LE making progress? What ever happened with..

[Calliope]

Kat: I'd really like to read about that case. Can you point me to where I might find it?
TIA

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32274027/ns/dateline_nbc-crime_reports/

Todd Ewalt: There was no screams, according to-- to Chet. He told me all's she said was, "Oh my god, oh my god, oh my god." And he said, "Then the phone went silent."

But police were not satisfied. The next day they called Todd into the station for more questioning. Todd says the detectives wanted to know about the sore spots in the couple's marriage.

Hoda Kotb: They say most arguments in marriages start with money. Like, that's usually the issue.

Todd Ewalt: Yes.

Hoda Kotb: It was-- and it was-- that was the case for you guys?

Todd Ewalt: Yeah, it'd be over money, bills.

Todd remembers the detectives stating they had checked into the couple's finances. Todd says that's when one of the men made a startling accusation.

Todd Ewalt: They just told me that I killed her because we were having financial difficulties.

Hoda Kotb: How did they say that?

Todd Ewalt: That's how they said it, just--

Hoda Kotb: Flat out?

Todd Ewalt: --like that. Yeah. "You killed her because you were having financial problems."

Todd insisted he had a good job, and savings. No reason to kill his wife. Then he said police changed tactics, telling him that they knew Darlene had been intent on leaving him just before she died.

Hoda Kotb: They were saying to you, "She's-- she wants to divorce you. You were ticked off."

Todd Ewalt: Right.

Hoda Kotb: "And you killed her."

Todd Ewalt: Yes.


Again, Todd denied murdering his wife. He even took a lie detector test.


Hoda Kotb: Okay, so you took the test. When you're done with the test, you're confident.

Todd Ewalt: Yeah.

Hoda Kotb: You're fine.

Todd Ewalt: I'm thinkin' now, "They'll get this, they'll figure it out and then they can start lookin' in the right direction." Then they come back in after about 45 and tell me I failed it.

Hoda Kotb: They did? And what did you say?

Todd Ewalt: I told them, "How could I fail it when I didn't commit the crime?" And they said, "Well, you tell us." I said, "I don't have an explanation."


By the end of that day, Todd's family had hired a lawyer for him. He wasn't going to be answering any more questions without an attorney present. That only made investigators eager to ask more questions.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32274027/ns/dateline_nbc-crime_reports/

Obviously, he shouldn't have answered any questions without an attorney present from the start.

In the meantime, her real killer continued on his murder spree up and down the interstate.

---------------

“The day that DNA was on the knife, the case was done,” District Attorney Marsico says with relief. “I thought, ‘It’s a serial killer. A serial killer!’ I knew right away this was huge.”

The break in the case couldn’t have come any later for Todd Ewalt.

“It was right down to the wire,” victims' advocate Jennifer Storm says. “I think Todd could have gone on trial. I think it was luck, and you had Massachusetts and New Jersey doing really skilled police work. That’s what solved this case. By default, we just happened to reap the benefits.”

“We’re just lucky,” adds Todd Ewalt. “That could have been my sentencing.”

http://www.pennlive.com/specialprojects/index.ssf/2010/08/dna_links_adam_lane_to_darlene.html
-----------

Wonder how many in the media and public were oh-so-convinced of Mr. Ewalt's guilt?

And so yes, the police CAN and do lie to suspects and others they question. About the most vile things imaginable.

 

[Pensfan]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32274027/ns/dateline_nbc-crime_reports/
Snipped for brevity.

And so yes, the police CAN and do lie to suspects and others they question. About the most vile things imaginable.

Yes, there are some dishonest people everywhere, Calliope, but here are the facts as accumulated by the United States Department of Justice.

The frequency of police corruption is inversely correlated to the seriousness of the crime. This means that there are very few officers committing serious crimes and many officers committing non-serious offenses such as receiving free coffee from restaurants.

In the studies, which are cited below, fewer than 0.4% of the police officers have accepted a bribe, stolen property, or purchasing stolen merchandise within the past year of the most recent study. Less than 0.6% of police officers had observed other officers receiving payment to overlook illegal activity or purchasing stolen merchandise for personal use or gain. Less than 4.7 % observed such serious criminal activity during their career.

On the opposite end of the spectrum (non-serious crimes), 81% of the police officers had accepting free coffee or free food from a restaurant. Police officers reported that, with the exception of the acceptance of free food, "very few" of their fellow officers engaged in serious criminal misconduct. The authors of these government sponsored studies concluded that, "in most departments a very low level of corruption appears to exist."

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Wntr-Spring, 2003

James B. Jacobs, Dilemmas of Corruption Control, Presentation Before the Department of Justice National Institute of Justice (May 18, 1999), in NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE PERSPECTIVES ON CRIME AND JUSTICE: 1998-1999 LECTURE SERIES 73, 78 (1999).

Scott H. Decker, A Review of Past Findings and Suggestions for Future Policy, 9 J. POLICE SCI. & ADMIN. 80 (1981); BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE, SOURCEBOOK ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE STATISTICS 1997, at 115 (1998) [hereinafter SOURCEBOOK 1997].
BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE, CRIMINAL VICTIMIZATION IN THE UNITED STATES, 1992 (1994).

 

[Dee10]

The examples that have been given are for suspects, which is legal...not that LE can lie/mislead to the public/press; HUGE difference IMO.

 

[Billylee]

Maybe just me but I don't think the example is pointing to police corruption. I think the example given by Calliope is more just pointing to techniques that LE uses, can use, will use and has used in order to try to get a person to say what they want to hear. JMHO

John Grisham wrote a book that is non-fiction, not in his usual style, it's called "An Innocent Man" and it is a real eye-opener on some of the techniques used by LE, it's a good read and I recommend it.

 

[Calliope]

Yes, there are some dishonest people everywhere, Calliope, but here are the facts as accumulated by the United States Department of Justice.

snipped

This has nothing to do with "corruption".

Please read JBean's post above.

LE does have the right to lie, they do so as a generally accepted practice. It does not imply they are corrupt and has nothing to do with corruption. You cannot equate the 2 . This is NOT about bad LE at all.

Please be careful to read what other posters are actually saying.

BTW, I was simply answering someone's request for more information on a case mentioned by another.

The examples that have been given are for suspects, which is legal...not that LE can lie/mislead to the public/press

It's most certainly legal for the police to lie to anyone, including the public and the press.

I'm sure there are plenty of examples of them doing so.

 

[Pensfan]

Your actual statement of "And so yes, the police CAN and do lie to suspects and others they question. About the most vile things imaginable" implies dishonest actions which could include corruption and misconduct. All can be equated and the facts on police dishonesty/corruption/misconduct were posted for this reason.

 

[Calliope]

Your actual statement of "And so yes, the police CAN and do lie to suspects and others they question. About the most vile things imaginable" implies dishonest actions which could include corruption and misconduct. All can be equated and the facts on police dishonesty/corruption/misconduct were posted for this reason.

Nooooooo. It does not imply corruption and misconduct.

It is simply giving the person the link and information they requested, with the added comment by me that YES, police can and do lie. I can't think of anything more vile than being wrongly accused of killing someone I love. But that does not equate to misconduct or corruption on the part of LE, not by any stretch.

 

[JBean]

ok folks.
we are not taking on police corruption here in this forum.

You can discuss the interrogation tactics that LE uses when interviewing suspects. This can include lying or misleading a suspect to garner a reaction or to get information.

This does not include or imply lying to the public. That is not the topic in here either. Especially condiering how tight lipped LE has been on this case.

Please, I am on my knees begging right now. maybe I am praying, not sure raying:

 

[JBean]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg[/ame]

 

[Marcusdog]

Hi everyone, really enjoy reading your thoughts about this case. I have a few thoughts about this. I wonder if in the very beginning that this LE was in over their heads but didn't want to admit such, and it might have made a difference. A task force in the beginning might have produced more suspects and might not have been focused so much on one person that it left little time to actually check out other suspects. From the beginning information was released to the bio parents that the public might have made good use of, and with this evidence they appeared on national TV in finger pointing sessions which did no one any good. Next the MFH sting was an awkward attempt that failed while LE fueled KHs divorce by feeding him information that seems to be dwindling in divorce court as I see it. Had the school reported him missing perhaps the search might not have been several hours late in getting started. Kyron seems to have disappeared from this school yet the Dad went to a school meeting starting the new year and exonerated them entirely from any blame. Just a few things I have been kicking around in my mind, sorry if I offend anyone. Feel free to correct me if I am out of line.

 

[gwenabob]

Hi everyone, really enjoy reading your thoughts about this case. I have a few thoughts about this. I wonder if in the very beginning that this LE was in over their heads but didn't want to admit such, and it might have made a difference. A task force in the beginning might have produced more suspects and might not have been focused so much on one person that it left little time to actually check out other suspects. From the beginning information was released to the bio parents that the public might have made good use of, and with this evidence they appeared on national TV in finger pointing sessions which did no one any good. Next the MFH sting was an awkward attempt that failed while LE fueled KHs divorce by feeding him information that seems to be dwindling in divorce court as I see it. Had the school reported him missing perhaps the search might not have been several hours late in getting started. Kyron seems to have disappeared from this school yet the Dad went to a school meeting starting the new year and exonerated them entirely from any blame. Just a few things I have been kicking around in my mind, sorry if I offend anyone. Feel free to correct me if I am out of line.

First, how do we know what the school did? They have not said. They might have tried calling Terri. They had no reason to believe Kyron was missing as it was their understanding he was with Terri.

 

[PaulaF513]

First, how do we know what the school did? They have not said. They might have tried calling Terri. They had no reason to believe Kyron was missing as it was their understanding he was with Terri.

RE: bbm

How did I miss that? Where did you find that information? Has Ms. Porter actually cleared up the confusion about the doctor's visit and publicly stated that she thought Kyron was with Terri? I wonder why she told the chaperone that he was probably in the bathroom or getting a drink.

 

[cluciano63]

My thoughts are that even if LE is on the right track, they may have a great deal of trouble acquiring actual evidence to prove what they believe may have happened. Especially so if Kyron is never found.

 

[Dee10]

My thoughts are that even if LE is on the right track, they may have a great deal of trouble acquiring actual evidence to prove what they believe may have happened. Especially so if Kyron is never found.

I hear you. No doubt this will be a circumstantial case, I believe LE said as much as there is no smoking gun. Even if Kryon is found, which we all want that...unfortunately it may not add too much to help the case perhaps, except for charges. But, layer by layer a case seems to being made. There were many doubts a case could be made against Casey even after Caylee was was found. Of course, that case verdict remains to be seen. The case looked like it was going no-where at different times. I am really seeing similarities frankly.

 

[Jo in Calif]

RE: bbm

How did I miss that? Where did you find that information? Has Ms. Porter actually cleared up the confusion about the doctor's visit and publicly stated that she thought Kyron was with Terri? I wonder why she told the chaperone that he was probably in the bathroom or getting a drink.

Ms. porter never publicly stated that she thought Kyron was with Terri, nor did she ever publicly state she told the chaperon that he was probably in the bathroom or getting a drink, nor did the chaperon ever publicly state that she asked where Kyron was and was told he was probably in the bathroom or getting a drink. These were all hearsay statements in the news.

 

[BeanE]

Ms. porter never publicly stated that she thought Kyron was with Terri, nor did she ever publicly state she told the chaperon that he was probably in the bathroom or getting a drink, nor did the chaperon ever publicly state that she asked where Kyron was and was told he was probably in the bathroom or getting a drink. These were all hearsay statements in the news.

These were firsthand witness statements - a witness stating what he saw, heard, experienced.

I thought hearsay was when a person reported what someone told them secondhand, rather than firsthand, for example, if this witness had said, "and Johnny told me that the chaperone had said Kyron was in the bathroom or getting a drink".

 

[PaulaF513]

These were firsthand witness statements - a witness stating what he saw, heard, experienced.

I thought hearsay was when a person reported what someone told them secondhand, rather than firsthand, for example, if this witness had said, "and Johnny told me that the chaperone had said Kyron was in the bathroom or getting a drink".

IMO, this controversial statement made by a little boy, TP, has not been given the attention it deserves. I truly believe this is one area that LE should have addressed because it could affect the timeline significantly. And it also says something about little Kyron that contradicts the impression of him as shy and not willing to venture off on his own. It's important to know if he was prone to doing just that, ie, leave his group for a bathroom run or to get a drink. iirrc, there is a video made at the school by TH, where she is heard asking, "where's Kyron...he must have gone to the bathroom..". That, coupled with TP's remarks, and the teacher's lack of alarm, says to me that Kyron had done that in the past. A bathroom in a school is not all that unusual a place for a predator to find a victim.

 

[overtherainbow]

IMO, this controversial statement made by a little boy, TP, has not been given the attention it deserves. I truly believe this is one area that LE should have addressed because it could affect the timeline significantly. And it also says something about little Kyron that contradicts the impression of him as shy and not willing to venture off on his own. It's important to know if he was prone to doing just that, ie, leave his group for a bathroom run or to get a drink. iirrc, there is a video made at the school by TH, where she is heard asking, "where's Kyron...he must have gone to the bathroom..". That, coupled with TP's remarks, and the teacher's lack of alarm, says to me that Kyron had done that in the past. A bathroom in a school is not all that unusual a place for a predator to find a victim.

I thought that TP statements were made about when the groups returned to the classroom from the tours. The chaperone left after being told, according to TP, that Kyron was probably in the bathroom. The question would be if Kyron ever joined the chaperone's group that morning. If he did then TH would not be the last person to have seen Kyron that morning. It's my understanding that the groups formed in the classroom to start touring at approximately 9. TH left at about 8:45.

Could it be that the chaperone was given a list of students, which included Kyron, and then was told that Kyron was viewing the SF with his mom (Terri) since the teacher knew that Terri was there and was going to look at the other exhibits? The chaperone's statements are critical to the timeline.

Something I find curious, which I believe was discussed on other threads early in the case, is the placement of Kyron's desk. In looking at pictures of the classroom it appears to me that his desk is near the door in the back of the room. IF Kyron was known to wonder off and the teacher was aware of his recent symptoms (possible "mini seizures") why would the teacher keep his desk by the door. I would think she would want him close to her to keep an eye on him.

 

[Billylee]

IMO, this controversial statement made by a little boy, TP, has not been given the attention it deserves. I truly believe this is one area that LE should have addressed because it could affect the timeline significantly. And it also says something about little Kyron that contradicts the impression of him as shy and not willing to venture off on his own. It's important to know if he was prone to doing just that, ie, leave his group for a bathroom run or to get a drink. iirrc, there is a video made at the school by TH, where she is heard asking, "where's Kyron...he must have gone to the bathroom..". That, coupled with TP's remarks, and the teacher's lack of alarm, says to me that Kyron had done that in the past. A bathroom in a school is not all that unusual a place for a predator to find a victim.

bbm There is? Where did you see that, I'd be interested in watching it.

 

[BringKyronHome]

I'm still very confused about coordination of the SF.

The fair was open to the "PUBLIC" (meaning what? Parents/family, friends? anyone?) from 8 to 10.

That was posted on the sign out front, and in flyers sent home to the parents...both of which appear to be invitations more than just an FYI to people...as in communters beware that on 6/4 Skyline will have more than it's normal traffic on Skyline BLVD and parents beware that children must have their projects complete, ya know.

Ok, so at 8:45 the bell rings and kids gather for their tours - for which volunteers were organized through the PTA such that there were groups of 5/6 kids being escorted. How many escorts does that mean there were in the school...with <300 kids that means at least 50 adults...some are teachers or other faculty, so how many outsiders were there?

Now...here's what really confuses me...

Where the heck were all the VISITORS (those NOT escorting groups) between 8:45 and 10?

Were kids allowed to tour with their parents or were parents allowed to simply tour the fair on their own.

If kids were required to be in a tour group AND visitors were allowed to tour the fair simultaneously, then this means that there were loads of outsiders at the school touring along with all the children.

If touring with a group or with your parent was optional...then how in the world would the tour leaders know who was supposed to be in their group that day and who was going to remain with their parent? Was this prearranged? Or did the tour simply happen with whomever showed up in the class at 8:45?

Something just does NOT make sense. Perhaps we are missing some details here...

But either way, without sign-ins or name-tags, it seems that any adult could have been touring the SF that morning without anyone thinking twice about it.

An adult could have been there alone or with a child and neither would have looked out of place.

How in the world would anyone have noticed if any adult was talking to Kyron that should not have been? Everyone would have just assumed it was just someone's parent...it wouldn't have been noteworthy at all if Johnny's dad chocked up a conversation with Kyron while looking at an exhibit - so it likely wouldn't stand out in anyone'e memory at all...it wouldn't have given anyone pause, so as others were checking things out for themselves, they wouldn't have even registered it, ya know.

The thing that has me really puzzled though - is how in the world would a teacher know to expect a child in the tour that morning...if it was required, then school made a BIG mistake at 8:45. If it wasn't expected (and was infact a choice) then they are dam lucky they only lost one child. Because that would mean any kid could have been roaming around unescorted (by a parent or a volunteer) and no one would have noticed.

At the end of the day - school starts (regardless of the activity planned) at 8:45, they are responisble for the safety of the children during that time.

Not trying to point fingers here, just saying, they must be painfully aware of this, so what did they do to facilatate this?

And also, regardless of the time, just from a liability standpoint, they are responsible for the safety of anyone on their property at anytime - and they know this too.

So what the heck was the process? What was their plan?

The answer to this could mean a lot! I'm sure LE knows these answers...I want them too!