CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #43

[RANCH]

Could be . I used to work for a criminal attorney that did not ask and did not want to be told whether or not the clients were guilty.

That sounds like the way that attorney handled his own conscious when defending clients. I'm not sure that it's a requirement that all defense attorneys must adhere to. MOO.

 

[RANCH]

Well he went to his payroll office and then went to his lawyer so I would think
just maybe that rumor is true. I read that same rumor and FWIW I tend to believe it but thats just my take on things.

Which rumor are you talking about? I didn't even know that I was discussing rumors.

 

[cattlekate]

I've never really entertained the idea of an accomplice, but when MR said "we" picked him up at the airport, I wonder if he did have an accomplice with him; they went to walmart, then McD's, and then DR went with the accomplice and that was that. ???

That was my first thought as how could it be possible a Dad disappear his own baby? And still be able to function with his pre-arranged appointments the next day! But now, after all the things that have come out - it's so difficult for me to believe there's an accomplice since Mark would lose control of THAT person. Plus Mark's history makes him seem like someone who does his talking with his own fists.

 

[nikb]

No, I didn't mean "call" I meant "texted" Sorry about that I am kind of far behind, maybe you all already addressed this. I can't keep up! Sorry!

No worries, I know the feeling! Thanks for clarifying. I wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something.

 

[Eileen730]

Which rumor are you talking about? I didn't even know that I was discussing rumors.

when he paid his child support!

 

[JustJeannie]

Some quick googling says that they absolutely can defend someone they know is guilty. They can't ask that person a direct question when they know the answer would be a lie, but at that point their job, as in any other case, is to try and prove the prosecution didn't prove its case. It does restrict them somewhat, so they would prefer not to know, but they have to do the best job they can for their client regardless.

Just what I found from google, and I am sure one of our lawyers here could explain it better. But from what I see the bottom line is yes, they can still represent someone they know is guilty.

 

[nikb]

I saw this on FMDR, so it's a rumor per family; Am I allowed to paraphrase it? The only CS payment MR gave since the change in Child support arrangement, was a check post-dated the day Dylan went missing. Delete if this violates TOS.

Thanks Song. I've been looking all over the place here and on FMDR and couldn't find it again, but there's a lot to look through as everyone knows.

 

[RANCH]

when he paid his child support!

I wasn't discussing that because it's a rumor.

 

[BeginnersLuck]

I saw this on FMDR, so it's a rumor per family; Am I allowed to paraphrase it? The only CS payment MR gave since the change in Child support arrangement, was a check post-dated the day Dylan went missing. Delete if this violates TOS.

There is just to much missing information in this scenario for me to think that there is anything hinky about it.

We don't know when MR got paid and it would seem logical that the check would be dated for when he knew the money would be in his account. If he really did something to Dylan and wanted him to be found right away, you would think he would have made it easier for searchers to find him.

eta: I should have never commented because it is rumor that was stated on a FB page. I just realized that.

 

[Redhead72]

So your saying that when a guilty person pleads not guilty and he tells his attorney the truth about his guilt, then his attorney must try for a plea agreement or quit?

I'm not sure about that.

I honestly think that would all depend on the morality of the attorney in question. I'd love someone with credentials to answer some of these questions in regard to attorney-client privileges, as well as when that privilege begins, how far that privilege extends, and if that privilege extends into a different area than what the lawyer was originally hired for.

I believe that since MR and his attorney already have a working relationship through the divorce proceedings that anything he said to his attorney would already be under those privileges. Whether his divorce attorney could or would represent him in court as a criminal defense attorney would be a separate question. Some practice in one area or another, not all attorneys would practice both family law, and criminal defense, nor do all firms handle both of those types of cases (it's like medicine where most have *specialties*.)

Again though, I am not anywhere near an expert in these matters, and would love to understand these points more clearly. And, not just for this case specifically, although the fact that his visit with his lawyer didn't even really come up in the DP show has stuck with me. I think that's something that may have been edited out of the DP show.

All of the above is MOO.

PS - JustJeannie, I was typing this up when you replied, but that's my understanding as well. I agree we should get someone who really knows the law specifically to answer some of these questions. Especially as MR's lawyer was already in an attorney-client relationship with him through the divorce proceedings. That makes it a bit more complicated.

 

[Eileen730]

Some quick googling says that they absolutely can defend someone they know is guilty. They can't ask that person a direct question when they know the answer would be a lie, but at that point their job, as in any other case, is to try and prove the prosecution didn't prove its case. It does restrict them somewhat, so they would prefer not to know, but they have to do the best job they can for their client regardless.

Just what I found from google, and I am sure one of our lawyers here could explain it better. But from what I see the bottom line is yes, they can still represent someone they know is guilty.

Perfect example is Jose Baez!

 

[nikb]

If you only see something mention as being a fact here on WS but not backed up by a MSM link, then it's a rumor.

Personally, I have know idea why Mark went to see his attorney on Monday morning and therefore I can't draw any conclusions from that visit.

Thanks Ranch. I see Song22 cleared up where the story about the date on the check came from (family rumor on official FMDR page).

I have no idea why he went to see the attorney either. Wish I did! I was just trying to think about other possibilities I hadn't seen discussed yet.

 

[azgrandma]

After re-watching the show again earlier this afternoon, that exact exchange is the one that sticks out in my head as the WORST acting job I think I've ever seen. When he tells Elaine "What kind of mother are you?" he is stuttering during that whole exchange so badly, and the emotion is SO forced and faked, IMO.

As for what he was going to say - I don't have a clue, and I can't speculate on that because it would then be putting words in his mouth, and I couldn't do that objectively at all.

I also wanted to mention that a noticed in a few portions where the film was edited and it seemed like parts of questions, or answers were clipped - I'm not suggesting this was done to purposefully frame anything or anyone. It's inevitable that there would be some things that even DP's producers would tell them to edit out for fear of legal repercussions against DP, E, C, or even MR claiming some kind of thing that he could then use in his defense in an eventual court case.

Again - this is all MOO.

BBM there was a lot of editing done and IMO it was to MR's advantage and in no way, shape or form out of fear or that it could be used in defense.

 

[Confusion]

So your saying that when a guilty person pleads not guilty and he tells his attorney the truth about his guilt, then his attorney must try for a plea agreement or quit?

I'm not sure about that.

I'm not sure either. I've never even taken a class in criminal law (only business law), but that was just my understanding of how things work. MOO

 

[nikb]

Might be why they want a copy of the uncut version.

Definitely agreed. Think about how many times many of us have watched and re-watched the show, and how everyone has a little different take on parts of it. I can imagine even if an LE person was in the audience, the tapes would be really helpful for reference and getting other opinions.

ETA: opinions on what may be good to follow up on. I know they can't accuse or try someone based on opinions from raw talk show footage.

 

[deoneta]

from what I understand, if you're about to commit a crime, privilege does not apply. If you already have, it does.

I've thought along those lines, too. I know that nowadays attorneys usually specialize in civil law, criminal law or even divorce only, but I expect in smaller communities there are still attorneys who have a more "general" practice. Whatever the scope of the practice, the same privilege rules would still apply. ALL MOO

 

[deoneta]

So your saying that when a guilty person pleads not guilty and he tells his attorney the truth about his guilt, then his attorney must try for a plea agreement or quit?

I'm not sure about that.

This is my very unofficial take, mostly from hours of watching Law and Order. If the attorney knows his client is guilty, he is still duty bound to defend the client and keep any client statements confidential. He can offer alternate theories of the crime or witnesses who refute prosecution witnesses. What he can't do is knowingly allow his client to perjure himself because that is a breach of ethics. I could well be wrong, but that is how I THINK it works. All MOO

 

[RANCH]

I honestly think that would all depend on the morality of the attorney in question. I'd love someone with credentials to answer some of these questions in regard to attorney-client privileges, as well as when that privilege begins, how far that privilege extends, and if that privilege extends into a different area than what the lawyer was originally hired for.

I believe that since MR and his attorney already have a working relationship through the divorce proceedings that anything he said to his attorney would already be under those privileges. Whether his divorce attorney could or would represent him in court as a criminal defense attorney would be a separate question. Some practice in one area or another, not all attorneys would practice both family law, and criminal defense, nor do all firms handle both of those types of cases (it's like medicine where most have *specialties*.)

Again though, I am not anywhere near an expert in these matters, and would love to understand these points more clearly. And, not just for this case specifically, although the fact that his visit with his lawyer didn't even really come up in the DP show has stuck with me. I think that's something that may have been edited out of the DP show.


All of the above is MOO.

PS - JustJeannie, I was typing this up when you replied, but that's my understanding as well. I agree we should get someone who really knows the law specifically to answer some of these questions. Especially as MR's lawyer was already in an attorney-client relationship with him through the divorce proceedings. That makes it a bit more complicated.

I have to admire most criminal defense attorneys because a majority of the time they know that their clients are guilty (regardless of them admitting to their guilt) and they still have to do the best job possible in defending their clients.

If Mark asked his family lawyer advice about a criminal matter, I feel that it would still fall under attorney client privilege. MOO.

 

[RANCH]

This is my very unofficial take, mostly from hours of watching Law and Order. If the attorney knows his client is guilty, he is still duty bound to defend the client and keep any client statements confidential. He can offer alternate theories of the crime or witnesses who refute prosecution witnesses. What he can't do is knowingly allow his client to perjure himself because that is a breach of ethics. I could well be wrong, but that is how I THINK it works. All MOO

What do you mean by perjure himself? Go on the stand in his own defense and lie about his innocence? How can a lawyer prevent that from happening?

 

[cattlekate]

I thought your username was Cattlecake, and with the picture of the bulls I thought it was referring to patties of cow dung. (something Col. Potter on MASH would say). :what:
Now I see it's CattleKate. no offense

Oh no! I just love cattle! Immensely - not like Professor Temple Grandin of Colorado State University (great movie called Temple Grandin made about her life with autism staring an incredible actress who's name I can't remember) - but I just think they are amazing animals! And I'm familiar with the story of the maligned Cattlekate of Sweetwater County, Wyoming. Thank you for noticing. I think my cattle avatars are cuter than Clucian's kitties but that's just me.