2011.06.03 Geraldo Rivera's statement on Fox & Friends

[katydid23]

You're completely correct. HHJP let the Universal interview in and the jury has already heard it.What is in question now is any appellate issues.

And from what I understand, the main appellate issue becomes ' would the jury have voted differently ' if the statement was not allowed into evidence. And it was said earlier in the verified lawyers thread that there was nothing in that interview that did not come out in other interviews and statements as well. So that should save the verdict, imo.

 

[Steely Dan]

If Baez is holding back any meaningful discovery he's in big trouble. At the most it maybe something like another crazy theory.How about aliens with henkel duct tape.

BBM

Leave Kimster out of this! :snooty:

I just listened and Yuri states that the door is unlocked not that she is free to leave. Sorry it's just the way Azlawyer said.

If I was being asked questions by LE and they told me the door is unlocked, that would mean to me that I am free to go. :dunno:

I agree with you Kimster. But AZlawyer has an issue with the universal interview. Apparently it must be the wording "The door is unlocked but closed for privacy" verses " You are free to go".See post #69 on this thread.

It's a question of semantics, IMO. I think if that was the only statement made they'd be in big trouble but look at yllek's post below.

At the start of the interview, Melich says the door is shut but not locked; for privacy. Before he gets too far into the interview (first minute or two), Sgt Allen makes sure to confirm that this is purely voluntary on Casey's part; several times. He also confirms with her that she is there because she asked for help in finding her daughter. I am not a lawyer, but this is the same as saying "you're free to go". She's there because she took them there and she "absolutely" agrees she is there voluntarily. JMO.

From Interview Transcript:

(SERGEANT ALLEN)
Q Hold.. hold on I want to ask you something.
A Yes sir.
Q: Like he said you, you seem like a pretty bright person okay. You’re here willingly, right?
A Uh-huh. (Affirmative)
Q You’re here ‘cause you want, you’re here to try help, right?
A Oh absolutely.
Q Your whole reason for talking to us is, is to try to help, right?
A Uh-huh. (Affirmative)
Q Nobody’s forced you to talk to us, right?
A No.
Q You, you want us, you want us to... you’re here because you called, you want us to help find your daughter, right?
A Uh-huh. (Affirmative)

Full Transcript:
http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-tampa-bay/casey-anthony-interview-tapes-video

BBM

That saves their bacon. I don't see how it could be construed that she was there voluntarily and not under arrest. JMO

Heeeeee's Back! Geraldo is on right now and is sayin' that Baez is the New Johnnie Cochran.:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Is that supposed to be a compliment?

Well, Geraldo seems to believe the absence of Miranda will ultimately set Casey free.......

Not all his guests agree with him.

Good.

And from what I understand, the main appellate issue becomes ' would the jury have voted differently ' if the statement was not allowed into evidence. And it was said earlier in the verified lawyers thread that there was nothing in that interview that did not come out in other interviews and statements as well. So that should save the verdict, imo.

I think you're right about that.

 

[cluciano63]

My only question about Miranda is, even if a person is not the only suspect, if LE suspects them of a crime of some sort, they would still need to read them their rights, wouldn't they? I mean, if LE knew she was lying to them, that is a crime in itself, isn't it, lying to the police? And clearly they did know she was lying, since she did not work where she took them, etc...impeding an investigation, etc.

 

[RANCH]

And from what I understand, the main appellate issue becomes ' would the jury have voted differently ' if the statement was not allowed into evidence. And it was said earlier in the verified lawyers thread that there was nothing in that interview that did not come out in other interviews and statements as well. So that should save the verdict, imo.

I agree. No harm, no foul. And just because something is brought up on appeal doesn't mean it will be affirmed.

 

[katydid23]

I understand that the question now is any appellate issue that arises. The song remains the same though. The appellate court will use the same controlling authority that HHJBP used in making the decision to allow this interview in. They will evaluate whether she was in custody using the same four-prong test set out in Ramirez v State. I trust they'll intepret it the way that HHJBP did and not overturn the conviction. If it becomes an error, I don't think for a minute it will be a reversable error. She didn't make any admissions/statements in the Universal interview that she hadn't made previously.

My only question about Miranda is, even if a person is not the only suspect, if LE suspects them of a crime of some sort, they would still need to read them their rights, wouldn't they? I mean, if LE knew she was lying to them, that is a crime in itself, isn't it, lying to the police? And clearly they did know she was lying, since she did not work where she took them, etc...impeding an investigation, etc.

I think they walk a fine line because they do not want to read Mirandas to everyone they interview in early investigations of a crime because they would shut down ALL info from coming in. Let's say homicide detectives are interviewing the witness to a murder. They figure out it was a drug deal gone wrong and the witness was involved in the deal. They do not care about the dope deal at that point, they just want to know who came in and began shooting. The witness is claiming it was an intruder so the cops are going to
ignore the drug situation and try to get info on the shooter. If they find out later on that the witness was lying and was the one who robbed his friend, then is it wrong they did not Mirandize if they did not know?

And I find it laughable that Geraldo and friends are all crying about Casey's 'constitutional rights' being violated. IMO she was treated quite fairly and nicely. She was sending them on wild goose chases, blatantly lying in their faces, wasting lost of time and money, when all they were initially trying to do was find her child. It is pathetic imo.

 

[Steely Dan]

My only question about Miranda is, even if a person is not the only suspect, if LE suspects them of a crime of some sort, they would still need to read them their rights, wouldn't they? I mean, if LE knew she was lying to them, that is a crime in itself, isn't it, lying to the police? And clearly they did know she was lying, since she did not work where she took them, etc...impeding an investigation, etc.

It seems to me that JB is saying this with his thoughts on her not being Mirandized that; It's obvious my client's lying to the police so she should be Mirandized before questioning. Then he says the police focused on his client from the beginning? :waitasec: :banghead: :loser:

 

[RANCH]

It seems to me that JB is saying this with his thoughts on her not being Mirandized that; It's obvious my client's lying to the police so she should be Mirandized before questioning. Then he says the police focused on his client from the beginning? :waitasec: :banghead: :loser:

He sure does like it both ways doesn't he?

 

[mck16]

All cases where the defendant is found guilty are appealed. If they use the miranda rule for their appeal, I think it is scary that you have a supreme court justice agreeing. And unless I misunderstood the judge last night he too thinks her rights were violated. But, I would also think the judge should not have given and opinion on GR's show last night. That fact surely violates something. jmo

 

[newshound6]

First of all it's not like the cops got any useful info. from KC at all or some coerced confession- the only real value of that recording was for the jury to hear the real KC in action.I do wish they would have Mirandized her though,at that point she was still so cocky and full of herself I'm sure she would have acted the exact same way and said the same things.

 

[grandmaj]

Casey was taken to a police vehicle and was going over pictures on the police computer trying to pick out Zanny. This is in the parking lot of Universal after they left the room where the interview occurred. They were still following up on the Zanny talk at that point. Time will tell on this but it appears that there was a good cop/bad cop thing going on and it wasn't until they got to the police station where she was admitted as a guest, that the arrest occurred after more lies.

 

[Tuffy]

I'm still laughing at the idea that some think she was harshly interrogated in the conference room. I thought the detectives seemed very parent-like in the way they dealt with her.

 

[mck16]

I'm still laughing at the idea that some think she was harshly interrogated in the conference room. I thought the detectives seemed very parent-like in the way they dealt with her.

I think she deserved to be interrogated with some enthusiasm that is for sure, but my parents never talked to me that way. Course I never had a child disappear and not report it for 31 days, nor did I ever lie like she obviously did. So, guess I agree with you. ty

 

[Tuffy]

I think she deserved to be interrogated with some enthusiasm that is for sure, but my parents never talked to me that way. Course I never had a child disappear and not report it for 31 days, nor did I ever lie like she obviously did. So, guess I agree with you. ty

I guess I related them to a parent because my parents would be angriest with me when I would try to lie to get out of getting in trouble. Obviously, nothing as serious as a missing child, though. They tried to explain to her that she needed to do the right thing, and tell them where she was. Just didn't seem to harsh for what she had already put the detectives through. They were trying to help her find her missing daughter, and she was sending them on wild goose chases. She had basically been thumbing her nose at them, when everyone in the room (including Casey) already knew the nanny story was bogus.

 

[mck16]

I guess I related them to a parent because my parents would be angriest with me when I would try to lie to get out of getting in trouble. Obviously, nothing as serious as a missing child, though. They tried to explain to her that she needed to do the right thing, and tell them where she was. Just didn't seem to harsh for what she had already put the detectives through. They were trying to help her find her missing daughter, and she was sending them on wild goose chases. She had basically been thumbing her nose at them, when everyone in the room (including Casey) already knew the nanny story was bogus.

And wasn't it in the wee hours of the morning? Or was that when they went to the apts.? But, I totally agree with you. Also I watch 48 Hours alot and they always question them before they arrest them. I don't think I have ever heard them mirandize them until they do arrest them. When did they handcuff her? I think that is when her rights should have been read to her.tia

 

[ChasingMoxie]

During the motions hearing, JB argued that LE led ICA through Universal Studios in perceived custody, and that she was just a tiny little victim scared of big bad LE pushing her around. In the trial this week, he argued just the opposite: that ICA led LE through Universal purposefully and with intention, knowing exactly where she was going and calling the shots.

It would seem that if their plan was to cry foul over the Universal visit, they might at least try to get their story straight.

 

[Whome?]

Alan Dershowitz says very strong case for appeal for lack of miranda rights read. Says this is a gift from the state.
GR says if you are in police car you are technically under arrest.
Lawyers fighting about this. Some say she is sick in the head and should have been read miranda. Other Lawyers disagreeing. Sheriff Nick ?? says she is guilty but she is intitled to have been read rights, Thinks DF has created doubts but he believes if she is found guilty it will be appealed.

I have a question for you guys. :waitasec: When the detectives were questioning ICA,would the fact that there was a missing child who may very well have been in danger,(kidnapping,sale of child,murder of child,child some where being held) have justified the fact that they question her the way they did, and would not the safety of that child have in that situation "trumped" her getting Miranda at that moment.? :waitasec:

 

[Tuffy]

And wasn't it in the wee hours of the morning? Or was that when they went to the apts.? But, I totally agree with you. Also I watch 48 Hours alot and they always question them before they arrest them. I don't think I have ever heard them mirandize them until they do arrest them. When did they handcuff her? I think that is when her rights should have been read to her.tia

This was during the day, correct? But they did not arrest her then. They gave her a ride back home, I believe. When Casey went back to the detective's car, he had the DAVE database open, and was having Casey look through pictures of ZFGs that might be Casey's nanny.

ETA- no, the police don't need to Mirandize you until you are under arrest.

 

[Layla214]

I have a question for you guys. :waitasec: When the detectives were questioning ICA,would the fact that there was a missing child who may very well have been in danger,(kidnapping,sale of child,murder of child,child some where being held) have justified the fact that they question her the way they did, and would not the safety of that child have in that situation "trumped" her getting Miranda at that moment.? :waitasec:

The problem isn't that they questioned her harshly - of course they were morally justified in questioning her harshly, but if they were going to use the statements she made in the criminal case against her, then they should have Mirandized her. The Miranda rule doesn't keep the police from interrogating anybody, it just prevents the prosecution from using the information gained from an in-custody questioning if the suspect was not informed of her rights. A non-Mirandized, custodial statement cannot be used against the defendant in a criminal case (it doesn't matter that they didn't know it was a murder case yet). The question here is whether the statement was custodial - HHJP said no, and I agree by a slim margin but it's a really close call.

And no, the fact that there was a missing child doesn't make any difference with reference to the Miranda requirement. Your constitutional rights remain in tact no matter what. I stated this earlier, but if your rights could be abrogated every time there was an emergency, then they would be pretty flimsy rights. I'm not sure that this will be successful on appeal, especially since it's not very important evidence. But it's a close enough call that I wouldn't have used those statements if I were the prosecution, especially since it's not very important evidence.

 

[yllek]

Lots of great posts and perspectives to ponder...

Imo, the Universal audio tape was a very important piece of evidence for the state. Important in terms of timing and case building for the jury. Learning of no nanny, not informing police, lying to friends and family, watching hours of mom shopping and seeing photos of mom partying when she knew her baby was dead, hearing Cindy's 911 calls as she learns about decomp car and Caylee missing... The state has layed out the story well, sequential piece by piece...

To me, hearing Casey lie and lie over and over to the detectives at Universal when finally there were dedicated professionals desperate to help her find her supposedly missing child (and protect Casey, if needed), was the final nail in the coffin of doubt. Any doubt that this mom was lying because she was afraid of her parents and she was "ugly coping" with her friends may have also flown out the window for jurors when they heard Casey fearlessly and effortlessly lying to 3 seasoned detectives,(at the scene of her non-existent job) in her attempt to impede the investigation. There is simply no rational reason for that other than guilt and desperation to save her own azz, imo.

Highly damning and significant piece of evidence, imo... If I hadn't heard that tape before being shown the jaihouse visits and after seeing the shopping sprees, I don't think the incriminating significance of each piece would have been as clear. JMO, MOO...

 

[Jollyroger]

My understanding was that if someone were not properly Mirandized, that their testimony could not be entered as evidence. If that's the case with the interrogation at Universal, then that tape should not have been allowed but SHE DID NOT REVEAL ANYTHING IN THAT TAPE that provided evidence that she was guilty of murder. She just repeated the same lies she had told the dispatcher on the phone and those she told to the cops at hear house.

While it is nice to have her lie on the interrogation tape, there is a plethora of other evidence showing her lies, the smell of death, her bizarre actions after Caylee's death, etc. to show she is guility.