ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #14

[Arnie M]

Church confessionals have always been private
Same as a persons conversation with a doctor or psychiatrist
Same as a defendants conversation with their lawyer.
Same as conversations between spouses , a husband or wife cannot testify against each other in court

Nothing new here folks.

 

[jnblsm]

Church confessionals have always been private
Same as a persons conversation with a doctor or psychiatrist
Same as a defendants conversation with their lawyer.
Same as conversations between spouses , a husband or wife cannot testify against each other in court

Nothing new here folks.

I thought a spouse didn't HAVE to testify against the other. I wasn't aware they COULDN'T.
Is that a law in every state?

Sent from my HTC Desire Eye using Tapatalk

 

[Arnie M]

I thought a spouse didn't HAVE to testify against the other. I wasn't aware they COULDN'T.
Is that a law in every state?

Could be , amounts to the same thing , very seldom do courts get family members testifying against each other because of the possible lack of objectivity. Same as when an angry EX keeps phoning police when the ex goes through a stop sign or something , police ignore it.

 

[pappa rob]

I thought a spouse didn't HAVE to testify against the other. I wasn't aware they COULDN'T.
Is that a law in every state?

Sent from my HTC Desire Eye using Tapatalk

A spouse has a choice as to if they want to testify, unless it's a crime against the spouse or your child.
http://blogs.lawyers.com/2011/03/demystifying-the-law-spousal-privilege/

 

[Magneto]

This case sort of reminds of the disappearance of Larry Dewayne Krebbs also 2 years old at Lake Texoma in 1988 never been found

 

[MBK]

Church MEMBERS are not clergy. They are private citizens.

 

[Arnie M]

Church MEMBERS are not clergy. They are private citizens.

I would normally agree , but in this case if the confessor thinks church members are clergy , then they are.

 

[MBK]

Church confessionals have always been private
Same as a persons conversation with a doctor or psychiatrist
Same as a defendants conversation with their lawyer.
Same as conversations between spouses , a husband or wife cannot testify against each other in court

Nothing new here folks.

Confessing to church members is a little different than confessing to a priest. It's shocking that in this case members of the laity are covered by law, or at least they were not expected to turn in this criminal. It's horrifying. And yes, it is NEW information, not about Deorr, but about an case concerning crimes against CHILDREN. And if you read the article, you'd see that the law is different for clergy and lawyers.

If anyone here can find out what the law in IDAHO is concerning PI's and confidential info, that would be great. And guess what, it would be something entirely NEW. Lots of love, MBK

 

[MBK]

I would normally agree , but in this case if the confessor thinks church members are clergy , then they are.

Perception is reality? Hmm. In the case of a pedophile, that's pretty darn frightening. While it obviously is quite another case, it is interesting in regards to the "climate" around crimes against children in Idaho.

 

[ILOKAL]

Let's try this. Private Investigators have no privilege. If they are employed by an individual and during the course of their investigation they come across information that implicates their client in a crime, and that information is in the public domain, although difficult to find, they are under no obligation to turn that information over to LE. On the other hand, should an only copy of a confession, or an only photo, or an only video (as examples) that implicates their client, comes into their possession, then they are, by law, obligated to turn it over to LE. HOWEVER, if the PI has been hired by the attorney who is representing a client and those same examples come into the possession of the PI, then, as an employee of the attorney, it becomes the work product of the attorney and is protected by the attorney-client privilege. IMO

 

[Lilibet]

Let's try this. Private Investigators have no privilege. If they are employed by an individual and during the course of their investigation they come across information that implicates their client in a crime, and that information is in the public domain, although difficult to find, they are under no obligation to turn that information over to LE. On the other hand, should an only copy of a confession, or an only photo, or an only video (as examples) that implicates their client, comes into their possession, then they are, by law, obligated to turn it over to LE. HOWEVER, if the PI has been hired by the attorney who is representing a client and those same examples come into the possession of the PI, then, as an employee of the attorney, it becomes the work product of the attorney and is protected by the attorney-client privilege. IMO

BBM

Just seeking to clarify and not question your conclusions...I can't tell if the "Let's try this" at the beginning and the "IMO" at the end means that this entire post is your opinion, but the wording used in the post makes everything sound like fact, rather than hypothesis. It would help to have a link if these are facts rather than logical assertions of opinion. Thanks.

 

[pappa rob]

Courts have consistently held that when the dominant purpose of the private investigator’s work is to prepare for or assist with litigation, the report and related materials will be protected from disclosure, except for where the privilege is waived. However, the converse is also true. Where courts have found that the investigator was retained for purposes other than litigation, the investigator’s material can be disclosed: see Mosely v Spray Lakes Sawmills, 1996 ABCA 141. The instructions provided to the investigator must be clear and unambiguous that the report is intended for use in litigation. For example, where investigators have simply been instructed to conduct an investigation, without defining the purpose of the investigation beforehand, those reports have been ordered produced: see e.g. Whitehead v Braidnor Construction Ltd, 2001 ABQB 994.

http://blog.bennettjones.com/2014/0...ors-must-aware-privilege-privacy-legislation/

 

[ILOKAL]

BBM

Just seeking to clarify and not question your conclusions...I can't tell if the "Let's try this" at the beginning and the "IMO" at the end means that this entire post is your opinion, but the wording used in the post makes everything sound like fact, rather than hypothesis. It would help to have a link if these are facts rather than logical assertions of opinion. Thanks.

I don't have an online link. My link is someone very close to me who, although now retired, has knowledge of such things so we discussed the matter. After our discussion, I came to the conclusions I posted. I started with "Let's try this" because the issue really isn't as complicated or "new" as some seem to believe, which is JMO.

 

[Lilibet]

I don't have an online link. My link is someone very close to me who, although now retired, has knowledge of such things so we discussed the matter. After our discussion, I came to the conclusions I posted. I started with "Let's try this" because the issue really isn't as complicated or "new" as some seem to believe, which is JMO.

Thanks. I appreciate your clarification. Your conclusions make sense.

 

[Dee10]

I thought this was very interesting:

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=7845

Confidentiality and reporting crimes to law enforcement can sometime conflict. State law dictates that client confidentiality is also eternal and first and foremost. While a client may waive, either in writing or implied, confidentiality, some parts of confidentiality remain, such as revealing your clients. This is especially the case when there are multiple clients. Some may waive confidentiality while others may not. As noted earlier, loyalty to your client is a priority and confidentiality is eternal. However, we walk a fine line between loyalty, confidentiality, and obeying the law to turn over all information regarding a crime or crimes that has been committed.

Some tips when working with law enforcement are to assure them that you intend to cooperate fully and inform your client (s) that you must cooperate with law enforcement and report any crime or crimes you may discover during your investigation.

 

[MBK]

Here's a question: which laws apply in the case of this contract, the laws of the state of Texas, or the state of Idaho?

 

[ILOKAL]

Here's a question: which laws apply in the case of this contract, the laws of the state of Texas, or the state of Idaho?

How do they differ?

 

[desert-blue]

How do they differ?

I'm not sure that the laws probably differ that much (although I have no idea) but in Idaho, anyone can be a PI. There is no licensing requirement and no governing body or oversight, so a PI in Idaho would never face being reprimanded or losing his/her license. I guess the PI's own moral compass would guide his/her investigations - as long as the PI stayed within the law, anything goes (as far investigating). But that's where it gets confusing to me. It doesn't sound like PI's are covered by any sort of privilege, so if a client told the PI something incriminating or the PI found incriminating evidence, what exactly is the PI's obligation legally? And what if it's not even something to do with his client, but someone he is interviewing or something like that? I have no idea. Does signing a confidentiality agreement release the PI from any accountability? I don't have the answer to that either...

Here (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=248707) is an interesting article where a person is growing marijuana and wants to hire a PI to find out who is stealing said marijuana from him. However, he first wants to know if the hired PI would turn him in for illegal activity. It's an interesting read, however, the setting is California, not Idaho, so it's not entirely applicable. PI's are considered contract employees and I found this part interesting:

"Confidentiality clauses with contract employees are not the same as
with an attorney. If a contract employee sees something illegal taking
place he can decline the job or stop work he has already begun and
become obligated to report the illegal activity to the authorities.
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy or confidentiality
afforded to someone who is violating the law, outside his attorney
(and in some instances occasionally a clergyman, doctor or spouse –
but that’s another matter entirely)."

I don't know the qualifications of the person writing the answer either, so take it for what it's worth. I feel like I'm getting off on a tangent now.... back to Idaho versus Texas. Could a PI licensed in Texas face punishment or loss of license from the Texas licensing board for something that was done out of state??? Maybe that is the real question... Ugh. I think I need to think on this some more... if none of this makes sense, just ignore it. It's all just my interpretation, ideas, thoughts, etc....

 

[desert-blue]

All this PI stuff is making my brain hurt... Back to DeOrr for a moment. Maybe I'm just not "in the loop" or am missing things on social media (very likely), but it seems to me that DeOrr's parents have been very silent ever since the new PI contract was signed. Am I the only one noticing that? Also, do we know who exactly signed the contract with Klein? I may have missed that as well...

 

[Yvettea]

It would be nice to believe a private investigator would be ethical enough to report information that would solve a murder or missing person case. I'm just not sure that would happen or how it would work. Would a client be obligated to pay for the investigation that landed him in prison, for instance? Would the private investigator be able to get clients in the future if those are his results? Doesn't it seem like the client, who is paying for the product, would be the one who was at liberty to disclose the information?