police questioning???
Dal Gal
12-03-2009, 01:31 PM
We are pretty sure who HE is on here because we were given his first name and that matches someone in the family. Because of the circumstances Tricia gave his first name.
Tricia also spoke to ILC on the phone during her verification process.
LadyBug99
12-03-2009, 01:34 PM
That states that she didnt have an attorney during Arraignment so if she didnt have an attorney by then we can assume she didnt have one during police interrogation.
This case is quickly unraveling IMO, if her atty doesnt challenge that confession I am going to have to consider a conspiracy is afoot.
IIRC She had an attorney present at the morning arraignment, she DID NOT have one present in the adult arraignment. This was before the PD was appointed. Please correct me if I'm worng. Though we still do not know if one was present during the questioning, I will guess that she did not.
Csquare
12-03-2009, 01:35 PM
IIRC She had an attorney present at the morning arraignment, she DID NOT have one present in the adult arraignment. This was before the PD was appointed. Please correct me if I'm worng. Though we still do not know if one was present during the questioning, I will guess that she did not.
The adult cert hearing was handled by Kurt Valentine. She was arrained a couple of hours later after the grand jury released their findings and did not have an attorney in the afternoon.
Everyone was talking about Alyssa's size earlier in the thread.
Per the arrest warrant she is 5'4'' and 130 lbs.
LadyBug99
12-03-2009, 01:37 PM
The adult cert hearing was handled by Kurt Valentine. She was arrained a couple of hours later after the grand jury released their findings and did not have an attorney in the afternoon.
And that's why the judge entered a not guilty plea correct?
Dal Gal
12-03-2009, 01:38 PM
IIRC She had an attorney present at the morning arraignment, she DID NOT have one present in the adult arraignment. This was before the PD was appointed. Please correct me if I'm worng. Though we still do not know if one was present during the questioning, I will guess that she did not.
Couldn't the GP's have requested their regular family attorney be present for the questioning? Or could a public defender be used for that? The reason that I ask is, if they showed that they had the means to hire an attorney, might that have shown that AB wasn't eligible for public defense?
PAXIMUS
12-03-2009, 01:39 PM
So here is the story as we know it now, she didnt have an attorney BY THE TIME of the arraignment so its safe to say that she didnt have one at the time of LE questioning when she gave her statement and confession.
The Supreme court has ruled that a minor CAN waive their right to an attorney as I quoted in another post I will repeat here:
A minor may validly waive his or her Miranda rights. The test is whether, under all the circumstances, including age, intelligence, and education, the minor had the ability to comprehend the meaning.
This is quote for you from a lead case decided by our United States Supreme Court:
"To determine whether a suspect has knowingly and intelligently waived Miranda rights, a court must appraise the "totality of the circumstances" including the suspect's "age, experience, education, background and intelligence" and "whether he has the capacity to understand the warnings given him, the nature of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the consequences of waiving those rights" (Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979), p 725)."
Given that we know she spent time in a mental facility just prior to being questioned by police I would argue that she doesnt meet THIS TEST because she may not have been mentally competent enough to appreciate the consequences of waiving her right to representation and therefore I conclude, given the facts at this time, that everything involving AB as a suspect is fruit of the poison tree and should be inadmissable which basically leaves the state with no case. I sure hope her attorney knows what she is doing.
************And yes I am jumping to conclusions and assuming some things not on record but this is all just for the sake of discussion since we dont know all the facts yet.
Csquare
12-03-2009, 01:39 PM
And that's why the judge entered a not guilty plea correct?
This is correct. Now that she has an attorney they are going to arrain her again on the 8th of Dec
danni
12-03-2009, 01:41 PM
And that's why the judge entered a not guilty plea correct?
Right what happened was....
Kurt apeared in court with her that morning. at the cert hearing.
The judge released him once she was certified.
At the later hearing the judge entered the plea because they had not appointed her a public defender yet, so she had no attorney AT THAT TIME.
She had one prior to and right after that is when Jan king became her pd!
LadyBug99
12-03-2009, 01:42 PM
So here is the story as we know it now, she didnt have an attorney BY THE TIME of the arraignment so its safe to say that she didnt have one at the time of LE questioning when she gave her statement and confession.
The Supreme court has ruled that a minor CAN waive their right to an attorney as I quoted in another post I will repeat here:
Given that we know she spent time in a mental facility just prior to being questioned by police I would argue that she doesnt meet THIS TEST because she may not have been mentally competent enough to appreciate the consequences of waiving her right to representation and therefore I conclude, given the facts at this time, that everything involving AB as a suspect is fruit of the poison tree and should be inadmissable which basically leaves the state with no case. I sure hope her attorney knows what she is doing.
Do they even need her confession? Can’t they build a case based on physical evidence? TIA
vjlaw
12-03-2009, 01:42 PM
So here is the story as we know it now, she didnt have an attorney BY THE TIME of the arraignment so its safe to say that she didnt have one at the time of LE questioning when she gave her statement and confession.
The Supreme court has ruled that a minor CAN waive their right to an attorney as I quoted in another post I will repeat here:
Given that we know she spent time in a mental facility just prior to being questioned by police I would argue that she doesnt meet THIS TEST because she may not have been mentally competent enough to appreciate the consequences of waiving her right to representation and therefore I conclude, given the facts at this time, that everything involving AB as a suspect is fruit of the poison tree and should be inadmissable which basically leaves the state with no case. I sure hope her attorney knows what she is doing.
Just in case you try to call the attorney, Jan King is a guy.
Dal Gal
12-03-2009, 01:43 PM
I sure hope her attorney knows what she is doing.
~snipped by me~
Jan King = He
You're 0 for 2 in the gender identification thing, my friend LOL
I AM THE 14 CAR
12-03-2009, 01:43 PM
I just spoke to a subject matter expert and they told me her confession will stand regardless if she had an attorney present. I know that will break some peoples heart that she won't be set free on that technicality.
Breaks some hearts here ? I do hope youre joking !
danni
12-03-2009, 01:46 PM
:tsktsk:
Dal Gal
12-03-2009, 01:47 PM
I haven't seen ANYONE who wants her set free! We're just trying to work out what the law is and how this possible technicality may effect the outcome. No judge is going to overlook the law.
vjlaw
12-03-2009, 01:49 PM
I haven't seen ANYONE who wants her set free! We're just trying to work out what the law is and how this possible technicality may effect the outcome. No judge is going to overlook the law.
Agreed.
MDATCA
12-03-2009, 01:49 PM
In book "Under the Banner of Heaven" by Jon Krakauer, he writes of a old Mormon practice of "blood atonement" and telling of vicious murders with the victims' throats being slashed, even the baby's throat slashed, with no remorse from the killers. The only way to salvation is to spill the sinner's blood.
And Mr Currie with a gun shot to the head.
Just throwing my morning thoughts out there. :waitasec:
It is scary that some people believe that. Actually it is scary to think that there are "religions" in the world that condone violence and murder. In most cases it is interpreted that way by a few who twist things to suit them but there are some that it is widely accepted.
If that was the "motive" AB would have been labeled a religious zealot. If that were the case we would have been hearing about her devoutness from her peers and church. I would like to think that someone would have picked up on a problem if she was a fanatic like most people realize there is something wrong with the members of a certain church whose god hates just about everything. The defense would already be jumping all over that. Her mental health therapy would have been including treatment for it. People would have labeled her a "church freak" and her social sites would have reflected that.
IMO if that was the defense AB would have many more "followers" who would be proclaiming her a martyr.
AndresEscobar
12-03-2009, 01:49 PM
I just spoke to a subject matter expert and they told me her confession will stand regardless if she had an attorney present. I know that will break some peoples heart that she won't be set free on that technicality.
Unless the "subject matter expert" is someone who is familiar with the intimate details of the case, I don't think anyone is in a position to say whether or not there is an issue with the confession. We'll find out on 12/8 when she enters her plea.
I'll be around infrequently, just hit crunch time at work and this thread has gotten a bit too hot for me.
Csquare
12-03-2009, 01:54 PM
I haven't seen ANYONE who wants her set free! We're just trying to work out what the law is and how this possible technicality may effect the outcome. No judge is going to overlook the law.
I deleted that comment. This is not what I meant to post. Sorry. I agree that no judge is going to overlook the law.
vjlaw
12-03-2009, 01:56 PM
Unless the "subject matter expert" is someone who is familiar with the intimate details of the case, I don't think anyone is in a position to say whether or not there is an issue with the confession. We'll find out on 12/8 when she enters her plea.
I'll be around infrequently, just hit crunch time at work and this thread has gotten a bit too hot for me.
I guess it is a good thing you have never been shut in a room on a jury. lol
Csquare
12-03-2009, 01:58 PM
It is scary that some people believe that. Actually it is scary to think that there are "religions" in the world that condone violence and murder. In most cases it is interpreted that way by a few who twist things to suit them but there are some that it is widely accepted.
If that was the "motive" AB would have been labeled a religious zealot. If that were the case we would have been hearing about her devoutness from her peers and church. I would like to think that someone would have picked up on a problem if she was a fanatic like most people realize there is something wrong with the members of a certain church whose god hates just about everything. The defense would already be jumping all over that. Her mental health therapy would have been including treatment for it. People would have labeled her a "church freak" and her social sites would have reflected that.
IMO if that was the defense AB would have many more "followers" who would be proclaiming her a martyr.
She was known to allegadly went to church frequently. Now wether or not that is what you would call a zealot that is open to interpetation. I do know the Mormon church does not like negative publicity, much like any other religon. IF she did attend often it doesn't surprise me that the parishnors are not talking due to strict church rules.
PAXIMUS
12-03-2009, 01:58 PM
I certainly DO NOT want her set free but I DO want the STATE to follow the law when they build their case against her because when the state breaks the law it effects ALL OF US.
I also do NOT want AB in prison I want her in a medical facility where she belongs.
All the arguments I have presented are simply in favor of not responsible for her actions due to mental illness and possible adverse effects of medications, that doesnt mean NOT GUILTY, she needs to be confined for a long time but I would rather her be confined in a place she can get some HELP rather than a prison where she will just rot away and become another cold and hardened criminal.
PAXIMUS
12-03-2009, 02:02 PM
~snipped by me~
Jan King = He
You're 0 for 2 in the gender identification thing, my friend LOL
LOL not my strong point for sure! Let me guess, youre a male!:crazy:
danni
12-03-2009, 02:05 PM
I certainly DO NOT want her set free but I DO want the STATE to follow the law when they build their case against her because when the state breaks the law it effects ALL OF US.
I also do NOT want AB in prison I want her in a medical facility where she belongs.
All the arguments I have presented are simply in favor of not responsible for her actions due to mental illness and possible adverse effects of medications, that doesnt mean NOT GUILTY, she needs to be confined for a long time but I would rather her be confined in a place she can get some HELP rather than a prison where she will just rot away and become another cold and hardened criminal.
If she is to be in custody of some kind for the rest of her life why pump money into "fixing" her?
How about using that money to "fix" people walking around that have not commited crimes. Ya know like people who can not afford 2 grand a freaking month for cancer meds.
I haven't seen ANYONE who wants her set free! We're just trying to work out what the law is and how this possible technicality may effect the outcome. No judge is going to overlook the law.
AGREED!
sigh -- I am not sure this post will stop all of the false dilemna posts, but THANK YOU!
LadyBug99
12-03-2009, 02:14 PM
If she is to be in custody of some kind for the rest of her life why pump money into "fixing" her?
How about using that money to "fix" people walking around that have not commited crimes. Ya know like people who can not afford 2 grand a freaking month for cancer meds.
MOO – If we are going to be paying for her either way, I’d rather see that she is in an institution. Just so she can be studied and possibly treated. The more we know about what makes the killer I believe the better chances we have from preventing a murder in the future. I know many of you may not agree with me and that’s okay…
mominjc
12-03-2009, 02:15 PM
If you look in the court docs Form 1 - General Docket Entry filed 11/18/09 (http://www.colecountycourts.com/documents%20for%20Alyssa%20Dailen%20Bustamante/Form%201%20-%20General%20Docket%20Entry.pdf) it states that if any taping or recording was taken it cannot be used because AB was not represented by counsel. So, I think that may give an answer to that debate..
I haven't finished reading the thread so I'm not sure if this has been mentioned but that document above you are referring to states at the "arraingment". This was not referring to any other time other than the arraingment...which was after her adult certification hearing when Kurt V had left and Jan King had not entered as her PD yet.
Just curious, How do we know the gender of Jan King? When the PD was first appointed I tried to find out, but I failed lol
BTW, does anyone know how or exactly when Valentine got involved? I know he's not a PD, and I have seen rumors about the type of lawyer he is; he obviously did not stick with the case for some reason or another -- just curious
Csquare
12-03-2009, 02:17 PM
MOO – If we are going to be paying for her either way, I’d rather see that she is in an institution. Just so she can be studied and possibly treated. The more we know about what makes the killer I believe the better chances we have from preventing a murder in the future. I know many of you may not agree with me and that’s okay…
Your statement does make sense. I understand what you are saying. I would prefer her doing hard time but that is just moo
MOO – If we are going to be paying for her either way, I’d rather see that she is in an institution. Just so she can be studied and possibly treated. The more we know about what makes the killer I believe the better chances we have from preventing a murder in the future. I know many of you may not agree with me and that’s okay…
I wholeheartedly agree, and hope this is the outcome
JLMcKenna83
12-03-2009, 02:19 PM
Just curious, How do we know the gender of Jan King? When the PD was first appointed I tried to find out, but I failed lol
BTW, does anyone know how or exactly when Valentine got involved? I know he's not a PD, and I have seen rumors about the type of lawyer he is; he obviously did not stick with the case for some reason or another -- just curious
http://www.vbwr.com/bio-valentine.html
His professional profile
AREAS OF PRACTICE
Mr. Valentine’s focus is primarily in the areas of commercial litigation and business litigation.
vjlaw
12-03-2009, 02:19 PM
Just curious, How do we know the gender of Jan King? When the PD was first appointed I tried to find out, but I failed lol
BTW, does anyone know how or exactly when Valentine got involved? I know he's not a PD, and I have seen rumors about the type of lawyer he is; he obviously did not stick with the case for some reason or another -- just curious
Well, I have looked at him from the jury box.
Csquare
12-03-2009, 02:23 PM
Well, I have looked at him from the jury box.
Can you give us your impression of him? What is his demeanor, is he good, and so forth. TIA
IMO
If LE had a POI or any clue that Elizabeth was in the woods murdered before Friday, then the Sheriff has explicitly lied to the press on many occasions -- I would prefer to think that he was not lying, and that they did not have a person of interest until Friday -- if they did have a POI before Friday, he has lost more credibility in my eyes for the outright lies, than he would have for any mistakes they might have made in this case
AGAIN IMO
JLMcKenna83
12-03-2009, 02:26 PM
Your statement does make sense. I understand what you are saying. I would prefer her doing hard time but that is just moo
Is there any way that she could do hard time and still be studied?? Maybe during her sentence she speaks with doctors and criminologists and they try to comprehend what went wrong?
I'm sure someone's going to want to write a book or make a movie or make some money on this in some way.. And we know that those types of studies are not always accurate or beneficial to anyone involved. Any whack-a-doo can write a story and get it published.. I was just think about maybe a serious study on Alyssa and what really happened to her from an actual doctor, however even then, I still think that most of it will be what he infers.. which could always be wrong..
moo...
So here is the story as we know it now, she didnt have an attorney BY THE TIME of the arraignment so its safe to say that she didnt have one at the time of LE questioning when she gave her statement and confession.
The Supreme court has ruled that a minor CAN waive their right to an attorney as I quoted in another post I will repeat here:
Given that we know she spent time in a mental facility just prior to being questioned by police I would argue that she doesnt meet THIS TEST because she may not have been mentally competent enough to appreciate the consequences of waiving her right to representation and therefore I conclude, given the facts at this time, that everything involving AB as a suspect is fruit of the poison tree and should be inadmissable which basically leaves the state with no case. I sure hope her attorney knows what she is doing.
************And yes I am jumping to conclusions and assuming some things not on record but this is all just for the sake of discussion since we dont know all the facts yet.
Bolded statement above is not accurate. She was in a mental hospital in fall of 2007, after her suicide attempt. She was again sent to a mental health facility on Saturday, the day AFTER she was questioned by police.
vjlaw
12-03-2009, 02:28 PM
Can you give us your impression of him? What is his demeanor, is he good, and so forth. TIA
I wouldn't say he is someone with fire in the belly. But the bottom line for me was what he said was true. It has been a couple years. His hair is a little tossled, wears glasses, quieter voice. I would probably describe him as a little disheveled looking. Maybe a bit tired from a few years of doing this. jmo
Csquare
12-03-2009, 02:30 PM
Is there any way that she could do hard time and still be studied?? Maybe during her sentence she speaks with doctors and criminologists and they try to comprehend what went wrong?
I'm sure someone's going to want to write a book or make a movie or make some money on this in some way.. And we know that those types of studies are not always accurate or beneficial to anyone involved. Any whack-a-doo can write a story and get it published.. I was just think about maybe a serious study on Alyssa and what really happened to her from an actual doctor, however even then, I still think that most of it will be what he infers.. which could always be wrong..
moo...
Unless AB really wants to open up and tell the truth I am not sure we will ever know the real truth on why she did what she did.
JLMcKenna83
12-03-2009, 02:31 PM
Unless AB really wants to open up and tell the truth I am not sure we will ever know the real truth on why she did what she did.
Oh sure we do... She just wanted to know what it felt like.. :croc:
j/k :)
PAXIMUS
12-03-2009, 02:33 PM
If she is to be in custody of some kind for the rest of her life why pump money into "fixing" her?
How about using that money to "fix" people walking around that have not commited crimes. Ya know like people who can not afford 2 grand a freaking month for cancer meds.
We obviously have a difference of opinion and different levels of compassion when it comes to the desire to rehabilitate over incarcerate and that is ok, I am trying not to turn this in to a flame fest but just for your information she may NOT be put away the rest of her life:
See: Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida these cases are currently before the Supreme Court and deal with whether its in violation of the 8th amendment for someone under the age of 18 can be sentenced to LWOP.
That being the case I prefer people like AB, as young as they are, get rehabilitated instead of locked up and forgotten, thats just who I am and I tend to have compassion for people like her and do not get any pleasure at the thought of locking her up and throwing away the key.
TY AE.
PAXIMUS
12-03-2009, 02:36 PM
Bolded statement above is not accurate. She was in a mental hospital in fall of 2007, after her suicide attempt. She was again sent to a mental health facility on Saturday, the day AFTER she was questioned by police.
Yes I just relooked at the time line and saw that but the fact that they saw fit to send her to a mental facility after questioning her still brings up the possibility that she wasnt mentally capable of appreciating the consequences of waiving her right to an attorney assuming she did and she does NOT meet the test of the Supreme Court for what is acceptable for a minor to do such.
Csquare
12-03-2009, 02:40 PM
Bolded statement above is not accurate. She was in a mental hospital in fall of 2007, after her suicide attempt. She was again sent to a mental health facility on Saturday, the day AFTER she was questioned by police.
In my experience as a corrections officer, if an inmate says they are suicidal or show signs of it, we would take precautionary measures. I am sure taking her on Sat was just that and no indication she didn't know what she had done.
mominjc
12-03-2009, 02:41 PM
I just spoke with a relative who is a Missouri State Highway Patrol Criminal Investigator. His co-worker was the one who was involved with the questioning of AB. I asked him if an attorney was not present when AB was questioned by MSHP would the confession be thrown out. He stated that's not true. It won't get thrown out, period! So IMHO the MSHP knew exactly what they were doing while questioning AB and did not violate her constitutional rights.
Csquare
12-03-2009, 02:42 PM
I just spoke with a relative who is a Missouri State Highway Patrol Criminal Investigator. His co-worker was the one who was involved with the questioning of AB. I asked him if an attorney was not present when AB was questioned by MSHP would the confession be thrown out. He stated that's not true. It won't get thrown out, period! So IMHO the MSHP knew exactly what they were doing while questioning AB and did not violate her constitutional rights.
Good info mominjc. That is what I was hoping for.
LadyBug99
12-03-2009, 02:43 PM
We obviously have a difference of opinion and different levels of compassion when it comes to the desire to rehabilitate over incarcerate and that is ok, I am trying not to turn this in to a flame fest but just for your information she may NOT be put away the rest of her life:
See: Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida these cases ae currently before the Supreme Court and deal with whether its in violation of the 8th amendment for someone under the age of 18 can be sentenced to LWOP.
That being the case I prefer people like AB, as young as they are, get rehabilitated instead of locked up and forgotten, thats just who I am and I tend to have compassion for people like her and do not get any pleasure at the thought of locking her up and throwing away the key.
I agree with you on many points. However, I don't know if anyone can know for sure that she can be rehabilitated. Either way any insight into the mind of a killer can do nothing but benifit society. MOO. People say that she is "evil" and I'm not ready to believe that just yet. With that being said...I do NOT people here to think that I'm "siding" with AB. What she did there is NO excuse for.
JLMcKenna83
12-03-2009, 02:43 PM
We obviously have a difference of opinion and different levels of compassion when it comes to the desire to rehabilitate over incarcerate and that is ok, I am trying not to turn this in to a flame fest but just for your information she may NOT be put away the rest of her life:
See: Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida these cases ae currently before the Supreme Court and deal with whether its in violation of the 8th amendment for someone under the age of 18 can be sentenced to LWOP.
That being the case I prefer people like AB, as young as they are, get rehabilitated instead of locked up and forgotten, thats just who I am and I tend to have compassion for people like her and do not get any pleasure at the thought of locking her up and throwing away the key.
May I ask, who decides if & when Alyssa is rehabilitated? Obviously the last 3 or so years of therapy & medication have not helped her. When do we as a public get to say that these people are dangerous. She has killed pretty much just for *****s and giggles, according to her.. How do you fix that?? She seems to be a manipulator, people around her never knew the serious state of her mental health, including her doctors, friends, or family.... Has anyone even found out what her actual diagnosis was? What if in 10, 15, or 20 years someone decides Alyssa is now fine? Then they release her and she kills again? It's happened numerous times, not only with killers, but rapists too.
Yes I just relooked at the time line and saw that but the fact that they saw fit to send her to a mental facility after questioning her still brings up the possibility that she wasnt mentally capable of appreciating the consequences of waiving her right to an attorney assuming she did and she does NOT meet the test of the Supreme Court for what is acceptable for a minor to do such.
They probably sent her there for evaluation, which could have come out either way....that she WAS mentally capable or WAS NOT.
We can't assume we know which way that came out.
LadyBug99
12-03-2009, 02:47 PM
May I ask, who decides if & when Alyssa is rehabilitated? Obviously the last 3 or so years of therapy & medication have not helped her. When do we as a public get to say that these people are dangerous. She has killed pretty much just for *****s and giggles, according to her.. How do you fix that?? She seems to be a manipulator, people around her never knew the serious state of her mental health, including her doctors, friends, or family.... Has anyone even found out what her actual diagnosis was? What if in 10, 15, or 20 years someone decides Alyssa is now fine? Then they release her and she kills again? It's happened numerous times, not only with killers, but rapists too.
Rehabilitaion has worked as well so we cannot dismiss that as a possiblity.
LadyBug99
12-03-2009, 02:55 PM
Also, In AB's case she is a teenager and we don't know what her mental capacity is. She has been diagnosed as "depressed". In my opinion that is obviously not a correct or true diagnosis. She very well may have been treated for 2+ years. But was she getting the help, therapy and/or drugs that she needed. It's apparent that she was not. Perhaps now she can be properly diagnosed and treated. If that “works” then I believe there is hope for rehabilitation. MOO.
Jodibug
12-03-2009, 03:00 PM
Just curious, How do we know the gender of Jan King? When the PD was first appointed I tried to find out, but I failed lol
I've met Mr King a few times... he is a guy.
danni
12-03-2009, 03:01 PM
We obviously have a difference of opinion and different levels of compassion when it comes to the desire to rehabilitate over incarcerate and that is ok, I am trying not to turn this in to a flame fest but just for your information she may NOT be put away the rest of her life:
See: Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida these cases are currently before the Supreme Court and deal with whether its in violation of the 8th amendment for someone under the age of 18 can be sentenced to LWOP.
That being the case I prefer people like AB, as young as they are, get rehabilitated instead of locked up and forgotten, thats just who I am and I tend to have compassion for people like her and do not get any pleasure at the thought of locking her up and throwing away the key.
TY AE.
I did not state MY OPINION of her treatment or rather lack there of to start trouble or for it to be debated.
The compassion I have for a murderer is NONE. I guess the fact that I have dealt with the loss of a child, I know what it is like to have to bury a child. not fun at all.
I never said she WAS going to be put away for any length of time I said I HOPE she is put away for life.
I also don't care what has happened in other cases, it matters to me what is going to happen in THIS case. Simply because if and when she is ever let out it will be to live very close to what I call home. She is not someone that I want living anywhere near my family! EVER no matter what or how much treatment she gets, no matter what medication she is on or how much "fixing" she gets! doesn't matter.
My opinion still stands.
Now if you want my brutally honest opinoin, I wish they would give her a couple bed sheets and let her do the job herself.
LadyBug99
12-03-2009, 03:10 PM
I did not state MY OPINION of her treatment or rather lack there of to start trouble or for it to be debated.
The compassion I have for a murderer is NONE. I guess the fact that I have dealt with the loss of a child, I know what it is like to have to bury a child. not fun at all.
I never said she WAS going to be put away for any length of time I said I HOPE she is put away for life.
I also don't care what has happened in other cases, it matters to me what is going to happen in THIS case. Simply because if and when she is ever let out it will be to live very close to what I call home. She is not someone that I want living anywhere near my family! EVER no matter what or how much treatment she gets, no matter what medication she is on or how much "fixing" she gets! doesn't matter.
My opinion still stands.
Now if you want my brutally honest opinoin, I wish they would give her a couple bed sheets and let her do the job herself.
I can understand where you are coming from and thank you for your opinion! I have had to bury a brother as well, I'm sure that doesn't compare to losing a child. But very hard nonetheless. I'm sorry for you loss.
PAXIMUS
12-03-2009, 03:13 PM
I did not state MY OPINION of her treatment or rather lack there of to start trouble or for it to be debated.
The compassion I have for a murderer is NONE. I guess the fact that I have dealt with the loss of a child, I know what it is like to have to bury a child. not fun at all.
I never said she WAS going to be put away for any length of time I said I HOPE she is put away for life.
I also don't care what has happened in other cases, it matters to me what is going to happen in THIS case. Simply because if and when she is ever let out it will be to live very close to what I call home. She is not someone that I want living anywhere near my family! EVER no matter what or how much treatment she gets, no matter what medication she is on or how much "fixing" she gets! doesn't matter.
My opinion still stands.
Now if you want my brutally honest opinoin, I wish they would give her a couple bed sheets and let her do the job herself.
And with that I think it may be time for me to move on to another thread.:(
hellinor
12-03-2009, 03:19 PM
I guess the fact that I have dealt with the loss of a child, I know what it is like to have to bury a child. not fun at all.
My condolences Danni, you must be a very strong person.
danni
12-03-2009, 03:23 PM
My condolences Danni, you must be a very strong person.
thank you!
But this isn't about me.
I feel for Elizabeth's mother the same way others felt for me.
LadyBug99
12-03-2009, 03:28 PM
thank you!
But this isn't about me.
I feel for Elizabeth's mother the same way others felt for me.
Perhaps that is not expressed enough here on this thread. Elizabeth's mother and family have always been in my thoughts and prayers. Few can imagine what they're going through. Holidays will forever be some of the hardest days of their lives. I pray they have the love and support they need to get them through these difficult times!
JLMcKenna83
12-03-2009, 03:37 PM
Perhaps that is not expressed enough here on this thread. Elizabeth's mother and family have always been in my thoughts and prayers. Few can imagine what they're going through. Holidays will forever be some of the hardest days of their lives. I pray they have the love and support they need to get them through these difficult times!
My heart aches for Elizabeth's family. To not only loose a child, but the fact that their child was killed by someone who was supposed to pretty much be a friend. To know that your beautiful daughter was murdered by someone who she trusted enough to go to one of the places she was so afraid of.. It's heartbreaking.
I do also feel for the littlest B. child... Elizabeth's friend.. her big sister murdered her friend... how that will ever affect that little girl, only time will tell. But my guess is that she will need some help in the future, to not only help her understand, but also to help her grieve properly.
It's sad to think that this has shattered so many lives.
Dal Gal
12-03-2009, 03:38 PM
The lost opportunity for the mind of a killer to be studied is the very reason it P***ES me off when a killer commits suicide. Think of the progress LE and School Administrators may have made in prevention of tragedies, if we'd only had the chance to study the Columbine Killing cowards!
I AM THE 14 CAR
12-03-2009, 04:03 PM
They probably sent her there for evaluation, which could have come out either way....that she WAS mentally capable or WAS NOT.
We can't assume we know which way that came out.
Ive been trying to figure this out. The way I understand this , is AB was sent to the mental what-ever-you-wanna-call-it because she was suicidal, depressed & needed treatment. She was to be there no more that XX amount of hours (cant remember that exact # from the docs).
I understood the docs to read that this trip was NOT for a legal "evaluation".
Did I read this doc wrong ?
http://www.colecountycourts.com/courtnews.htm
mominjc
12-03-2009, 04:18 PM
Did anyone notice on the documents posted on cole county they have AB SSN and cell phone number listed? I think those should be blacked out.
Update: I just called & asked for this info to be blacked out now, but I saved the document first!
JLMcKenna83
12-03-2009, 04:22 PM
Did anyone notice on the documents posted on cole county they have AB SSN and cell phone number listed? I think those should be blacked out.
I saw that her SSN were blacked out on the arrest warrants... where do you see them?
I AM THE 14 CAR
12-03-2009, 04:24 PM
Did anyone notice on the documents posted on cole county they have AB SSN and cell phone number listed? I think those should be blacked out.
The only one I recall having info on it , the SS was blacked out...but that was one of the 1rst docs, I think.
I guess I didnt notice it...looks like the clerk would have handled that...or whoever.
mominjc
12-03-2009, 04:25 PM
I saw that her SSN were blacked out on the arrest warrants... where do you see them?
Offense Cycle report
SSN is in the top right hand side of report under offense cycle number.
The phone number is under "residence" it lists
626 Lomo Dr
cole county, MO 65109 026....the next number starting with 573 is a phone number.
026 is the code for cole county when filing your taxes.
bigflaw
12-03-2009, 04:26 PM
Offense Cycle report
SSN is in the top right hand side of report under offense cycle number.
The phone number is under "residence" it lists
626 Lomo Dr
cole county, MO 65109 026....the next number starting with 573 is a phone number.
026 is the code for cole county when filing your taxes.
Oops! A local should call. That's not good.
mominjc
12-03-2009, 04:29 PM
Oops! A local should call. That's not good.
I just called Marilue and told her. She said THANK YOU!
PS...I save the report before I called though! hehehe
vjlaw
12-03-2009, 04:33 PM
I wonder if the arresting deputy whose last name is Bemboom is related to the man who was mentioned as Elizabeth's "honorary dad". His last name is Bemboon also.
LadyBug99
12-03-2009, 04:33 PM
I just called Marilue and told her. She said THANK YOU!
PS...I save the report before I called though! hehehe
So did I = )
mominjc
12-03-2009, 04:37 PM
So did I = )
Did she say she already knew when you called? She seemed worried about that being on there when I called & said she took it off the arrest warrent but I told her it was on the offense cycle report and she was like "OH!"
LadyBug99
12-03-2009, 04:39 PM
Did she say she already knew when you called? She seemed worried about that being on there when I called & said she took it off the arrest warrent but I told her it was on the offense cycle report and she was like "OH!"
Oh sorry...I meant that I saved the report. I would imagine that it will be removed very soon.
Dal Gal
12-03-2009, 04:39 PM
Well it proves that she was born in California :P
bigflaw
12-03-2009, 04:46 PM
It's a cell, not a land line.
Do a reverse phone directory and it will let you know its a cell phone based in Jeff City MO. Plus there are no landlines starting with 353 in JC.
Must be grandma's cell phone. Bet that number gets changed real quick now by the GPs. Oopss!
Ahh, sorry. Did not do my research. Bad sleuth, bad!
mominjc
12-03-2009, 04:50 PM
Ahh, sorry. Did not do my research. Bad sleuth, bad!
:whipper:
Here's your beating! LOL
Csquare
12-03-2009, 07:21 PM
Good evening my fellow sleuther's. Hope everyone is well and ready to throw around some more ideas.
JLMcKenna83
12-03-2009, 07:32 PM
I'm still wondering what they have besides the written evidence. oh well.. I may not figure that out until the trial..
human
12-03-2009, 07:40 PM
I am NOT a lawyer. But doesn't the Miranda warning come AFTER you are arrested, not before?
Why would AB need a lawyer when the police were just questioning her?
She needed a lawyer because of what she did, but LE did not know that, theoretically at the time. (that she had done it).
The police could come to your house and question you about a burglary in the neighborhood, for instance , as they are gathering facts.
Do you get a lawyer ? Well, if you want to, I suppose.
LE theoretically had no reason to arrest her at that time because it could have been a prank, for all they knew.
They were questioning witnesses or whatever, they thought.
lawlady84
12-03-2009, 07:40 PM
And this makes it sound like there was never any time for her to be advised by an attorney which IMO means EVERYTHING from the moment she started talking is fruit of the poison tree and should be tossed.
Hi all, I've been practically living down at work and am just getting a chance to catch up now.
But saw this and wanted to pop in- fruit of the poisonous tree doesn't apply to Miranda. U.S. v. Patane (2004) held physical evidence - even if retrieved based on information obtained in violation of Miranda - is almost always admissible. Court flat out said the exclusionary rule from Wong Sun doesn't apply in the 5th Amendment context. Absent actual coercion, the 5th Amendment isn't implicated by admission of physical evidence.
Missouri v. Seibert (2004) also held absent some coercion, a statement given in violation of Miranda doesn't automatically taint a later voluntary confession.
Csquare
12-03-2009, 07:48 PM
I am NOT a lawyer. But doesn't the Miranda warning come AFTER you are arrested, not before?
Why would AB need a lawyer when the police were just questioning her?
She needed a lawyer because of what she did, but LE did not know that, theoretically at the time. (that she had done it).
The police could come to your house and question you about a burglary in the neighborhood, for instance , as they are gathering facts.
Do you get a lawyer ? Well, if you want to, I suppose.
LE theoretically had no reason to arrest her at that time because it could have been a prank, for all they knew.
They were questioning witnesses or whatever, they thought.
If you are detained and not able to leave on your on when you want, then you have to have your rights read at that point. That is the way I understand it.
Csquare
12-03-2009, 07:51 PM
Hi all, I've been practically living down at work and am just getting a chance to catch up now.
But saw this and wanted to pop in- fruit of the poisonous tree doesn't apply to Miranda. U.S. v. Patane (2004) held physical evidence - even if retrieved based on information obtained in violation of Miranda - is almost always admissible. Court flat out said the exclusionary rule from Wong Sun doesn't apply in the 5th Amendment context. Absent actual coercion, the 5th Amendment isn't implicated by admission of physical evidence.
Missouri v. Seibert (2004) also held absent some coercion, a statement given in violation of Miranda doesn't automatically taint a later voluntary confession.
Thank you. I apprecitate you sharing your knowledge.
Csquare
12-03-2009, 07:55 PM
Here is an OT joke to share a laugh with my fellow posters....What is the difference between a 9 iron and a Cadilac Escalade?
Tiger Woods can back up a 9 iron. Thank you thank you I will be here all week. Please tip your waitress
JLMcKenna83
12-03-2009, 07:55 PM
If you are detained and not able to leave on your on when you want, then you have to have your rights read at that point. That is the way I understand it.
So.. now I guess the question is whether or not she was being detained.. or simply questioned and free to leave whenever?
Csquare
12-03-2009, 08:05 PM
So.. now I guess the question is whether or not she was being detained.. or simply questioned and free to leave whenever?
JMHO They were than likely were there to TALK to her and see what she knew. She may or may not have been a POI at that time. From what I recall her GM allowed her to talk. Don't know if she told her it was the right thing to do or if the GM even knew AB's involvement at the time.:twocents:
JLMcKenna83
12-03-2009, 08:13 PM
Alright.
So now is it safe to come to the conclusion that AB's confession and written evidence were obtained legally? And there isn't much of a chance that they'll be thrown out?
ynotdivein
12-03-2009, 08:23 PM
Good posts today, special thanks to mominjc who gets the Ethics Award for the day! :applause:
Csquare
12-03-2009, 08:25 PM
Alright.
So now is it safe to come to the conclusion that AB's confession and written evidence were obtained legally? And there isn't much of a chance that they'll be thrown out?
IMHO that would be a safe assumption.
JLMcKenna83
12-03-2009, 08:27 PM
Alright.. so now what else should we discuss?
Csquare
12-03-2009, 08:31 PM
Alright.. so now what else should we discuss?
Lets look at this. Do you think there will be a change of venue to move the trial somewhere else? Bring a jury in from another county or use a cole county jury?
JLMcKenna83
12-03-2009, 08:33 PM
Lets look at this. Do you think there will be a change of venue to move the trial somewhere else? Bring a jury in from another county or use a cole county jury?
I think the defense will try to push for a change... simply because of the type of case this is. Whether the judge will grant it or not.. that's another story.
ynotdivein
12-03-2009, 08:36 PM
Lets look at this. Do you think there will be a change of venue to move the trial somewhere else? Bring a jury in from another county or use a cole county jury?
If AB has decent representation I would expect them to move for a change of venue. High profile case, small community, and the right of the defendant to a fair trial all support this possible motion.
That said, I don't know where they would try to move it... typically they aim for a jury that would be similar to the one that likely would have been drawn from the local area, just with geographical remoteness and perhaps less familiarity with the case and the players. Locals, your thoughts here?
Csquare
12-03-2009, 08:36 PM
I think the defense will try to push for a change... simply because of the type of case this is. Whether the judge will grant it or not.. that's another story.
I see either it being moved or a jury brought in from another county. I am pretty sure this trial will be handled with kid gloves as not to take a chance on an appeal. MOO
mominjc
12-03-2009, 08:38 PM
Lets look at this. Do you think there will be a change of venue to move the trial somewhere else? Bring a jury in from another county or use a cole county jury?
Now didn't someone mention before on a previous thread that there was some special RSMo about just Cole County and change of venue? I can't even really remember what is was exactly. Sorry but my memory just isn't so good anymore :waitasec:
Csquare
12-03-2009, 08:38 PM
If AB has decent representation I would expect them to move for a change of venue. High profile case, small community, and the right of the defendant to a fair trial all support this possible motion.
That said, I don't know where they would try to move it... typically they aim for a jury that would be similar to the one that likely would have been drawn from the local area, just with geographical remoteness and perhaps less familiarity with the case and the players. Locals, your thoughts here?
That is a really good question. I could see maybe around the Springfield area or maybe north around Warrensburg or Independence. Just a guess.
lawlady84
12-03-2009, 08:40 PM
WHEW, finally done catching up. Just in time to see pictures of Nancy Grace's children eat their FIRST ICECREAM CONES!!!!!
:banghead: I'd really appreciate if NG & JVM try to feature at least one actual crime victim per show rather than discuss Tiger Wood's alleged maybe-maybe-not girlfriend for 45 minutes.
JLMcKenna83
12-03-2009, 08:40 PM
I see either it being moved or a jury brought in from another county. I am pretty sure this trial will be handled with kid gloves as not to take a chance on an appeal. MOO
I think it will be appealed regardless.
PAXIMUS
12-03-2009, 08:41 PM
I am NOT a lawyer. But doesn't the Miranda warning come AFTER you are arrested, not before?
Why would AB need a lawyer when the police were just questioning her?
She needed a lawyer because of what she did, but LE did not know that, theoretically at the time. (that she had done it).
The police could come to your house and question you about a burglary in the neighborhood, for instance , as they are gathering facts.
Do you get a lawyer ? Well, if you want to, I suppose.
LE theoretically had no reason to arrest her at that time because it could have been a prank, for all they knew.
They were questioning witnesses or whatever, they thought.
There are two things, police CUSTODY and ARREST, both require Miranda. Custodial situation is not an arrest but you are not free to leave. They cannot interrogate you unless you are declared in custody meaning you cant leave but you are not under arrested, or if youre under arrest. Both require Miranda to be read. When they first took her in she was likely not under arrest but she was in police custody and therefore needed to be read her rights and have an attorney present.
human
12-03-2009, 08:45 PM
do we know she was in police custody or was she just being questioned like lots of other people probably were?
Csquare
12-03-2009, 08:49 PM
Now didn't someone mention before on a previous thread that there was some special RSMo about just Cole County and change of venue? I can't even really remember what is was exactly. Sorry but my memory just isn't so good anymore :waitasec:
I don't remember that. I will look and see if I can find something
Csquare
12-03-2009, 08:51 PM
do we know she was in police custody or was she just being questioned like lots of other people probably were?
From everything I have read and heard they went there Fri to QUESTION her which DOES NOT require the Miranda rights to be read. MOO.
danni
12-03-2009, 08:52 PM
there are two things, police custody and arrest, both require miranda. Custodial situation is not an arrest but you are not free to leave. They cannot interrogate you unless you are declared in custody meaning you cant leave but you are not under arrested, or if youre under arrest. Both require miranda to be read. When they first took her in she was likely not under arrest but she was in police custody and therefore needed to be read her rights and have an attorney present.
if she wanted!
ynotdivein
12-03-2009, 09:03 PM
There are two things, police CUSTODY and ARREST, both require Miranda. Custodial situation is not an arrest but you are not free to leave. They cannot interrogate you unless you are declared in custody meaning you cant leave but you are not under arrested, or if youre under arrest. Both require Miranda to be read. When they first took her in she was likely not under arrest but she was in police custody and therefore needed to be read her rights and have an attorney present.
PAX, I'm glad you posted this. I do not want to :other_beatingA_Dead: but do want to think this out, and appreciate you bearing with me.
First, the only truly safe thing to do when questioned about ANYTHING by LE is to INVOKE YOUR RIGHTS. "Am I free to go? Am I being detained?" Let's say LE says, no no no, not detained, just want to get your input. So you start answering questions because you trust LE.
At some point as you answer questions, you become a POI in LE's mind. They absolutely DO NOT have to tell you when that happens. They do not have to say "This random questioning is now an 'interrogation'." In fact, they will do everything they can to keep you talking.
So let's say at some point in the "discussion" you ask again, "Can I go now?" If the answer is anything other than a clear and unambiguous "Yes, here's the door, have a good night," then you are being detained.
They don't have to tell you you are being detained even if you ask directly, and they can make detention as comfortable/unobtrusive as they deem necessary to get more information. But if LE doesn't immediately show you the door after asking "am I being detained," then the best response to them is, "I choose to remain silent and I want to see a lawyer," and then STOP TALKING. If you ask for a cup of water after invoking your rights, you ask this way: "I want a cup of water, and I choose to remain silent and I want to see a lawyer."
Given what's been posted about Miranda and fruit of the poisoned tree arguments, this is not going to be a problem in AB's case. AB and her guardians probably did not understand these rights and how they work, and in this case, that's fine by me. But IMO every citizen needs to understand these rules and how they work both for and against investigators.
Csquare
12-03-2009, 09:07 PM
PAX, I'm glad you posted this. I do not want to :other_beatingA_Dead: but do want to think this out, and appreciate you bearing with me.
First, the only truly safe thing to do when questioned about ANYTHING by LE is to INVOKE YOUR RIGHTS. "Am I free to go? Am I being detained?" Let's say LE says, no no no, not detained, just want to get your input. So you start answering questions because you trust LE.
At some point as you answer questions, you become a POI in LE's mind. They absolutely DO NOT have to tell you when that happens. They do not have to say "This random questioning is now an 'interrogation'." In fact, they will do everything they can to keep you talking.
So let's say at some point in the "discussion" you ask again, "Can I go now?" If the answer is anything other than a clear and unambiguous "Yes, here's the door, have a good night," then you are being detained.
They don't have to tell you you are being detained even if you ask directly, and they can make detention as comfortable/unobtrusive as they deem necessary to get more information. But if LE doesn't immediately show you the door after asking "am I being detained," then the best response to them is, "I choose to remain silent and I want to see a lawyer," and then STOP TALKING. If you ask for a cup of water after invoking your rights, you ask this way: "I want a cup of water, and I choose to remain silent and I want to see a lawyer."
Given what's been posted about Miranda and fruit of the poisoned tree arguments, this is not going to be a problem in AB's case. AB and her guardians probably did not understand these rights and how they work, and in this case, that's fine by me. But IMO every citizen needs to understand these rules and how they work both for and against investigators.
You leave me no choice but to notify PETA in regards to you beating that poor animal. You are cruel. lol AB's GP's have had to deal with LE before and I am sure they knew how it worked. They may have encouraged her to come clean and let EO's family get closure. JMHO
lawlady84
12-03-2009, 09:08 PM
I forgot who posted it earlier, but the cases currently before the Supreme Court that argue LWOP for minors is cruel and unusual punishment only concern non-lethal crimes.
LWOP for minors convicted of a form of murder is not being challenged.
Csquare
12-03-2009, 09:11 PM
I forgot who posted it earlier, but the cases currently before the Supreme Court that argue LWOP for minors is cruel and unusual punishment only concern non-lethal crimes.
LWOP for minors convicted of a form of murder is not being challenged.
thanks. I hadn't had a chance to look that up but didn't sound right. IF she was going to tried as an adult she deserves adult punishment. Do they have to announce they are going for Dual Jurisdiction or is that automatic in MO?
lawlady84
12-03-2009, 09:13 PM
I agree so far with everything recently posted about custody/arrest/interrogation. There are "standards" but its pretty fact dependent.
Miranda warnings need to be given whenever there is "custodial interrogation." Custody has come to mean arrest or the functional equivalent. For example, traffic stops are not considered to be "custody" even though they are considered "seizures" for 4th Amendment purposes.
For "custody" questions, the intent of the officer is irrelevant. So even if LE really thought AB was the girl, if she was just brought in for routine questioning like other children in the area and was actually free to go - then she wasn't "in custody."
IMO, LE knew they were dealing with (1) a minor (2) who has a history of mental illness- I would bet they were extra careful about following proper procedure.
ynotdivein
12-03-2009, 09:14 PM
You leave me no choice but to notify PETA in regards to you beating that poor animal. You are cruel. lol AB's GP's have had to deal with LE before and I am sure they knew how it worked. They may have encouraged her to come clean and let EO's family get closure. JMHO
LOL! I'll have you know, that horse bequeathed itself to the advancement of internet emoticons. :crazy:
Good point about the gp's... and I hope you're right.
(Checking status of PETA membership now...)
Csquare
12-03-2009, 09:16 PM
I agree so far with everything recently posted about custody/arrest/interrogation. There are "standards" but its pretty fact dependent.
Miranda warnings need to be given whenever there is "custodial interrogation." Custody has come to mean arrest or the functional equivalent. For example, traffic stops are not considered to be "custody" even though they are considered "seizures" for 4th Amendment purposes.
For "custody" questions, the intent of the officer is irrelevant. So even if LE really thought AB was the girl, if she was just brought in for routine questioning like other children in the area and was actually free to go - then she wasn't "in custody."
IMO, LE knew they were dealing with (1) a minor (2) who has a history of mental illness- I would bet they were extra careful about following proper procedure.
That is the point I tried to make earlier. They knew the situation and handeled it properly if not even taking greater precautions to ensure doing it properly.
Csquare
12-03-2009, 09:17 PM
LOL! I'll have you know, that horse bequeathed itself to the advancement of internet emoticons. :crazy:
Good point about the gp's... and I hope you're right.
(Checking status of PETA membership now...)
Big words will get you nowhere with me. LOL
danni
12-03-2009, 09:18 PM
again kinda like beating a dead horse, but was reading about when did she become a poi, and ran across this online.
"Physical evidence and written evidence led police to develop a person of interest. Police interviewed the person of interest, a older teen, who then led police to Elizabeth's body."
http://www.connectmidmissouri.com/news/story.aspx?id=367027
Does anyone know where to find a link to the 3:00 PC? I wonder if this info was stated by Sheriff White at that time?
lawlady84
12-03-2009, 09:23 PM
thanks. I hadn't had a chance to look that up but didn't sound right. IF she was going to tried as an adult she deserves adult punishment. Do they have to announce they are going for Dual Jurisdiction or is that automatic in MO?
I personally have no idea about the MO juvenile system, sorry. The current Supreme Court case is Sullivan v. Florida, concerning a LWOP sentence for a 13 year old convicted of rape and assault.
I heard oral arguments on the current case before the Supreme Court, and some of the questions the justices asked were very interesting. At one point Justice Kennedy asked, "Why does a juvenile have a Constitutional right to hope but an adult does not?" I am skeptical that the Court will be able to say its cruel and unusual punishment- seems IMO more of a legislature issue concerning sentencing guidelines.
LogicalMinds
12-03-2009, 09:27 PM
Regarding the "life without parole" for teens
one famous case here was Lionel Tate...and that was one I felt was too harsh...Lionel was 12 years old and "wrestling" with a 6 year old little girl playmate and he killed her...he was also mentally "slow"
they gave him life without parole...and many signed petitions, there were fundraisers and
pro bono lawyers and media media media
they reversed the sentence.....
he got out and had a 2nd chance....
In May of 2005, Tate violated his probation. He was arrested and charged with robbing a pizza deliveryman at gunpoint (as well as being caught by police with a knife in his pocket).
judge then sentenced Tate to 30 years in prison.
~~~~ Bad seed>> maybe....so many people worked and got this kid free...then this
and the fact is, he was 1) only 12 at the time of the murder/manslaughter
2) there was never ever any evidence that he planned to murder the little girl
3) if anything, he was simply stupid...trying to recreate wrestling moves that he liked to watch on tv
Allyssa's case is far different
as for the movement to stop "life without parole" for juveniles...that is ONLY in regards to "non lethal" crimes....
http://free-lionel-tate.blogspot.com/2009/08/life-in-prison-for-criminal-teens.html
Two Florida teens were given life sentences without parole for nonlethal crimes. The top court will consider if the punishments are constitutional.
The US Supreme Court announced Monday that it would take up two cases involving juvenile offenders in Florida who claim their life prison sentences for rape and robbery are cruel and unusual punishment.
One of the defendants was 13 at the time he allegedly raped a 72-year-old woman in Pensacola. The other was 17 when he was charged with participating in a series of robberies.
At issue in these cases is whether the fundamental principles supporting a 2005 Supreme Court decision that declared the death penalty unconstitutional for juveniles should also be applied to life imprisonment sentences meted out to juveniles convicted of nonlethal crimes.
Csquare
12-03-2009, 09:29 PM
If they do use dual Jurisdiction then that gives them a few years to REHAB her the she can put her big girl pants on and do some big girl time for doing a big girl crime.
Csquare
12-03-2009, 09:31 PM
Regarding the "life without parole" for teens
one famous case here was Lionel Tate...and that was one I felt was too harsh...Lionel was 12 years old and "wrestling" with a 6 year old little girl playmate and he killed her...he was also mentally "slow"
they gave him life without parole...and many signed petitions, there were fundraisers and
pro bono lawyers and media media media
they reversed the sentence.....
he got out and had a 2nd chance....
In May of 2005, Tate violated his probation. He was arrested and charged with robbing a pizza deliveryman at gunpoint (as well as being caught by police with a knife in his pocket).
judge then sentenced Tate to 30 years in prison.
~~~~ Bad seed>> maybe....so many people worked and got this kid free...then this
and the fact is, he was 1) only 12 at the time of the murder/manslaughter
2) there was never ever any evidence that he planned to murder the little girl
3) if anything, he was simply stupid...trying to recreate wrestling moves that he liked to watch on tv
Allyssa's case is far different
as for the movement to stop "life without parole" for juveniles...that is ONLY in regards to "non lethal" crimes....
http://free-lionel-tate.blogspot.com/2009/08/life-in-prison-for-criminal-teens.html
Two Florida teens were given life sentences without parole for nonlethal crimes. The top court will consider if the punishments are constitutional.
The US Supreme Court announced Monday that it would take up two cases involving juvenile offenders in Florida who claim their life prison sentences for rape and robbery are cruel and unusual punishment.
One of the defendants was 13 at the time he allegedly raped a 72-year-old woman in Pensacola. The other was 17 when he was charged with participating in a series of robberies.
At issue in these cases is whether the fundamental principles supporting a 2005 Supreme Court decision that declared the death penalty unconstitutional for juveniles should also be applied to life imprisonment sentences meted out to juveniles convicted of nonlethal crimes.
Very good and informative info. Thank you
LogicalMinds
12-03-2009, 09:32 PM
And here is how we "do" it in Florida...this nasty 16 year old just sentenced to life in prison...good :)
I haven't even heard much info on this case...seems like she surely deserves it
http://free-lionel-tate.blogspot.com/2009/08/putnam-girl-16-convicted-of-1st-degree.html
Morgan Leppert will be sentenced to life in prison.
BUNNELL — As reality set in, Morgan Leppert’s sobs echoed through a Flagler County courtroom Thursday afternoon.
The Putnam County teenager will receive an automatic and mandatory life prison sentence after a jury’s first-degree murder verdict. The self-described “redneck cowgirl” will be the youngest girl in Florida’s prison system. She also was convicted of robbery and burglary.
The jury of five men and one woman apparently didn’t buy her childlike appearance and claims that her adult boyfriend, Toby Lowry, directed the robbery and murder of a disabled Melrose man last year. At the time, Leppert was 15 and a runaway from her San Mateo home; Lowry was 22.
“The level of violence that she and Toby Lowry reached, that trumped her age,” Assistant State Attorney Chris France said after the verdict, reached in about 90 minutes.
James Thomas Stewart, 66, was beaten, stabbed, stomped and suffocated in his home after Leppert and Lowry showed up to steal his pickup truck so they could leave Florida.
human
12-03-2009, 09:34 PM
There were questions earlier about AB being able to do the crime herself.
In earlier pictures she looked really tiny. But a poster put that she is 5'4" and 130 pounds. That is not that tiny anymore.
Raebie
12-03-2009, 09:35 PM
Another one:
Indiana Teenager Charged in Strangulation Death of Brother
Thursday , December 03, 2009
RISING SUN, Ind. —
Ignoring his younger brother's plea of "Andrew, stop," a 17-year-old who told authorities he identified with a television serial killer strangled the boy, dragged the body to his car and drove to see his girlfriend, an Indiana prosecutor said Thursday.
Andrew Conley of Rising Sun was calm and showed no remorse or emotion as he described strangling 10-year-old Conner Conley as the two wrestled Sunday, a probable cause affidavit said. Conley told investigators he dumped his brother's body near a park in the Ohio River community about 90 miles southeast of Indianapolis.
"Sometimes people are just evil," Dearborn-Ohio County Prosecutor Aaron Negangard said. "This is an evil child."
Prosecutors filed preliminary charges of murder against Conley along with a supporting affidavit Thursday. Conley is being charged as an adult and will appear Friday in court, Negangard said.
Conley's family did not immediately return messages for comment Thursday. Negangard said Conley had an attorney but none was listed in the affidavit.
The teen told investigators he had had fantasies about killing someone since he was in eighth grade, including cutting somebody's throat, and felt "just like" the serial killer Dexter on the Showtime television series of the same name. He said killing his brother satisfied a craving like a hamburger satisfied hunger.
"Like I had to ... like when people have something like they are hungry and there is a hamburger sitting there and they knew they had to have it and I was sitting there and it just happened," Conley told investigators in the affidavit.
The slaying comes six weeks after 15-year-old Alyssa Bustamante told Missouri authorities she strangled, stabbed and cut a 9-year-old neighbor's throat because she wanted to know what it was like to kill someone.
The affidavit in Conley's case described him killing his brother before visiting his girlfriend and other friends. It said:
The two brothers were wrestling while their parents were at work. Conley put Conner in a headlock, causing the younger boy to pass out and fall to the floor. Conley dragged Conner to kitchen, put on a pair of gloves and choked the younger boy for about 20 minutes until he noticed blood flowing from Conner's nose and mouth.
He told investigators the child's last words were "Andrew, stop."
Conley put a plastic bag over his brother's head, secured it with black electrical tape, and dragged the body by its feet down steps to the basement and then from the home to his car. Conley struck Conner's head on the ground several times before putting the body in the trunk of the car.
With the body still in the trunk, Conley drove to his girlfriend's house and gave her a sweetheart ring. She told investigators Conley "seemed happy, more happy than she had seen him in a while."
Negangard said he will consider seeking the maximum prison term of life without parole. Conley's age makes him ineligible for the death penalty.
"I believe Andrew Conley is a dangerous person, and that's why we'll be considering the maximum penalty that we can impose," Negangard said.
Conley also told investigators that on the morning of Conner's death, he stood over his sleeping father with a knife and thought about killing him. Conley went to police Sunday night, admitted killing Conner and told investigators where to find the body.
The teen had no juvenile record and his teachers considered him a good student, Negangard said.
"This kid, Conner, was a good kid, and Andrew was an A and B student," he said. "This comes as a shock to the community."
Conley has been held at the Juvenile Detention Center in Lawrenceburg but was to be moved Thursday night to the Switzerland County Jail in Vevay.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579225,00.html?test=latestnews
ynotdivein
12-03-2009, 09:38 PM
There were questions earlier about AB being able to do the crime herself.
In earlier pictures she looked really tiny. But a poster put that she is 5'4" and 130 pounds. That is not that tiny anymore.
And still no word on the bf-related breaking news that an earlier poster suggested would be forthcoming...
Raebie
12-03-2009, 09:39 PM
Appears he was a cutter too.
Indiana State Police Detective Thomas Baxter, who appeared at a news conference with Negangard, said Conley's parents had taken him out of school recently and he once intentionally cut himself on a forearm.
"I think there was at some point some self-destructive attempts by cutting," Baxter said.
Conley had no juvenile record and his teachers considered him a good student, Negangard said.
"This kid, Conner, was a good kid, and Andrew was an A and B student," he said. "This comes as a shock to the community."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091203/ap_on_re_us/us_indiana_boy_strangled
LogicalMinds
12-03-2009, 09:40 PM
OMG....that is simply chilling about this monster killing his little brother
and again we hear "good grades"....no one would ever "suspect" this would happen
gag me
JLMcKenna83
12-03-2009, 09:41 PM
"This kid, Conner, was a good kid, and Andrew was an A and B student," he said. "This comes as a shock to the community."
Gee.. where have we heard that before?
ynotdivein
12-03-2009, 09:43 PM
The teen told investigators he had had fantasies about killing someone since he was in eighth grade, including cutting somebody's throat, and felt "just like" the serial killer Dexter on the Showtime television series of the same name. He said killing his brother satisfied a craving like a hamburger satisfied hunger. (...)
He told investigators the child's last words were "Andrew, stop."
Respectfully SBM
This breaks my heart. Is it ok to wonder aloud here what Elizabeth's last words might have been?
:rose:
Csquare
12-03-2009, 09:43 PM
I know we blame tv and video games for some of today's problems. When my oldest daughter was younger she and I watched wrestling on tv. I never once got a call that she had body slamed or pile driven any classmates or teachers. Why? Well I would like to think that me and my wife talking to her about the difference in reality and non reality. If we take the time to talk to our kids and make sure they know that people on tv have been trained to do what they do and unless you are trained to do that you don't attempt that. All it takes is just a little bit of parental supervision. Some people will disagree but I will not say wrestling is fake. Staged I will agree to. Some of the things they do is flat out dangerous and should be looked at as so.
dnrslucky1
12-03-2009, 09:44 PM
And here is how we "do" it in Florida...this nasty 16 year old just sentenced to life in prison...good :)
I haven't even heard much info on this case...seems like she surely deserves it
http://free-lionel-tate.blogspot.com/2009/08/putnam-girl-16-convicted-of-1st-degree.html
Morgan Leppert will be sentenced to life in prison.
BUNNELL — As reality set in, Morgan Leppert’s sobs echoed through a Flagler County courtroom Thursday afternoon.
The Putnam County teenager will receive an automatic and mandatory life prison sentence after a jury’s first-degree murder verdict. The self-described “redneck cowgirl” will be the youngest girl in Florida’s prison system. She also was convicted of robbery and burglary.
The jury of five men and one woman apparently didn’t buy her childlike appearance and claims that her adult boyfriend, Toby Lowry, directed the robbery and murder of a disabled Melrose man last year. At the time, Leppert was 15 and a runaway from her San Mateo home; Lowry was 22.
“The level of violence that she and Toby Lowry reached, that trumped her age,” Assistant State Attorney Chris France said after the verdict, reached in about 90 minutes.
James Thomas Stewart, 66, was beaten, stabbed, stomped and suffocated in his home after Leppert and Lowry showed up to steal his pickup truck so they could leave Florida.
This is so very sad for all.
Csquare
12-03-2009, 09:46 PM
Respectfully SBM
This breaks my heart. Is it ok to wonder aloud here what Elizabeth's last words might have been?
:rose:
One can only imagine. The poor child probally never had a chance. That is very sick that anyone could do that to a child.
eyes4crime
12-03-2009, 09:47 PM
PAX, I'm glad you posted this. I do not want to :other_beatingA_Dead: but do want to think this out, and appreciate you bearing with me.
First, the only truly safe thing to do when questioned about ANYTHING by LE is to INVOKE YOUR RIGHTS. "Am I free to go? Am I being detained?" Let's say LE says, no no no, not detained, just want to get your input. So you start answering questions because you trust LE.
At some point as you answer questions, you become a POI in LE's mind. They absolutely DO NOT have to tell you when that happens. They do not have to say "This random questioning is now an 'interrogation'." In fact, they will do everything they can to keep you talking.
So let's say at some point in the "discussion" you ask again, "Can I go now?" If the answer is anything other than a clear and unambiguous "Yes, here's the door, have a good night," then you are being detained.
They don't have to tell you you are being detained even if you ask directly, and they can make detention as comfortable/unobtrusive as they deem necessary to get more information. But if LE doesn't immediately show you the door after asking "am I being detained," then the best response to them is, "I choose to remain silent and I want to see a lawyer," and then STOP TALKING. If you ask for a cup of water after invoking your rights, you ask this way: "I want a cup of water, and I choose to remain silent and I want to see a lawyer."
Given what's been posted about Miranda and fruit of the poisoned tree arguments, this is not going to be a problem in AB's case. AB and her guardians probably did not understand these rights and how they work, and in this case, that's fine by me. But IMO every citizen needs to understand these rules and how they work both for and against investigators.
Thank you so much for this information. The outline you have drawn for us is very clear and concise - you're so right, every citizen needs to understand these rules and how they can be used for and against a person. thanks for your expert opinion!
PAXIMUS
12-03-2009, 09:57 PM
From everything I have read and heard they went there Fri to QUESTION her which DOES NOT require the Miranda rights to be read. MOO.
That depends if she would be allowed to stand up and leave any time she wanted and we dont know if thats the case or not, if she wasnt then it was a custodial situation and that would require miranda. If they did simply question her without officially being in custody or under arrest and therefore didnt need to read her the miranda rights then they cant use anything they learned against her since she wasnt informed that anything she told them could be used against her in a court of law....its a little bit more tricky than some of you laymen understand I am afraid. This is why law school is so expensive, there is a lot to learn.
Also note that the LE who inteviewed her said something to the effect that "In sum or ultimately she said she wanted to know what it felt like to kill someone." That tells me that isnt EXACTLY what she said but what he INTERPRETED her to mean and you cant interpret statements in court testimony or sum them up she either said this or that or she didnt, period.
danni
12-03-2009, 10:08 PM
:other_beatingA_Dead
ynotdivein
12-03-2009, 10:09 PM
That depends if she would be allowed to stand up and leave any time she wanted and we dont know if thats the case or not, if she wasnt then it was a custodial situation and that would require miranda. If they did simply question her without officially being in custody or under arrest and therefore didnt need to read her the miranda rights then they cant use anything they learned against her since she wasnt informed that anything she told them could be used against her in a court of law....its a little but more tricky than some of you laymen understand I am afraid. This is why law school is so expensive, there is a lot to learn.
Also note that the LE who inteviewed her said something to the effect that "In sum or ultimately she said she wanted to know what it felt like to kill someone." That tells me that isnt EXACTLY what she said but what he INTERPRETED her to mean and you cant interpret statements in court testimony or sum them up she either said this or that or she didnt, period.
Yay, PAX is back! OK, even if she hadn't been Mirandized (due to maybe them not being sure of who perp was at the time), then they could still use her info to guide their investigation same as they could have used info from (insert name of totally uninvolved neighbor here), right? And anything they found thereby would be evidence?
(Then again there is the point that she reportedly "led" LE to the grave site... not sure how defense will handle that.)
Also, LE is quoted as saying she "STATED that she wanted to know what it felt like to kill someone" (caps by me).
I have no thirst for AB's blood here. But if there was a flaw in my earlier post re: getting read your rights, please help me see it.
dnrslucky1
12-03-2009, 10:09 PM
PAX, I'm glad you posted this. I do not want to :other_beatingA_Dead: but do want to think this out, and appreciate you bearing with me.
First, the only truly safe thing to do when questioned about ANYTHING by LE is to INVOKE YOUR RIGHTS. "Am I free to go? Am I being detained?" Let's say LE says, no no no, not detained, just want to get your input. So you start answering questions because you trust LE.
At some point as you answer questions, you become a POI in LE's mind. They absolutely DO NOT have to tell you when that happens. They do not have to say "This random questioning is now an 'interrogation'." In fact, they will do everything they can to keep you talking.
So let's say at some point in the "discussion" you ask again, "Can I go now?" If the answer is anything other than a clear and unambiguous "Yes, here's the door, have a good night," then you are being detained.
They don't have to tell you you are being detained even if you ask directly, and they can make detention as comfortable/unobtrusive as they deem necessary to get more information. But if LE doesn't immediately show you the door after asking "am I being detained," then the best response to them is, "I choose to remain silent and I want to see a lawyer," and then STOP TALKING. If you ask for a cup of water after invoking your rights, you ask this way: "I want a cup of water, and I choose to remain silent and I want to see a lawyer."
Given what's been posted about Miranda and fruit of the poisoned tree arguments, this is not going to be a problem in AB's case. AB and her guardians probably did not understand these rights and how they work, and in this case, that's fine by me. But IMO every citizen needs to understand these rules and how they work both for and against investigators.
I have personally seen someone being questioned by LE. This person asked if he was under arrest and was told no. Then he asked for an attorney before answering any questions. LE told him he will answer what ever they ask. Person asked again if he was under arrest and again was told no. Said person walked away and LE tackled him and proceeded to arrest him for resisting arrest! Made no sense to me.
LogicalMinds
12-03-2009, 10:10 PM
This is so very sad for all.
just like the "grandma" of Allyssa....she did a rotten job with Allyssa's mother..now she has Allyssa....I feel sorry for the victim/s and their families
danni
12-03-2009, 10:15 PM
again kinda like beating a dead horse, but was reading about when did she become a poi, and ran across this online.
"Physical evidence and written evidence led police to develop a person of interest. Police interviewed the person of interest, a older teen, who then led police to Elizabeth's body."
http://www.connectmidmissouri.com/news/story.aspx?id=367027
Does anyone know where to find a link to the 3:00 PC? I wonder if this info was stated by Sheriff White at that time?
If this statement is true. Then why WOULDN'T they have read her her miranda rights?
Step ONE: Evidence lead to developement of a person of interest!
Step TWO: Police interview said person of interest.
Step THREE: Said person of interest lead LE to the body!
I will bet my left arse cheek (I bet it once before and was right so its good luck right?) that Step ONE AND A HALF was read her her miranda rights!
ynotdivein
12-03-2009, 10:19 PM
I have personally seen someone being questioned by LE. This person asked if he was under arrest and was told no. Then he asked for an attorney before answering any questions. LE told him he will answer what ever they ask. Person asked again if he was under arrest and again was told no. Said person walked away and LE tackled him and proceeded to arrest him for resisting arrest! Made no sense to me.
dnrslucky, not sure where, when or under what circumstances this happened, but am glad that you watched it go down. May come in handy if whatever the charge was goes to trial.
LogicalMinds
12-03-2009, 10:37 PM
Ok I found the one I was looking for...this got a lot of coverage locally....happened in Miami
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/michael-hernandez-trial/story/542276.html?storylink=mirelated
A quiet, 14-year-old honors student was killed in a bathroom at his Palmetto Bay middle school Tuesday morning, his throat apparently cut by a classmate in a shocking attack that paralyzed hundreds of families and terrified parents across Miami-Dade County.
Jaime Rodrigo Gough was found bleeding to death in a second-floor restroom at Southwood Middle School around 8:30 a.m. by another student, who saw a pool of blood and a pair of legs sticking out from a stall. He ran to get help, but paramedics were unable to save Jaime.
Within hours, police focused on a fellow eighth-grader, who was identified as 14-year-old Michael Hernandez. He was charged late Tuesday night with first-degree murder. Such a serious charge indicates police believe the killing may have been planned.
Michael was def mentally ill...schizophrenic...which is MORE than has been said about Allyssa.....
they also found many drawings and sadistic pictures...he had planned to kill..and he did
and he was sentenced to life without parole
I hope the same for Allyssa
http://www.justnews.com/news/17932520/detail.html
Convicted Teen Killer Sentenced To Life Without Parole
Michael Hernandez Sentenced For Murder Of Jaime Gough
POSTED: Friday, November 7, 2008
UPDATED: 6:13 pm EST November 7, 2008
MIAMI -- Michael Hernandez, a teenager convicted of murder in the killing of his classmate, Jaime Gough, has been sentenced to life in prison without parole plus an additional 30 years.
Hernandez, 18, faced a mandatory life sentence without parole as a result of his conviction on a first-degree murder charge. He also was sentenced to another 30 years in prison as a result of his conviction on an attempted murder charge.
IMHO this is a lot like the case of Allyssa and Elizabeth
and it shows that even tho "mentally ill" this kid knew right from wrong
oh and of course we get the input from his classmates...
http://www.justnews.com/news/17459348/detail.html
They also answered questions that indicated the prosecutor's pre-emptive strike on Hernandez's lawyer's insanity defense.
"Did he ever, in the period of time in that class, act in any unusual or bizarre way that stuck out in your mind?" prosecutor Kathleen Hogue asked one student.
"No," she answered.
Classmates described Hernandez as friendly and sociable, but with a dark side. They remember him enjoying computer sites depicting decapitations and mutilated bodies.
"I walked over and looked and asked him, 'Why do you have that on your computer?'" said former Southwood student Natalie Krakowski. "He said, 'I like it. It's cool. It's really neat.'"
Sounds a LOT like Allyssa....good student...."nice"...just had an urge to kill people right??
like Allyssa Michael picked someone smaller than himself....his littler friend
oh...and he was only 14 when he killed....Allyssa is 2 months away from turning 16
ynotdivein
12-03-2009, 10:41 PM
AAARGH!
Ahem.
So. Juvies tried as adults; good idea or not?
:sick: either way.
JLMcKenna83
12-03-2009, 10:43 PM
AAARGH!
Ahem.
So. Juvies tried as adults; good idea or not?
:sick: either way.
I vote yes. Especially in a case such as this, and the ones that logicalminds presented..
LogicalMinds
12-03-2009, 10:44 PM
Regarding the "Miranda" issue...
IF there was some discrepancy there, we would surely hear the defense lawyers (and maybe the family) screaming about it
there has been NO news that her rights were "trampled" in any way....only Pax here has been suggesting this...but we can suggest or imagine anything
we don't know at what point they "read" her her "rights" but so far we have not heard anything controversial about it except on this board
just as the idea of a "conspirator" /boyfriend etc has only been on this board and in maybe one or two posts on the Missouri news blogs
meanwhile...in this case it seems that they have her very much "dead to rights"...
physical evidence....written evidence.....a confession....and she led them to the well concealed grave....hellooooooo
it took months for cops to build a case against Casey Anthony...and she and her lawyers are fighting it, she has NOT confessed and even now is trying to blame others (the guy who found Caylee's body etc)
the case against Allyssa is more than just "circumstantial"...it sounds very grounded to me, very simple....
if there was a problem about "reading her rights" we would hear the defense and her family yelling about it
Csquare
12-03-2009, 10:45 PM
AAARGH!
Ahem.
So. Juvies tried as adults; good idea or not?
:sick: either way.
I say yes but on a case by case basis.
Csquare
12-03-2009, 10:47 PM
Regarding the "Miranda" issue...
IF there was some discrepancy there, we would surely hear the defense lawyers (and maybe the family) screaming about it
there has been NO news that her rights were "trampled" in any way....only Pax here has been suggesting this...but we can suggest or imagine anything
we don't know at what point they "read" her her "rights" but so far we have not heard anything controversial about it except on this board
just as the idea of a "conspirator" /boyfriend etc has only been on this board and in maybe one or two posts on the Missouri news blogs
meanwhile...in this case it seems that they have her very much "dead to rights"...
physical evidence....written evidence.....a confession....and she led them to the well concealed grave....hellooooooo
it took months for cops to build a case against Casey Anthony...and she and her lawyers are fighting it, she has NOT confessed and even now is trying to blame others (the guy who found Caylee's body etc)
the case against Allyssa is more than just "circumstantial"...it sounds very grounded to me, very simple....
if there was a problem about "reading her rights" we would hear the defense and her family yelling about it
I am pretty sure that that would have came out at the cert hearing.
LogicalMinds
12-03-2009, 10:52 PM
I think that some juveniles should be tried as adults...some are simply dangerous...
and their crimes are horrible
if you are dead...are you going to care if a younger person did it?? if your child was murdered...do you really give a crap if it was a 16 year old vs a 21 year old??? don't you want justice just as much??
I am personally not sure if a juvenile deserves life in prison for NON lethal crimes....like the boy sentenced to life for a series of robberies...
but...murder?? cold blooded murder?? murder for the sake of just killing someone?
Yeah...I think that they deserve life without parole in some of those cases...they are a danger
Michael Hernandez and Allyssa remind me of each other
He had planned to kill 2 of his friends and his sister...
he even tried to lure his one friend into the bathroom the day before he killed Jamie
ultimately he killed Jamie cause he was the "easiest"...he was small, and trusting and shy
Michael was popular...had hobbies and friends....but a "dark side"....like Allyssa
maybe when kids show a "dark side" someone ...parents/teachers should take note??
Google Michael Hernandez and Jamie Gough....this case had a ton of coverage locally
the trial was moved to Orlando as it was felt that he could not get a fair trial in south florida...he got a fair trial in Orlando....mentally ill or not, he was judged to be responsible and knew right from wrong....the fact he tried to cover up the murder also proved that...and he got life plus 30 years
hopefully Missouri will step up and do the same to rid themselves of Allyssa
ynotdivein
12-03-2009, 10:52 PM
We know that LE was not giving media full information as early as the 10 a.m. Friday press conference. IMO they were drawing the net closer by that time and so I am perfectly comfortable with the Sheriff giving a presser releasing X info while other LE were investigating YZ info.
Still waiting to hear if my earlier info on police questioning/detention/arrest progression was misguided. (Sorry, feeling sassy.)
ETA: Having taught teenagers, it makes me sick to think of one of my students getting the DP. From a position years removed and with much more experience under my belt... well, dammit. It still makes me sick to think of. Maybe if we imposed the DP the next day, it would bring all our emotions about this into clearer/more immediate focus?
JLMcKenna83
12-03-2009, 10:53 PM
Regarding the "Miranda" issue...
IF there was some discrepancy there, we would surely hear the defense lawyers (and maybe the family) screaming about it
there has been NO news that her rights were "trampled" in any way....only Pax here has been suggesting this...but we can suggest or imagine anything
we don't know at what point they "read" her her "rights" but so far we have not heard anything controversial about it except on this board
just as the idea of a "conspirator" /boyfriend etc has only been on this board and in maybe one or two posts on the Missouri news blogs
meanwhile...in this case it seems that they have her very much "dead to rights"...
physical evidence....written evidence.....a confession....and she led them to the well concealed grave....hellooooooo
it took months for cops to build a case against Casey Anthony...and she and her lawyers are fighting it, she has NOT confessed and even now is trying to blame others (the guy who found Caylee's body etc)
the case against Allyssa is more than just "circumstantial"...it sounds very grounded to me, very simple....
if there was a problem about "reading her rights" we would hear the defense and her family yelling about it
ITA if her rights had been trampled on in any way at all, we would have heard about it.
IMO...... I think the only problem that this trial is going to have is at the end, either with the verdict or the sentencing.
Csquare
12-03-2009, 10:57 PM
We know that LE was not giving media full information as early as the 10 a.m. Friday press conference. IMO they were drawing the net closer by that time and so I am perfectly comfortable with the Sheriff giving a presser releasing X info while other LE were investigating YZ info.
Still waiting to hear if my earlier info on police questioning/detention/arrest progression was misguided. (Sorry, feeling sassy.)
ETA: Having taught teenagers, it makes me sick to think of one of my students getting the DP. From a position years removed and with much more experience under my belt... well, dammit. It still makes me sick to think of. Maybe if we imposed the DP the next day, it would bring all our emotions about this into clearer/more immediate focus?
It is just like playing cards. You nver show your hand until you are ready to go all in. That has always been the way LE has played. The more people that know too much the greater chance of screwing it up. Too many cooks spoil the stew.
PAXIMUS
12-03-2009, 10:59 PM
I have personally seen someone being questioned by LE. This person asked if he was under arrest and was told no. Then he asked for an attorney before answering any questions. LE told him he will answer what ever they ask. Person asked again if he was under arrest and again was told no. Said person walked away and LE tackled him and proceeded to arrest him for resisting arrest! Made no sense to me.
You are with in POLICE CUSTODY which means you cannot LEAVE but you are NOT under arrest, OR you are under arrest. Both require MIRANDA.
IF they ask you to simply come down and answer questions and you say CAN I LEAVE IF I WANT and they say YES, then you are not in custody and you are not arrested and they do not have to read you your rights BUT THEN IN THE COURSE of that question session if you confess to a crime it cannot be used because you were not in official custodial situation and you were not under arrest so you didnt have your rights read to you.
IF AB was brought in for friendly questioning and wasnt in custody or under arrrest and wasnt read her miranda anythin she told them would be inadmissable.
danni
12-03-2009, 11:01 PM
ITA if her rights had been trampled on in any way at all, we would have heard about it.
IMO...... I think the only problem that this trial is going to have is at the end, either with the verdict or the sentencing.
I think the hardest thing to decide is going to be whether to use dual jurisdiction in this case or not!
Isn't that up to the judge though? Not the jury?
LogicalMinds
12-03-2009, 11:02 PM
We know that LE was not giving media full information as early as the 10 a.m. Friday press conference. IMO they were drawing the net closer by that time and so I am perfectly comfortable with the Sheriff giving a presser releasing X info while other LE were investigating YZ info.
Still waiting to hear if my earlier info on police questioning/detention/arrest progression was misguided. (Sorry, feeling sassy.)
ETA: Having taught teenagers, it makes me sick to think of one of my students getting the DP. From a position years removed and with much more experience under my belt... well, dammit. It still makes me sick to think of. Maybe if we imposed the DP the next day, it would bring all our emotions about this into clearer/more immediate focus?
??? DP?? Supreme court has ruled NO death penalty for juveniles...so why worry about that at all??
no one is talking death penalty for Allyssa...just try her as an adult
Insanity?? To me, it would be INSANE to try her as a juvenile...
in 5 years she would be out...with NO record....free and clear
now that is SCARY
JLMcKenna83
12-03-2009, 11:06 PM
Dual Jurisdiction Program (http://www.dss.mo.gov/dys/djp.htm)
Check this out.. Do you really think she deserves to be in this kind of setting?
PAXIMUS
12-03-2009, 11:06 PM
Also keep in mind that there are two cases before the US Supreme Court right now challenging as to whether is it a violation of the 8th amendment of the Constitution to sentence anyone under 18 to LWOP. So this will have a major impact on ABs case and if they arent able to sentence her to LWOP that means she will get out at some point maybe in her 30s or 40s so I feel she should be put in a mental facility where she can at least get some medical care for her inevitable release. It is cruel and unusual to sentence a 15 year old to LWOP because thats basically an 80 year sentence for a cime that most people serve 20 years for assuming they enter prison at 40 and die at 60 or so, AB could be 70 or 80 years in prison for her crime with LWOP and the Supreme Court will decide of thats a voilation of the 8th or not when they are in session.
JLMcKenna83
12-03-2009, 11:08 PM
Also keep in mind that there are two cases before the US Supreme Court right now challenging as to whether is it a violation of the 8th amendment of the Constitution to sentence anyone under 18 to LWOP. So this will have a major impact on ABs case and if they arent able to sentence her to LWOP that means she will get out at some point maybe in her 30s or 40s so I feel she should be put in a mental facility where she can at least get some medical care for her inevitable release. It is cruel and unusual to sentence a 15 year old to LWOP because thats basically an 80 year sentence for a cime that most people serve 20 years for assuming they enter prison at 40 and die at 60 or so, AB could be 70 or 80 years in prison for her crime with LWOP and the Supreme Court will decide of thats a voilation of the 8th or not when they are in session.
I thought the supreme court cases were regarding non-lethal crimes.. which in fact would have no impact on Alyssa's case.
ynotdivein
12-03-2009, 11:08 PM
IF AB was brought in for friendly questioning and wasnt in custody or under arrrest and wasnt read her miranda anythin she told them would be inadmissable.
PAX, I have to quibble. If she was questioned, in her home (no word that she was ever "brought in" anywhere), in the same way that anyone with a kitchen window viewing out on that road may have been, then how does Miranda come in?
1. They question her without thinking she is a POI. She volunteers info and then leads them to the grave. No Miranda needed.
2. They ID her as a POI, and question her as such, with guardians and juvie officer present. She talks, and leads them to grave site. No Miranda needed, just happened to find a talkative perp. Nothing inadmissable.
LogicalMinds
12-03-2009, 11:08 PM
Ironically, Michael had a plea deal (that would get him release maybe about the age of 50) but he turned it down
in the Lionel Tate case his (ridiculous) mother, who was in LE herself, turned down a good plea deal
IMHO Allyssa might get some sort of plea deal
I don't think that she is going to get out on "insanity"...she was able to plan, to conceal, and that is not "insane" thinking
here is more info regarding Hernandez trial....the two cases really remind me of each other
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/michael-hernandez-trial/story/548854.html
LogicalMinds
12-03-2009, 11:11 PM
Also keep in mind that there are two cases before the US Supreme Court right now challenging as to whether is it a violation of the 8th amendment of the Constitution to sentence anyone under 18 to LWOP. So this will have a major impact on ABs case and if they arent able to sentence her to LWOP that means she will get out at some point maybe in her 30s or 40s so I feel she should be put in a mental facility where she can at least get some medical care for her inevitable release. It is cruel and unusual to sentence a 15 year old to LWOP because thats basically an 80 year sentence for a cime that most people serve 20 years for assuming they enter prison at 40 and die at 60 or so, AB could be 70 or 80 years in prison for her crime with LWOP and the Supreme Court will decide of thats a voilation of the 8th or not when they are in session.
Please keep in mind those two cases, both from Florida..are regarding juveniles sentenced to LWOP in NON lethal cases
one is a rape case
and one is a 17 year old with a very extensive history of armed robberies
(like 3 strikes you are out)
they are NOT challenging the LWOP for murder (or even other degrees of murder/manslaughter)
just NON Lethal
let's be accurate here...thanks
danni
12-03-2009, 11:12 PM
Dual Jurisdiction Program (http://www.dss.mo.gov/dys/djp.htm)
Check this out.. Do you really think she deserves to be in this kind of setting?
Do I? NO not for a minute! I like the thought of her sitting in a big girl prison, and doing big girl time with big girls! exp the ones that are mothers and know what her crime is!
I am sure they will take GREAT care of her!
LogicalMinds
12-03-2009, 11:12 PM
PAX, I have to quibble. If she was questioned, in her home (no word that she was ever "brought in" anywhere), in the same way that anyone with a kitchen window viewing out on that road may have been, then how does Miranda come in?
1. They question her without thinking she is a POI. She volunteers info and then leads them to the grave. No Miranda needed.
2. They ID her as a POI, and question her as such, with guardians and juvie officer present. She talks, and leads them to grave site. No Miranda needed, just happened to find a talkative perp. Nothing inadmissable.
Not to mention that at any given point along the way they may have read her the Miranda act....
so far there is NOTHING other than posts on this board to suggest that there is any problem with that in this case
in other cases, where there was a problem...it usually comes out pretty quick
for instance...the defense attorney would ask for the case to be dismissed when they brought her into court right???
JLMcKenna83
12-03-2009, 11:14 PM
Also keep in mind that there are two cases before the US Supreme Court right now challenging as to whether is it a violation of the 8th amendment of the Constitution to sentence anyone under 18 to LWOP. So this will have a major impact on ABs case and if they arent able to sentence her to LWOP that means she will get out at some point maybe in her 30s or 40s so I feel she should be put in a mental facility where she can at least get some medical care for her inevitable release. It is cruel and unusual to sentence a 15 year old to LWOP because thats basically an 80 year sentence for a cime that most people serve 20 years for assuming they enter prison at 40 and die at 60 or so, AB could be 70 or 80 years in prison for her crime with LWOP and the Supreme Court will decide of thats a voilation of the 8th or not when they are in session.
Also under this theory would it then be cruel and unusual punishment to sentence a 20 year old to LWOP, because they could essentially serve a 40-60 year sentence? I'm not buyin it.
Csquare
12-03-2009, 11:16 PM
Not to mention that at any given point along the way they may have read her the Miranda act....
so far there is NOTHING other than posts on this board to suggest that there is any problem with that in this case
in other cases, where there was a problem...it usually comes out pretty quick
for instance...the defense attorney would ask for the case to be dismissed when they brought her into court right???
You know I guess it is easier to blame LE than to admit that AB is nothing but a cold blooded KILLER.
JLMcKenna83
12-03-2009, 11:16 PM
You know I guess it is easier to blame LE than to admit that AB is nothing but a cold blooded KILLER.
:woohoo:
danni
12-04-2009, 12:05 AM
Something I have been thinking about...
If you were Alyssa would you want to be out of come kind of custody any time soon?
Now before you answer that question take this into consideration.
DO Sr. (Elizabeth's dad) was the main POI in the missing persons case of Jasmine Haslag. He is now serving four years (been in since earlier this year) for possession.
DO Jr. (Elizabeth's brother) is serving seven years (been in since earlier this year) for 1st and 2nd burglary, and also possession.
I don't care who ya are doing time will change you! and not always for the better. IF DO Sr. is in fact the person that caused the demise of Jasmine Haslag because she was suposed to testify against him in a drug case, what do you think he might do to someone who murdered his child?
I would take my chances in prison!
raisincharlie
12-04-2009, 12:08 AM
Also under this theory would it then be cruel and unusual punishment to sentence a 20 year old to LWOP, because they could essentially serve a 40-60 year sentence? I'm not buyin it.
Just think - if Maurice Clemmons, who was sentenced at 16, would have actually served his sentence, the four LEo's from Lakewood WA would still be alive.
Cruel and unusual - that is reserved for the 9 kids who lost one of their parents on Sunday. AB deserves to be tried and sentenced in a matter accounting of and for her actions. She murdered a little girl in cold blood with malice and fore thought, enough said.
Mickey Mouse
12-04-2009, 12:17 AM
Long time lurker sneaking out of the mouse hole...
Here's a link to a court case that should reassure folks. MO case, a 16 yo boy was arrested, confessed, no atty present, and in this case no parents/guardians present either. Tried as an adult and convicted. Appealed for all the reasons proposed by the devil's advocate poster earlier... lack of or incompetent council, violation of rights, etc. Appellate court upheld the conviction. The boy was smart and mature and was legally able to waive his rights and confess.
http://openjurist.org/764/f2d/532/rone-v-wyrick
We already heard testimony in the certification hearing from the principal that AB was intelligent and performed satisfactorily in school. There have been statements (somewhere) that she tested as gifted. Yes, she's been treated for depression, but she is not mentally deficient. Highly unlikely that a judge would rule she didn't understand her rights.
Certainly, at this point LE has tons of physical evidence as well. They likely found DNA evidence on EO, as well as fibers, hair, etc. It's likely they found trace evidence on AB or in her room (blood, DNA, etc). If AB did have a lot of blood on her and washed it off at home, LE could recover traces of the blood from the traps in the pipes, not to mention that traces of it would show up with special chemicals (what's it called, luminal? something like that).
That's also why I doubt there will be any charges against any additional people at this point. They wouldn't charge just based on a statement from AB. There would have to be additional physical evidence to back it up. Any such physical evidence would have been processed long ago, and charges brought long since.
That's all I have to contribute at this point...
back to my mouse hole...
nice to meet you all!
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
0