GUILTY VA - Tina Smith, 41, slain, 12yo daughter abducted, Salem, 2 Dec 2010 - #5

[belimom]

Checked out the weather for SF. For the past week it's hovered in the upper 50's/low 60's (for the high). Much better than the East Coast, even Florida.

I posted a street map earlier but here's an aerial view:

 

[trigger]

I don't know about anyone else but this freaking case needs to be used as an example as to why a NATIONWIDE Amber Alert should go out in all 52 states when a child is abducted.

I hope they release the 911 tape of the person who recognized them. :nluv:

Our prayers have been answered tonight. raying:

 

[lynnb]

I'll call it in right now. Lesson learned: it goes to show that nothing it "too crazy" of a suspicion. When I first mentioned it, it got no traction whatsoever. Now, it makes perfect sense.

Don't take it personally if you feel we ignored your post. Sometimes these threads are moving so quickly that the pages just fly by and posts get unintentionally skipped over by us. If it ever happens again, please feel free to repost.

 

[hollyblue]

Brittany is only 12, which in a way may turn out to be better than if she was older...in 2-3 years, even with a trial, this should all be over with, as far as he legalities, and at least she has a loving dad and family. Of course she has lost her mom, she will never get her back. Maybe she can use Elizabeth Smart as a role model somewhere down the line, as Elizabeth is amazing at how she has put her life back together, testified and is now moving ahead.

I hope the community will surround her as much as they did Elizabeth. This won't be something that only takes a few months or years....the thoughts, questions and reactions don't just go away like the press and the trial. Hope CPS or whoever makes sure she is going back to a long term commitment to that and willing to take the time.

 

[jen&jonhart]

hope you don't have any skeletons in that closet, because trust me, we will find them :innocent:

Hunny if I am ever missing feel free to find my skeleton, whether it's in the closet,under the bed under the house where ever lol.:angel:

 

[CKay]

Grove City, OH. I've ordered many a Old Navy things online and they all come out of Grove City...which is a suburb of Columbus. That is where the distribution center is. The likely way out of OH to CA, if they were here, is straight across I-70...which I live just off of. Between C'bus and the border of Indiana, you don't go through many areas that AREN'T rural and farm based. That car could be stashed anywhere.

Old Navy is owned by Gap, not Limited Brands. Columbus is home to a lot of distribution centers, because it is so centered in a population grid. Target has a distribution center in West Jefferson, which is just west of Columbus also. Sears and Jenneys too. Limited was started in Columbus though, then bought VS.

But if they did come this way, I agree ... I70 would be a good route.

 

[epiphany]

LOL... that is a good point.
If I turn up missing, just let it be.
lol

Same here.

 

[Mendara]

I am so happy she is out of his hands!

 

[gitana1]

She is not old enough to waive her rights or understand that what she says can be used against. Add to that the trauma she just went through and it is shaky at best for them to question her without a parent or a lawyer IF they want to use her statements against her.

If it was you child that was just rescued from a rape/kidnapping/possibly saw her parent murdered, and without your presence or an attorney questioned your twelve year old and then tried to use it against them I would imagine you would have an attorney raising hell about it.

You can't waive your rights until you understand you are waiving them.

Yes. I understand what you are saying. But questioning a kid about what happened to her and her mom as if she is a victim, and if she is not in police custody, she does not need to be advised of her rights.
Of course, a defense attorney could mount a great argument if she did incriminate herself in the course of such questioning, but it's highly unlikely it would succeed. Her rights do not kick in until she is being questioned as any other suspect. So, under questioning as a victim, there's nothing for her to waive.

On the other hand, if she was being questioned while in LE custody as a potential suspect, she doesn't need to ask for a lawyer. A minor child only needs to ask for a parent or guardian and it's as if they have requested a lawyer and all questioning must cease until the parent arrives.

I think it's hard to understand when Miranda rights kick in. I know I have a hard time fully grasping it. But I do know that being in custody for one's own protection, like being a juvenile who needs to be cared for by someone, does not count. Also, if LE calls someone in for questioning and they are being questioned as a potential witness, not a suspect, the rights don't kick in.

The courts have made numerous rulings on what custody means. Here's a small sample. It's long!:


MEANING OF CUSTODY
34:1, p. 7. A defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes when he gave statements to a police officer while on a stretcher in a hospital, even though he had not been placed under arrest. Mayberry v. State, 600 S.E.2d 703 (Ga.App. 2004).

34:2, p. 7. A defendant was not "in custody," after being asked by the police to exit the car in which he was a passenger, but prior to his formal arrest. United States v. Teemer, 394 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 2005).

34:2, p. 7. Defendant was not "in custody" when he made statements to a police officer at a hospital, and thus Miranda warnings were not required. State v. Guzman-Gomez, 690 N.W.2d 804 (Neb. App. 2005).

34:2, p. 7. A defendant was not "in custody" during a stand off with the police when he made statements to a police detective. Campbell v. State, 820 N.E.2d 711 (Ind.App. 2005).

34:3, p. 7. A police officer who was offered a bribe after he arrested defendant did not violate the defendant's Miranda rights by wearing a recording device and trying to get defendant to repeat the bribe offer on the tape. People v. Flynn, 789 N.Y.S.2d 33 (N.Y.App. 2005).

34:3, p. 8. A defendant was not "in custody" for Miranda purposes when police questioned her at her home. Morales v. United States, 866 A.2d 67 (D.C. 2005).

34:5, p.7. Nine-hour detention constituted Miranda "custody."People v. Pascual, 111 P.3d 471 (Colo. 2005).

34:5, p. 7. Lack of formal arrest and existence of informal atmosphere negated Miranda custody. Rosky v. State, 111 P.3d 690 (Nev. 2005).

Mason v. Mitchell, 320 F.3d 604 (6th Cir. 2003) - Miranda "custody" was not found during a po0lice interrogation concerning a murder, even though the defendant was transported to a police station for an interview in a police car, the interview lasted over 4 hours, and he was arr4ested by a parole officer for a parole violation following the interview. (For details see Law Enforcement Legal Review - May/June 2003
http://home.xnet.com/~lelp/lelr/index.htm

U.S. v. Hanson, 2001 WL 66401 (8th Cir. 2001)
Government agents wanted to question an arson suspect in their office. To persuade the suspect to come to their office the agents informed him that they merely wanted to show the suspect photographs of some recent vandalism. Once inside the agent's office the suspect was interviewed and interrogated without being given Miranda warnings. U.S. attorneys argued that this tactic was merely subtle subterfuge. However, the court ruled that this was a deceptive stratagem and that the suspect was in custody and, therefore, should have been given his Miranda rights before any questioning.


State v. Tucker, 763 A. 2d 1058 (N.H. 2001)
While in custody the defendant made a spontaneous, non-solicited bribe offer. This was ruled admissible as a volunteered statement


Commonwealth v. Sparks, 433 Mass. 654, 746 N.E. 2d 133 (Mass. 2001)
The suspect voluntarily accompanied police to the police station and was told that he was free to leave at any time. After the suspect made incriminating statements during an interview at the police station he was allowed to leave the station. The court ruled that no Miranda warnings were required in this instance because it was not a custodial interrogation.
http://www.reid.com/educational_info/r_updates.html#meaning_custody

 

[Patty G]

Has Jeff been charged or has it been indicated by LE that he is a suspect in the murder of Tina?

 

[elepher50]

850 LePLaya San Fran:

 

[hollyblue]

Do we even know if a trucker was involved for sure?

Not that we know of, just that someone saw the alert, media coverage or poster and called it in to SFPD. I too think the tip of the trucker on the FB account should be called in to VA LE. They surely saw it......but you never know.

 

[lynnb]

so is Virginia a "Sunshine" state when it comes to records and things?

 

[AmyMarie222]

AmyMarie - Sorry for not giving you credit! I actually searched and searched but used AnnMarie - and obviously couldn't find the post that way...! But I think there's a good chance that that's what happened. Anyway, good eye!

ETA: added your name to my last reference of the truck driver

haha - no need to apologize!

 

[belimom]

so is Virginia a "Sunshine" state when it comes to records and things?

I live here but... I'm not sure! Anyone else?

 

[sam24]

Has Jeff been charged or has it been indicated by LE that he is a suspect in the murder of Tina?

No, right now he's just been charged with abduction, and some charges relating to credit card id.

 

[marlap]

I can understand why you might wonder, but I believe 1000% that she was not involved at all...

Elizabeth Smart, Shasta Groene, Shawn Hornbeck...alll terrorized into silence.

No matter who was nearby.

I don't see Brittney as complacent at all...I see a child in survival mode, and one who may even have witnessed her mother's murder or seen her mother's murdered body.

Thank HEAVENS for that Safeway clerk and thank Heavens sweet Brittany is safe!

 

[sam24]

haha - no need to apologize!

I think you deserve major kudos for the truck driver hint. I think that's they way they got there. Very good!!

 

[Japandaaa]

A San Francisco police spokesman says the two were spotted in a Safeway near Golden Gate Park. Both Brittany and Easley were wearing backpacks. The spokesman said police moved in just after 5:00pm our time and Easley was arrested without incident.

If they were wearing backpacks, is there a possibility that maybe they did pack before leaving ? Or could they have collected them along the way ?

 

[gitana1]

I can't think of the case...maybe some of you will...but an underage boy was questioned for something like 18 hours in the death of his younger sister. No parents present. No lawyer present. He kept telling them he didn't do it, but after a while just told them what they wanted to hear. I want to say he was found guilty but it may have been overturned later.

I remember that case well. Michael Crowe. It happened out here in California. He was arrested for the murder of his sister Stephanie but a transient was later found to have done it. It was a pathetic case and ridiculous questioning. I saw the video of the poor kid being questioned. Ruined his life. Some people still think he did it.

But I think most LE are smarter than that nowadays and in this case, I don't believe they are approaching this as looking for Brittany to provide info that will incriminate her. They just want info. In the Crowe case, they honed in on Michael early on and determined that he would be their suspect, almost immediately. He was Mirandized though, IIRC.