southsleuth
New Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,095
- Reaction score
- 17
Thanks for your insight on hiring an attorney. I agree. My "thanks" button is goofed up.
Doesn't it all depend on how the fund was created? In other words, if the fund is for the searches, can the parents use it for a defense attorney? I would think the community (donors) would be really angry if that happened.
I respectfully disagree. If I was a suspect in a crime that I did not commit, or was being aggressively investigated as a possible suspect, I would RUN to get an attorney, to protect myself and if the investigation was about my child, then even more so because I would need that professional to get me cleared so that my child could be found. Even the smartest among us do not comprehend the ins and outs of investigative training, and can get caught up on technicalities that an attorney would know how to avoid or handle. Especially being a minority in the south, if an officer looks at me funny I would get an attorney. Sorry, it's really my strong opinion.
OT: In the event that I can't log-in or have trouble getting WS to load - took several tries this morning - I want to wish everyone here Happy Mother's Day. Whether you are a mom, grandmother, aunt, cat-mom, dog-mom, I hope you share a magical day with your family and friends.
Now, I will play catch-up on overnight posts and this new thread.
I see no reason for innocent parents of missing children to need criiminal defense attorneys. In every case I've seen, the criminal defense attorneys tell the parents to not talk and if they do, they will only answer certain questions approved by them.
The Criminal defense attorneys put a stop to LE getting the truth out and finding the baby. The attorneys are not interested in finding the child but are very much interested in keeping the parents quiet.
If you all want to start on the Constitutional Rights again, have at it. Personally, my thoughts on finding the child trump the darn rights of the parents and their need for a criminal defense attorney. This card has been over played by many a parent in the search for their child.
So what is the alternative? Do you suggest people should not have a right to defend themselves, I know it is an unpopular belief but if the police, who happen to have UNLIMITED RESOURCES AT THEIR DISPOSAL with which to prove a case, cant prove a case with those UNLIMITED RESOURCES then the accused should walk, it really doesnt matter in our system of jurisprudence if a person is guilty or not, ALL THAT MATTERS is whether the state can prove it and if they cannot then the accused should walk free, that is the only way to protect the rights of those who are falsely accused and to prevent this country from becoming a police state where you can have your doors kicked in be thrown in prison and never get a chance to defend yourself. Does this mean some really ****** people are going to get away with doing some very bad things, like Casey for example? Yes it does, but it also means that those who are WRONGFULLY ACCUSED stand a better chance of not being WRONGFULLY IMPRISONED and I dont know about you but I cant think of anything worse than an innocent person being taken away from their loved ones and locked up in a cage like an animal for something they did not do, SO IF IT MEANS that TEN GUILTY have to walk free to ENSURE that one innocent person is not wrongfully convicted, then yea, I will take it. In the case of Casey for example, I think she was guilty, I do NOT think the state proved first degree murder and therefore I had no real problem with the verdict, it sucks but the safeguards that we have to prevent the innocent from going to prison ARE IMPORTANT and unfortunately sometimes those safeguards will bite us in the *advertiser censored* and allow some really bad people's actions to go unpunished. I have studied the law all of my life and I have yet to find a better system anywhere. It has its flaws but it is the best man has thought up at this time.
If the state cant prove guilt then so be it that is just the way it is and I have no problem with that and if you are ever wrongfully accused I would suggest you wont either.
I honestly don't know how they go about setting the collection of money so I can't say for sure if it could be done. If they are able to switch, I would think the community would be upset too.
I guess I want to know what searches are being done now? Does anyone know? Have they contacted TES and is that why they need all this money for searches? What about volunteer searches? What type of monetary resources are needed for those? I always thought that the community comes together to do those.
Sorry if these questions have already been answered. I keep wondering about the searches. I'm not hearing much about them, just that they doing fundraisers for them.
If Sergio doesn't have an attorney by now, then maybe he is innocent. I think if ever there's a time to get an attorney, now might be it for Sergio. If I were denied all contact with my children, I'd definitely get an attorney.
By the way, Happy Mother's Day, everyone!
Sergio mentioned in a media interview that he worked in a dental surgical facility. I searched AZ dental licensing site and found nothing to indicate that Sergio is licensed in any dental field.
I believe he is an assistant in an oral surgery office.
ETA: No license needed, at least when I worked at that same job. I just had to know what I was doing.
Is it just me or is WS sssslllllooooowwwwww!?
Is it just me or is WS sssslllllooooowwwwww!?
A dental hygenist i believe......thats what i read, it is stated on thread one i just read it.