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

[PoirotryInMotion]

Thanks PIM. I was simply addressing the idea that just because BF has a boat in his driveway does not make the family well off or mean they are scamming "people with less" as indicated in the post I was responding to.

Another member later indicated that BF is allegedly self employed somehow repairing boats and marine craft. So the boat in the drive may not even be his, may instead belong to a customer.

I just have a really bad taste in my mouth by how CW and BF have been scrutinized and found wanting by many while PR has been held up as a victim. IMO we do not have information enough on any of these adults to be passing those sorts of judgments since none are named POI or suspects and this is a victim and victim family friendly zone.

I think maybe most of the adults in this case are found 'wanting' in some ways. They're all human with their own histories and past mistakes...but it's purely speculative in here as to which of those mistakes 'caused' something like this to happen. While victim-friendly, this forum is also highly speculative, and several posters even say they tend to believe 'guilty until proven innocent' (re arrestees). While that amounts to believing that LE can never arrest the wrong person, I'm staying away from that whole argument.

I only will acknowledge that the Fowlers seem to me to be an unusual family with unusual (to me) responses to this whole thing. The FB page dissing the ex-wife, the banning of Leila's mother from her funeral, the early attempts to control photos of Leila being published that were already in circulation, the need for LE to 'execute a search warrant' that weekend to gather evidence in their home concerning their own daughter's murder, the blood all over the father's shirt indicating a compromised crime scene, the searching for over a week for a murder weapon used by a 12-year old, the wacky timeline with information gaps/contradictions...I just think some things here are not typical. Doesn't necessarily mean anything, but means I still have unanswered questions about this case, so I'm not surprised if others do as well.

 

[blue22]

I am almost positive they signed on pro-bono due to the high-profileness and sensational details of the case. Every development has been reported on by national media outlets. In addition, the extremely rare circumstances of the case are likely to make it a topic of case studies. I also think it will be referenced in books about true crime, violence in children, mental health issues in children, etc. After the trial, I could definitely see Dateline or 20/20 or 48 Hours doing a show about it. Lastly, the law firm is Sacramento-based, and this case will have wide name recognition in the area for a very, very long time.

If more information comes out, I also think it will be a case that's talked about for a long time. I remember watching a 48 hours on Eric Smith. Every time he is up for parole, it's in the news. When IF gets out, people will probably pop up for the rest of his life to report on him.

If the lawyers bite off more then they can chew, they might just blacklist themselves. I wonder if they really know what they are getting into. The evidence might just be more crazy then they were led to believe.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

If more information comes out, I also think it will be a case that's talked about for a long time. I remember watching a 48 hours on Eric Smith. Every time he is up for parole, it's in the news. When IF gets out, people will probably pop up for the rest of his life to report on him.

If the lawyers bite off more then they can chew, they might just blacklist themselves. I wonder if they really know what they are getting into. The evidence might just be more crazy then they were led to believe.

The Eric Smith case is probably the best prediction of how this case will be in terms of notoriety/media interest as the years go by. A search on Google Books shows that the Smith case been referenced in numerous books covering a range of subjects, just like I predict the Fowler case will be. Yeah, not surprised at all that these lawyers signed on (assuming) pro-bono. I bet there was even a bit of competition to represent IF by the local firms.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I don't think I saw this posted:

Attorneys for a 12-year-old California boy charged with killing his sister said Wednesday they wonder if he is mature enough to aid his defense.

"Can a 12-year-old be psychologically, intellectually and emotionally mature enough to aid attorneys in defending himself against the most serious of charges?" asked attorney Steve Plesser, who has been hired by the family to defend the boy.

Um...are they asking if IF could testify?

http://news.yahoo.com/lawyer-asks-boy-mature-enough-aid-defense-084840128.html

 

[tlcya]

FWIW, these comments are not rumor variety, tlcya. (The nasty sort have been edited out by the page owner.) It's a general fundraising page that was started by a good peep for the Fowler family, and may eventually expand to help others in need. The fact that some are in need in that community is fact--a family's home burned down, and a little boy is fighting cancer. The comments I made mention of were not ugly or nasty--they were simply mentioned in the context of possibly expanding the page's fundraising direction that there were others in need of help--some of whom, BTW, had given sacrificially to the Fowler family.

It's unknown who opened up that bank fund Monday--at least I'm unaware of it. It was announced at a "hastily called" news conference the Monday morning after her Saturday murder that there was all ready one, though. If you click to open up all the comments you will also read that though it's unknown by us in here who opened up that bank account Monday morning for the Fowlers, they have tapped into it -- $9,000 that first week, at least (by May 6).



ETA: I didn't take the $70K amount actually as sarcasm. I took the comment to be in support of the family, in fact, and directed at those who were whining--(that person expressed "as a community we need to come together and spend less time worrying about the Fowler family receiving a $70,000 paycheck"...)

BBM I agree and that was the point I was trying to make. I think some were misinterpreting that information as suggesting the Fowler family scored at $70,000 payday at the expense of those more needy and deserving and I was trying to say that is not what that post meant.

And I also agree the page is well moderated, but it is still a FB page, so sometimes things gleaned from FB page, fundraiser variety or not are not any more or less substantiated than a comment from any other variety of FB page.

Finally, I agree that this group seems to reflect a caring involved community and I am glad they are discussing using their fundraising efforts to benefit the other two families discussed there.

 

[scorekeeper]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...-juvenile-detention-for-rape-murder-plot?lite

10 years old????

What is going on with our young children today?

sorry if this has previously been posted.

 

[CountryGirl]

I don't think I saw this posted:



Um...are they asking if IF could testify?

http://news.yahoo.com/lawyer-asks-boy-mature-enough-aid-defense-084840128.html

Assisting in his defense has nothing to do with whether he will testify or not.

The article is also incorrect. The hearing wasn't closed.

Furthermore, this statement just solidifies in my mind that these attorneys have no business taking on a juvenile defense. After all, this is a juvenile, yet they are questioning if he is mature enough to aid in his defense.

Is that their defense?? That because he is a juvenile, he can't be mature enough to aid in his defense, therefore he shouldn't be charged? They can't defend him? What??

 

[The Cheese]

Assisting in his defense has nothing to do with whether he will testify or not.

The article is also incorrect. The hearing wasn't closed.

Furthermore, this statement just solidifies in my mind that these attorneys have no business taking on a juvenile defense. After all, this is a juvenile, yet they are questioning if he is mature enough to aid in his defense.

Is that their defense?? That because he is a juvenile, he can't be mature enough to aid in his defense, therefore he shouldn't be charged? They can't defend him? What??

I think maybe they were opening the door for the possibility of unfit to stand trial. IF would be sent to a psychiatric facility until such time he became fit to stand trial.

I'm unsure what happens with a child if they reach the age of majority without being found competent to stand trial. It may be that it would provide a loophole to keep them hospitalized past the age they would normally be released.

:cow:

ETA: I don't know that age or maturity alone would be enough at age 12 to declare him unfit to stand trial. They may also need something to come back on his psych evaluation.

ETA: Looks like a mental issue isn't necessary. Maturity alone can preclude fitness for trial. This document addresses some of the related issues.
http://www.juvenilelaw.org/Education/2009/Presentations/Grisso.pdf

 

[The Cheese]

INCOMPETENT YOUTH IN CALIFORNIA JUVENILE JUSTICE

With increasing frequency, juvenile justice professionals express concern over the difficulties of serving youth who “do not belong” in the juvenile justice system. They lament the influx of youth who properly should be served in the mental health, child welfare, or education systems. They offer troubling accounts of what happens to these young people, who often wind up incarcerated in secure facilities that are not designed for and are ill-equipped to provide appropriate care for them—resulting in further deterioration of mental and physical conditions, over-reliance on isolation and control measures, and severe stress on staff and resources in the facilities.

Among these young people are some with cognitive impairments so severe that they are unable to fully participate in their court cases. Competence to stand trial requires that they be able to understand the nature of the proceedings against them, and to assist their lawyers. And while the presence of a mental disorder, developmental disability, and/or immaturity does not automatically render a juvenile incompetent, the presence of these factors triggers the need for further inquiry. At the very least, these youth present serious challenges for the system in case processing and provision of services; at the most, the system must recognize their incompetence and prevent their cases from going forward.

Despite this, there has been little analysis of the extent of juvenile incompetence in California, or of the ability of the system to meet the needs of incompetent youth. Nor has there been any comprehensive effort to determine what could be done to improve state law or practice with respect to this population.

This Article offers a vehicle for discussion of California juvenile incompetence to stand trial.

http://slpr.stanford.edu/previous/Volume19/YLC_19slpr198.pdf

 

[CHERIE.T]

Assisting in his defense has nothing to do with whether he will testify or not.

The article is also incorrect. The hearing wasn't closed.

Furthermore, this statement just solidifies in my mind that these attorneys have no business taking on a juvenile defense. After all, this is a juvenile, yet they are questioning if he is mature enough to aid in his defense.

Is that their defense?? That because he is a juvenile, he can't be mature enough to aid in his defense, therefore he shouldn't be charged? They can't defend him? What??

Did you get a chance to read the title of the article? :seeya:
LAWYER ASKS IF BOY MATURE ENOUGH TO AID DEFENSE.....imo it could be construed as to him possibly testifying. Only my thoughts.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

This boy hasn't got cognitive impairment .. He was in school and able to lie to LE and make up a description .. Give him a reading test and send him on his way .. Right into court where he belongs.

 

[wwc02]

Does a pyschopath or sociopath start with a brutal murder, with 21 stabs wounds, to a sibling???

I hesitate to step into this. But then my posts just get deleted anyway. Plus, I sense that you are sincere. First off, the hallmark of a sociopath is that they do not get caught. There are different strategies that you could approach for studying the sociopath. The best, IMO is the Freudian account. A scholarly knowledge of sociopathic behavior is a career. I use to lecture on the topic but that was decades ago. I am speaking from distant memory. There are many accounts of human behavior; but if you are looking for the most comprehensive theory - Freud is the only game in town. I am using theory correctly here. Not Piaget, not Erickson, not Jung. I am not referring to stand alone models, hypothetical constructs, or intervening variables. There is no comprehensive theory of behavior other than Freud. I am predominately Skinnerian and Lockean in my thinking. That is, I am mostly atheoretical. Nevertheless, in terms of theory; Freud is the only game. The neo-Freudians can not hold a candle. Having said this; you could spend a life time accounting for sociopathic behavior from any number of viewpoints.

To get started, you would need to study perturbations in stages of development. Notably, in the case of the sociopath, the failure of the son (daughters were accounted for as an afterthought) to take on the values of the father. Yes, this sounds sexist, but you have to get beyond this to appreciate the merit. Simply, there is a failure to take on the moral values of the father and the child becomes fixated. The child becomes entirely reality based without regard to moral standard. Reality based means that you sublimate impulses (id) without regard to moral values; but in regard to reality. Reality demands that you don't get caught. Sociopaths tend to be extremely intelligent in sublimating their impulses.

Freud himself, would have warned you that Freudian theory has nothing to do with reality. It was merely a strategy to account for why people are who they are. The neo-Freudians failed to heed Freud's admonishments. They mucked things up. Plan on spending a few years of full time study if you truly want to wrap your head around sociopathic behavior.

 

[dinaslala]

I am almost positive they signed on pro-bono due to the high-profileness and sensational details of the case. Every development has been reported on by national media outlets. In addition, the extremely rare circumstances of the case are likely to make it a topic of case studies. I also think it will be referenced in books about true crime, violence in children, mental health issues in children, etc. After the trial, I could definitely see Dateline or 20/20 or 48 Hours doing a show about it. Lastly, the law firm is Sacramento-based, and this case will have wide name recognition in the area for a very, very long time.

How would one find an attorney who would do this? Do they just come to you?

 

[eileenhawkeye]

How would one find an attorney who would do this? Do they just come to you?

They hear about the case on the news, and then they get in contact with the family. They all want the high-profile cases because it will put their name in the local (or even national) spotlight and that's great for exposure.

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

How would one find an attorney who would do this? Do they just come to you?

I'm guessing Gitana and other legal experts on here would be able to point you in the right direction--but until then, here's a Google search with some links:

https://www.google.com/search?q=how...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

 

[MsFacetious]

If more information comes out, I also think it will be a case that's talked about for a long time. I remember watching a 48 hours on Eric Smith. Every time he is up for parole, it's in the news. When IF gets out, people will probably pop up for the rest of his life to report on him.

If the lawyers bite off more then they can chew, they might just blacklist themselves. I wonder if they really know what they are getting into. The evidence might just be more crazy then they were led to believe.

This is a good case to look at... Eric is still incarcerated and he is 33 years old. He killed at 13 years old.
Obviously this varies from state to state... but Eric got 9 years to LIFE.

It's odd to think that in California he could only be in until age 25. :scared:

 

[Salem]

New thread here: CA - Leila Fowler, 8, Murdered in Valley Springs 12 year old Brother Arrested #2 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


Please move over, as I will be locking this one up in just a few minutes.

Salem