GUILTY CA - Leila Fowler, 8, murdered, 12yo charged, Valley Springs, 27 Apr 2013 - #3

[michmi]

I'm sorry, but the custody issue bothers me so much.

The family dynamic bothers me also, it's obvious it's very complicated and at times ugly between the adults. I suspect the children have been exposed to adult problems when they didn't need to be also.

While the majority of kids can withstand the upheaval of parental splits and new boyfriends and girlfriends, creating new families, etc., there are a few kids who already have problems and just can't tolerate it.

 

[Chewy]

I want to explain a few things in light of people thinking IF must have professionally cleaned up or LE would have arrested him on the spot because to do otherwise would be to leave a dangerous killer in the home.

First, the police may know immediately that a person likely did it and could pose a danger. However, without probable cause to issue an arrest warrant, they cannot arrest them, no matter how dangerous that person may seem to them. And in this case, that could mean that the boy explained why he was covered in blood and that they needed a blood spatter expert to analyze clothes, for example. That could also mean that there was no, visible blood and the boy said he did not go near the body, but then they found a spot or two on clothes discarded in his room, or on his person, and sent it to be tested to see if it was Leila's. And BTW, it is possible for someone to stab another to death and not have more than a few drops of blood on them. It just is.

Second, even with probable cause, the district attorney may not authorize and arrest right away for fear the case lacks sufficient evidence for a conviction. (I think that has happened in Kyron Horman's case). Thus, in this case, the independent witness making a contradictory statement may have put a wrench in the plan to arrest, especially without overwhelming physical evidence or a confession. That's because the speedy trial right clock begins ticking right after an arrest.

Oh and those who claim he must have cuts on his hands due to stabbing someone to death are just wrong. That can happen and but it is not a requirement. Take the case of 13 year old Billy Keenan who stabbed two neighbor girls to death. He had no cuts, (although he did have some blood spatter on his jeans - not huge piles of blood all over himself as some think is necessary, BTW, just a bit of blood spatter on his jeans). Loss of Innocence: A True Story of Juvenile Murder: Eric J. Adams: 9780380759873: Amazon.com: Books

I think that in this case there was blood evidence but they needed an expert to analyze it. I think that the neighbor's statement caused a huge delay in an arrest. I think the lack of a confession right away also slowed things down.

I do not assume this kid was a cool and calculating murderer with sophistication beyond his years who easily hid evidence and hid his involvement. I think there was enough there that they knew he was the one but not enough to arrest and/or for the prosecutor to authorize an arrest. I also think he has now confessed.

This is all very true and interesting. But the reason it doesn't make sense to me is that if this were true in this case they would have charged him once they got the information they needed to arrest him.

As I posted earlier, I've watched crime shows (true life like dateline) and in many cases, even though they only have circumstantial evidence the detectives will push ahead and go ahead and make the arrest in the hopes that once confronted with jail, the person will crack.

The father has stated they have not presented him with evidence. I know they don't have to reveal everything but it seems to me they wouldn't put the parents through this kind of doubt if they had solid evidence that the kid did it, especially not after losing their other child.

So it gives me pause.

 

[Cappuccino]

This is all very true and interesting. But the reason it doesn't make sense to me is that if this were true in this case they would have charged him once they got the information they needed to arrest him.

As I posted earlier, I've watched crime shows (true life like dateline) and in many cases, even though they only have circumstantial evidence the detectives will push ahead and go ahead and make the arrest in the hopes that once confronted with jail, the person will crack.

The father has stated they have not presented him with evidence. I know they don't have to reveal everything but it seems to me they wouldn't put the parents through this kind of doubt if they had solid evidence that the kid did it, especially not after losing their other child.

So it gives me pause.

BBM. They do that with 12 year olds?

I think the neighbour may have delayed the arrest by pretending to see something she didn't. The local police are surely aware of the mistakes made in the Michael Crowe case, and presumably didn't want to repeat them.

 

[shiloh42]

Anne Perry killed her friend's mother at the age of 17, and went on to become an award winning, best selling author. Pauline Parker, the daughter of the victim, similarly went on to live a good life filled with charitable works.

Underage killers do not fit into any mold.

 

[Chewy]

I would think they would especially do it with a 12 year old if they are sure he's involved but know there is more to the story. That's how it looks to me anyway, they are trying to crack the weaker one involved.

I just can't imagine leaving his parents wondering like this, it's a horrible position for them to be in right now so they absolutely IMO would tell them if they had rock solid proof that he did it.

 

[Cappuccino]

Anne Perry killed her friend's mother at the age of 17, and went on to become an award winning, best selling author. Pauline Parker, the daughter of the victim, similarly went on to live a good life filled with charitable works.

Underage killers do not fit into any mold.

As a general rule, it seems that the younger they're caught, the better the chance for rehabilitation. But as with everything there can be exceptions to the rule.

 

[Helenstreet]

I would think they would especially do it with a 12 year old if they are sure he's involved but know there is more to the story. That's how it looks to me anyway, they are trying to crack the weaker one involved.

I just can't imagine leaving his parents wondering like this, it's a horrible position for them to be in right now so they absolutely IMO would tell them if they had rock solid proof that he did it.

I believe that it is important to note that although the article today mentioned that the father doesn't believe in his son's guilt without knowing the evidence, (paraphrased by me), BF made that statement yesterday--before the family press conference was cancelled. We do not know if the family's perspective has changed since yesterday. It is possible that law enforced has provided the parents with compelling information since yesterday.

 

[Elainera]

I would think they would especially do it with a 12 year old if they are sure he's involved but know there is more to the story. That's how it looks to me anyway, they are trying to crack the weaker one involved.

I just can't imagine leaving his parents wondering like this, it's a horrible position for them to be in right now so they absolutely IMO would tell them if they had rock solid proof that he did it.

bbm - so who would be the stronger one in this hypothetical scenario? Surely not the parents. I can't imagine they would let their son take the fall alone for something they (or one of them) helped with.

And wasn't the whole family at the game anyway?

An outside person after all?

All moo and pure speculation!

 

[latenightRN]

When I first read about this, I thought the brother probably did it....but then I thought maybe I was just being too jaded. Turns out to be true....a sad truth about our society today and the violence everywhere. janine

 

[gitana1]

If a family member is involved it also has to be difficult to consider whether the blood was on the family member from trying to help the victim, holding their body, or if they were actually involved in the crime itself.

It would take much more in depth analysis to determine the difference, if possible.

I'm sorry, but the custody issue bothers me so much. I don't know how far apart the bio mom lived or what was going on, but if she would have been watching them instead of them being left home alone........I know I shouldn't be saying this and I am really not blaming anyone because I don't know the circumstances. It's just in my thoughts.

It bothers me a lot too. I think there was a ton of stuff going on in that household that may have contributed to what this kid did.

This is all very true and interesting. But the reason it doesn't make sense to me is that if this were true in this case they would have charged him once they got the information they needed to arrest him.

As I posted earlier, I've watched crime shows (true life like dateline) and in many cases, even though they only have circumstantial evidence the detectives will push ahead and go ahead and make the arrest in the hopes that once confronted with jail, the person will crack.

The father has stated they have not presented him with evidence. I know they don't have to reveal everything but it seems to me they wouldn't put the parents through this kind of doubt if they had solid evidence that the kid did it, especially not after losing their other child.

So it gives me pause.

I don't follow you. They arrested this kid relatively quickly -18 days after the murder. Maybe that's how long it took to get a blood spatter analysis or DNA evidence done. Maybe that's how long it took to get a confession. Maybe that's also how long they needed to eliminate the false lead given by the neighbor.

I love ya', but true crime t.v. is not reality. All I can tell you is how the law works in real life - not edited tv programs. You need probable cause for an arrest but even then, the district attorney may not authorize the arrest without more than probable cause because the speedy trial clock begins ticking the moment a person is arrested.

Further, they had the luxury of questioning this boy repeatedly, without need to give him a Miranda warning or tip him or his family off that they were onto him, simply because he was the sole "witness" to the murder. So they had that luxury and could keep getting contradictory statements or incriminating statements from him until they had enough for an arrest. Finally, conducting an arrest as a technique to force a confession is very dangerous, because again, the speedy trial clock starts ticking the moment there is an arrest. They would have to have at least probable cause and they wouldn't want to risk arresting someone and not getting the confession, because that means they would have to release them.

Instead, they arrest with probable cause and hope that the pressure of the arrest leads to more evidence, in the form of a confession or otherwise incriminating statements. Often it does. But they have to have probable cause to begin with.

And again, this case is far different. They didn't need an arrest as an excuse to talk to the suspect. In fact, they were able to talk to this suspect repeatedly, without a lawyer because his family viewed him as a collateral victim with information - not as a possible perp.

And given the outrage the community would feel if they arrested him on probable cause but then released him because they couldn't get a confession and thus didn't have enough to bring it to trial? No way would that be happening here.

Finally, I'm not sure what you mean about charging him once they got enough evidence to arrest him. Are you suggesting they don't have probable cause? They have 48 hours, not including weekends and holidays, to charge him after an arrest. So they have until late Wednesday to charge him (he was arrested late Saturday on the weekend). There is no reason that they have to do so earlier and they may be weighing options about what besides murder to charge him with.

I suspect he will be charged today or early tomorrow.

 

[Linda7NJ]

It bothers me a lot too. I think there was a ton of stuff going on in that household that may have contributed to what this kid did.



I don't follow you. They arrested this kid relatively quickly -18 days after the murder. Maybe that's how long it took to get a blood spatter analysis or DNA evidence done. Maybe that's how long it took to get a confession. Maybe that's also how long they needed to eliminate the false lead given by the neighbor.

I love ya', but true crime t.v. is not reality. All I can tell you is how the law works in real life - not edited tv programs. You need probable cause for an arrest but even then, the district attorney may not authorize the arrest without more than probable cause because the speedy trial clock begins ticking the moment a person is arrested.

Further, they had the luxury of questioning this boy repeatedly, without need to give him a Miranda warning or tip him or his family off that they were onto him, simply because he was the sole "witness" to the murder. So they had that luxury and could keep getting contradictory statements or incriminating statements from him until they had enough for an arrest. Finally, conducting an arrest as a technique to force a confession is very dangerous, because again, the speedy trial clock starts ticking the moment there is an arrest. They would have to have at least probable cause and they wouldn't want to risk arresting someone and not getting the confession, because that means they would have to release them.

Instead, they arrest with probable cause and hope that the pressure of the arrest leads to more evidence, in the form of a confession or otherwise incriminating statements. Often it does. But they have to have probable cause to begin with.

And again, this case is far different. They didn't need an arrest as an excuse to talk to the suspect. In fact, they were able to talk to this suspect repeatedly, without a lawyer because his family viewed him as a collateral victim with information - not as a possible perp.

And given the outrage the community would feel if they arrested him on probable cause but then released him because they couldn't get a confession and thus didn't have enough to bring it to trial? No way would that be happening here.

Finally, I'm not sure what you mean about charging him once they got enough evidence to arrest him. Are you suggesting they don't have probable cause? They have 48 hours, not including weekends and holidays, to charge him after an arrest. So they have until late Wednesday to charge him he was arrested late Saturday on the weekend). There is no reason that they have to do so earlier and they may be weighing options about what besides murder to charge him with.

I suspect he will be charged today or early tomorrow.

No one knows what was going on in that house, to say there was a ton...assumes a tad too much. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chewy]

It bothers me a lot too. I think there was a ton of stuff going on in that household that may have contributed to what this kid did.



I don't follow you. They arrested this kid relatively quickly -18 days after the murder. Maybe that's how long it took to get a blood spatter analysis or DNA evidence done. Maybe that's how long it took to get a confession. Maybe that's also how long they needed to eliminate the false lead given by the neighbor.

Exactly, why haven't they CHARGED HIM? If they needed this time to nail it down then once it was nailed down they should have arrested him and charged him.

I love ya', but true crime t.v. is not reality. All I can tell you is how the law works in real life - not edited tv programs. You need probable cause for an arrest but even then, the district attorney may not authorize the arrest without more than probable cause because the speedy trial clock begins ticking the moment a person is arrested.

Exactly, I'm saying the same thing you are saying. If they had the evidence to know with certainty that he did it, they would have CHARGED HIM. They haven't done that, only arrested him. I think they are investigating to see if he will break. And these tv crime shows that interview people, show their interrogations and demonstrate WHY they took the risk is usually to push one person to turn on the other. It IS reality, it's exactly how it's done in real life. It's a risk but it works.

Plenty of people have been arrested on circumstantial evidence and convicted that way. If they can't prove it then they can't prove it.

They obviously know and have some reason.

The part you seem to be missing is why they would put his parents through this torture of having to support their son when he murdered his sister and allow them to make statements about his innocence, if they had proof? They don't need to tell the public in order to tell the parents and prevent them from humiliating themselves with public statements. They have suffered through the death of their child. If they had something solid I would imagine they would tell them.



As to the rest of it, I think you are saying the same thing I am saying. The fact that they haven't charged him means they are waiting for something. He's either going to confess, which if they have already arrested him and he's a minor I doubt the parents are going to go for that. OR they are hoping for more information.

We shall see, but I doubt he's the only one involved because of the neighbor's testimony about seeing the guy. I just can't imagine why someone would give a matching description to the guy he saw when the person doesn't exist.

 

[gitana1]

Exactly, why haven't they CHARGED HIM? If they needed this time to nail it down then once it was nailed down they should have arrested him and charged him.



Exactly, I'm saying the same thing you are saying. If they had the evidence to know with certainty that he did it, they would have CHARGED HIM. They haven't done that, only arrested him. I think they are investigating to see if he will break. And these tv crime shows that interview people, show their interrogations and demonstrate WHY they took the risk is usually to push one person to turn on the other. It IS reality, it's exactly how it's done in real life. It's a risk but it works.

Plenty of people have been arrested on circumstantial evidence and convicted that way. If they can't prove it then they can't prove it.

They obviously know and have some reason.

The part you seem to be missing is why they would put his parents through this torture of having to support their son when he murdered his sister and allow them to make statements about his innocence, if they had proof? They don't need to tell the public in order to tell the parents and prevent them from humiliating themselves with public statements. They have suffered through the death of their child. If they had something solid I would imagine they would tell them.



As to the rest of it, I think you are saying the same thing I am saying. The fact that they haven't charged him means they are waiting for something. He's either going to confess, which if they have already arrested him and he's a minor I doubt the parents are going to go for that. OR they are hoping for more information.

We shall see, but I doubt he's the only one involved because of the neighbor's testimony about seeing the guy. I just can't imagine why someone would give a matching description to the guy he saw when the person doesn't exist.

The fact that they haven't charged IF yet means exactly nothing. I know it seems significant to you but it's really not necessarily significant. It is not rare from what I have observed in my law partner's criminal law cases. Not typical but also not rare.

They know they are going to charge him with murder. They may want to tack on some other stuff and maybe are deciding that.

 

[Chewy]

Again, why haven't they told his parents why they think he did it?

What kind of heartless jerks would do that two these poor parents who have already dealt with the death of their child? Why let the parents state that there is no evidence when there is? I guess they could be total creeps but most cops I know are pretty sensitive when it comes to dealing with parents who have lost a child.

I do understand what you are saying, I'm just saying that to me it looks like they need this kid to talk in order to build their case.

 

[vasportsmom]

No one knows what was going on in that house, to say there was a ton...assumes a tad too much. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We have 6 kids with at least 3 combinations of parents (and that is assuming that BF only reproduced with PR & CW and that CW older kids all have the same father), a stepmom/gf that hosted a public bashing of the bio mom on FB, a bio mom that was not allowed to attend her own child's funeral and a dead 8 year old with a 12 year old accused of that crime - I think it is safe to say there was A LOT going on in that home.

 

[MsFacetious]

Again, why haven't they told his parents why they think he did it?

What kind of heartless jerks would do that two these poor parents who have already dealt with the death of their child? Why let the parents state that there is no evidence when there is? I guess they could be total creeps but most cops I know are pretty sensitive when it comes to dealing with parents who have lost a child.

I do understand what you are saying, I'm just saying that to me it looks like they need this kid to talk in order to build their case.

We do not know that the cops haven't done that.

The Fowler's cancelled their press conference.
Crystal took down her facebook as well.
Lots of people think that is because the cops sat them down and gave them some proof. :twocents:

 

[TheDuchess]

There was an article where a person from town named Fidel Taylor complained about the donations. I am not sure if this is allowed, so I will only mention it. I looked up his FB and he and his friends had some pretty interesting comments and opinions about the family.

 

[vasportsmom]

We do not know that the cops haven't done that.

The Fowler's cancelled their press conference.
Crystal took down her facebook as well.
Lots of people think that is because the cops sat them down and gave them some proof. :twocents:

And as difficult as it must be for the parents not to know exactly why LE is accusing their son that really isn't an issue LE needs prioritize right now. This is a complicated situation and the investigators can't put this family's feelings above protecting their investigation and future case.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Anyone remember in the beginning of the case...there was something about how there had been past 911 calls from the Fowler home to LE? Does this ring a bell? Was this just a rumor or is there some MSM article about it?

 

[vasportsmom]

There was an article where a person from town named Fidel Taylor complained about the donations. I am not sure if this is allowed, so I will only mention it. I looked up his FB and he and his friends had some pretty interesting comments and opinions about the family.

Wow!!