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.
I've never heard of such a thing & I've been in the field for decades.
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 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 can't think of a reason for LE to ask parents to fill out those questionnaires.
B) This wouldn't be part of the discovery. A defense attorney would never have access to the answers.
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!
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.
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.
Why not?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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??