2011.06.03 Geraldo Rivera's statement on Fox & Friends

[mitzi]

Thanks for finding that. I was gonna go look after I finished reading the thread and I knew there was a decision and not much else.

The one thing that could come up on appeal is she wasn't read her Carmen Miranda rights;

You have the right to wear long dresses and a bowl of fruit on your head while you're dancing and singing.

Bold mine.

Oh gosh! I wonder if that is how that decomposing banana got in the trunk of KC's car!

 

[Steely Dan]

At least three times (that I counted) when they played the Universal tape the detective working with Melich said, "you brought us here because you want us to help find your daughter, right?" and "you want to be here because you want to help us find your daughter, right?". Every time, Casey confirms with "of course" or "absolutely" - they are there to get Casey's help in order to find her daughter.

Casey was given the chance to leave (and never had to go to Universal in the first place), she was given the chance to change her story and give true details to aid the investigation, she was not cuffed or placed under arrest. In her own words, Casey was there voluntarily as the mother of a missing child. No cuffs, no arrest, no Miranda warning necessary, imo.

Geraldo knows that his statement is bunk, imo. He just wants exposure and wants to support his friend Baez.. No integrity and no credible reputation left anyway, imo.

(Remember Capone's vault? What a rip. Remember his tell-all book where he bragged about all of the famous actresses he bagged - much to their chagrin... Pathetic)

Kurt Vonnegut Jr.'s daughter Edith was married to GR briefly and I seem to remember Vonnegut stating in an interview that if he ever runs into GR he'll punch him in the nose.

 

[nitasch]

I heard Geraldo state this on the O'Reilly show as well... he has a two stage disagreement with the prosecution (big shock since he was a defense atty)

One, he thinks they should have read her rights from the get go, he even stated that he would guarantee there would be an appeal granted because of the lack of miranda rights right off the bat.

Two, he believes the prosecution is over penalizing ICA by asking for the DP, since so many other mothers kill their children, but do not get put on trial for 1st degree murder.

He is JB's buddy... and he is a sensationalist.

What is so ridiculous is the fact that they complain that Yuri never gave ICA a chance to talk, to explain etc, they always considered her a suspect...but then again, they complain they did not consider her a suspect right off the bat and read her the miranda rights... it is a contridiction.. they gave her chances to help them, when she blew all those chances, then she was arrested, they will have no standing on the miranda issue.. unless the go to a whack job court of appeals...but they are not in the Ninth Circuit...so..
Just sayin.
IMO

 

[Kimster]

I'm going to preface this post by saying that 'Beach is going to cringe when she sees that I weighed in on a legal issue. :floorlaugh:

BUT HOLD THE HORSES HERE!

She was arrested for child negligence at that point. The murder charges aren't in jeopardy! Right? She wasn't charged for murder until later anyway. So what does it all matter?

And now I'll beam over to the lawyer Q & A thread and probably find my answer.

 

[Layla214]

I'm going to preface this post by saying that 'Beach is going to cringe when she sees that I weighed in on a legal issue. :floorlaugh:

BUT HOLD THE HORSES HERE!

She was arrested for child negligence at that point. The murder charges aren't in jeopardy! Right? She wasn't charged for murder until later anyway. So what does it all matter?

And now I'll beam over to the lawyer Q & A thread and probably find my answer.

No, it's not a charge-by-charge thing. The relevant fact is that she was involved in a criminal investigation, so the statement can't be used against her in a criminal case. I'm probably not explaining this well. Time to go to bed.

 

[Kimster]

No, it's not a charge-by-charge thing. The relevant fact is that she was involved in a criminal investigation, so the statement can't be used against her in a criminal case. I'm probably not explaining this well. Time to go to bed.

OH I see now. The tapes from Universal shouldn't have been shown, is what they are saying. Okay. See what I mean? 'Beach will be cringin' for sure!

<snicker>

 

[Kimster]

BUT WAIT!

I can see if they felt they couldn't use the tapes for the child negligence charges - that I can understand. But still, she wasn't arrested for murder then so I can't see why the tapes can't be used for a murder charge imposed much later.

 

[nitasch]

Just thought I'd offer a little "fair and balanced" reporting:

1. Geraldo is a joke.
2. HHJP is an excellent judge and rarely makes mistakes.
3. As to the Universal tape, I think HHJP made a mistake. I think Casey was "in custody" at that time, based on the extremely broad interpretation of that phrase by the Florida appellate courts, and she was clearly being accused of wrongdoing by the detectives.
4. It is possible that the Florida Supreme Court will overturn any conviction based on this mistake.
5. It is also possible that the Florida Supreme Court will say that the mistake (if they find it to have been a mistake) was harmless error because everything of significance in the Universal tape was also contained in the other written statements from Casey, witness recollections of Casey's statements, and jail visit videos.

I'm crossing my fingers for #5.

Thank your for you input, I have to disagree with your #3 however..
Casey stated countless times she was an employee at Universal, she further stated there was another phone that held all of the phone numbers for the reach out individuals that knew of ZFG and the situation. IMO, this was the only reasonable move, letting her prove or disprove her story, take her to Universal, let her PROVE there was at least ONE statement she made that was the truth.

She had been given numerous chances to come clean with some truth prior to Universal, and multiple times once at Universal.... she refused at every chance, she was then taken into custody.

this was a missing child case... they were all trying to elicit information on the whereabouts of this child... and they found nothing but dead ends from the information given, but they gave her every chance they could before they looked at her as a suspect in the case. In my mind this was good police work and her OWN words and actions at Universal gave them the grounds to consider her culpable.

 

[nitasch]

BUT WAIT!

I can see if they felt they couldn't use the tapes for the child negligence charges - that I can understand. But still, she wasn't arrested for murder then so I can't see why the tapes can't be used for a murder charge imposed much later.

Exactly!! She was arrested for child neglect, endangerment etc... NOT murder... these charges are in the indictment, she is on trial for these charges to this day, HHBP was looking at all the charges, not just the big one.

ETA I need to read the charges again to validate my statement above... i know they dropped the endangerment charges, but the obstucting justice still stands I believe, but then I am living off three hours sleep...hit my second wind..so I may be dillusional

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I'm just a measly third year law student but I am in complete agreement with AZ. It doesn't matter that they were trying to find an innocent child. Presumably LE are always trying to solve a crime when they are interrogating a suspect, so if their noble intentions were enough to bypass the Miranda requirement, there would be no need for the rule.

I desperately want Casey to be convicted as well, and am completely confident that she is guilty. But the Miranda requirement serves to protect our Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to be a witness against ourselves in a criminal case, whether you are guilty or innocent. Once a reasonable person would believe that they were in custody (i.e., that they had to answer, couldn't leave, among a bunch of other requirements), they must be advised of their right to remain silent, to be represented by a lawyer, etc. That doesn't mean that police can't interrogate people. It just means that once a person believes that they can no longer leave police custody, she needs to be informed of her rights. She can still talk after that if she chooses, and a parent who just wants to find her child will certainly do so. But if she ends up prosecuted, those statements can be used against her. All this is to say that a Miranda violation is most definitely grounds for overturning a case. Even though the defendant here is bad, the rule is good.
Again, all that said, I really really hope that she is convicted and that it sticks.

Also, I want to take this opportunity to say hello WS, and thank you for all you do! I have been lurking here regularly since Caylee was reported missing in 2008, but just recently registered, and this is my first post.

They told her the door is not locked and checked several times to make sure she would clarify that she was there of her own free will. They couldn't do much more than that.

 

[nitasch]

They told her the door is not locked and checked several times to make sure she would clarify that she was there of her own free will. They couldn't do much more than that.

Correct! It is on tape, she was asked if she was aware she was not in custody, she was able to leave, the door was only shut for privacy, not locked, she was willing to speak, and she agreed.

That is on tape in her own words, her voice.

 

[TxLady2]

Geraldo and JB are good buddies. JB needs the media spin and Geraldo needs something to sensationalize. Listening to the two of them is a waste . . . a huge waste.
:loser:

I couldn't have said it better myself. You rock!

Casey was not under arrest, and not a suspect because at that time they didn't know there was a crime committed. She was the mother of a missing child. Period.

 

[nitasch]

It is not if she could get up and leave at any time. It is based on if she felt she was free to walk out at any time. Would a reasonable person feel that they could refuse to talk to the police and walk out of that conference room when they arrived in the back of the police car?

Also, the Fourth requirement for Miranda is if the statements were made in response to police conduct that constituted an interrogation. In Rhode Island v. Innis the Supreme Court defined interrogation as express questioning and "any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect."

Again, I don't know why the Judge ruled the way he did but I am very surprised that was allowed in.

Let's dive into what was stated on this tape... ICA agreed to the fact she was free to leave, she admitted BEFORE being in this room with scary police type men, that she had led them to this location trying to convince them they were going to find further evidence of the whereabouts of her missing daughter.

Once in the room with the spooky officers, she still stuck to the original story that she did not know where her daughter was, and repeated the original statement of the mystery Nanny, and was very forceful in her stance! After all, she was speaking freely, because her interest was to help them find her daughter, in a backward sort of way (in her words).

She was not detained, was free to leave, they made that clear on the tape, made it clear she was free to leave, she agreed, AND she was given the chance to come clean without prejudice, once again multiple times. I see no problem with the admission of this tape if brought up on appeal...

 

[nitasch]

IChump: the fact that they were taping it....I do think they knew they were going to mke her a suspect. Most people dont know they have a right to stop answering and ask for an attorney.
They arrested her that night but I think it was on the check charges?
Cant remember!

Detective Melich recorded the first interview he had with ICA... fresh on the case with limited knowledge of the case. He was looking for a missing child, ICA'a child, and was asking the mother questions about her original written statement in the first recording.

They did arrest her July 16 but not for "check charges"

I disagree with your statement that "most people dont know they have the right to stop answering and ask for an attorney" Oh yes they do... they have for a long time now.

 

[RR0004]

It is not if she could get up and leave at any time. It is based on if she felt she was free to walk out at any time. Would a reasonable person feel that they could refuse to talk to the police and walk out of that conference room when they arrived in the back of the police car?

Also, the Fourth requirement for Miranda is if the statements were made in response to police conduct that constituted an interrogation. In Rhode Island v. Innis the Supreme Court defined interrogation as express questioning and "any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect."

Again, I don't know why the Judge ruled the way he did but I am very surprised that was allowed in.

BBM- Casey brought the police to Universal. She went with them of her own free will. Obviously she did not fear the police as she continued telling them lies. As Yuri pointed out, he could not fathom the mother of a missing child lying to the people who could help her. JMHO

 

[Zoe Bogart]

At least three times (that I counted) when they played the Universal tape the detective working with Melich said, "you brought us here because you want us to help find your daughter, right?" and "you want to be here because you want to help us find your daughter, right?". Every time, Casey confirms with "of course" or "absolutely" - they are there to get Casey's help in order to find her daughter.

Casey was given the chance to leave (and never had to go to Universal in the first place), she was given the chance to change her story and give true details to aid the investigation, she was not cuffed or placed under arrest. In her own words, Casey was there voluntarily as the mother of a missing child. No cuffs, no arrest, no Miranda warning necessary, imo.

Geraldo knows that his statement is bunk, imo. He just wants exposure and wants to support his friend Baez.. No integrity and no credible reputation left anyway, imo.

(Remember Capone's vault? What a rip. Remember his tell-all book where he bragged about all of the famous actresses he bagged - much to their chagrin... Pathetic)

Yes, that's how it sounds to me, too. They were trying to get information from her regarding her missing child. Didn't they even say the door was closed for privacy but not locked. Casey was leading them, not the other way around. She had no idea they wouldn't believe her story, after all, up until that time, the whole world believed her lies since she learned the art of lying years prior.

I think the detectives were just trying to get the truth. After lie after lie after lie, they'd had it. Even taking her to the police station after leaving Universal didn't convince her to tell the truth, which is what I believe the detectives were hoping would happen. Maybe they thought once at the Sheriff's office, she would finally come clean and say, "I'm hiding her from my overbearing, controlling, hateful mother, and I'm afraid if I admit this to the family, my mother will try to take my daughter away. I just can't bring her back into that house. Come on, I'll take you to her so you;ll know she's alright."

Of course, this version would have been more believable if Casey had packed their things and left nothing of Casey's or Caylee's in the house. At the time, LE were just trying to get her to bring them to the child.

IF LE did anything wrong, I think they were just in shock dealing with the most unusual Casey Anthony. Even HHJS said she and the truth are strangers. :banghead:

 

[Zoe Bogart]

It is not if she could get up and leave at any time. It is based on if she felt she was free to walk out at any time. Would a reasonable person feel that they could refuse to talk to the police and walk out of that conference room when they arrived in the back of the police car?

Hmmm, I thought the detectives said Casey rode in the front seat, passenger side. :waitasec: I know they said she was in the back seat when they took the moonlight ride to Sawgrass.

I think the key here, though, is "reasonable person", which we know Casey isn't. She may not have thought about walking out of that room because her mind was so busy adding details to her fake story. :innocent:

I'm not willing to blame the detectives and neither did Judge Perry. This was an most unusual situation. Absolutely. What does Geraldo know about it, anyway, legal wizard that he is?

 

[LaLaw2000]

I saw F&F yesterday morning and heard Geraldo say what he said. I am disgusted by him and all of the other so-called talking heads who make comments when they do not even know the smallest details of this case. They do not read all of the discovery or the motions before rendering their opinions. I am pretty sure that Geraldo has let Baez comments color his thougts on this whole case.

That said; as long as Casey was willing to prance around Universal with LE, or anywhere else for that matter, it was of her own free will. I think Geraldo is wrong (when is he not?) and Caseys' conviction will not be overturned or thrown out on this basis. JMO, and just my two cents worth.

I will take what Judge Perry rules and his reasons for ruling over anyone elses opinion.

JMO

 

[larryphx]

Geraldo is a joke, when I see his name I think whatever it is.. IT IS made up. Just like when he could't find Al Capone's safe 200 years ago. I wonder how he got hired at Fox.

 

[Concerned Papa]

~Respectfully Snipped~

It is not if she could get up and leave at any time. It is based on if she felt she was free to walk out at any time. Would a reasonable person feel that they could refuse to talk to the police and walk out of that conference room when they arrived in the back of the police car?

BBM

-If this person was not placed in handcuffs

-If this person clearly stated they wanted to talk with LE to help their investigation

-If this person was given the chance to leave

-If this person acknowledged they were free to leave

-If this person was told the conference room door was closed only for privacy and was not locked

Only an UNREASONABLE person would later attempt a claim of ignorance of being free to walk out at any time, whether their arrival was in the front seat, back seat, or on the hood of the police car.