So you're saying the system would be much better served if no one was to speak with LE or answer questions to help forward an investigation lest they be perceived to be guilty? And that if investigators and/or a forensics team do not find direct evidence of a crime then the case should be closed and everyone should just move on? And everyone should consider the prime suspect innocent of the crime?
:waitasec:
No, I said exactly what I said, just because someone is being represented by an attorney and exercises his/hers/theirs constitutional rights where those are lawful and proper doesn't mean they have anything to hide or that they are guilty of anything although one may draw their own conclusion as a matter of opinion,
perhaps we can agree on this?
"...
And if the father of Michelle's children wants the investigation to move forward to find the "real answer", for those children, as to what may have happened to their mother, I don't know why he'd not answer the questions completely and truthfully ..."
So you're saying that DS did not answer truthfully and completely,
yes? Now, there's really nothing wrong with you or anyone else believing whatever, but my original post was generalized on purpose precisely because I did not want to get in the minutia of such statements, since obviously the logical answer to that statement would be "how do you know factually what DS said or not said to the Police since no transcripts have been made available on the public record?
Who in here knows factually what transpired in what appears to be more then one interview that DS gave to the Police outside of
one vague statement made by the investigators that
in their opinion DS had not been completely straightforward or something to that effect? And what about DS own assertion that he fully cooperated with the Police (through his attorney)? What are the basis then to believe one side and not the other when no factual record has been established on this issue as well as basically all others?
So
again, instead of going into the minutia of this, can we agree that
personal opinions aside, simply having an adversarial stance within a legal settings is not in itself indication of any guilt as a matter of fact but the way the system works in order to obtain fairness and equity for all involved in it? That was the jest of my post and I hope I reasonably clarified it now.
... and can we agree not to drag those kids into this discussion constantly? There's something fundamentally wrong about that
IMO.
"
... So you're saying the system would be much better served if no one was to speak with LE or answer questions to help forward an investigation lest they be perceived to be guilty ..."
No, as above, the judicial system is inherently an
adversarial process for obvious reasons, there are no prohibitions of course in cooperating with the Police, at times it might be advisable if not a simple question of civic duty, besides most cases are evidence of such cooperation in a sense giving the commonality of plea bargaining, however those are broad generalization since there are many actors and many situations that populate the everyday realities of the system, ranging from judges and lawyers, prosecutors and defendants, eyewitness and investigators all the way to secretaries, law clerks and building maintenance people and so on, all having a role to play in different situations and no one is particular evil or guilty of wrong doing
solely by playing by its rules.
JMO
