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

[Redhead72]

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.

Thank you so much for that insight, I truly appreciate it. I'm sorry if I didn't make it clearer that I was stating that it's just what happens when they have to boil down a show to fit in a certain time period. Although it may seem that it was to MR's advantage - especially since I wasn't there and you were - I have to say that I wasn't fooled one bit by his act, and I don't believe many others were either. I've seen it too many times before - my father was a man like him...

So, please don't despair too much over the editing, if you're at all able not to. I don't know if you have, or even want to read what my first impressions of MR were after watching the show the first time last night, but here's a link if you want to.
[ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9006757&postcount=45"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - CO CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #43[/ame]

I think DP could definitely have pointed out more inconsistencies, and followed up with more pointed questions (for instance, "Why do you think it would be strange for her to contact hers when you have custody and it's definitely part of the deal for you to know where he is at all times"?) I can think of more than perhaps a dozen instances during the show when I would've asked MR to clarify a statement, or asked him again in a different way, but I don't know what happened that was edited out, so maybe DP did ask some of those questions and hence why I can totally understand you and others feeling that MR had an advantage after the editing was done.

Remember, you know when he is lying because you know him, and I know that's got to make you feel desperate to think others can't see it, or won't see it. I have an uber-strong and immediate "on-guard" feeling when I see behavior that mimics my father's, and more times than not when I've felt that it's because someone else was trying to manipulate me... I'm sure that most psychologists, social workers, LEO's, and others can see right through it - although they may not directly come out and say that. And, alas, some people don't want to believe that there are people like this even in our world who could be so cruel, or hurt others like MR may have done. But I don't think many people could be fooled by MR's lack of true emotion, and E's obvious distress and despair. (Her statements tore at my heart, and MR's just made me feel disgusted.)

Regardless of anything I've said above, and whether we are on the same page on this or not, I cannot express to you how much respect I have for you, and your courage to stand up, and speak out. Please understand that sometimes I have trouble finding exactly the right words to emphasize what I wish to convey. Tone and such just gets lost in translation on the internet so often.

I'm so sorry you and your loved ones are going through this agony. I keep all of you in my thoughts and prayers. Thank you for coming here to these threads and speaking with us, even though I know it must be very hard sometimes. I'm sorry if the way I've spoken in any of my posts may have caused you more anguish or pain. many {{hugs}}

 

[azgrandma]

Originally Posted by deoneta
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?

BBM - to keep it simple, if a person walked into his attorneys office and said, yes I robbed the bank.

The attorney can't have his client on the stand and ask, did you rob the bank?

s/he put the client in a position in which s/he must either a) tell the truth and go to prison or b) perjure her/himself.

FWIW - perjure is knowingly telling a lie.
I hope this helps.

 

[SheltieMom1]

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.

Claire Danes. Yes, she was fantastic and earned an Emmy and a golden globe for that performance, IIRC.

 

[JustJeannie]

Originally Posted by deoneta
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



BBM - to keep it simple, if a person walked into his attorneys office and said, yes I robbed the bank.

The attorney can't have his client on the stand and ask, did you rob the bank?

s/he put the client in a position in which s/he must either a) tell the truth and go to prison or b) perjure her/himself.

FWIW - perjure is knowingly telling a lie.
I hope this helps.

Yes, and from what I have read, the attorney would also be subject to prosecution if he asked the client "Did you rob the bank?" When he knows the answer is yes and that the client is going to lie. That would be suborning perjury, and he could face disbarrement and jail time for doing that.

eta: Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just doing some reading online, so I am adding a MOO

 

[TxLady2]

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'm not a lawyer, so I am just guessing, but based on what I know, a divorce lawyer would be way out of his league to take on a criminal case. He could represent someone if they were being detained and questioned, because they are all taught the basics, but defending someone in a trial would be a whole different ballgame, IMO.
I see so many commercials for attorneys who claim to be board certified in this or that, so I am not even sure if the judge would want just a common divorce attorney to represent a person charged with a major crime. I don't know that it would be unethical or anything, but most judges would suggest that the defendant hire a competent criminal defense attorney because of the constitutional right that everybody deserves a fair trial. Someone who has never practiced as a defense attorney in a major case going up against a seasoned prosecutor would be a disaster, IMO.
Nowadays, in trials where they are charged with 1st degree murder, the defense wants a death-qualified attorney on the team.

 

[Confusion]

Yes, and the attorney would also be subject to prosecution if he asked the client "Did you rob the bank?" When he knows the answer is yes and that the client is going to lie. That would be suborning perjury, and he could face disbarrement and jail time for doing that.

Wouldn't the same thing be true if the client had admitted to committing a murder, but there was someone willing to testify that he was with them somewhere else when it was done? MOO

 

[azgrandma]

Thank you so much for that insight, I truly appreciate it. I'm sorry if I didn't make it clearer that I was stating that it's just what happens when they have to boil down a show to fit in a certain time period. I believe I understood, I think you are correct, it had to be edited to fit the time frame. The first day was a little over 2 hoursAlthough it may seem that it was to MR's advantage - especially since I wasn't there and you were - I have to say that I wasn't fooled one bit by his act, and I don't believe many others were either. I've seen it too many times before - my father was a man like him...

So, please don't despair too much over the editing, if you're at all able not to. I don't know if you have, or even want to read what my first impressions of MR were after watching the show the first time last night, but here's a link if you want to. I will, thanks. Although I think I've read every single post on here LOL
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - CO CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #43

I think DP could definitely have pointed out more inconsistencies, and followed up with more pointed questions (for instance, "Why do you think it would be strange for her to contact hers when you have custody and it's definitely part of the deal for you to know where he is at all times"?) He did follow up on it, it wasn't in the show. DP mentioned that perhaps contacting her attorney was the correct thing to do considering the past behavior and her attorney could/would contact his attorney - since he wasn't responding to her calls/textsI can think of more than perhaps a dozen instances during the show when I would've asked MR to clarify a statement, or asked him again in a different way, but I don't know what happened that was edited out, so maybe DP did ask some of those questions and hence why I can totally understand you and others feeling that MR had an advantage after the editing was done. I don't believe MR had an advantage, I believe that the editing did not harm MR it actually helped him out a bit

Remember, you know when he is lying because you know him, and I know that's got to make you feel desperate to think others can't see it, or won't see it. I have an uber-strong and immediate "on-guard" feeling when I see behavior that mimics my father's, and more times than not when I've felt that it's because someone else was trying to manipulate me... I'm sure that most psychologists, social workers, LEO's, and others can see right through it - although they may not directly come out and say that. And, alas, some people don't want to believe that there are people like this even in our world who could be so cruel, or hurt others like MR may have done. But I don't think many people could be fooled by MR's lack of true emotion, and E's obvious distress and despair. (Her statements tore at my heart, and MR's just made me feel disgusted.) interestinly enough, I can tell when he is lying, it really hasn't been that long since we've "communicated" (couldn't resist)

Regardless of anything I've said above, and whether we are on the same page on this or not, I cannot express to you how much respect I have for you, and your courage to stand up, and speak out. thank you, there is nothing that I would not do to help find Dylan and the truth Please understand that sometimes I have trouble finding exactly the right words to emphasize what I wish to convey. dont' we all? Tone and such just gets lost in translation on the internet so often.

I'm so sorry you and your loved ones are going through this agony. I keep all of you in my thoughts and prayers. Thank you for coming here to these threads and speaking with us, even though I know it must be very hard sometimes. I'm sorry if the way I've spoken in any of my posts may have caused you more anguish or pain. many {{hugs}}

I appreciate that, I am learning to not let comments upset me

Please see my response in red. Thanks!

 

[rebeccaeee]

I'm not a lawyer, so I am just guessing, but based on what I know, a divorce lawyer would be way out of his league to take on a criminal case. He could represent someone if they were being detained and questioned, because they are all taught the basics, but defending someone in a trial would be a whole different ballgame, IMO.
I see so many commercials for attorneys who claim to be board certified in this or that, so I am not even sure if the judge would want just a common divorce attorney to represent a person charged with a major crime. I don't know that it would be unethical or anything, but most judges would suggest that the defendant hire a competent criminal defense attorney because of the constitutional right that everybody deserves a fair trial. Someone who has never practiced as a defense attorney in a major case going up against a seasoned prosecutor would be a disaster, IMO.
Nowadays, in trials where they are charged with 1st degree murder, the defense wants a death-qualified attorney on the team.

Technically, when MR went to his attorney appt on Monday, Dylan was not technically "missing" yet according to MR. I cannot imagine he would ask any questions that would implicate himself. He might have asked about child support/filings/etc but I maintain that MR is not outright stupid. And I do believe the reason he has not retained a criminal defense atty yet is what others here have mentioned today- the cost and the lack of comprehension that he might need one.

 

[Redhead72]

I'm not a lawyer, so I am just guessing, but based on what I know, a divorce lawyer would be way out of his league to take on a criminal case. He could represent someone if they were being detained and questioned, because they are all taught the basics, but defending someone in a trial would be a whole different ballgame, IMO.
I see so many commercials for attorneys who claim to be board certified in this or that, so I am not even sure if the judge would want just a common divorce attorney to represent a person charged with a major crime. I don't know that it would be unethical or anything, but most judges would suggest that the defendant hire a competent criminal defense attorney because of the constitutional right that everybody deserves a fair trial. Someone who has never practiced as a defense attorney in a major case going up against a seasoned prosecutor would be a disaster, IMO.
Nowadays, in trials where they are charged with 1st degree murder, the defense wants a death-qualified attorney on the team.

I don't disagree with anything you've said above. I don't know that a judge would necessarily provide counsel to the client regarding his choice of lawyer, but a smart defendant would certainly not want someone who was not well-versed in Criminal Defense to represent him/her in a major felony case. I don't think many attorneys themselves would even want to take on a case if they weren't familiar with that specific area of law as I could see it leading to mistakes, and a mis-trial which isn't always in the favor of the defendant.

I've been researching into lawyers lately, so I know what you mean about most lawyers ONLY practicing in a certain field, or maybe 2 related fields. The only time you usually find lawyers practicing in a variety of fields is in a very large (usually expensive) firm that have specific lawyers, or teams working in the various fields needed to represent a very large number of clients and all of their needs.

Heck, you can even represent yourself (pro se), if you really want to do that, so you don't even need a lawyer if you don't want one. However, I've only heard of a few instances of that happening, and I can't remember if they were serious felony cases, or not.

 

[mijamawi]

Just when I think I have the rules down on SM, it appears I don't.

Can we discuss something stated on FMDR as long as we qualify it with rumor?

If we don't have a link to something, is it ok as long as we qualify it with rumor?

 

[RANCH]

Originally Posted by deoneta
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



BBM - to keep it simple, if a person walked into his attorneys office and said, yes I robbed the bank.

The attorney can't have his client on the stand and ask, did you rob the bank?

s/he put the client in a position in which s/he must either a) tell the truth and go to prison or b) perjure her/himself.

FWIW - perjure is knowingly telling a lie.
I hope this helps.

So the defense attorney can only ask his client, while on the stand, questions that the attorney knows his client will answer truthfully? How would the attorney know whether his client was telling the truth or not?

 

[NC Analyzer]

So the defense attorney can only ask his client, while on the stand, questions that the attorney knows his client will answer truthfully? How would the attorney know whether his client was telling the truth or not?

Because the majority of defense attorney's don't want to know if you actually committed the crime or not. They don't ask and if you try to tell them, they'll tell you they don't want to know. It isn't part of their job. Their job is to DEFEND you.

 

[NC Analyzer]

Thank you so much for that insight, I truly appreciate it. I'm sorry if I didn't make it clearer that I was stating that it's just what happens when they have to boil down a show to fit in a certain time period. Although it may seem that it was to MR's advantage - especially since I wasn't there and you were - I have to say that I wasn't fooled one bit by his act, and I don't believe many others were either. I've seen it too many times before - my father was a man like him...

So, please don't despair too much over the editing, if you're at all able not to. I don't know if you have, or even want to read what my first impressions of MR were after watching the show the first time last night, but here's a link if you want to.
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - CO CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #43

I think DP could definitely have pointed out more inconsistencies, and followed up with more pointed questions (for instance, "Why do you think it would be strange for her to contact hers when you have custody and it's definitely part of the deal for you to know where he is at all times"?) I can think of more than perhaps a dozen instances during the show when I would've asked MR to clarify a statement, or asked him again in a different way, but I don't know what happened that was edited out, so maybe DP did ask some of those questions and hence why I can totally understand you and others feeling that MR had an advantage after the editing was done.

Remember, you know when he is lying because you know him, and I know that's got to make you feel desperate to think others can't see it, or won't see it. I have an uber-strong and immediate "on-guard" feeling when I see behavior that mimics my father's, and more times than not when I've felt that it's because someone else was trying to manipulate me... I'm sure that most psychologists, social workers, LEO's, and others can see right through it - although they may not directly come out and say that. And, alas, some people don't want to believe that there are people like this even in our world who could be so cruel, or hurt others like MR may have done. But I don't think many people could be fooled by MR's lack of true emotion, and E's obvious distress and despair. (Her statements tore at my heart, and MR's just made me feel disgusted.)

Regardless of anything I've said above, and whether we are on the same page on this or not, I cannot express to you how much respect I have for you, and your courage to stand up, and speak out. Please understand that sometimes I have trouble finding exactly the right words to emphasize what I wish to convey. Tone and such just gets lost in translation on the internet so often.

I'm so sorry you and your loved ones are going through this agony. I keep all of you in my thoughts and prayers. Thank you for coming here to these threads and speaking with us, even though I know it must be very hard sometimes. I'm sorry if the way I've spoken in any of my posts may have caused you more anguish or pain. many {{hugs}}

Brilliant post! :rocker: Thank you!

 

[RANCH]

Just when I think I have the rules down on SM, it appears I don't.

Can we discuss something stated on FMDR as long as we qualify it with rumor?

If we don't have a link to something, is it ok as long as we qualify it with rumor?

As far as I know we are not allowed to discuss what's on the FMDR page but only paraphrase and direct members via a link to look for themselves.

I would imagine that "discuss" would include any questions about what was posted and replies to those questions. MOO.

 

[azgrandma]

I'm not a lawyer, so I am just guessing, but based on what I know, a divorce lawyer would be way out of his league to take on a criminal case. He could represent someone if they were being detained and questioned, because they are all taught the basics, but defending someone in a trial would be a whole different ballgame, IMO.
I see so many commercials for attorneys who claim to be board certified in this or that, so I am not even sure if the judge would want just a common divorce attorney to represent a person charged with a major crime. I don't know that it would be unethical or anything, but most judges would suggest that the defendant hire a competent criminal defense attorney because of the constitutional right that everybody deserves a fair trial. Someone who has never practiced as a defense attorney in a major case going up against a seasoned prosecutor would be a disaster, IMO.
Nowadays, in trials where they are charged with 1st degree murder, the defense wants a death-qualified attorney on the team.

A judge does not have a say in who the attorney is. A judge would also not suggest that they hire a specific specialized attorney. A judge will tell you that you have a right to counsel and if you can't afford it one will be provided for you. That attorney, provided by the state, is picked out of a rotation system. You either get what you get or you hire your own. IMO

 

[RANCH]

Because the majority of defense attorney's don't want to know if you actually committed the crime or not. They don't ask and if you try to tell them, they'll tell you they don't want to know. It isn't part of their job. Their job is to DEFEND you.

I understand that. I'm trying to understand where a defense attorney is suborning perjury if he doesn't even know what the truth is.

 

[NC Analyzer]

I understand that. I'm trying to understand where a defense attorney is suborning perjury if he doesn't even know what the truth is.

That's why he doesn't ask. Pretty self explanatory.

 

[azgrandma]

So the defense attorney can only ask his client, while on the stand, questions that the attorney knows his client will answer truthfully? How would the attorney know whether his client was telling the truth or not?

BBM - yes, the attorney cannot pose a question that s/he knows is going to result in the client admitting guilt or lying. Why would they? They are trying to defend their client not convict their client. (there would be an exception such as Jody Arias, she admits she killed her boyfriend, but claimed self defense. The attorney could ask her if she killed him, because her defense was not that she was innocent it was that she killed him in self defense)


2nd part of your question:
A good attorney does not ask a question that s/he does not already know the answer to.
They have had plenty of time to research and discuss, it's not as if the first time on the stand is the first time their first meeting. They have gone over everything in preparation of their defense.

 

[RANCH]

That's why he doesn't ask. Pretty self explanatory.

Doesn't ask what?

If his client can lie about anything factual about the case, how can the attorney know what is the truth or not? I think that it would be difficult to prove that a defense attorney committed the act of suborning perjury by allowing his client to lie on the stand if he has no way of knowing that his client is in fact lying.

I thought that's what a trial is about. Finding the truth. MOO.

 

[azgrandma]

Doesn't ask what?

If his client can lie about anything factual about the case, how can the attorney know what is the truth or not? I think that it would be difficult to prove that a defense attorney committed the act of suborning perjury by allowing his client to lie on the stand if he has no way of knowing that his client is in fact lying.

I thought that's what a trial is about. Finding the truth. MOO.

If the attorney KNOWS that his client is guilty of a crime (as in my previous example of a bank robber) the attorney cannot ask the client on the stand - did you rob the bank. Because the attorney is either going to have his client say - yes I did (then the attorney was not defending his client and just allowed the client to admit guilt when they had plead not-guilty)

If the client say no, then the attorney caused the client to purjure himself.

The attorney should know his client.

Trials are about finding the truth, but sometimes the denfense hopes you don't figure out the truth.