MO - Elizabeth Olten, 9, St Martin's, 21 Oct 2009 #13

[Csquare]

And that's why the judge entered a not guilty plea correct?

This is correct. Now that she has an attorney they are going to arrain her again on the 8th of Dec

 

[danni]

And that's why the judge entered a not guilty plea correct?

Right what happened was....

Kurt apeared in court with her that morning. at the cert hearing.
The judge released him once she was certified.
At the later hearing the judge entered the plea because they had not appointed her a public defender yet, so she had no attorney AT THAT TIME.

She had one prior to and right after that is when Jan king became her pd!

 

[LadyBug99]

So here is the story as we know it now, she didnt have an attorney BY THE TIME of the arraignment so its safe to say that she didnt have one at the time of LE questioning when she gave her statement and confession.

The Supreme court has ruled that a minor CAN waive their right to an attorney as I quoted in another post I will repeat here:




Given that we know she spent time in a mental facility just prior to being questioned by police I would argue that she doesnt meet THIS TEST because she may not have been mentally competent enough to appreciate the consequences of waiving her right to representation and therefore I conclude, given the facts at this time, that everything involving AB as a suspect is fruit of the poison tree and should be inadmissable which basically leaves the state with no case. I sure hope her attorney knows what she is doing.

Do they even need her confession? Can’t they build a case based on physical evidence? TIA

 

[vjlaw]

So here is the story as we know it now, she didnt have an attorney BY THE TIME of the arraignment so its safe to say that she didnt have one at the time of LE questioning when she gave her statement and confession.

The Supreme court has ruled that a minor CAN waive their right to an attorney as I quoted in another post I will repeat here:




Given that we know she spent time in a mental facility just prior to being questioned by police I would argue that she doesnt meet THIS TEST because she may not have been mentally competent enough to appreciate the consequences of waiving her right to representation and therefore I conclude, given the facts at this time, that everything involving AB as a suspect is fruit of the poison tree and should be inadmissable which basically leaves the state with no case. I sure hope her attorney knows what she is doing.

Just in case you try to call the attorney, Jan King is a guy.

 

[Dal Gal]

I sure hope her attorney knows what she is doing.

~snipped by me~

Jan King = He

You're 0 for 2 in the gender identification thing, my friend LOL

 

[I AM THE 14 CAR]

I just spoke to a subject matter expert and they told me her confession will stand regardless if she had an attorney present. I know that will break some peoples heart that she won't be set free on that technicality.

Breaks some hearts here ? I do hope youre joking !

 

[danni]

:tsktsk:

 

[Dal Gal]

I haven't seen ANYONE who wants her set free! We're just trying to work out what the law is and how this possible technicality may effect the outcome. No judge is going to overlook the law.

 

[vjlaw]

I haven't seen ANYONE who wants her set free! We're just trying to work out what the law is and how this possible technicality may effect the outcome. No judge is going to overlook the law.

Agreed.

 

[MDATCA]

In book "Under the Banner of Heaven" by Jon Krakauer, he writes of a old Mormon practice of "blood atonement" and telling of vicious murders with the victims' throats being slashed, even the baby's throat slashed, with no remorse from the killers. The only way to salvation is to spill the sinner's blood.

And Mr Currie with a gun shot to the head.


Just throwing my morning thoughts out there. :waitasec:

It is scary that some people believe that. Actually it is scary to think that there are "religions" in the world that condone violence and murder. In most cases it is interpreted that way by a few who twist things to suit them but there are some that it is widely accepted.

If that was the "motive" AB would have been labeled a religious zealot. If that were the case we would have been hearing about her devoutness from her peers and church. I would like to think that someone would have picked up on a problem if she was a fanatic like most people realize there is something wrong with the members of a certain church whose god hates just about everything. The defense would already be jumping all over that. Her mental health therapy would have been including treatment for it. People would have labeled her a "church freak" and her social sites would have reflected that.

IMO if that was the defense AB would have many more "followers" who would be proclaiming her a martyr.

 

[AndresEscobar]

I just spoke to a subject matter expert and they told me her confession will stand regardless if she had an attorney present. I know that will break some peoples heart that she won't be set free on that technicality.

Unless the "subject matter expert" is someone who is familiar with the intimate details of the case, I don't think anyone is in a position to say whether or not there is an issue with the confession. We'll find out on 12/8 when she enters her plea.

I'll be around infrequently, just hit crunch time at work and this thread has gotten a bit too hot for me.

 

[Csquare]

I haven't seen ANYONE who wants her set free! We're just trying to work out what the law is and how this possible technicality may effect the outcome. No judge is going to overlook the law.

I deleted that comment. This is not what I meant to post. Sorry. I agree that no judge is going to overlook the law.

 

[vjlaw]

Unless the "subject matter expert" is someone who is familiar with the intimate details of the case, I don't think anyone is in a position to say whether or not there is an issue with the confession. We'll find out on 12/8 when she enters her plea.

I'll be around infrequently, just hit crunch time at work and this thread has gotten a bit too hot for me.

I guess it is a good thing you have never been shut in a room on a jury. lol

 

[Csquare]

It is scary that some people believe that. Actually it is scary to think that there are "religions" in the world that condone violence and murder. In most cases it is interpreted that way by a few who twist things to suit them but there are some that it is widely accepted.

If that was the "motive" AB would have been labeled a religious zealot. If that were the case we would have been hearing about her devoutness from her peers and church. I would like to think that someone would have picked up on a problem if she was a fanatic like most people realize there is something wrong with the members of a certain church whose god hates just about everything. The defense would already be jumping all over that. Her mental health therapy would have been including treatment for it. People would have labeled her a "church freak" and her social sites would have reflected that.

IMO if that was the defense AB would have many more "followers" who would be proclaiming her a martyr.

She was known to allegadly went to church frequently. Now wether or not that is what you would call a zealot that is open to interpetation. I do know the Mormon church does not like negative publicity, much like any other religon. IF she did attend often it doesn't surprise me that the parishnors are not talking due to strict church rules.

 

[PAXIMUS]

I certainly DO NOT want her set free but I DO want the STATE to follow the law when they build their case against her because when the state breaks the law it effects ALL OF US.

I also do NOT want AB in prison I want her in a medical facility where she belongs.

All the arguments I have presented are simply in favor of not responsible for her actions due to mental illness and possible adverse effects of medications, that doesnt mean NOT GUILTY, she needs to be confined for a long time but I would rather her be confined in a place she can get some HELP rather than a prison where she will just rot away and become another cold and hardened criminal.

 

[PAXIMUS]

~snipped by me~

Jan King = He

You're 0 for 2 in the gender identification thing, my friend LOL

LOL not my strong point for sure! Let me guess, youre a male!:crazy:

 

[danni]

I certainly DO NOT want her set free but I DO want the STATE to follow the law when they build their case against her because when the state breaks the law it effects ALL OF US.

I also do NOT want AB in prison I want her in a medical facility where she belongs.

All the arguments I have presented are simply in favor of not responsible for her actions due to mental illness and possible adverse effects of medications, that doesnt mean NOT GUILTY, she needs to be confined for a long time but I would rather her be confined in a place she can get some HELP rather than a prison where she will just rot away and become another cold and hardened criminal.

If she is to be in custody of some kind for the rest of her life why pump money into "fixing" her?

How about using that money to "fix" people walking around that have not commited crimes. Ya know like people who can not afford 2 grand a freaking month for cancer meds.

 

[Prof]

I haven't seen ANYONE who wants her set free! We're just trying to work out what the law is and how this possible technicality may effect the outcome. No judge is going to overlook the law.

AGREED!

sigh -- I am not sure this post will stop all of the false dilemna posts, but THANK YOU!

 

[LadyBug99]

If she is to be in custody of some kind for the rest of her life why pump money into "fixing" her?

How about using that money to "fix" people walking around that have not commited crimes. Ya know like people who can not afford 2 grand a freaking month for cancer meds.

MOO – If we are going to be paying for her either way, I’d rather see that she is in an institution. Just so she can be studied and possibly treated. The more we know about what makes the killer I believe the better chances we have from preventing a murder in the future. I know many of you may not agree with me and that’s okay…

 

[mominjc]

If you look in the court docs Form 1 - General Docket Entry filed 11/18/09 it states that if any taping or recording was taken it cannot be used because AB was not represented by counsel. So, I think that may give an answer to that debate..

I haven't finished reading the thread so I'm not sure if this has been mentioned but that document above you are referring to states at the "arraingment". This was not referring to any other time other than the arraingment...which was after her adult certification hearing when Kurt V had left and Jan King had not entered as her PD yet.