8 Oct 2010 - Elizabeth's attorneys move for dismissal

danisisa

New Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
516
Reaction score
10
Baby Gabriel case tainted by detective, mom's lawyers say

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/...-baby-gabriel-case-tainted.html#ixzz11mCQnXII

OMG!!! THey are trying to get charges dismissed!!!! Even though her lawyers admit that they thought EJ was hallucinating back in May.....How could she be truthful to her attorneys if she was hallucinating....This is a croc of BS!!

Come on Maricopa, JUSTICE FOR GABRIEL!!
 
Baby Gabriel case tainted by detective, mom's lawyers say

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/...-baby-gabriel-case-tainted.html#ixzz11mCQnXII

OMG!!! THey are trying to get charges dismissed!!!! Even though her lawyers admit that they thought EJ was hallucinating back in May.....How could she be truthful to her attorneys if she was hallucinating....This is a croc of BS!!

Come on Maricopa, JUSTICE FOR GABRIEL!!

I don't think the charges against EJ are going to be dropped because a detective from SA talked to her. Whatever the usual procedures for interviews, the hard fact is that the right to counsel and the right to remain silent belong to Elizabeth and can be waived as she determines. At worst, evidence gained from the interview gets excluded. EJ's motion to can Alcock doesn't even hint that she has been influenced by detective Salome in her thinking.

What is heartbreaking here is that based on an informant in the jail, a homicide detective arrives to interview that informant. Death penalty talk means to me that the detective believes Gabriel is gone. Some days I just feel so down about this case.
 
I don't think the charges against EJ are going to be dropped because a detective from SA talked to her. Whatever the usual procedures for interviews, the hard fact is that the right to counsel and the right to remain silent belong to Elizabeth and can be waived as she determines. At worst, evidence gained from the interview gets excluded. EJ's motion to can Alcock doesn't even hint that she has been influenced by detective Salome in her thinking.

What is heartbreaking here is that based on an informant in the jail, a homicide detective arrives to interview that informant. Death penalty talk means to me that the detective believes Gabriel is gone. Some days I just feel so down about this case.

I haven't researched this, but it seems to me that if a defendant already has a known lawyer, detectives need to contact that lawyer before getting a "waiver" from the client. I read the article, and I was pretty shocked--this certainly isn't SOP. What I can't figure out is, after interviewing an informant and talking to EJ for 3 hours, they still have no idea what happened to Gabriel?? What the heck were they talking about?:waitasec:
 
I haven't researched this, but it seems to me that if a defendant already has a known lawyer, detectives need to contact that lawyer before getting a "waiver" from the client. I read the article, and I was pretty shocked--this certainly isn't SOP. What I can't figure out is, after interviewing an informant and talking to EJ for 3 hours, they still have no idea what happened to Gabriel?? What the heck were they talking about?:waitasec:

AZ Lawyer---

BUt since the detective was from San Antonio, EJ is facing charges in Arizona. Would the detective classification be a visitor? What bars other out of state agencies from asking her questions if she has the right not to answer them?

It is not ethical, but illegal?
 
I haven't researched this, but it seems to me that if a defendant already has a known lawyer, detectives need to contact that lawyer before getting a "waiver" from the client. I read the article, and I was pretty shocked--this certainly isn't SOP. What I can't figure out is, after interviewing an informant and talking to EJ for 3 hours, they still have no idea what happened to Gabriel?? What the heck were they talking about?:waitasec:

Thanks for your perspective on EJ's rights. I am happy to defer to your knowledge and experience.

If EJ confessed to a fellow inmate that she killed Gabriel, I guess the homicide detective would be trying to get her to confess and tell what she did with his body.
 
AZ LAwyer-

Also, if the detective was questioning her about San antonio stuff, at that time she had Arizona court appointed attorneys, she would have to ask for a public defender for Texas, is that correct?
 
AZ Lawyer---

BUt since the detective was from San Antonio, EJ is facing charges in Arizona. Would the detective classification be a visitor? What bars other out of state agencies from asking her questions if she has the right not to answer them?

It is not ethical, but illegal?

What bars them from asking her questions is that she had a lawyer who could reasonably be assumed to be representing her on ALL charges and potential charges relating to Gabriel's disappearance. Until and unless something is actually filed in TX and she needs a TX attorney to make an appearance in court, I hope and assume that her AZ attorneys are advising her regarding the potential murder charge as well as the custodial interference/kidnapping charges.
 
AZ LAwyer-

Also, if the detective was questioning her about San antonio stuff, at that time she had Arizona court appointed attorneys, she would have to ask for a public defender for Texas, is that correct?

No, she would have had to say, "I don't want to talk to you. I want a lawyer."

But my point is that she already had a lawyer, and they knew it. I don't think LE gets to interview you and just wait for you to say "I want a lawyer" if they already know perfectly well that you have one.
 
Baby Gabriel case tainted by detective, mom's lawyers say

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/...-baby-gabriel-case-tainted.html#ixzz11mCQnXII

OMG!!! THey are trying to get charges dismissed!!!! Even though her lawyers admit that they thought EJ was hallucinating back in May.....How could she be truthful to her attorneys if she was hallucinating....This is a croc of BS!!

Come on Maricopa, JUSTICE FOR GABRIEL!!

But on May 10, a prosecutor and a Tempe detective accompanied the San Antonio detective to the jail to talk to the informant. After that interview, the Tempe detective and the prosecutor left, but the San Antonio detective stayed behind.

There, according to the motion, he was able to meet with Johnson and convinced jail personnel to remove her shackles. Then, according to the defense team, the two sat knee to knee and the detective even touched Johnson's thighs as he told her details about his own personal life.

BBM. You have got to be kidding me! This sounds completely made-up by somebody who was clearly not in her right mind! This is BS. Total BS.
She gets out...no Gabriel, period. This is sickening.
 
I wouldn't sweat this one. The cop was from San Antonio. Has nothing to do with the AZ case.
 
I don't think the charges against EJ are going to be dropped because a detective from SA talked to her. Whatever the usual procedures for interviews, the hard fact is that the right to counsel and the right to remain silent belong to Elizabeth and can be waived as she determines. At worst, evidence gained from the interview gets excluded. EJ's motion to can Alcock doesn't even hint that she has been influenced by detective Salome in her thinking.

What is heartbreaking here is that based on an informant in the jail, a homicide detective arrives to interview that informant. Death penalty talk means to me that the detective believes Gabriel is gone. Some days I just feel so down about this case.

I really don't like the sound of this.....especially the interactions with the detective and EJ alone...man ole man!!!!
 
Johnson at the time was going through hearings to determine if she was mentally competent to stand trial. She was heavily drugged, Feldman said, and from what she told him of the interview, "I could swear she was hallucinating."

What the h%ll did she say to him???????
 
BBM. You have got to be kidding me! This sounds completely made-up by somebody who was clearly not in her right mind! This is BS. Total BS.
She gets out...no Gabriel, period. This is sickening.

why is this just NOW coming out when all involved knew??? I'd think they would all be in a heap of trouble now...jmo
 
No matter how/what I feel about EJ, to me, and it's jmo...This was not right from all those involved. I've had to re-read these articles over again and make sure I understand them Let's see:

1. Meeting on May 10.
2.Present- A Prosecutor , a Tempe Detective, a SA Detective .
3.The person who disconnected the shackles.
4. A paralegal from here attorney's office. (after the fact)
5. Her attorney.(After the fact)
5.SAPD had to know the detective was there.
6.Maricopa City Estrella jail knew they were there.
7. What really trips my trigger, the prosecutor and the Tempe Det. left the room, leaving the SAPD Detective there alone representing himself as a "AGENT" for the Tempe PD.

What are/where these people thinking.
 
Sounds like Salame got over-involved emotionally in the case, and crossed the line.

I think he just wanted to find Gabe.

Not saying what he did was right or okay. Just that I understand why/how it happened. If that's what happened.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
185
Guests online
1,916
Total visitors
2,101

Forum statistics

Threads
589,969
Messages
17,928,514
Members
228,026
Latest member
CSIFLGIRL46
Back
Top