ForumGarden

it's technically possible, there is a very serious matter which has developed in the case against him. it seems he was not mirandized!! this can really make a mess of the case, someone screwed up very badly in interrogation 101....i am utterly shocked at this development. at the very least it will keep him off death row. and it seems that the bungling of this case is the real reason the three dirtbags in the mobile home have not been charged as accessories. there are some very angry people down here as this information comes to light.

Of all times to screw up!

I can't believe it. My God I hope this can be worked out so this animal get the death penalty..

yes he could walk & do you ever sleep or shave? :-6

Peg wrote: Of all times to screw up!


aren't you happy you still have the woman time? keeps you in touch with yourself? only women bleed.

Agnes wrote: aren't you happy you still have the woman time? keeps you in touch with yourself? only women bleed.
Am I the only one confused here on what this has to do with this thread?

Peg wrote: Am I the only one confused here on what this has to do with this thread? Uhh...NOPE!

Peg wrote: Am I the only one confused here on what this has to do with this thread? I can't believe I'm going to do a Pagnes interpretation but here goes:

She read your sig line, Peg, and responded to that. Pretty typical of

a person with diminished cognitive function...



Addlepated, and needs help, surely.

LC, do we know how this came to light? Did someone go over interview

tapes or something?



This is truly horrifying...



:(

valerie wrote: LC, do we know how this came to light? Did someone go over interview

tapes or something?



This is truly horrifying...



:(they didn't tape any of his interviews!!!:-5 and the detectives who interviewed him had to admit it. the first interview he asked for a lawyer so they had to stop. next morning they interrogated him again with no miranda warning and no lawyer. i still cannot believe it. i like Sheriff Dawsey, but the buck here stops with him. the DA had to send people to Jessica's father's house to tell him this development.

valerie wrote: I can't believe I'm going to do a Pagnes interpretation but here goes:

She read your sig line, Peg, and responded to that. Pretty typical of

a person with diminished cognitive function...



Addlepated, and needs help, surely.


pretty good for a dog doctor, i like your photo, dad dog? i thought that was you. i rated the photo as very poor.

Agnes wrote: pretty good for a dog doctor, i like your photo, dad dog? i thought that was you. i rated the photo as very poor.I rest my case!!



:yh_silent

I am really glad we have a system where you have to prove guilt and everyone is entitled to due process. But I believe that one of the flaws in the system is that a man such as this could get off just because someone forgot to say something at the right time. Lady cop, can you explain why so much weight is put on the procedural technicalities? And I never understood the whole evidence thing. I mean , if proof is obtained the wrong way, then punish the official. But how do you justify ignoring proof just because it was not obtained properly?

hello LW my friend!....in our legal system, in fairness to the accused, we have a doctrine, "the fruit of the poisonous tree"...in other words, if evidence is not obtained within legal parameters, it cannot be used against a person. and i agree with that concept. it is for the protection of all citizens who may be accused. frankly, in this instance, reading someone their miranda rights is so basic that citrus county deserves to have their butts thrown out of court. and it KILLS me to say that! but i read people their rights if i so much as talk to them, i just can't believe the whole scenario. i am proud that we protect the rights of the accused in this country. we must. evidence has to be untainted if we are to take away the freedom or the life of an individual.

In all that has happened with this case I find it so painful to think of the horrific details...and yet to hear this horrible news about Couey...it is like I posted before, I just don't know how much I can stand to hear. It makes me so sick...how does a person find justice? I feel so bad for Jessica's family. I was cleaning my son's room today and happened upon the Magic Treehouse book "Night of the Ninja's" the book her grandmother said Jessica was in the middle of reading...as I layed the book on the shelf I thought of her and realized one small saving grace--that she IS gone. She no longer suffers. If I focus on that instead of what she had to endure, I can deal with it. But that poor family. How can we make sure he can never do this to a child again?????

I can understand that legal procedures have to be followed. But what I don’t understand, is why this should benefit the accused? I am sure, I don’t know as much about the law, as you Lady Cop. But Proof is proof! If the investigators break the law, well they should be accountable as well. But if you have the proof , to throw it out, because of how it was obtained, should also be considered unjust, and unlawful! Just my opinion!

the accused ALWAYS get the benefit, because their freedom/lives are at stake. however, even if couey's confession has to be thrown out, i do believe they have sufficient evidence to stand alone and convict his scrawny ugly nasty repulsive arse. ...and believe me, the detectives who failed to mirandize him will probably be directing traffic soon. but still, it is the Sheriff's responsibility, and he knows it.

I hope you are right about the other evidence. But that is my point. If the evidence is sufficient, to hec with the technicalities. I believe that the freedom and lives of the law abiding should take precedence. Isn’t that suppose to be decided at an arraignment?

LWR VENTURES wrote: I can understand that legal procedures have to be followed. But what I don’t understand, is why this should benefit the accused? I am sure, I don’t know as much about the law, as you Lady Cop. But Proof is proof! If the investigators break the law, well they should be accountable as well. But if you have the proof , to throw it out, because of how it was obtained, should also be considered unjust, and unlawful! Just my opinion!


Welcome to AMERICA!!!!

Gee thanks robinseggs, but I have been here a while. I don’t believe this is an American problem. We have one of the best legal systems in the world. But it could use a little tweaking if you ask me. Or did you? LOL. I believe it is up to the courts to interpret the law. A little common sense, by the judges, in some of these cases would be great. Don’t you think?

oh god oh god read at your own risk, it has made me sick............ Drifter says he held girl 3 days before burying her alive

LWR VENTURES wrote: Gee thanks robinseggs, but I have been here a while. I don’t believe this is an American problem. We have one of the best legal systems in the world. But it could use a little tweaking if you ask me. Or did you? LOL. I believe it is up to the courts to interpret the law. A little common sense, by the judges, in some of these cases would be great. Don’t you think?


Oh yes! I totally agree with you! I was only being lighthearted and sarcastic...I do appreciate our legal system--really. It does definately need tweaking. Sometimes I think even the judges are challenged though...I mean they WANT to use common sense, but maybe there's some crazy little addendum or hang up that prevents them from being able to do what they feel is right---just like in this case...hands are tied...things weren't done right so the criminal is protected. It is sad.

lady cop wrote: oh god oh god read at your own risk, it has made me sick............ Drifter says he held girl 3 days before burying her alive


Didn't think it could get any worse..... I feel ill...

i want to go into his cell and kill him with my bare hands, i have never felt like murdering someone before. but i do now, and it lessens me as a person.

lady cop wrote: the accused ALWAYS get the benefit, because their freedom/lives are at stake. however, even if couey's confession has to be thrown out, i do believe they have sufficient evidence to stand alone and convict his scrawny ugly nasty repulsive arse. ...and believe me, the detectives who failed to mirandize him will probably be directing traffic soon. but still, it is the Sheriff's responsibility, and he knows it.
They didn't do their job. They should be fired, not demoted. How do you forget to do one of the most important parts of your job that should be routine?

Peg wrote: They didn't do their job. They should be fired, not demoted. How do you forget to do one of the most important parts of your job that should be routine?Peg i agree. to read the miranda is like breathing to me. i cannot fathom it. Sheriff Dawsey has to be humiliated beyond belief.

So ladycop what do you think will happen next??? Will he really go FREE??? Cant they hold him on SOMETHING??

no, he won't go free. there is enough to convict him.

editorial from st. pete newspaper.................A Times Editorial

Published June 28, 2005





Among the troubling questions concerning the Jessica Lunsford murder investigation is whether detectives violated the constitutional rights of John Couey, the Homosassa man accused of abducting and killing his 9-year-old neighbor, by not providing him with a lawyer after he repeatedly requested one during his interrogation. The answer is yes, they did. A transcript of the March 17 interrogation Citrus County detectives conducted in Augusta, Ga., shows that when he was asked to take a polygraph test, Couey replied that he wanted a lawyer before doing so.

He did not get legal representation until he was brought back to Citrus County. By that time, authorities say, Couey had confessed to killing Jessica and had told detectives where they could find her body.

Because of that lapse, there is a very real concern that Couey's confession could be suppressed at trial. Citrus County Sheriff Jeff Dawsy and Assistant State Attorney Ric Ridgway are confident that the case against Couey is solid, with or without the confession. Ridgway cited legal explanations for why he thinks Couey's request may not be as clear-cut as it seems. Couey was only asking for a lawyer before deciding whether to take the polygraph, the prosecutor said, and investigators then stopped pressing that issue. However, they continued the interrogation. He also points out that the following day, Couey was in court in Georgia and waived his right to an attorney.

It is clear that a suspect in a criminal investigation chose to invoke his right to legal counsel and it was not immediately granted. The prosecutor may be technically correct that Couey's request was specific to the polygraph question, but that begs the question. Once a person makes such a request, law enforcement is bound, morally as well as legally, to halt the questioning and to arrange legal representation.

No matter how well-intentioned, detectives do not get to choose when to uphold this basic constitutional principle.