Hannah Graham: The Search

[Steleheart]

How long does it take for the cell phone companies to obtain the records once a warrant is issued? I thought it was something like 6 weeks?

In the Jessica Ridgeway case I recall seeing the afidavits and warrants which listed the requests and e-mail replies from the providers. IIRC it was only a matter of days. Unfortunately the link no longer works;
http://www.courts.state.co.us/userf...dicial_District/Jefferson/12CR2899/12-946.pdf

But there is an excellent article that talks about tower dumps requested by LE and the Ridgeway case is described;

"In October 2012, in Colorado, a 10-year-old girl vanished while she walked to school. Volunteers scoured Westminster looking for Jessica Ridgeway.
Local police took a clandestine tack. They got a court order for data about every cellphone that connected to five providers' towers on the girl's route. Later, they asked for 15 more cellphone site data dumps.
Colorado authorities won't divulge how many people's data they obtained, but testimony in other cases indicates it was at least several thousand people's phones"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/08/cellphone-data-spying-nsa-police/3902809/

It's become pretty standard and sophisticated and IMO is not long before cell providers comply with a warrant.

:moo:

 

[Emaa]

So, he's either not talking to his attorney, told his attorney they parted ways (and the attorney relayed that information to LE so they can be looking for someone/something else), or told his attorney she's dead. If the latter, would that be, then, an admission of guilt the attorney has to provide to LE and we'd see new charges?

When does LE get to question him? Can he simply refuse to answer questions by LE, even with an attorney present? Or is that obstructing justice/hindering an investigation?

Any attempt to interview him has to stop once he requests an attorney and he has the right not to talk regardless of who is present. That is not obstruction.

 

[Emaa]

But then the attorney would have to put in a guilty plea? Is an attorney permitted to put in a plea of innocense if the client admits to killing the victim, but there is not much or any proof of it?

The attorney is working for his client. He can advise a plea, but the client has the final say.

 

[ksj3]

Any attempt to interview him has to stop once he requests an attorney and he has the right not to talk regardless of who is present. That is not obstruction.

I realize that, but that wasn't my question. I worded it poorly.

I assume at some point, now that he is in custody, LE will question him, with his attorney present. Am I wrong in that assumption? If they do, can he simply "plead the 5th?" or say, "I refuse to answer that question," or sit there with his arms crossed and his lips sealed. I realize he could answer every question with a boatful of lies, but I'm curious if he can actually refuse to answer questions.

 

[Emaa]

I realize that, but that wasn't my question. I worded it poorly.

I assume at some point, now that he is in custody, LE will question him, with his attorney present. Am I wrong in that assumption? If they do, can he simply "plead the 5th?" or say, "I refuse to answer that question," or sit there with his arms crossed and his lips sealed. I realize he could answer every question with a boatful of lies, but I'm curious if he can actually refuse to answer questions.

Yes, and I don't believe the police will question him either. Unless he (or most likely him through his attorney) comes to police and tells them he will talk. IIRC, in the Galveston County press conference, sheriff said JLM had refused to talk. I'd be willing to bet his defense attorney has told him to keep his mouth shut.

 

[liebling]

Just a heads up, attorney ethics rules can vary quite a bit by state, particularly when it involves ethically breaching confidentiality.

Here's the relevant rules for Virginia:

(c) A lawyer shall promptly reveal:

(1) the intention of a client, as stated by the client, to commit a crime and the information necessary to prevent the crime, but before revealing such information, the attorney shall, where feasible, advise the client of the possible legal consequences of the action, urge the client not to commit the crime, and advise the client that the attorney must reveal the client's criminal intention unless thereupon abandoned, and, if the crime involves perjury by the client, that the attorney shall seek to withdraw as counsel;

(2) information which clearly establishes that the client has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud related to the subject matter of the representation upon a tribunal. Before revealing such information, however, the lawyer shall request that the client advise the tribunal of the fraud. For the purposes of this paragraph and paragraph (b)(3), information is clearly established when the client acknowledges to the attorney that the client has perpetrated a fraud....

That's actually fairly broad, compared with other states, which limit disclosures to preventing physical harm or other injury.

 

[Fiddlehead]

I realize that, but that wasn't my question. I worded it poorly.

I assume at some point, now that he is in custody, LE will question him, with his attorney present. Am I wrong in that assumption? If they do, can he simply "plead the 5th?" or say, "I refuse to answer that question," or sit there with his arms crossed and his lips sealed. I realize he could answer every question with a boatful of lies, but I'm curious if he can actually refuse to answer questions.

Yes he can refuse. He can say absolutely nothing, totally within his rights.

 

[Emaa]

Just a heads up, attorney ethics rules can vary quite a bit by state, particularly when it involves ethically breaching confidentiality.

Here's the relevant rules for Virginia:

(c) A lawyer shall promptly reveal:

(1) the intention of a client, as stated by the client, to commit a crime and the information necessary to prevent the crime, but before revealing such information, the attorney shall, where feasible, advise the client of the possible legal consequences of the action, urge the client not to commit the crime, and advise the client that the attorney must reveal the client's criminal intention unless thereupon abandoned, and, if the crime involves perjury by the client, that the attorney shall seek to withdraw as counsel;

(2) information which clearly establishes that the client has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud related to the subject matter of the representation upon a tribunal. Before revealing such information, however, the lawyer shall request that the client advise the tribunal of the fraud. For the purposes of this paragraph and paragraph (b)(3), information is clearly established when the client acknowledges to the attorney that the client has perpetrated a fraud....

That's actually fairly broad, compared with other states, which limit disclosures to preventing physical harm or other injury.

Neither of which would apply in this case, IMO. Unless he told Camplos he intended to flee. I doubt that is likely, because he met with the attorney prior to the reckless charges.

 

[goldenbear]

My understanding of the 5th when being questioned is as follows: Mr Furman(now a retired LA cop ) when questioned said the words I take the privilidge of the 5 before each question. Someone had said if you forget to do this they can count the ones you do not take the 5th on against you.IMO

 

[chatnoir#1]

Hmmm...Why George Carr. I see from Google there is an African American baseball player who was born in 1894. Weird. maybe they should search near a baseball field...but probably just a field. Ok, that was out there...

His grandmother's last name is Carr.

 

[MzOpinion8d]

Gah, I hate it when Morgan's case is mixed with Hannah's in terms of info as it has confused me. WHether JM was involved will be clear very soon in those cases since LE has DNA for them and now has JM's. My guess is that there were tests run on any and all DNA found in his apt and car anyways against that of those old crimes. Longo went on rampage to collect black men's DNA to get a match for what he had, but was not allowed to do so. That was some years ago, I'm sure that when he gets samples, he has matches routinely run in hopes he finds a match.

That someone like JM, clearly a predator, was a cab driver, gives me the creeps. People put disoriented,drunk friends, others in a cab and ask the driver to take the person home or where ever. In fact, flagging a cab and going back home or to a given address would have been something someone in Hannah's situation should have done.

I wonder if there were complaints filed on JM about being too familiar and predatory while he was driving a cab. That seems to be a pattern of behavior of his.

That may be how he got her trust. "Oh, you're lost? I used to drive a cab for years, I know right where (insert wherever she was going) is. I've got my car just around the corner, I'd be glad to give you a lift!"

Which is very very similar to how Michelle Knight was abducted (completely not related to this case, but my point is maybe he created a false sense of security for her and she decided she could trust him and went with him willingly).

 

[jamicat]

I have no idea how it works when a criminal has done the crime, say killed someone and hidden the body. What is the smart thing for him to tell his attorney if there is no evidence he did this? Is an attorney allowed to lie for his client? How does this even work?

 

[MzOpinion8d]

I have no idea how it works when a criminal has done the crime, say killed someone and hidden the body. What is the smart thing for him to tell his attorney if there is no evidence he did this? Is an attorney allowed to lie for his client? How does this even work?

He can confess to it and the attorney can't tell anyone unless the client agrees to allow the info to be shared. I saw an episode of Disappeared where a woman went missing and her boyfriend was a suspect. A new girlfriend of the man had a role in the murder after the fact and she went to an attorney and told him everything, but he couldn't say anything until years later when the woman realized her own life was in danger and to be safe she needed him to be locked up. Really sad because the poor lady's friends and family had to wonder all that time.

 

[Le Singe]

Wouldn't investigators be using infrared cameras on helicopters at this time ... and when they spot something that looks like a possible body, they notify the ground SAR crews.

how long after death does a body put of noticeable levels of heat I wonder? Maybe decomposition puts off heat.

 

[Le Singe]

So, he's either not talking to his attorney, told his attorney they parted ways (and the attorney relayed that information to LE so they can be looking for someone/something else), or told his attorney she's dead. If the latter, would that be, then, an admission of guilt the attorney has to provide to LE and we'd see new charges?

When does LE get to question him? Can he simply refuse to answer questions by LE, even with an attorney present? Or is that obstructing justice/hindering an investigation?

the 5th amendment protects you from incriminating yourself you never have to answer questions ever.

 

[MJPeony]

He can confess to it and the attorney can't tell anyone unless the client agrees to allow the info to be shared. I saw an episode of Disappeared where a woman went missing and her boyfriend was a suspect. A new girlfriend of the man had a role in the murder after the fact and she went to an attorney and told him everything, but he couldn't say anything until years later when the woman realized her own life was in danger and to be safe she needed him to be locked up. Really sad because the poor lady's friends and family had to wonder all that time.

Now see, that is what I think is just messed up. IF he's confessed and Camblos knows and still doesn't tell LE, think of all the tax dollars (although as many pointed out, JM could still just not say where she is), but the torture HG's parents are going through not knowing. So sad.

 

[Le Singe]

Thanks, Bessie. I believe the RSO referred to is Eric Howell, who lives/lived in the vicinity of Anchorage Farm.

http://www.homefacts.com/offender-detail/VA20223/Eric-Micheal-Howell.html

man this guy got convicted of rape 2006 and sexual battery in 2008 and was on the streets in october 17 2009. It sickens me how this stuff happens people do more time for sell weed totally ridiculous.

That being said its Impossible for him to be the guy for MH unless you believe in some type of huge ridiculous conspiracy, and I don't know why you would think he was involved in HG. Maybe its that DavidC doesn't want it to be someone.

 

[dotr]

The young lady whom we are all hoping will be found soon...


http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/l...cle_0dc5ae05-a8f2-5e4b-b0db-469b98597b7e.html

"In her hometown , Graham is known as whip smart, with broad interests and eclectic tastes in music. She moved from Britain to the U.S. when she was about 6 and was determined to lose her British accent, said Craig Maniglia, her softball coach at West Potomac High School and a family friend who lives in the Grahams’ neighborhood.

Maniglia described her as “witty, polite, extremely intelligent, with a very dry British sense of humor.”

Graham played saxophone in the high school band and had a weakness for Elvis, students and teachers said. At a vigil Wednesday at her old high school, the band played Elvis’ “Can’t Help falling in Love.” Her favorite candy, Starburst, was scattered on the cafeteria tables where the vigil was held".

 

[Lovepink]

Everything is so quiet lately. I am so hoping she is found soon. I was gone again all day today and expected to come back to a lot, but not really it looks like not a lot new.

 

[Celtsleuth]

Yes, of course she had every right to believe that. It does sound cliche but certainly was not meant to in any way trivialize what happened. If I walked across the street and got hit by a car...you could say that I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I am not sure...are you objecting to the use of a cliche for a horrible event? I will be careful not to do that in future posts but no disrespect to Hannah or the situation was intended.