MI MI - Tanner Lucas, Alexander William, & Andrew Ryan Skelton, Morenci, 26 Nov 2010 #4

[cluciano63]

I don't think his lawyer is obligated to ask, and I don't think he is obligated to give the answer if he were to give one. I have heard a criminal defense attorney tell a client, "I don't care if you are guilty, I care if they can prove it." I can't guarantee that this attorney is the same way, but I can't see us or LE getting any info from his attorney. It'd be nice, though!

I thought there was some sort of ethics thing, if the person or persons might still be alive...maybe I am dreaming...? Any lawyers here?

 

[peeples]

So if these nooses were found and lets say he used them... wouldnt there be evidence on them?

I would think skin cells, maybe some dna etc.. I don't know much about hanging but wouldn't you drool or something (sorry that's gross i know)

 

[Java]

I feel bad for this small town, that their resources are being stretched to this point, because this man won't tell LE what he has done with these children.

And I already hate his lawyer, although it is not a rational feeling, for most likely being the reason he won't say another word. I can imagine the lawyer telling him that his "confession" was obtained under duress and not to talk anymore.

But I wonder if he would at least ask his client if it was possible to retrieve the children alive? Would the lawyer have this obligation? This question has come up in other cases, i.e. Kyron and I am never really sure of the answer.

Good question !
This is how I read it to be -
"You should tell your lawyer the truth. Your lawyer has to know exactly what happened in order to defend you effectively. Tell your lawyer as many details as you can remember. Anything you tell your lawyer is confidential and will be kept secret, unless it applies to any continuing or future crime. The law refers to this as the attorney-client privilege. Your lawyer has ethical obligations to you as the client.

A lawyer also has an ethical obligation to the court. A lawyer may not lie to the court for you or knowingly offer a false defense. In practical terms, that means that if you tell your lawyer you did not commit the crime but were present when it happened, your lawyer cannot bring in alibi witnesses who will testify falsely that you were with them in another state when the crime took place. If you tell your lawyer that you did commit the crime, he or she is limited in the way he or she can present the case."

 

[momof3kids]

I live in Ohio and thanksgiving week the weather was nice but i really dont know about michigan. my kids wore just sweatshirts one of the days. Maybe that is why they found winter jackets?

 

[peeples]

The privilege protects the confidential communication, and not the underlying information. For instance, if a client has previously disclosed confidential information to a third party who is not an attorney, and then gives the same information to an attorney, the attorney-client privilege will still protect the communication to the attorney, but will not protect the communication with the third party.

The privilege may be waived if the confidential communications are disclosed to third parties.

Other limits to the privilege may apply depending on the situation being adjudicated; for instance, the crime-fraud exception can render the privilege moot when communications between an attorney and client are themselves used to further a crime or fraud. In Clark v. United States, the US Supreme Court writes that "A client who consults an attorney for advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud will have no help from the law. He must let the truth be told."[5] The crime-fraud exception also does not require that the crime or fraud discussed between client and attorney be completed to be triggered. US Courts have not yet conclusively ruled how little knowledge an attorney can have of the underlying crime or fraud before the privilege detaches and the attorney's communications or requisite testimony become admissible.[6]

If a Trustee secures counsel for the administration of a trust, the Trustee can not exclude the communication from the trust's Beneficiaries. The logic since the Beneficiaries are the principals of the Trustee who is simply acting as their agent in regard to the trust and the attorney client communication.

Courts have occasionally revoked the privilege after the death of the client if it is deemed that doing so serves the client's intent, such as in the case of resolving testamentary disputes among heirs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney-client_privilege

 

[momof3kids]

1) Police records are public so why cant we get a hold of the 911 call record?
2) wouldnt jail visit be public record too?
3) i have kids the same ages and i know that they would talk to whoever if they were brought out in public somewhere. someone would have seen them somewhere? stop to go the bathroom, get something to eat?
4) i would like to know where the mother was on thanksgiving? where she was the 911 call?
5) i think the computers will tell everything. his and hers...

 

[impatientredhead]

I don't think his lawyer is obligated to ask, and I don't think he is obligated to give the answer if he were to give one. I have heard a criminal defense attorney tell a client, "I don't care if you are guilty, I care if they can prove it." I can't guarantee that this attorney is the same way, but I can't see us or LE getting any info from his attorney. It'd be nice, though!

Privilege does not cover knowledge of a crime that is going to occur. IE client cannot tell his attorney the kids are alive in a cave at this location but you cannot disclose that because it is my privileged information. That would allow harm/crime that is going to occur. Not covered.

In this type of case the attorney is most likely asking questions he wants to know and trying to avoid hearing things like I killed them in this manner and this is where the bodies are. Knowing those details will tie his hands in what he can present in court.

Bring the boys home safe and sound would really help your case. If there is a way for the boys to be brought home safely you should tell me. Versus did you kill your children? Different approach.

But his attorney may be approaching it from a number of different routes. Thee is no way he knows where the boys are alive and is sitting on the information.

 

[momelaine]

I live in Ohio and thanksgiving week the weather was nice but i really dont know about michigan. my kids wore just sweatshirts one of the days. Maybe that is why they found winter jackets?

I was visiting family near Neapolis for Thanksgiving and it was rainy Thanksgiving night and cold and windy the day after. We visited the Toledo zoo Friday night and the kids (and adults) were very bundled up. During the night it went down to 21 degrees.

 

[impatientredhead]

I think biomom was very wisely trying to avoid an ugly custody battle. Being a RSO she thought it was in everyone's best interest to come to a peaceful coparenting plan in my opinion.

She didn't take the bait and try to get supervised visits after the Florida stunt. I am sure she regrets that decision. But with the criminal record she has I can see where she was motivated to try to stay out of a knock down drag out custody battle.

It is almost like he wanted her attention, wanted to see her pain and anger, and when she didn't do it after the Florida event and went to family functions, gave him the boys for the holiday's and continued down the path of divorce he escalated.

moo

 

[Jersey*Girl]

Re the talk about Meth vs Crank - here's some links. IMO, the 1st link is put into laymen's terms. All provide much knowledge. I always thought Crank was the samew thing as Meth, just a darker color. Some people may remember back in the day when Black Beauties and Yellowjackets were popular, then along came Crack, Ice, Free-Basing, Cocaine, etc. Drugs are bad...period...plain & simple... Please refer to the following links:


http://www.doitnow.org/pages/101.html

http://www.nmtf.us/methamphetamine/methamphetamine.htm

http://www.kci.org/meth_info/msg_board_posts/2007/050107/Crank_vs_crystal meth.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine

 

[Jersey*Girl]

I was visiting family near Neapolis for Thanksgiving and it was rainy Thanksgiving night and cold and windy the day after. We visited the Toledo zoo Friday night and the kids (and adults) were very bundled up. During the night it went down to 21 degrees.

Welcome to Websleuths, momelaine!

 

[illeKllaH]

It's been asked on here before why, if the kids in actuality were alive and safe, he would be willing to go to jail and risk never seeing his kids again. I was watching Dog: The Bounty Hunter last nite and one of the bail jumpers turned himself in for the simple reason of "3 hots and a cot." No job...losing his house...a possibility for why he might be willing to go to such extremes? Stretching, I know, but I'm trying to not think that he did the unthinkable, no matter how much it seems he did. What is the financial situation of his family in FL, I wonder? Would they have the ability to take him in if he could no longer stay in MI due to not finding work and losing his home?

TS said she communicated with JoAnn Taylor, correct? Have we determined how this communication occurred? Since JS said he met this non-existent woman online, am I correct to assume (bad, I know) that it was probably via email? I hope the computers have already been checked and results have just been kept quiet, but if this supposed exchange between JT and TS took place, couldn't they just track IP addresses and see who it traces back to? If it was JS acting like JT...which, to me, is plausible, then so be it...but what if it traced back to someone else?

As far as JS and his insanity plea, wasn't he already deemed to not be insane...hence his release from the mental health facility and being placed into regular jail? I believe he is on suicide watch. Hopefully he has absolutely nothing in his cell (which I believe he was in a suicide outfit at his hearing?) with which he could kill himself with for real. If that would happen, this case is done.

 

[momof3kids]

I was visiting family near Neapolis for Thanksgiving and it was rainy Thanksgiving night and cold and windy the day after. We visited the Toledo zoo Friday night and the kids (and adults) were very bundled up. During the night it went down to 21 degrees.

yes it was raining and cold thursday but prior to it was warmer. sorry! On that note I had to yell at my son because he wouldnt put his coat he was used to the warmer weather. Were all three coats found?

 

[sherryk]

I tend to thing a few things why TS is not in the press peading for her kids.
1st being I think LE has advised her the same as we have heard "not a good outcome"

2nd being... that is exactly what JS wants her to do. Would he not love to see her suffer and plead to him? He would take delight in seeing that and perhaps send them on more and more wild goose chases to see her on camera crying over and ove.

I think that LE advises the families of what to say and when to say it depending on the case. It is not a child taken off the steeet on the way home and the parent)s) plead to bring them back.. this is the father who LE knows that the outcome is not good.
For TS to get on camera is "exactly" what JS would want.
I agree that she should say nothing at this time.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

I tend to thing a few things why TS is not in the press peading for her kids.
1st being I think LE has advised her the same as we have heard "not a good outcome"

2nd being... that is exactly what JS wants her to do. Would he not love to see her suffer and plead to him? He would take delight in seeing that and perhaps send them on more and more wild goose chases to see her on camera crying over and ove.

I think that LE advises the families of what to say and when to say it depending on the case. It is not a child taken off the steeet on the way home and the parent)s) plead to bring them back.. this is the father who LE knows that the outcome is not good.
For TS to get on camera is "exactly" what JS would want.
I agree that she should say nothing at this time.

I think that if she were to come out making public pleas, especially through the media, then the public would more or less focus on her being a RSO and not on her missing children. It could overshadow the fact that her lunatic soon-to-be-ex kidnapped and hid (whether dead or alive) their 3 boys. IMHO, I do believe her RSO status has no bearing on the crime John took upon their children. He is the one that should be squeezed. Furthermore, can anyone even imagine what the other children are going through? He had a child, plus she had a child, both from previous marriages. My GOD what this family must be going through. I pray for them everyday.

 

[illeKllaH]

I think the media issue is damned if you do and damned if you don't. If you are in the media spotlight, you're either too distraught or not distraught enough which leads people to think you had something to do with the crime. If you don't go to the media, people automatically assume that silence=guilt. She's in a no-win situation. I also think that because she is aware that the outcome, more than likely, won't be good, she doesn't feel the need to be all over the media. Everyone already knows about these 3 little boys and JS is in custody...what does she have to go to the media about? I don't know what I would do in her situation and I pray to God I never have to find out. I'm not so sure that her RSO status would overshadow anything. It's not a secret about her past. Anyone paying attention to this case knows about it and has since early on. I give media credit that they do have hearts sometimes and I honestly believe if she went to the media, it would be focused on her boys. Regardless of past transgressions, NO ONE deserves to be put through this hell.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

I think the media issue is damned if you do and damned if you don't. If you are in the media spotlight, you're either too distraught or not distraught enough which leads people to think you had something to do with the crime. If you don't go to the media, people automatically assume that silence=guilt. She's in a no-win situation. I also think that because she is aware that the outcome, more than likely, won't be good, she doesn't feel the need to be all over the media. Everyone already knows about these 3 little boys and JS is in custody...what does she have to go to the media about? I don't know what I would do in her situation and I pray to God I never have to find out.

I completely agree with you.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

Welcome to Websleuths, illeKllaH!

 

[Jersey*Girl]

I think it's very sad that we live in a country that still gives rights to people that are known to endanger their children. Why should it be against the law to give this lunatic a shot of truth serum to find out where the hell he took his kids (or what he did to them)? I think it's absolutely deplorable that 3 innocent children cannot be found and the <modsnip> sperm donor can exercise his right to friggin stay quiet! How can these types of people hide behind their lawyers? Because it's in HIS best interest? Puhlease! What about those boys' best interests? Hey John, hows about ya drop into South Philly? Hmmm? Where's Tanner, Alexander & Ryan? If this guy loves them, in ANY sense of the word, he'll put them before himself and advise authorities where they are! Nothing at all about what he did shows love in any form towards those innocent 3 boys. All it points out to me is that he despised their mother more than he supposedly loves them! That's despicable!

 

[momof3kids]

I think it's very sad that we live in a country that still gives rights to people that are known to endanger their children. Why should it be against the law to give this lunatic a shot of truth serum to find out where the hell he took his kids (or what he did to them)? I think it's absolutely deplorable that 3 innocent children cannot be found and the <modsnip> sperm donor can exercise his right to friggin stay quiet! How can these types of people hide behind their lawyers? Because it's in HIS best interest? Puhlease! What about those boys' best interests? Hey John, hows about ya drop into South Philly? Hmmm? Where's Tanner, Alexander & Ryan? If this guy loves them, in ANY sense of the word, he'll put them before himself and advise authorities where they are! Nothing at all about what he did shows love in any form towards those innocent 3 boys. All it points out to me is that he despised their mother more than he supposedly loves them! That's despicable!

I agree with you 99% BUT for some reason that 1% says he is hiding them because he is protecting them from her. All we know she could be a drunk and abusive. Honestly nobody knows but him! I just pray they find them soon!