R's, defense attorneys, post-crime behavior

[voynich]

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.

 

[DeeDee249]

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.

 

[voynich]

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.

 

[madeleine]

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 *advertiser censored** 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.

 

[Ames]

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 *advertiser censored** 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.

 

[voynich]

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?

 

[JMO8778]

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 *advertiser censored** 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???

 

[BBB167893]

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!

 

[DeeDee249]

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.

 

[voynich]

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.

 

[DeeDee249]

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.

 

[voynich]

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.

 

[Ames]

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.

 

[voynich]

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

 

[DeeDee249]

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.

 

[voynich]

Not that I am aware of.

Given that 48 Hours, America's Most Wanted, American Justice, New Detectives, news etc., I'm sure there exist somewhere at least 1 case where the dead child was found in the house, and the parents were home and alive but cooperated w/LE immediately.

--- In the Jeffrey MacDonald case, his wife and kids were overkilled with stab wounds in his house, MacDonald had very few injuries by comparison, and he claims 4 assailants did it. Not surprisingly, he was the prime suspect and now he sits in jail.

Another case is the kiddnapping (and murder) of Charles Linbergh's son, in which his family and housekeepers were suspects until his son was found dead and Hauptaugh was caught.

If you're a parent, and your kid is murdered in your house under your watch while you are still alive, and the LE arrive guess who will be the prime suspect?

 

[DeeDee249]

The Lindberg baby was found outside the house. Not far away, but not in the house. BTW, there are many who believe that Lindberg himself killed the baby. There were inconsistencies concerning the window among other things and back then of course, no DNA or methods like we have today.

 

[voynich]

The Lindberg baby was found outside the house. Nor far away, but not in the house. BTW, there are many who believe that Lindberg himself killed the baby. There were inconsistencies concerning the window among other things and back then of course, no DNA or methods like we have today.

Yes, his behavior was suspicious in the extreme, he had a prior record of hiding his baby from wife and housekeepers as a joke, and of course there were whispers he's a eugenicist and that his baby was somehow defective.

He turned out to be innocent.

 

[madeleine]

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?

I guess I would be so devastated that my baby was murdered(and don't forget how brutal this crime was) that I don't think I would give a damn if they suspect me or not.Dunno...........IMO

 

[Ripley007]

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.

Maybe I'm just naive...but even after consulting an attorney, the R's didn't HAVE to follow his advise word for word...

The R's BROUGHT this suspision upon themselves. Through their bizzarre behavoir. JMHO.