FL FL - Michelle Parker, 33, Orlando, 17 Nov 2011 - # 3

[TxLady2]

This is a world that constantly generates new politically correct terms to soften any distasteful bluntness that the idioms of old like the word “suspect” may have historically taken on. The term “person of interest” was coined to mean someone the police cannot currently charge with committing a certain crime but about whom they continue to diligently watch and investigate in order to access the proof they need to either charge them with the crime or at minimum require that they involuntarily answer questions related to the crime. When a violent crime happens the police will consider everyone and anyone as a potential suspect. But it is their favorite suspects, the ones on which they focus the most of their unwanted attentions, which they will care to deem as “persons of interest” whenever a local news reporter or a satellite TV camera man should ask them.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co...se/person-interest-vs-suspectâ—whatâ’s-differ

"Person of interest" is a phrase used by law enforcement when announcing the name of someone involved in a criminal investigation who has not been arrested or formally accused of a crime. The phrase was adopted by the media and widely disseminated, thus most law enforcement agencies have picked up the term. It has no legal meaning, but it is a "catchy" term. "Law enforcement officials say that the term simply reflects the new tactics required to fight terrorism. But some legal scholars say officials are trying to create a more benign public image, even as their power expands."[1] While terms such as suspect, target, and material witness have clear and sometimes formal definitions, person of interest remains undefined by the U.S. Department of Justice.[2] It is often used as a euphemism for suspect, and can sometimes result in a trial by media.

Person of interest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suspect and "Person of Interest" is the same thing.

No, ma'am... not always. I have it on good authority that a POI is sometimes just a person who MAY have knowledge of a case, or one who MAY be involved but not directly responsible for a crime. IOW, it can be someone LE is needing to look at more closely, but don't have sufficient evidence to call them a suspect.
In the past, some people were named suspects and then subsequently cleared. It still put a blight on their names, so it caused some legal problems for some LE agencies, and they got sued. Now, they are usually pretty careful about naming someone a suspect unless they have very strong evidence connecting them to a crime. But they can get away with naming someone a POI and it doesn't generate any legal problems. They can always upgrade it to suspect, or drop it and say that the person was just someone they wanted to talk to.
Literally speaking, a POI is not the same as a suspect, except to the public and sometimes the media.

 

[evelyn24]

This is a world that constantly generates new politically correct terms to soften any distasteful bluntness that the idioms of old like the word “suspect” may have historically taken on. The term “person of interest” was coined to mean someone the police cannot currently charge with committing a certain crime but about whom they continue to diligently watch and investigate in order to access the proof they need to either charge them with the crime or at minimum require that they involuntarily answer questions related to the crime. When a violent crime happens the police will consider everyone and anyone as a potential suspect. But it is their favorite suspects, the ones on which they focus the most of their unwanted attentions, which they will care to deem as “persons of interest” whenever a local news reporter or a satellite TV camera man should ask them.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co...se/person-interest-vs-suspectâ—whatâ’s-differ

"Person of interest" is a phrase used by law enforcement when announcing the name of someone involved in a criminal investigation who has not been arrested or formally accused of a crime. The phrase was adopted by the media and widely disseminated, thus most law enforcement agencies have picked up the term. It has no legal meaning, but it is a "catchy" term. "Law enforcement officials say that the term simply reflects the new tactics required to fight terrorism. But some legal scholars say officials are trying to create a more benign public image, even as their power expands."[1] While terms such as suspect, target, and material witness have clear and sometimes formal definitions, person of interest remains undefined by the U.S. Department of Justice.[2] It is often used as a euphemism for suspect, and can sometimes result in a trial by media.

Person of interest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suspect and "Person of Interest" is the same thing.

It does mean the same thing privately to LE, but very rarely do they use the term "suspect" publicly unless they are close to an arrest...imo.
And "close" could be a week, or a month depending on evidence.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Including Kidfinders. Sigh.

TY ! omg ... starting a list ... lol ...

1. Kid Finders

2. Mark NeJame

:waitasec: Anyone else ?

omg ... oh pleeeeease ... I hope no one else from that "circus" shows up here ...

:crazy::crazy::crazy:

 

[Patty G]

No, ma'am... not always. I have it on good authority that a POI is sometimes just a person who MAY have knowledge of a case, or one who MAY be involved but not directly responsible for a crime. IOW, it can be someone LE is needing to look at more closely, but don't have sufficient evidence to call them a suspect.
In the past, some people were named suspects and then subsequently cleared. It still put a blight on their names, so it caused some legal problems for some LE agencies, and they got sued. Now, they are usually pretty careful about naming someone a suspect unless they have very strong evidence connecting them to a crime. But they can get away with naming someone a POI and it doesn't generate any legal problems. They can always upgrade it to suspect, or drop it and say that the person was just someone they wanted to talk to.
Literally speaking, a POI is not the same as a suspect, except to the public and sometimes the media.

We will just have to "agree to disagree" on this one. :hug:

 

[stilettos]

It does mean the same thing privately to LE, but very rarely do they use the term "suspect" publicly unless they are close to an arrest...imo.
And "close" could be a week, or a month depending on evidence.

It seems to me that LE must have something more that we do not yet know. To name him a prime suspect...it is interesting and they do know all the angles and what it would mean to do this. I think we are going to see movement in this case sooner rather than later.

 

[aks9847]

Is Mark N still representing TES? Wasn't TES searching for Michelle? Is that a conflict of interest?

Just chiming in....been reading all the threads, but what you said is completely true! If he is still repping TES, this needs to be brought to the attention of the public. And soon. :twocents:

 

[CharlestonGal]

They must have some pretty strong evidence that we don't know yet. I'm sure if they thought it would work against them, they wouldn't be naming him as a suspect, that's a pretty strong label, by most LE standards. Sometimes in some cases they want to put as much pressure on a suspect as possible. I certainly hope they know what they're doing!

BBM. Yes, I can see the logic of pressure - sometimes. But not this time. The man has 3 year old twins in his care - 3 year old twins who are the children of the woman LE thinks this man made disappear or killed.

So frankly, no, I do not think they know what they are doing. Or at the least, didn't think it through properly.

Not only that, this is not the kind of man who's afraid of a little pressure from LE. He's been around the block with them and with the USMC prosecutors a few times. This guy is already a criminal and certainly no babe in the woods who's afraid of LE.

I really, really fear for those children if this man gets desperate - or enraged. He has already been convicted of battering someone to death, and domestic violence, and now his latest GF has "disappeared". Why on earth is LE poking this man when he has two helpless children in his care? It's a recipe for disaster and it makes me mad.:furious:

ETA: One would also think that if LE had strong evidence in this case they would have shared it with CPS and had those children removed from his control. Why haven't they done that with this evidence people assume they must have? Evidently, they do not have evidence enough to arrest him OR for CPS to remove the children, so why the public outing at a press conference? What a fiasco.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

TY ! omg ... starting a list ... lol ...

1. Kid Finders

2. Mark NeJame

:waitasec: Anyone else ?

omg ... oh pleeeeease ... I hope no one else from that "circus" shows up here ...

:crazy::crazy::crazy:

If Padilla shows up, I'm jumping out this window (don't worry...it's a first-floor window...but it's the thought that counts).

 

[evelyn24]

It seems to me that LE must have something more that we do not yet know. To name him a prime suspect...it is interesting and they do know all the angles and what it would mean to do this. I think we are going to see movement in this case sooner rather than later.

If they don't have much more than we already know it would be a really bad move to call someone a prime suspect in the media. I think LE know a lot and there will be an arrest within the next few weeks.

 

[Patty G]

I highly doubt there is a "conflict of interest" with Mark representing Dale because Mark is representing TES/Tim Miller.

Mark is going after money that TES has paid out regarding the search for Caylee and that case has nothing to do with representing Dale.

Remember, Mark represented the Anthony's, then resigned, and then represented TES. Kinda, sorta in the same family.

If anyone would know if they are "double dipping", it would be Mark NeJame himself as he clearly knows the "law of the land." IMO

 

[Eileen730]

It seems to me that LE must have something more that we do not yet know. To name him a prime suspect...it is interesting and they do know all the angles and what it would mean to do this. I think we are going to see movement in this case sooner rather than later.

Do u think that is also why they took down the 50 grand reward because they know who did this?

 

[NCSleuth]

POI. Used for legal reasons. Remember Richard Jewell? Named a suspect in the Atlanta Olympics bombing? Ruined his life! called a suspect in all the major papers and news shows. He ended up suing most of them.

Everyone knows it basically means suspect, but legally its not actually naming them as a suspect. CYA.

 

[CharlestonGal]

Just chiming in....been reading all the threads, but what you said is completely true! If he is still repping TES, this needs to be brought to the attention of the public. And soon. :twocents:

It doesn't look like he is. On 7/12/11 this was posted on the TES website about the lawsuit filed by TES against FCA:

"07/12/11 — With the advice of our legal counsel, Marc Wites and Alex Kapetan of Wites & Kapetan..."

It doesn't mention Mark as being part of their legal team.

http://texasequusearch.org/category/about/tesinaction/

 

[dog.gone.cute]

If Padilla shows up, I'm jumping out this window (don't worry...it's a first-floor window...but it's the thought that counts).

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

:waitasec: Now IF and when "charges" are filed, and this case lands in HHJP's court ...

Well ... I'll be joining you ...:crazy:

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[CharlestonGal]

If they don't have much more than we already know it would be a really bad move to call someone a prime suspect in the media. I think LE know a lot and there will be an arrest within the next few weeks.

BBM. I don't think those children have a few weeks.

 

[Kamille]

BBM. Yes, I can see the logic of pressure - sometimes. But not this time. The man has 3 year old twins in his care - 3 year old twins who are the children of the woman LE thinks this man made disappear or killed.

So frankly, no, I do not think they know what they are doing. Or at the least, didn't think it through properly.

Not only that, this is not the kind of man who's afraid of a little pressure from LE. He's been around the block with them and with the USMC prosecutors a few times. This guy is already a criminal and certainly no babe in the woods who's afraid of LE.

I really, really fear for those children if this man gets desperate - or enraged. He has already been convicted of battering someone to death, and domestic violence, and now his latest GF has "disappeared". Why on earth is LE poking this man when he has two helpless children in his care? It's a recipe for disaster and it makes me mad.:furious:

ETA: One would also think that if LE had strong evidence in this case they would have shared it with CPS and had those children removed from his control. Why haven't they done that with this evidence people assume they must have? Evidently, they do not have evidence enough to arrest him OR for CPS to remove the children, so why the public outing at a press conference? What a fiasco.

Perhaps they needed to make this public announcement to legally remove the children from his care? As I understand it, the children are actually in the care of his parents. He's likely still staying at his condo. So by making this public announcement, and knowing that DCFS is involved, perhaps this is the first step at getting them legally removed from his family?

MOO

 

[stilettos]

Do u think that is also why they took down the 50 grand reward because they know who did this?

The reward was time sensitive...it was for a limited period of time.

 

[nursebeeme]

Felony/DUI/DWI/convictions/dispositions
A waiver is required for any applicant who has--

1.Received a conviction or other adverse disposition for a felony offense.

2. Received two convictions or adverse dispositions for driving while intoxicated, under the influence, or while impaired due to substance abuse, alcohol, drugs, or any other condition that affected judgment or driving ability. Consider without regard to technical/legal definition or term used by the State, county, or country in which the applicant committed the offense.

More at link:
http://www.military.com/Recruiting/Content/0,13898,rec_step07_DQ_law,,00.html

Found a Military Forum.
http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/78192862/m/1400073161001

My DH was a recruiting commander for three years... trust me... they can get a waiver for just about anything (not just what is in those links ^). As long as it gets signed off on it can be a "go". You have more luck of getting in with past charges than you do if you are missing a toe (no kidding!!)

Also, in the past enlistment was also on the table/an option as a "deal" per se if you got into trouble with the law. That has since changed but I wouldn't be surprised if that is how DS ended up in the marines.

 

[stilettos]

My DH was a recruiting commander for three years... trust me... they can get a waiver for just about anything (not just what is in those links ^). As long as it gets signed off on it can be a "go". You have more luck of getting in with past charges than you do if you are missing a toe (no kidding!!)

Also, in the past enlistment was also on the table/an option as a "deal" per se if you got into trouble with the law. That has since changed but I wouldn't be surprised if that is how DS ended up in the marines.

This is sad. We had a young man that lived with us. He was from a troubled home. Because of the troubles in his home...he acted out a bit at school. They talked the abusive Mom into putting him on ritalin. He didn't need it and stopped taking it. We got him accepted to Fort Gordon's Youth challenge...a youth national guard of sorts. He graduated with honors..and was courted by all branches of the military. His past use of ritalin kept him out. It almost killed him. He now lives paycheck to paycheck here in town..such a waste.

 

[Eileen730]

The reward was time sensitive...it was for a limited period of time.

Oh ok. It was donated by a private citizen wasnt it?
Guess they wanted some answers fast!

I dont ever remember anyone claiming a reward on a missing person
I wonder how often that happens?

didnt Nancy Grace report something about a body found in a lake near where her car was found?