Yes, Dede was on a flyer.
Don't know about pleading the fifth. I've never done that & would never advise anyone I love to do that. I believe in the truth & its how I raise my children - even my oldest that has put us through hedoubletoothpicks lol. I can't imagine ever being in a position to even question taking the fifth. Is there a lawyer on board that would know? I was thinking along the same line as you, except that I'd add the lawyer could ask questions that wouldn't necessarily incriminate the Smith parents, but could in fact incriminate their son, in which case I thought they'd have to answer certain questions bc those questions wouldn't be about them but rather about their son. I thought a judge would have to rule on the questions they're pleading the fifth on bc not necessarily would they be able to legally do so if the questions aren't leaning toward their criminal negligence but instead toward someone else - their son.
Jersey*Girl in this instance I will have to disagree with you, IMO there are plenty of reasons a defendant will take the 5th having nothing to do with guilt or innocence. Despite common misconceptions trials, either civil or criminal are not about justice and/or truth
per se but simply about what can be proven or not proven, let me give you an example if I may:
Assume the following:
1. John's ex wife is murdered
2. John is the last person to have seen the victim and had a big fight before she left.
3.
John Doe is in fact innocent.
Then ... one of the police question might be:
Did you have fight or an altercation when you last saw her?
there are 2 possible answers here.
A.
Yes I did have a fight.
B.
No I did not have fight.
Which is the correct one?
If
A then John just handed the prosecutor a motive for killing her wife which helped a lot if he gets convicted.
If
B, then John Doe lied, and if caught in that very lie, he just handed the prosecution not just a motive for killing his ex-wife but also the weight of perjury against himself.
Perhaps, depending on the situation, the answer is another altogether ... to
take the 5th, in which case John Doe did not lie, did not misrepresents facts, and therefore and most importantly
perhaps he did not help the prosecution make a case against himself.
BTW that works also if John Doe is
guilty.
Now stuff like this go on all the time in every courtroom here and abroad. Trials are a matter a strategy, evidence and the attorneys' ability to present a convincing narrative that proves a case, where the outcome might be in doubt and where every word counts and can be represented in many ways and to mean quite the opposite then one particular point of view or testimony.
In the words of one of the immortals ...
"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages ...."
-William Shakespeare
