2010.06.18 Questionnaire -Students, parents asked about Kyron again

[carbuff]

I think they're just looking for an efficient way to get information from several hundred people in less time than it would take to interview them all face to face.

 

[s_finch]

Although I believe the point was to put the heat on the SM, I am just gobsmacked over this questionaire. I've never heard of such a thing & I've been in the field for decades. To me, this would be a prosecutor's worst nightmare--to have individuals that were already interviewed orally to be asked the same questions and have them write their responses. The chances of changed responses--even responses that are the same but worded differently--would create a nightmare at trial. And the clear bias shown against the SM is pretty obvious.

It would truly be a prosecutors worst nightmare because no way verbal and written responses will match up 100 percent, a defense attorney would have loads of fun with this, BUT if the pressure of the questionnaire causes the perp to slip up or confess...well then none of the evidence collected in questionnaire is needed is it.

 

[Wings Of Light]

I've never heard of such a thing & I've been in the field for decades.

You've never seen the police put out a description of a suspect, a description/picture of the suspects car, and ask people to call with information if they've seen that suspect or car?

They couldn't ask people these questions without making it clear that the step-mom was suspected. They probably wanted to rule everything else out as much as they could before they threw suspicion on the mom. That's usually a last resort.

 

[RoughlyCollie]

And... They would not throw Terri under the bus and make her look guilty just for handwriting samples. That would be unbelievably cruel and an ethically indefensible move on the PD's part.

I agree that they would not throw SM under the bus unless she really is their #1, or only, suspect.

But what if she consented to be thrown and the family knows the reason for it, and they all agreed to permit it and to keep the secret?

I'm probably grasping at straws here because I can't think of a reason for LE to ask parents to fill out those questionnaires. To get DNA or handwriting samples has already been suggested, and that seems like an unwieldy way to collect evidence.

 

[Wings Of Light]

I totally agree any defense attorney would get evidence from questionnaire thrown out, no way it can be used for handwriting or dna or fingerprints, no way to verify who did the writing, licking stamps, etc.... IMO, it's a turn of the screw.... to apply pressure....

I don't know where people started thinking that this information would be used in the courtroom.

A) This is about the investigation. They aren't going to be using the answers they get as evidence... they are using it for leads.

B) This wouldn't be part of the discovery. A defense attorney would never have access to the answers.

 

[Wings Of Light]

I can't think of a reason for LE to ask parents to fill out those questionnaires.

Because they need hundreds of people interviewed, and don't have the time, nor the properly trained staff to handle all of them.

The questionnaire is exactly what it looks like it is. A way to find out who saw Terri, when, and where.

They could not ask those questions the first time around because it would implicate Terri.

 

[RoughlyCollie]

B) This wouldn't be part of the discovery. A defense attorney would never have access to the answers.

Why not?

 

[raeann]

I wonder if Kyron was wearing a watch on his left wrist...which could have inconveniently timestamped the June 4 Science Exhibit photo...

My other thought was that someone strong...say a muscle builder could have "accidentally" placed a mark on Kyron's left arm which would be seen the next time their was a change in parenting ...ie Friday evening when Kyron was due to go to Medford...

Just food for thought!

His arms were clearly visible in the other pictures taken that morning. Also, if anyone is curious, there are many dozens of pictures of Kyron on the sticky above. Several posters, including myself have gone through them all looking for scratches, bruises, etc. No one has linked to anything that they found at all suspicious.

jmo

 

[s_finch]

Because they need hundreds of people interviewed, and don't have the time, nor the properly trained staff to handle all of them.

The questionnaire is exactly what it looks like it is. A way to find out who saw Terri, when, and where.

They could not ask those questions the first time around because it would implicate Terri.

And they couldn't implicate TH the first time because...? Fear she might lawyer up?

 

[s_finch]

I don't know where people started thinking that this information would be used in the courtroom.

A) This is about the investigation. They aren't going to be using the answers they get as evidence... they are using it for leads.

B) This wouldn't be part of the discovery. A defense attorney would never have access to the answers.

So you are saying the questionnaires can never be used by either prosecution or defense, ever. Why is that?

 

[Wings Of Light]

Why not?

They would take official statements and submit those.

Prosecutors only have to hand over what they believe they will be using in the case. The point of discovery is so there are not big surprises for either side at the trial, so much that one side wouldn't have time to come up with a defense and so it would be unfair.

If the info isn't going to be used to make the case in a courtroom, it doesn't have to be disclosed.

 

[Wings Of Light]

Why not?

They probably had no reason to. Or, at least enough reason to for it to be ethically okay for them to do it. You don't just make someone look guilty on a hunch. It probably took them some time to put everything together and see the big picture.

 

[s_finch]

They would take official statements and submit those.

Prosecutors only have to hand over what they believe they will be using in the case. The point of discovery is so there are not big surprises for either side at the trial, so much that one side wouldn't have time to come up with a defense and so it would be unfair.

If the info isn't going to be used to make the case in a courtroom, it doesn't have to be disclosed.

True but it doesn't mean the info can't or won't be used in a courtroom.

 

[Wings Of Light]

True but it doesn't mean the info can't or won't be used in a courtroom.

A prosecutor would be smart enough to not release any (or at least, very little) conflicting testimony at/before trial.

They would probably also have any big witnesses take depositions.

 

[s_finch]

A prosecutor would be smart enough to not release any (or at least, very little) conflicting testimony at/before trial.

They would probably also have any big witnesses take depositions.

Understood, thanks Wings of Light!

 

[raeann]

They would take official statements and submit those.

Prosecutors only have to hand over what they believe they will be using in the case. The point of discovery is so there are not big surprises for either side at the trial, so much that one side wouldn't have time to come up with a defense and so it would be unfair.

If the info isn't going to be used to make the case in a courtroom, it doesn't have to be disclosed.

Actually they have to hand over far more than that. They have to hand over any information that could be exculpatory for their client. If someone states that they saw Terri three times that day while out running errands and she was alone, but the prosecution chooses to ignore that statement at trial, the defense has every right to that information, and it can not be legally withheld from them.

 

[nomoresorrow]

I don't know where people started thinking that this information would be used in the courtroom.

A) This is about the investigation. They aren't going to be using the answers they get as evidence... they are using it for leads.

B) This wouldn't be part of the discovery. A defense attorney would never have access to the answers.

Do you seriously believe that if a person or persons answers yes to seeing Terri at the school and states that they recall seeing her at 9:15 am, parked on the south side of the school in a white truck... information that would/could be used to implicate her in a crime, wouldn't come up at trial??

Last I knew, in this country we have the right to face our accusers and yes, LE has to answer to where, from whom, and how they obtained any incriminating evidence and information that leads to an individual's arrest and detention.

~ MO ~

 

[Wings Of Light]

Actually they have to hand over far more than that. They have to hand over any information that could be exculpatory for their client. If someone states that they saw Terri three times that day while out running errands and she was alone, but the prosecution chooses to ignore that statement at trial, the defense has every right to that information, and it can not be legally withheld from them.

Yes, exculpatory information does have to be disclosed. We were talking about differences in a single individual's story, though... not two individuals testimony conflicting.

 

[nomoresorrow]

(BBM)

They probably had no reason to. Or, at least enough reason to for it to be ethically okay for them to do it. You don't just make someone look guilty on a hunch. It probably took them some time to put everything together and see the big picture.

LE is not supposed to make someone look guilty - period!!!

~ MO ~

 

[Wings Of Light]

Do you seriously believe that if a person or persons answers yes to seeing Terri at the school and states that they recall seeing her at 9:15 am, parked on the south side of the school in a white truck... information that would/could be used to implicate her in a crime, wouldn't come up at trial??

Ugh...

I never said that. The witness testimony would be produced to the defense, but it would not include these questionnaires. It would be witness statements, and possibly depositions pre-trial.