1080 users online (270 members and 810 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 54
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Just outside of Austin
    Posts
    422

    What will determine being named a 'suspect' vs. 'person of interest'

    I am wondering why LE has not named her a suspect, given the mountain of evidence stacking up against her. Why is she still only being called a 'person of interest'?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,759
    Quote Originally Posted by jbar View Post
    I am wondering why LE has not named her a suspect, given the mountain of evidence stacking up against her. Why is she still only being called a 'person of interest'?
    Jbar, I think once you are a suspect then you are afforded certain rights that could slow down the investigation. I think it is SOP to stick with POI until the end.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    25
    I would say that they want to be absolutely sure to cross the t's and dot the i's on everything involving KC. They don't want her walking on some technicality.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    555
    Quote Originally Posted by jbar View Post
    I am wondering why LE has not named her a suspect, given the mountain of evidence stacking up against her. Why is she still only being called a 'person of interest'?

    I don't think the wording here makes a bit of a difference. Casey Anthony is a suspect, and privately, LE knows it. "POI" is usually precisely synonymous with "suspect". Perhaps, they designate her as a POI so that it does not appear that LE is jumping the gun, or predetermining Casey's role in this matter before every last drop of evidence is in. It's all word-play, sticks and stones stuff. None of those LE-based word designations matters much.

    I mean, when they say, for example, that they're searching for a dead Caylee, it doesn't mean that they are no longer permitted to consider the possibility that Caylee might be alive if new evidence suggests as much. If LE goes looking in the woods for Caylee's dead body and accidentally stumbles upon a living, breathing Caylee, it's not as if they're going to ignore her and leave her there on grounds that their investigation is publicly designated as a death or homicide investigation, and they can no longer consider anything else.

    I wouldn't put too much weight on those classifications. In other cases, LE might use the phrase POI simply to put their targeted suspect at ease; perhaps LE does not want their POI to think that he or she is under serious suspicion.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    555
    Quote Originally Posted by JBean View Post
    Jbar, I think once you are a suspect then you are afforded certain rights that could slow down the investigation. I think it is SOP to stick with POI until the end.
    Nah. Casey's rights are the same whether LE says she's a suspect or a POI. The difference between suspect and POI., at least in the substantive sense, is meaningless.

    Here's an article on the topic.

    Many people have been wondering...what is the difference between a "suspect" and a "person of interest" when it comes to criminal cases.

    In the case of Craig Stebic, he has been formally named a "person of interest" into the disappearance of his wife, Lisa Stebic. Guess what? There is no difference between the two terms. The reason? Political correctness, lawsuits, police techniques, etc.

    Are the Plainfield, Illinois police trying to evade the fact that Craig Stebic is REALLY A SUSPECT? Were they trying to make him feel better by using the term, "Person of Interest"?

    That's food for thought.

    So, what IS the difference?

    (excerpts from American Journalism Review)

    ...Many law enforcement officials now use the vague term “person of interest” to describe people caught up in their investigations. That poses a challenge for journalists, who must try to convey a situation accurately without unfairly tarring someone’s reputation.

    Once heard primarily in connection with federal cases involving terrorism and national security, many local police departments now use "person of interest" routinely in investigations ranging from murders to brush fires.

    ...Officially, "person of interest" means..well, nothing. No one has ever formally defined it — not police, not prosecutors, not journalists. The terms "accused," "allege," "arrest" and "indict" all are dealt with in the Associated Press Stylebook, but there is no listing for "person of interest." Similarly, the U.S. Attorneys' Manual — the official guide to federal criminal prosecution — uses the terms "suspect," "subject," "target" and "material witness," but "person of interest" gets no mention. So what are reporters to do?

    Jim Kouri, a spokesman for the National Association of Chiefs of Police, says "person of interest" often is a euphemism for "suspect." If it's a suspect and you say 'person of interest,' you're using the euphemism to avoid problems down the line," says Kouri, a former New York housing police officer.

    What problems?

    Police sometimes "try to maintain that the person really isn't a suspect" in order to get him to agree to questioning without Miranda warnings, Kouri says. "You don't want the guy to lawyer up." Kouri says across the country, "it's the legal counsel telling police chiefs that they should instruct their officers and train them to use that term."
    http://www.nowpublic.com/craig_stebi...est_or_suspect

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Just outside of Austin
    Posts
    422
    I don't think the wording here makes a bit of a difference.
    No, I think there is a big difference between suspect and person of interest.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    555
    Quote Originally Posted by jbar View Post
    No, I think there is a big difference between suspect and person of interest.
    Well? Are you going to tell us?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    49
    Maybe it has already but I don't think so---- but why hasn't it changed from a missing person investigation to a murder investigation? Seems the wording here is part of what CA has a reason to be carrying on like a nut!!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,759
    Quote Originally Posted by jbar View Post
    No, I think there is a big difference between suspect and person of interest.
    Oh I agree. I think certain statements you make as a suspect cannot be used if you are not mirandized..things like that. As opposed to a POI that does not need to be mirandized before they talk and what they say can be used.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    555
    Quote Originally Posted by shell610 View Post
    Maybe it has already but I don't think so---- but why hasn't it changed from a missing person investigation to a murder investigation? Seems the wording here is part of what CA has a reason to be carrying on like a nut!!
    It likely has changed to a murder/death investigation, at least in the sense that LE is probably not looking for any kidnappers, friendly or otherwise. Again, don't put too much weight on how LE classifies their investigation. They have compelling internal reasons for not being entirely forthcoming with the public.

    Besides, it's not as if these public word classifications that are intended to describe the state and status of LE' ongoing investigations are rigid. LE is free to pursue whatever leads, clues and angles it pleases to follow. LE will even pursue several contradictory theories all at once, knowing that at the most, only one of several theories -all inconsistent with each other- might logically be the correct one. They essentially go where the clues and evidence takes them. Labeling this investigation as a missing person case has little bearing on whether internally, LE is weighting their investigation towards a death. And of course, LE can backtrack, change its' mind, pursue theories that might've been discarded in the past. These labels do not mean much at all, especially when you consider that LE may knowingly lie to and purposely mislead the public about the status of their investigation.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    555
    Quote Originally Posted by JBean View Post
    Oh I agree. I think certain statements you make as a suspect cannot be used if you are not mirandized..things like that. As opposed to a POI that does not need to be mirandized before they talk and what they say can be used.
    With a few exceptions, Miranda Rights are triggered when the person is taken into custody for questioning. Miranda Rights have everything to do with custody, and nothing to do with these vague and meaningless classifications such as POI and suspect. If that were the case, LE would be able to circumvent an individual's Miranda Rights by saying something as nutty as "Oh don't worry. You're a person of interest, not a suspect. Suspect? Do you suspect you're a suspect? Don't be silly. I don't need to remind you of your rights while I handcuff you to this table by your earlobes, against your will, because you're a POI, that's all you are! You're no suspect!"

    Also Miranda Rights have nothing to do with the type of questions LE may ask an individual. Neither do these meaningless POI-suspect classifications, when it comes to question asking. Any question is fair game. There are no boundaries. There are no limits based on politeness, decency, crudeness or topic. Anything goes. The individual, as the saying goes, has the right to remain silent, though.

    This has absolutely nothing to do with whether the individual has been labeled a suspect or POI.

    So... to summarize.

    1. LE may ask the individual any kind of question it can think of.
    2. An individual in custody for questioning must be informed of their Miranda Rights.

    That's it.

    3. "POI" and "suspect" labels are irrelevant to this discussion.
    4. Irrespective of this discussion, there is no meaningful distinction with being designated as a "POI" as opposed to a "suspect".

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,465
    Quote Originally Posted by shell610 View Post
    Maybe it has already but I don't think so---- but why hasn't it changed from a missing person investigation to a murder investigation? Seems the wording here is part of what CA has a reason to be carrying on like a nut!!
    IMO I don't think in regards to this specific case that there is much of a difference between Casey being a POI or Suspect in Caylee's disappearance. I also believe that although it's still officially being labeled a "Missing Person's" case that LE/FBI are in fact investigating a homicide. I understand about CA behaving like such a nut case and all but my theory is this: LE does have muc, much more evidence but they are keeping it very close to the vest.

    I think that they would really, really like to be able to recover Caylee's remains before they charge Casey. However, if they do not for some reason recover her I do believe that they will inevitably charge her with the murder of some sort. I have a feeling that they will find her and that it is part of the reason for Cindy's behavior towards TM, TES and LE in regards to Caylee's search!

    I also think that once she is charged, and if it is without (very sadly ) Caylee's remains that the evidence will be able to stand up because LE has truly taken there time and been extremely thorough. Curcumstantial Evidence can be quite powerful when in it's seen and put together in it's totality.

    JMHO

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,759
    Quote Originally Posted by pizmex View Post
    With a few exceptions, Miranda Rights are triggered when the person is taken into custody for questioning. Miranda Rights have everything to do with custody, and nothing to do with these vague and meaningless classifications such as POI and suspect. If that were the case, LE would be able to circumvent an individual's Miranda Rights by saying something as nutty as "Oh don't worry. You're a person of interest, not a suspect. Suspect? Do you suspect you're a suspect? Don't be silly. I don't need to remind you of your rights while I handcuff you to this table by your earlobes, against your will, because you're a POI, that's all you are! You're no suspect!"

    Also Miranda Rights have nothing to do with the type of questions LE may ask an individual. Neither do these meaningless POI-suspect classifications, when it comes to question asking. Any question is fair game. There are no boundaries. There are no limits based on politeness, decency, crudeness or topic. Anything goes. The individual, as the saying goes, has the right to remain silent, though.

    This has absolutely nothing to do with whether the individual has been labeled a suspect or POI.

    So... to summarize.

    1. LE may ask the individual any kind of question it can think of.
    2. An individual in custody for questioning must be informed of their Miranda Rights.

    That's it.

    3. "POI" and "suspect" labels are irrelevant to this discussion.
    4. Irrespective of this discussion, there is no meaningful distinction with being designated as a "POI" as opposed to a "suspect".
    I think the term POI is a vague term which gives LE wiggle room when needed prior to arrest.
    When people are taken into custody they are no longer POI's they are suspects..
    BTW, I think LE does circumvent a persons miranda rights with this terminology from time to time.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,042
    Kinda feel like I am voting. Anyway, I can't see why it would matter what she is being called and I doubt it would change the parameters of the investigation.

    Prior poster who said that Miranda is triggered by a person's being taken into custody makes sense. When a person of interest, suspect, defendant, lunatic-who's-presumed -innocent, individual no matter what the label, is taken into custody, that triggers Miranda.
    If LE wants to circumvent the procedural requirements of the Miranda case,

    I believe the terminology they would have to play with is --to try calling an "arrest" something else which erroneously implies that the individual is free to go.

    By pretending a person is not in custody, LE avoids the necessity of giving the rights under Miranda. Not sayin they do that; Just that , that is how to play with Miranda.


    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...4_0436_ZS.html

    Miranda v. Arizona

    "Held:

    1. The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. Pp. 444-491..."

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,759
    Quote Originally Posted by MiraclesHappen View Post
    Kinda feel like I am voting. Anyway, I can't see why it would matter what she is being called and I doubt it would change the parameters of the investigation.

    Prior poster who said that Miranda is triggered by a person's being taken into custody makes sense. When a person of interest, suspect, defendant, lunatic-who's-presumed -innocent, individual no matter what the label, is taken into custody, that triggers Miranda.
    If LE wants to circumvent the procedural requirements of the Miranda case,

    I believe the terminology they would have to play with is --to try calling an "arrest" something else which erroneously implies that the individual is free to go.

    By pretending a person is not in custody, LE avoids the necessity of giving the rights under Miranda. Not sayin they do that; Just that , that is how to play with Miranda.


    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...4_0436_ZS.html

    Miranda v. Arizona

    "Held:

    1. The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. Pp. 444-491..."
    being arrested also triggers becoming a suspect.To me, POI is a vague pre-arrest cya term.
    Plus,if someone is erroneously blasted out over media as a suspect it can be more damaging than if they are reported to be a POI.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-16-2016, 09:34 AM
  2. Another Person of interest - HOW?
    By Camper in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: 09-04-2008, 09:16 AM