1161 users online (235 members and 926 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 61
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    college campus
    Posts
    1,015

    R's, defense attorneys, post-crime behavior

    Quote Originally Posted by Ames View Post
    Ummm hummmm....just "a little bit" suspicious.
    I have thought about making this a separate post but one obvious question is this:

    what sort of advice defense lawyers give their clients when their clients are the focus of LE?

    to what extent does R's conduct can be explained as the result of their attorney's counsel?

    If what they did can be explained as sort of "standard" counsel a defense lawyer would offer, well, I didn't care for Johny Cochran's "if it doesn't fit you must acquit" but I recognize that he is doing his job.

    While I don't care for seemingly guilty criminals pleading the Fifth amendment, if that is available it would be a breach of duty for a defense attorney not to inform his client to plead this.

    Maybe Linwood gave the R's advice and the R's followed it, and LInwood was following a reasonable standard of duty defense lawyers give their clients.

    Though hiring the publicity firm thing is a little unnerving.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Quote Originally Posted by voynich View Post
    I have thought about making this a separate post but one obvious question is this:

    what sort of advice defense lawyers give their clients when their clients are the focus of LE?

    to what extent does R's conduct can be explained as the result of their attorney's counsel?

    If what they did can be explained as sort of "standard" counsel a defense lawyer would offer, well, I didn't care for Johny Cochran's "if it doesn't fit you must acquit" but I recognize that he is doing his job.

    While I don't care for seemingly guilty criminals pleading the Fifth amendment, if that is available it would be a breach of duty for a defense attorney not to inform his client to plead this.

    Maybe Linwood gave the R's advice and the R's followed it, and LInwood was following a reasonable standard of duty defense lawyers give their clients.

    Though hiring the publicity firm thing is a little unnerving.

    Defense lawyers have one primary goal- to keep their clients out of jail. JR admitted this himself. To that end, they will explore every legal option (and some that are illegal). A defense lawyer will tell their client to, first and foremost- SHUT UP. They will not allow anyone in LE to question their client unless they are also present. Then, when the questioning is done, they will refuse to allow their clients to answer. I don't know how much of the Ramsey depos you have read, but you will see time and again the R defense team not allowing questions to be answered and in some cases, they will not allow certaiin questions to be even asked.
    Keep in mind that no one is required to talk to LE. No one. Even when guilt is obvious and/or not disputed. There is an exception- when someone is subpoenaed by a Grand Jury, they must submit to questioning without their lawyer present. That is where the 5th Amendment comes in. When people do have some involvement in the crime in question, they still cannot be compelled to admit guilt; in that case they "take the 5th" (amendment) and though they do not answer the question, taking the 5th in and of itself can imply guilt or involvement in the crime.
    What LW and other R defense lawyers did was standard practice. But LW took it to an almost supernatural level.
    Remember that defense lawyers do NOT have to actually ask their clients if they are, in fact, guilty of the crime they are accused of. I feel most do, but they don't have to. I think the R defense team knew the Rs were involved in this somehow. I can tell that simply by reading the depos and noting the questions that the Rs were not allowed to answer.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    college campus
    Posts
    1,015
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    Defense lawyers have one primary goal- to keep their clients out of jail. JR admitted this himself. To that end, they will explore every legal option (and some that are illegal). A defense lawyer will tell their client to, first and foremost- SHUT UP. They will not allow anyone in LE to question their client unless they are also present. Then, when the questioning is done, they will refuse to allow their clients to answer. I don't know how much of the Ramsey depos you have read, but you will see time and again the R defense team not allowing questions to be answered and in some cases, they will not allow certaiin questions to be even asked.
    Keep in mind that no one is required to talk to LE. No one. Even when guilt is obvious and/or not disputed. There is an exception- when someone is subpoenaed by a Grand Jury, they must submit to questioning without their lawyer present. That is where the 5th Amendment comes in. When people do have some involvement in the crime in question, they still cannot be compelled to admit guilt; in that case they "take the 5th" (amendment) and though they do not answer the question, taking the 5th in and of itself can imply guilt or involvement in the crime.
    What LW and other R defense lawyers did was standard practice. But LW took it to an almost supernatural level.
    Remember that defense lawyers do NOT have to actually ask their clients if they are, in fact, guilty of the crime they are accused of. I feel most do, but they don't have to. I think the R defense team knew the Rs were involved in this somehow. I can tell that simply by reading the depos and noting the questions that the Rs were not allowed to answer.
    So we can't draw any definitive guilt of innocence to the extent the R's were complying with LW's counsel. Possibly a genuinely innocent parent of a child murder might receive similar advice AND HENCE behave similarly. Sort of like a jury being told by a judge not to draw any guilty conclusions should a defendant plead the Fifth.

    Of course we can think what we like. Emotionally when I hear some defendant pleading the Fifth, or pulls an OJ and hires a dream team, I feel they must be hiding something.

    AND HENCE, I do feel that the R's are hiding something.

    For the defense lawyers of OJ's dream team and possibly LW, obviously it is quite a publicity coo to successfully defend a highly publicized case that could attract other high paying murderers, excuse me, defendants.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,970
    I've said it before,I have absolutely no problem with them lawyering up.But there has to be a line IMO.If your lawyers advice is hindering the investigation then I am not okay with it.I am not okay with "first I cover my own a** and then let's see how we can help catching the killer."

    I am not okay with not cooperating with the police.I am not okay with the rest of their actions which had nothing to do IMO with their lawyers strategy.
    The rice is already cooked...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Somewhere In Time
    Posts
    5,838
    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine View Post
    I've said it before,I have absolutely no problem with them lawyering up.But there has to be a line IMO.If your lawyers advice is hindering the investigation then I am not okay with it.I am not okay with "first I cover my own a** and then let's see how we can help catching the killer."

    I am not okay with not cooperating with the police.I am not okay with the rest of their actions which had nothing to do IMO with their lawyers strategy.
    They refused to go down to the police station for interviews. Wouldn't that be the FIRST thing that you would do, if your own daughter had been found murdered in YOUR house, so that the police could rule you out....move along, and find the REAL killer.
    "This time we get it right."

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    college campus
    Posts
    1,015
    Quote Originally Posted by Ames View Post
    They refused to go down to the police station for interviews. Wouldn't that be the FIRST thing that you would do, if your own daughter had been found murdered in YOUR house, so that the police could rule you out....move along, and find the REAL killer.
    It would sure as hell be the first thing I would do yes.

    But if your defense counsel you paid megabucks said you should not do this, and briefly explains you will be the focus of the LE, and they suspect you, and will try to trap you and trip you up in your own words?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,554
    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine View Post
    I've said it before,I have absolutely no problem with them lawyering up.But there has to be a line IMO.If your lawyers advice is hindering the investigation then I am not okay with it.I am not okay with "first I cover my own a** and then let's see how we can help catching the killer."

    I am not okay with not cooperating with the police.I am not okay with the rest of their actions which had nothing to do IMO with their lawyers strategy.
    exactly.wasn't the strategy used that of helping the guilty get away w the crime?? otherwise,wouldn't they have advised the R's to be more forthcoming,or else they would be making themselves appear guilty?for starters,don't wait 4 MONTHS before talking to LE???
    something to ponder:

    When the corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal have put on immortality, then shall we be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

    O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?

    The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
    But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
    1 Corinthians 15:54-57

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,221
    Quote Originally Posted by voynich View Post
    I have thought about making this a separate post but one obvious question is this:

    what sort of advice defense lawyers give their clients when their clients are the focus of LE?
    There's an old saying that defense attorneys hate innocent clients. Because even if you ARE innocent, a lawyer will defend you like you're guilty. That means telling you "keep your mouth shut."

    to what extent does R's conduct can be explained as the result of their attorney's counsel?
    Some of it, I'd say. At least, that's the feeling Michael Kane got.

    If what they did can be explained as sort of "standard" counsel a defense lawyer would offer, well, I didn't care for Johny Cochran's "if it doesn't fit you must acquit" but I recognize that he is doing his job.
    Um, some of it could be written off as standard. Not all of it by a sight.

    While I don't care for seemingly guilty criminals pleading the Fifth amendment, if that is available it would be a breach of duty for a defense attorney not to inform his client to plead this.
    True, but as has been said many times: a defense attorney's duty is to his clients, not the truth.

    Maybe Linwood gave the R's advice and the R's followed it, and LInwood was following a reasonable standard of duty defense lawyers give their clients.
    Lin Wood is NOT a defense attorney, voynich. (If you ask me, he's more like an attack dog.)

    Though hiring the publicity firm thing is a little unnerving.
    You're telling me!
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    SD is right- a defense lawyer will want innocent clients to keep silent as well as guilty ones. However, there have been other cases (Polly Klaas is one) where innocent parents IMMEDIATELY cooperate with LE. They do all they can to help the police clear them and move on to the real perp.
    The behavior of the Rs is suspect- regardless of counsel.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    college campus
    Posts
    1,015
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    SD is right- a defense lawyer will want innocent clients to keep silent as well as guilty ones. However, there have been other cases (Polly Klaas is one) where innocent parents IMMEDIATELY cooperate with LE. They do all they can to help the police clear them and move on to the real perp.
    The behavior of the Rs is suspect- regardless of counsel.
    I agree, but as I under Polly Klaas, she was kidnapped, and so the parents cooperated w/LE to try to first get her back.

    If hypothetically speaking JB was nowhere to be found, it would be *extremely* suspicious for R's not to first cooperate w/LE to GET HER BACK. A better ex would be a case where the dead child was found on the parent's property and the parents were the prime suspects, but still cooperating w/LE IMMEDIATELY.

    I understand Susan Smith cooperated w/LE to get her "missing" sons back. John Walsh/Adam Walsh cooperated b/c they still had not yet found Adam.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Quote Originally Posted by voynich View Post
    I agree, but as I under Polly Klaas, she was kidnapped, and so the parents cooperated w/LE to try to first get her back.

    If hypothetically speaking JB was nowhere to be found, it would be *extremely* suspicious for R's not to first cooperate w/LE to GET HER BACK. A better ex would be a case where the dead child was found on the parent's property and the parents were the prime suspects, but still cooperating w/LE IMMEDIATELY.

    I understand Susan Smith cooperated w/LE to get her "missing" sons back. John Walsh/Adam Walsh cooperated b/c they still had not yet found Adam.
    Yes to all of the above- the Rs claimed JBR was kidnapped as well. They had an RN to "prove" it. But there was no kidnapping. There WAS a dead child found in the home.
    True kidnappings, even those that go wrong (the victim dying) involve first and foremost REMOVING the victim. If the victim were to die, either accidentally or deliberately - a kidnapper may still try to collect the ransom by keeping the death secret. NO kidnapper would leave both a ransom note and dead victim in the house.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    college campus
    Posts
    1,015
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    Yes to all of the above- the Rs claimed JBR was kidnapped as well. They had an RN to "prove" it. But there was no kidnapping. There WAS a dead child found in the home.
    True kidnappings, even those that go wrong (the victim dying) involve first and foremost REMOVING the victim. If the victim were to die, either accidentally or deliberately - a kidnapper may still try to collect the ransom by keeping the death secret. NO kidnapper would leave both a ransom note and dead victim in the house.
    I think you misunderstood my point -- the dead child was found, they were the prime suspects -- are there any good examples where the dead child was found on the premises, the parents were the prime suspects, but they IMMEDIATELY and WITHOUT DELAY cooperated w/LE to find the KILLER (not kidnapper).

    In Poly Klass, Adam Walsh, Susan Smith's kids, they were missing, and for the duration they were missing, they cooperated w/LE.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Somewhere In Time
    Posts
    5,838
    Quote Originally Posted by voynich View Post
    It would sure as hell be the first thing I would do yes.

    But if your defense counsel you paid megabucks said you should not do this, and briefly explains you will be the focus of the LE, and they suspect you, and will try to trap you and trip you up in your own words?
    But that is not the reason that they gave...they said that they were too upset to go down to the station.
    "This time we get it right."

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    college campus
    Posts
    1,015
    Quote Originally Posted by Ames View Post
    But that is not the reason that they gave...they said that they were too upset to go down to the station.
    Not mutually exclusive IMHO

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Quote Originally Posted by voynich View Post
    I think you misunderstood my point -- the dead child was found, they were the prime suspects -- are there any good examples where the dead child was found on the premises, the parents were the prime suspects, but they IMMEDIATELY and WITHOUT DELAY cooperated w/LE to find the KILLER (not kidnapper).

    In Poly Klass, Adam Walsh, Susan Smith's kids, they were missing, and for the duration they were missing, they cooperated w/LE.
    Not that I am aware of.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-06-2016, 01:22 PM
  2. The Q & A from The Clinton School w/Defense Attorneys and Ellington
    By Compassionate Reader in forum West Memphis III
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-30-2013, 01:50 PM
  3. Defense attorneys say marines to be charged with
    By ANGRYWOLF in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-01-2006, 08:16 PM