Terri's Constitutional Rights

[SurfieTX]

I would start with the Declaration of Independence in this regard

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Of course if this were written in this day and age it would probably say men, women and children, but nonetheless that is what it refers to. All of us, have unalienable rights, THANK GOD, because of some documents written some 234 years ago by our founding fathers.

Rights also carry the burden of responsibility. That's where it gets tough for me.

 

[Billylee]

Rights also carry the burden of responsibility. That's where it gets tough for me.

They do, of course. I thought you were asking about whether the rights of adults superseded the rights of children. What I was answering was we all have the same rights, men, women, children, whether accused or otherwise slandered by the public. No matter. Until proven in a court of law that we don't deserve those rights, we have them. We are all equal under the eyes of the law of our Country. Thank God.

(P.S. Thank you, eyes4crime, for opening a thread on this!)

 

[human]

Not to be snarky, but the Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution.

 

[GrainneDhu]

What Are "Constitutional Rights"?

Constitutional rights are those rights which are described in the Federal Constitution, and the constitution of your state. Your constitutional rights are your strongest protection against improper police conduct, and wrongful conviction. Most constitutional rights were composed in reaction to specific abuses by British authorities, during Colonial times. The rights described in the Federal Constitution must be observed by all agents of the federal government.

What Are My Most Important Federal Constitutional Rights, In Criminal Proceedings? (to find out - click on link)

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/constitution.html#Q3

My comment: If your face happens to be the last face remembered by a witness at the scene of a murder - you will want the best criminal defense attorney you can afford. I'm sure you will want him/her to know the Constitution inside and out so that he/she will afford to you all that this country has to offer. Just think of the trauma an innocent person experiences when sitting on 'death row'. moo mho

I absolutely agree.

I was overjoyed when the IRS recently decided to quit confiscating taxes on compensation paid to the wrongly convicted (talk about a final insult to a vast injury!).

I am so old fashioned that I believe the way to have a robust and accurate system of justice is to give each and every single person in this country constitutional rights to protect them from shoddy investigations.

There are nations where investigations consist basically of government investigators deciding who is guilty and don't trouble them with the facts, thankyouverymuch. Those are places where I don't even want to visit, let alone live.

 

[gardeness]

I absolutely agree.

I was overjoyed when the IRS recently decided to quit confiscating taxes on compensation paid to the wrongly convicted (talk about a final insult to a vast injury!).

I am so old fashioned that I believe the way to have a robust and accurate system of justice is to give each and every single person in this country constitutional rights to protect them from shoddy investigations.

There are nations where investigations consist basically of government investigators deciding who is guilty and don't trouble them with the facts, thankyouverymuch. Those are places where I don't even want to visit, let alone live.

bbm
Me either, GrainneDhu!

As always, I appreciate your posts.

 

[germaine]

I absolutely agree.

I was overjoyed when the IRS recently decided to quit confiscating taxes on compensation paid to the wrongly convicted (talk about a final insult to a vast injury!).

I am so old fashioned that I believe the way to have a robust and accurate system of justice is to give each and every single person in this country constitutional rights to protect them from shoddy investigations.

There are nations where investigations consist basically of government investigators deciding who is guilty and don't trouble them with the facts, thankyouverymuch. Those are places where I don't even want to visit, let alone live.

bbm~
We could take 1000 steps back and still not be there. Imo, our criminal *justice* system is so far removed from what the framers intended that they would be rolling in their graves. Seeing child murderers and child rapists (just for example) go free on technicalities, or spend decades in prison on the people's dime instead of receiving the death sentence handed down by the jury while endless appeals on those same technicalities are pursued. That is NOT what our founding father's intended. I am sure of it. And it offends and frightens me deeply.

I am infinitely more concerned with my loved ones being a victim of a criminal that was exonerated on a technicality; or handed a light sentence; or released from prison because of crowding, etc., etc. etc., than I am of being wrongfully convicted of a crime. And don't even get me started on what our idea of "prison" and "punishment" is. The truth is that many criminals have better lives in prison than they do on the streets, and don't mind being there at all. I know some personally.

 

[pufnstuf]

Which constitutional right are you concerned about?

Still waiting for an answer to your question, as it's--I suppose--central to this thread.

 

[Emma Peel]

Thankfully, there is, by design, little room for sanctimony and/or prejudicial venom in our criminal court system. Everyone plays by the same rules of evidence, an unbiased judge referees arguments and the jury brings the mind and heart to weigh everything that is presented. I want Terri (and any criminally accused) to experience adequate defense so that the jury’s ruling sticks. And I prefer adequate defense, (please see “The Innocence Project”), because not having adequate defense would fling open the door for corruption, incompetence and injustice in the courts.

So far, IMO, Terri is doing just fine. Steven Houze is a esteemed criminal defense attorney and according to his peers, he defends his clients brilliantly and ethically. He keeps the bar high on behalf of the accused, and our court system itself. (Thank goodness for that.) The law states that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and that the accused has certain rights. The presumption of innocence is our law; it is widely held to follow from the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th amendments – from the Constitution/Bill of Rights.

Quick look-up / Wikipedia:
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution[/ame]

The 4th Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause.
The 5th sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy.
The 6th Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel.
The 7th Provides for the right to trial by jury in certain civil cases, according to common law.
The 8th Prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment.

IMO, we know why Kaine & Desiree have stopped begging Terri to cooperate. IMO, the investigation is at a point where they’ve come to realize that Terri can’t cooperate without incriminating herself. Most recently, they started to ask those close to Terri to cooperate. And even acquaintances. They are pulling a circumstantial case together.

I’m encouraged that from the beginning we’ve have had this sort of “bill of rights” stand-off, defense vs. prosecution – Mr. Houze doing his job to protect Terri’s rights, because (yes indeed, the prosecution has enough on her that she needs protection). When I see Houze doing his job, it doesn’t make me mad. I’m happy to know he’s taking it seriously, because he probably HAS to. Kyron has a stellar team on his side - the DA, dedicated LE, the searchers, and his parents stand up for him when he cannot. Team Terri is shaking in their boots. This is how criminal cases are supposed to proceed. It’s up to all of these attorneys to do their jobs now - to the best of their ability - to uphold every player's constitutional rights - from victim to accused to family.

Mr. Houze has previously expressed his professional preference not to comment on matters under investigation. He has from day 1, said that to do so would be unethical before. (At his first appearance.) Houze set the attorney behavior bar for this case in the hall of the court the first time Kaine walked out of that courtroom when he had to attend an emergency hearing in his shorts…Kaine’s counsel attempted to lobby questions from the press that day, and Mr. Houze took exception and “no commented”. Not a peep out of Kaine’s counsel since. Is Dede’s attorney commenting? Nope. Not anymore. Not since Mr. Houze set the bar – none of these attorneys seek any gratuitous air time. Likewise, we do not expect the DA to comment on matters under investigation.

Myself, I prefer this level of professionalism amongst attorneys and LE to the grandstanding we’ve seen in other situations.

IMO, constitutionally on this one, Terri's doing just fine, as is Kyron.

If I may interject, however, I'm not so sure this is the case with Haleigh's situation, and I'm pretty sure any professionalism on Caylee's defense side flew out the window the day Casey picked the big O's call girl's go-to-guy, Baez as counsel. :waitasec:

JMHO JMHO JMOH JMHO

 

[Emma Peel]

Still waiting for an answer to your question, as it's--I suppose--central to this thread.

Hi there Puf,

I believe there were aspersions cast upon defense attorneys in general in another thread (although in that thread those aspersions quickly led to posts taking the thread O/T, and thereupon, this thread...).

As part of that O/T, poster eyesforcrime pointed out that old thorn in our sleuthy sides - the presumption of innocence. Eyes expressed concern over the flyers that were circulate with Terri's and Dede's photos - flyers which resembled wanted posters somewhat - for individuals that have not yet been named POIs...

It was, indeed, an unusual tactic - to distribute those flyers...

I have no opinion, actually on whether said flyers could have violated consitutional rights. I'd have to do too much research to figure that one out.

However, my "guestimate" is that this would already be raised as an issue by counsel and or "elite liberal" press if the flyers were expected to become a problem at trial..

Then again, what do I know. I may have even missed the articles discussion said flyers and how they were pushing the envelope on the rights of the accused...

BTW, Puf... YES!
I totally remember your lectures delivered on Hormanology from Day 1 of this case. I am well acquainted with your Day 1 facebook researchology, and revelations therin. I'm honored to still be hanging in here for Kyron with ya. I credit you and others who were creeped out by that facebook with calling a spade a spade even though said spade was covered with pansies...

:highfive:

 

[tlcya]

Thankfully, there is, by design, little room for sanctimony and/or prejudicial venom in our criminal court system. Everyone plays by the same rules of evidence, an unbiased judge referees arguments and the jury brings the mind and heart to weigh everything that is presented. I want Terri (and any criminally accused) to experience adequate defense so that the jury’s ruling sticks. And I prefer adequate defense, (please see “The Innocence Project”), because not having adequate defense would fling open the door for corruption, incompetence and injustice in the courts.

So far, IMO, Terri is doing just fine. Steven Houze is a esteemed criminal defense attorney and according to his peers, he defends his clients brilliantly and ethically. He keeps the bar high on behalf of the accused, and our court system itself. (Thank goodness for that.) The law states that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and that the accused has certain rights. The presumption of innocence is our law; it is widely held to follow from the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th amendments – from the Constitution/Bill of Rights.

Quick look-up / Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution




IMO, we know why Kaine & Desiree have stopped begging Terri to cooperate. IMO, the investigation is at a point where they’ve come to realize that Terri can’t cooperate without incriminating herself. Most recently, they started to ask those close to Terri to cooperate. And even acquaintances. They are pulling a circumstantial case together.

I’m encouraged that from the beginning we’ve have had this sort of “bill of rights” stand-off, defense vs. prosecution – Mr. Houze doing his job to protect Terri’s rights, because (yes indeed, the prosecution has enough on her that she needs protection). When I see Houze doing his job, it doesn’t make me mad. I’m happy to know he’s taking it seriously, because he probably HAS to. Kyron has a stellar team on his side - the DA, dedicated LE, the searchers, and his parents stand up for him when he cannot. Team Terri is shaking in their boots. This is how criminal cases are supposed to proceed. It’s up to all of these attorneys to do their jobs now - to the best of their ability - to uphold every player's constitutional rights - from victim to accused to family.

Mr. Houze has previously expressed his professional preference not to comment on matters under investigation. He has from day 1, said that to do so would be unethical before. (At his first appearance.) Houze set the attorney behavior bar for this case in the hall of the court the first time Kaine walked out of that courtroom when he had to attend an emergency hearing in his shorts…Kaine’s counsel attempted to lobby questions from the press that day, and Mr. Houze took exception and “no commented”. Not a peep out of Kaine’s counsel since. Is Dede’s attorney commenting? Nope. Not anymore. Not since Mr. Houze set the bar – none of these attorneys seek any gratuitous air time. Likewise, we do not expect the DA to comment on matters under investigation.

Myself, I prefer this level of professionalism amongst attorneys and LE to the grandstanding we’ve seen in other situations.

IMO, constitutionally on this one, Terri's doing just fine, as is Kyron.

If I may interject, however, I'm not so sure this is the case with Haleigh's situation, and I'm pretty sure any professionalism on Caylee's defense side flew out the window the day Casey picked the big O's call girl's go-to-guy, Baez as counsel. :waitasec:

JMHO JMHO JMOH JMHO

I love you EmmaPeel. I haven't told you that lately.

 

[gitana1]

LE are human and mistakes are made not because of stupidity, but because of the 'human' factor. Guess if you sit here in Chicago and see Kevin Fox thrown behind bars for the rape and murder of his 3yo all for the sake of headlines for an upcoming election involving a presecutor, you become a bit leary.

For some reason, I'm very concerned about Constitutional rights being violated in this case - not sure why.

Maybe it's because Houze seems to have a specialty in technicalities.

Maybe it's because of the questionnaire/pictures put out by LE of Terri and her car, sent to peoples' homes and spread all over the internet...and later with pics of her friend Dede.

And for my own reasons - I value our Constitutional rights and feel that without them, we are just any old 3rd world country where any one of us could be thrown in prison out of convenience. I value criminal defense attorneys and their ability to afford Constitutional Rights to the defendant. I also value good prosecutors. I value all those with professional ethics and have disdain for those without.

All just moo

I agree with you that our constitutional rights are very important and should be protected, as should Terri's. I just do not see that Terri's rights have been violated in any way.
There has been mention of the Kevin Fox case on several occasions in reference to the investigation of Kyron's murder. I do not see the connection. Yes, there are cases where horrible mistakes are made in investigations or where LE, in an effort to resolve a case quickly, rushes to judgment. But I think such cases are rare when it comes to cases involving Caucasian suspects (sadly, not so rare when it come to minority suspects). And I just do not see that type of thing happening here at all.
LE is working this case and applying pressure in a lawful manner, IMO. TH is not an uneducated young person or a person without resources. There are no signs thus far that LE has fabricated evidence, ignoring evidence or are trying to get a conviction just to win an election, etc., factors at play in the Riley Fox case.
No, I see hard working investigators fighting to make a case after ruling out other possibilities and after all signs point in one, very obvious direction.
Nevertheless, I think people who question this case, the direction of the investigation and whether Terri's rights are being violated help keep LE on their toes and following the straight and narrow. That's what's great about our country - we can question authority and no one is afraid to have an opinion, even if that opinion bucks the tide. Even though I disagree strongly that Terri's constitutional rights are in danger in this case, I think these questions act to ensure the solidity of cases like Kyron's and that's a good thing.

 

[Emma Peel]

I love you EmmaPeel. I haven't told you that lately.

awww, tlcox - I'm honored. :blowkiss:
and ... likewise!

 

[ThoughtFox]

As an old-timer on many of these cases here, I'd just like to say that I'm usually not that thrilled with defense attorneys in general. That's not to say that I don't believe people don't have a right to a good defense. It's just that often in high profile cases we get alot of show-boating, delaying tactics, red herrings, etc, and that gets old. (Laci Peterson and Caylee Anthony are great examples of defense attorneys running amok in the justice system - but they would just say they're doing their jobs with difficult cases.)

Having legal counsel to defend yourself is still a constitutional right that everyone has, and should always have. :twocents:

But many here are concerned with the rights of the victim first. And LE and Prosecutors are the defenders of the victim's rights, even after they are deceased or merely just "disappeared." So they, along with forensic specialists, become the real heroes who bring justice.

Every innocent child who is stolen, murdered, neglected, or trashed by uncaring adults deserves to be defended to the maximum by LE and Prosecutors. And any family survivors also deserve to have their rights defended, too.

 

[stmarysmead]

Question: is it Houze's responsibility to use every bit of skill and legal knowledge he has to protect Terri's constitutional rights or to try to get an acquittal even if she killed this child in cold blood?

Will Houze get her a jury loaded with divorced women who think Kaine is the embodiment of their ex-husband...and see acquitting Terri as payback? Throw in a few men who think she's too pretty to be guilty? Did the Founding Fathers envision that kind of jury selection?

Will he work to get the emails showing her intense hatred and desire to hurt a 7 year old..thrown out...so the jury can never know the way this woman's mind works?

Will he try to demonize Kaine and/or Desiree on the stand in order to make his client look like she was THEIR victim?

Will he be looking for ways to undermine EVEN WHAT HE KNOWS to be the truth...so that his client may go home one day, sink into her favorite chair, smile and say...."I did it. I killed that freaking kid I hated. And Mr. Big Bucks got me the slick lawyers I needed...and WOW! Hurrah! and Joy to the world! I'm home free!! Cry your eyes out, Kaine and Desiree..I killed your brat and got away with it!"

Is that what the founding Fathers had in mind?

 

[newone]

Question: is it Houze's responsibility to use every bit of skill and legal knowledge he has to protect Terri's constitutional rights or to try to get an acquittal even if she killed this child in cold blood?

Will Houze get her a jury loaded with divorced women who think Kaine is the embodiment of their ex-husband...and see acquitting Terri as payback? Throw in a few men who think she's too pretty to be guilty? Did the Founding Fathers envision that kind of jury selection?

Will he work to get the emails showing her intense hatred and desire to hurt a 7 year old..thrown out...so the jury can never know the way this woman's mind works?

Will he try to demonize Kaine and/or Desiree on the stand in order to make his client look like she was THEIR victim?
Will he be looking for ways to undermine EVEN WHAT HE KNOWS to be the truth...so that his client may go home one day, sink into her favorite chair, smile and say...."I did it. I killed that freaking kid I hated. And Mr. Big Bucks got me the slick lawyers I needed...and WOW! Hurrah! and Joy to the world! I'm home free!! Cry your eyes out, Kaine and Desiree..I killed your brat and got away with it!"

Is that what the founding Fathers had in mind?

BBM - I was always concerned about that angle from the onset.

You have raised some very big concerns and I am experiencing flashbacks of OJ's trial now. To have a jury of her peers, in this case, conjures up some pretty unsatisfactory possible outcomes.

 

[Emma Peel]

Question: is it Houze's responsibility to use every bit of skill and legal knowledge he has to protect Terri's constitutional rights or to try to get an acquittal even if she killed this child in cold blood?

Will Houze get her a jury loaded with divorced women who think Kaine is the embodiment of their ex-husband...and see acquitting Terri as payback? Throw in a few men who think she's too pretty to be guilty? Did the Founding Fathers envision that kind of jury selection?

Will he work to get the emails showing her intense hatred and desire to hurt a 7 year old..thrown out...so the jury can never know the way this woman's mind works?

Will he try to demonize Kaine and/or Desiree on the stand in order to make his client look like she was THEIR victim?

Will he be looking for ways to undermine EVEN WHAT HE KNOWS to be the truth...so that his client may go home one day, sink into her favorite chair, smile and say...."I did it. I killed that freaking kid I hated. And Mr. Big Bucks got me the slick lawyers I needed...and WOW! Hurrah! and Joy to the world! I'm home free!! Cry your eyes out, Kaine and Desiree..I killed your brat and got away with it!"

Is that what the founding Fathers had in mind?

I realize the above fictional questions are rhetorical and used to make some kind of point, or perhaps air frustration or dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system, or express the emotion we all feel when Kyron's suffering parents share their grief, or even a personal disgust with Terri's sexting lifestyle, or all of the above.

But, for those sincerely interested in the topic, perhaps some research with regard to legal ethics and the history of our constitutional documents would help answer some of the questions raised.

Right now, IMO none of the above fictional scenarios are issues, and I trust Mr. Houze would not be as esteemed as he is if he did not completely understand the ethical dilemmas of criminal defense. He has all sorts of duties in this regard, duties to his client (privilege), to the court, to the people. Terri won't be taking the stand if she's confessed to Houze - that's one way to tell - but we have to wait. And along these lines, perhaps it's significant and interesting that she's also not "taking the stand" in the divorce action at this time.

In the meantime, here's an interesting and quick read about the duties of defense counsel.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/768/Counsel-Role-Counsel-Defending-guilty.html
The dilemma is at its most intense when the client is guilty, for then the lawyer seems not much different from the driver of a getaway car: both aim to help the criminal escape just punishment for his crime. Morally if not legally, the defender becomes an accomplice in the criminal's escape.

Lawyers respond with several arguments about the importance of representing the guilty and, moreover, representing the guilty as vigorously as the innocent. Each of these arguments has force, but each is open to criticism.

The adversary system. The system of criminal justice, which pits prosecution against defense, requires undivided partisanship. Because the prosecutor will present the state's case, the defender must concentrate entirely on the accused's, and present it as forcefully as possible. A corollary to this principle of partisanship is that the lawyer should not be held morally accountable for zealously defending the client; otherwise, moral compunctions might compel defenders to restrain their zeal, in violation of the principle of partisanship. Taken together, the principles of partisanship and nonaccountability are thought by many to define the advocate's role (Luban, 1988; Schwartz; Simon, 1978).

This argument grounds the defender's ethic of partisan zeal in the nature of the adversary system (see Freedman's 1975 work for a classic statement of this argument). However, the adversary system has often been criticized on the ground that it turns the system of legal justice into a contest of skill and resources and encourages amoral ruthlessness on the part of prosecutors and defenders alike. That is, the very system that is supposed to justify partisan zeal can be criticized precisely on the ground that it encourages too much partisan zeal. In this way, the argument based on the adversary system begs the question of how partisan a defender should be. In addition, the argument based on the adversary system may apply with less force to legal cultures with different procedural systems.

Another version of the argument focuses on liberal fear of the state. It seems too unfair to pit the might of the state against a solitary defendant, even a guilty one, without providing the defendant with a champion (Luban, 1993). Critics, however, point out that criminals seldom if ever face "the bogey of the state"; in reality, they are pitted against "a small number of harassed, overworked bureaucrats" (Simon, 1998, p. 174), and there is little reason to suppose that "the state" poses a greater threat to the public than do the criminals it prosecutes.

Usurping the court's role. A defender who refuses to defend the guilty, or offers a less vigorous defense, has substituted his or her own judgment that the client is guilty for the verdict of the judge or jury. Not only does this violate the trial's division of labor, it denies the defendant the due process that trials are meant to provide by, in effect, convicting the defendant before the trial. Sometimes this argument is phrased as a point about the nature of truth in law: when Boswell asked Dr. Johnson how he could represent a cause known to be bad, Johnson replied, "Sir, you do not know it to be good or bad till the Judge determines it."

Skeptics may reply that the defender is not literally substituting his or her judgment for that of the judge and jury, because the defender is not rendering a legal verdict on the defendant. The defender is merely deciding how vigorously to defend based on what he or she knows of the client's guilt or innocence. As for Johnson's argument that the lawyer cannot "know" the client is guilty, it rests on a play on words. If Johnson meant that only the judge is authorized to establish forensic facts, he was wrong to couch the point in terms of knowledge rather than authority; if he meant that lawyers can never know more than judges about a case, he was simply mistaken.
- there's more to this article at the link.

There is also plenty of information available on the internet with regard to the history of our country's constitution and what weighed in the mind of our Founding Fathers as they created those documents. Frankly, the most brilliant part of these documents, and the foremost thought in the mind of founding fathers was the Freedoms of the People, and that our Constitution always be of the People, by the People, and for the People. To that end, they built life, and a degree of immortality into those documents.

Our (the People's) ability to change it - to change how we govern ourselves - as our country, culture, times, beliefs, science, international challenges, and general understanding of this world changes - so that it remains as relevant. just and as fair as possible forever - not only on the day the founding fathers signed it -

well... I can tell you THAT is the most important thing that was in our Founding Father's minds. IMO, it's genius. And a beautiful thing. I know everyone appreciates it, but when you study that thing, philosophically speaking, it's brilliance is, frankly, humbling.

I am not naive enough to suggest that everything in the legal/justice system works perfectly as planned all the time. But I do have faith that there's plenty of good People about striving to stand by the rules we as a People have set for Ourselves.

And speaking of our freedoms - everyone have have a great Thanksgiving week!

 

[Chablis]

LE are human and mistakes are made not because of stupidity, but because of the 'human' factor. Guess if you sit here in Chicago and see Kevin Fox thrown behind bars for the rape and murder of his 3yo all for the sake of headlines for an upcoming election involving a presecutor, you become a bit leary.

For some reason, I'm very concerned about Constitutional rights being violated in this case - not sure why.

Maybe it's because Houze seems to have a specialty in technicalities.

Maybe it's because of the questionnaire/pictures put out by LE of Terri and her car, sent to peoples' homes and spread all over the internet...and later with pics of her friend Dede.

And for my own reasons - I value our Constitutional rights and feel that without them, we are just any old 3rd world country where any one of us could be thrown in prison out of convenience. I value criminal defense attorneys and their ability to afford Constitutional Rights to the defendant. I also value good prosecutors. I value all those with professional ethics and have disdain for those without.

All just moo

I am not worried about her rights, and there is no way she is going to get off on a technicality such as that. I really dont get how anyone can say her rights have been violated, I mean is it because the cops told Kyrons parents about all the stuff she had written about their son, how she hated him? The parents have every right to know this stuff, so sorry if Terri is embarrassed, because she should be and this is just the tip of the iceberg. After its been exposed that she sent a picture of her private areas to Kaines friend, thankfully Kaine didn't send the pictures to the press, now, that would have been a violation of sorts, but he didn't, but he has every right to talk about what this person was doing, this person was the last one to see his child! Sorry if Terri's image is being shattered, I just think how she denied that Kaine moved and took the baby, like she didn't want that to come out, did she think they would all play the game everything is all right? I think she did, and I think shes delusional.

 

[Aedrys]

I agree with you that our constitutional rights are very important and should be protected, as should Terri's. I just do not see that Terri's rights have been violated in any way.
There has been mention of the Kevin Fox case on several occasions in reference to the investigation of Kyron's murder. I do not see the connection. Yes, there are cases where horrible mistakes are made in investigations or where LE, in an effort to resolve a case quickly, rushes to judgment. But I think such cases are rare when it comes to cases involving Caucasian suspects (sadly, not so rare when it come to minority suspects). And I just do not see that type of thing happening here at all.
LE is working this case and applying pressure in a lawful manner, IMO. TH is not an uneducated young person or a person without resources. There are no signs thus far that LE has fabricated evidence, ignoring evidence or are trying to get a conviction just to win an election, etc., factors at play in the Riley Fox case.
No, I see hard working investigators fighting to make a case after ruling out other possibilities and after all signs point in one, very obvious direction.
Nevertheless, I think people who question this case, the direction of the investigation and whether Terri's rights are being violated help keep LE on their toes and following the straight and narrow. That's what's great about our country - we can question authority and no one is afraid to have an opinion, even if that opinion bucks the tide. Even though I disagree strongly that Terri's constitutional rights are in danger in this case, I think these questions act to ensure the solidity of cases like Kyron's and that's a good thing.

Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU, Gitana. This is NOT the Riley Fox case. Or at least, we have NO IDEA if it is or not yet. I am tired of seeing comparisons between this case and Riley Fox. Seriously, the only way we'll know if they are comparable is in retrospect, AFTER this case is over and done with. We don't know that it is right now. And honestly, to me, these are two SEPARATE cases, and Terri looks far guiltier and far more suspect than Kevin Fox ever could look. To keep questioning LE because of OTHER cases is just not right. Terri is not innocent just because Kevin Fox was innocent. These are two separate cases, and they ought to stay that way IMO.

And as far as her constitutional rights go, yeah, she has them; yeah, she deserves them; yeah, she can shove them you know where in my opinion; and yeah, I have the constitutional right to feel that way and speak about it too. I'm not sure why a thread was needed for this. It doesn't matter how we feel about her constitutional rights, she has them, so what? I see no violations so far. Heck, they haven't even arrested her yet. Why are constitutional issues a worry right now? I'd expect that to come up once she's arrested and there actually is a criminal case against her, not before when there's only a divorce case going on.

And what's that part of the Miranda Rights that Terri ignored early on in this case and has gotten her into so much trouble so far? Oh yeah, "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." Apparently that is something she should have worried about a lot sooner than her constitutional rights.

 

[Chablis]

It seems like we are supposed to treat Terri like a queen and walk on eggshells and not talk about her heinous discretion's.

 

[Sherazhad]

In most cases where a child is missing the privacy of the parents is sacrificed as LE need to investigate the home that the child is growing up in. Innocent parents tend to co-operate as their own comfort is nothing in comparison to bringing their child home. In high playing profile cases such as Kyrons, the eyes of millions are questioning every1 close to the child. But Terri has proven to be her own worst enemy in the following ways:
-leaving her facebook page wide open for days after Kyrons disappearance so any1 can see that she was playing online games, not the bahaviour of a frantic parent.
-Sexting and sending explicit photos of herself to her husbands friend in the weeks following Kyrons disappearance. This after she admitted knowledge in those texts that her phone activity was being monited by LE.
-Arming herself and friends with bat phones, so that they couldnt be monitored. This screams out that she is hiding information fom LE and immediately earns mistrust.
A final point is that Terri is a suspect as the last person to see Kyron. A loving parent would be less concerned with their rights than doing anything to bring their child home. Terris inappropriate and callous behaviour has earned contempt. Her rights have ensured that she has a high price lawyer to hide behind and that she is free when LE obviously believe in her guilt. It would be interesting to hear what other innocent parents whose children have been abducted felt about their rights. Whilst uncomfortable, I feel certain that their own feelings didnt matter a thing to them, they just wanted their children back. Terri strikes me as cold and selfish, the text messages confirmed that she only cared about herself and her own needs, Kyron wasnt in her mind at all. After she is arrested and jailed for this crime, as I believe she will be, she can also extensively exercise her rights with appeals. I am sickened that this child is missing and terri is more bothered by what bloggers are saying about her, how about the outrage at the culprit she says she thinks did this? Kyrons right to justice outweighs terris.