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

[Csquare]

I hate to interrupt this slam-fest, but I saw that someone last night was looking for the link to the article that contains the 3pm Friday presser report.

I've got this one bookmarked, as I refer to it time and time again to see when various things developed in the initial investigation:

http://www.connectmidmissouri.com/news/story.aspx?list=366949&id=366189

I'll be back on Tuesday...going to the baby shower for my future nephew!!!

In moo the key to that is they don't say when they were given the written evidene. Guess that will come out at trial

 

[LogicalMinds]

Back to the topic of "mental illness"....

from what I understand a true "insanity" defence is truly rare

a case where it might work was the guy in Canada who stabbed a guy to death on a bus and was "eating" pieces of his flesh right in front of LE

IF Allyssa had stabbed Elizabeth in public and stood over her yelling " I am Joan of Arc" or whatever, that would be an "insanity" deal

but planning...plotting....and covering up a murder?? no way

there are many people who are mentally ill but they would not do this

as for Allyssa...so far no real "diagnosis" other than depression, maybe suicidal and cutting tendencies

if anything this all leads me to think that all the mental illness stuff only leads to a good civil suit for Elizabeth's mom should she choose to pursue that....ie, how and why the grandmother let her granddaughter around little kids when she clearly had sadistic/dangerous tendencies

I don't know if "sadism" is a mental illness...but I think it actually "fits" Allyssa....
her "dark side"...the "joy" she apparently felt at hurting her brothers....her writings, her posings,

there are people who are simply sadistic

 

[not_my_kids]

For insanity as a defense, they have to prove that the person was not aware that their actions were wrong, right?

That doesn't mesh well with concealing the crime, and it doesn't mesh well with her telling her friend privately that she wanted to know it felt to kill someone. Telling her friend is one thing, telling them privately shows that she knows this isn't right or normal.

Sadism is technically a sexual fetish, in all clinical definitions I have heard, not mental illness.
Don't hold me to that, only going on what I have been told.
ETA: I do have something tickling my brain in regards to sadism in court, but I can't remember what it was, so I'm going to look for it.

 

[lawlady84]

You guys have posted a lot of interesting hypotheticals! If I get any real work done today I'll go back and see if I can figure out the answers.

But basically, the 5th Amendment states "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." In the actual Miranda case (Miranda v. Arizona), the Supreme Court said police interrogation at the police station of a suspect in custody is by its nature coercive due to the power differential. Outside of people in law, most people wouldn't know they actually had a right to not talk. So, to "even the playing field," LE must warn suspects that: they have a right to remain silent, whatever they say can be used against them, they have a right to an attorney, and if they can't afford one an attorney will be provided for them.

Since then the Supreme Court has really limited Miranda. Miranda is a "prophylactic measure" designed to protect a suspect's 5th Amendment rights- which means the Court can limit it as it sees fit. A violation of Miranda isn't itself a Constitutional violation.

A smattering of recent cases have held that physical evidence found due to statements made in violation of Miranda is admissible, that statements made in violation of Miranda don't make later statements (after rights are read) automatically inadmissible, that statements made "off the cuff" before Miranda warnings are given are admissible as long as a reasonable person in the suspect's shoes wouldn't have thought he was in custody, etc.

 

[Csquare]

Back to the topic of "mental illness"....

from what I understand a true "insanity" defence is truly rare

a case where it might work was the guy in Canada who stabbed a guy to death on a bus and was "eating" pieces of his flesh right in front of LE

IF Allyssa had stabbed Elizabeth in public and stood over her yelling " I am Joan of Arc" or whatever, that would be an "insanity" deal

but planning...plotting....and covering up a murder?? no way

there are many people who are mentally ill but they would not do this

as for Allyssa...so far no real "diagnosis" other than depression, maybe suicidal and cutting tendencies

if anything this all leads me to think that all the mental illness stuff only leads to a good civil suit for Elizabeth's mom should she choose to pursue that....ie, how and why the grandmother let her granddaughter around little kids when she clearly had sadistic/dangerous tendencies

I don't know if "sadism" is a mental illness...but I think it actually "fits" Allyssa....
her "dark side"...the "joy" she apparently felt at hurting her brothers....her writings, her posings,

there are people who are simply sadistic

In your opinion are people born that way or is it a learned behavior. TIA

 

[lawlady84]

Also, statements taken in violation of Miranda are only excluded from use by the Prosecutor in the state's "case in chief." If the defendant testifies, the prosecutor can use statements taken in violation of Miranda to impeach.

While I don't think there was anything hinky here, I wouldn't give too much weight to the fact that the defense didn't object to the officer's testimony about what Alyssa said in the preliminary hearing. I may be wrong on this, but I think in those hearings the court can hear any evidence- not just evidence that eventually will be admitted.

 

[Csquare]

Also, statements taken in violation of Miranda are only excluded from use by the Prosecutor in the state's "case in chief." If the defendant testifies, the prosecutor can use statements taken in violation of Miranda to impeach.

While I don't think there was anything hinky here, I wouldn't give too much weight to the fact that the defense didn't object to the officer's testimony about what Alyssa said in the preliminary hearing. I may be wrong on this, but I think in those hearings the court can hear any evidence- not just evidence that eventually will be admitted.

Is the certifacation hearing decision appealable? If so who would it be appealed too? TIA

 

[LadyRider]

Is the certifacation hearing decision appealable? If so who would it be appealed too? TIA

Thank You, that is what I have been trying to ask and know for a couple days. I just didn't know how to word it right, I guess.

 

[mia g]

Just wondering (from the lawyers stand point) If AB has admitted her crime to her lawyers(she has had 2 so far) and her grandparents.. (as well as to LE) What ethics do the attorneys have then. Should they still try and get the intial information thrown out?? Or do they start from there and figure out the best defense?

 

[Csquare]

Just wondering (from the lawyers stand point) If AB has admitted her crime to her lawyers(she has had 2 so far) and her grandparents.. (as well as to LE) What ethics do the attorneys have then. Should they still try and get the intial information thrown out?? Or do they start from there and figure out the best defense?

I am not an attorney but I stayed at a Hollilday Inn Express last night. LOL J/K IMO her attorniers have to do everything they can to get her the best verdict possible. IF found guilty they would attempt to get her the lightest sentence possible. MOO they can't just say screw it and leave her to hang.

 

[lawlady84]

Thank You, that is what I have been trying to ask and know for a couple days. I just didn't know how to word it right, I guess.

Sorry, I didn't see the question.

Technically yes, but basically no, it's not appealable. The issue is stayed until the conclusion of the adult trial. At that point the defense can appeal the order to certify as an adult, but the Appellate court reviews the original decision under the "abuse of discretion" standard (a very, very high standard). To reverse the decision, the Appellate court would have to find the order was arbitrary, contrary to the evidence and an unreasonable departure from precedent.

Since the charge is murder, I'd say there's 0 chance of a successful appeal.

http://www.courts.mo.gov/hosted/jud...ook/Child_Abuse_Neglect/DisProsecLawAdult.htm

 

[I AM THE 14 CAR]

I will never understand why people spend so much time trying to figure out how to get murders let go on technicalities.

In my case...its not "figuring out how to get murderers let go on techs' " .
Its asking questions and praying they are NOT released, praying theres no chance for mistake, ESPECIALLY where minors are concerned.

My 11 yr old niece was attacked, attempted to rape her & stabbed in her own home by
an 11 YEAR BOY who nobody in my family knew. Off his meds w/ mental problems & no supervision. This was NOT his first rodeo. My niece wasnt his first "victim"...he just "escalated his violence" with her.
We did everything possible right...but there was still "questions" with LE
in a small Tx town and the judge.
Finally...he got 17 years. We are afraid that 17 years will come too fast. I dont think he will come out "rehabbed"...but thats my opinion.

Call me paranoid or whatever...thats just how I feel.

 

[not_my_kids]

DEFENSE, INSANITY - A criminal defense asserting that at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense. U.S.C. 18

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d029.htm
Just because I found it interesting that it specifically states that there are very limited circumstances to use mental illness to "explain" bad behavior. I was not aware that was actually stated anywhere, as such.

ETA: I also wanted to confirm what I had heard about sadism, and from what I can find: Sadism is widely considered to be a paraphilia (fetish) and sexual in nature, even if the acts are not sexual. Decent basic article on the more common fetishes, including sadism defined.
http://health.discovery.com/centers/sex/sexpedia/paraphilia.html

(I apologize for the definition kick, but I think some of it's useful.)

 

[lawlady84]

Just wondering (from the lawyers stand point) If AB has admitted her crime to her lawyers(she has had 2 so far) and her grandparents.. (as well as to LE) What ethics do the attorneys have then. Should they still try and get the intial information thrown out?? Or do they start from there and figure out the best defense?

It's a tough call and largely depends on the lawyer. Legally, an attorney can't commit perjury or encourage a client to commit perjury. So if your client tells you they robbed a store, you can't tell him to testify that he didn't rob the store.

Even if AB told her attorney she killed Elizabeth, she's still entitled to a defense. In that case, the attorney is still obligated to try to get client the best outcome. If the attorney thinks ABs rights were violated, he may try to get the evidence excluded. He'll try to find some mitigating circumstances.

There are different degrees of homicide, and faced with a confession, a good lawyer will try to find enough evidence to raise reasonable doubt to some element of the Murder 1 charge. If there's even any question of capacity, the prosecution may be willing to offer a deal for say Murder 2 rather than risk a long and protracted trial.

 

[not_my_kids]

AHA! I knew I saw something about sadism as a defense, and I found it...only took forever.

All in all, Stone concluded, sadistic behaviors are far from rare in American society. “So why should we psychiatrists turn a blind eye to the sadistic personality?” he asked. “I think we should put it back in the DSM.”

It was provisionally in the appendix of DSM-III-R, he explained, but was subsequently omitted, in part because psychiatrists worried that its inclusion, its “medicalization,” might be used by defense attorneys to get sadists exonerated from their criminal acts. Of course, if it is included in the DSM, he asserted, it should not be used for that purpose.

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/37/13/14.1.full

ETA: This is from 2002, but to the best of my knowledge sadism is still not considered a mental illness on the DSM. And a good article about sadism in adolescents can be found here:
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/34/1/61

(I swear I'm done now.)

 

[Prof]

I am going to assume from family exp, that they knew their rights.
Being that MB had been in much trouble, and had listed the Lomo drive address at least ONCE, I am sure they are no stranger to LE!

It is no secret that people can not just walk in your home INCLUDING the cops without either A) your permission, or B) a warrant!

I know this and I have never been in trouble with the cops in my life!

And again she was a POI PRIOR to quesitoning. If she was a POI why WOULDN'T they have read her her rights?

Would you mind providing us with a source that says AB was a "POI PRIOR to questioning?"


Just curious,
Thanks

 

[Csquare]

I'm no lawyer, but the last time I checked, the judge has a minimum and a maximum sentence he can impose. And my bet is that the 108 years was the sum of all of the charges he was convicted of.

Thank you mam. I was positive that judges had guidelines that they HAD to abide by and just can't come up with any number of years they wanted. MOO however.:innocent:

 

[danni]

Would you mind providing us with a source that says AB was a "POI PRIOR to questioning?"


Just curious,
Thanks

Here ya go!
http://www.connectmidmissouri.com/news/story.aspx?id=367027

"Physical evidence and written evidence led police to develop a person of interest. Police interviewed the person of interest, a older teen, who then led police to Elizabeth's body."

Sorry I didn't add the info to that post. I had added it to like three others yesterday so....

 

[hoppyfrog]

Stay on topic, people.

Thanks,

Hoppy
mod

 

[hoppyfrog]

Hi Pax.. one must be 13 to register at this forum....under 13 need parent's permission

really the posts on some other threads might be more "upsetting" (ie, things people wish on Casey Anthony for example LOL)

some parents might object also to posts that degrade and cast automatic (unfounded in this case so far) suspicion on law enforcement officers....that might upset them

why not let your kid post and be a part of the group??

However, I won't temper my posts...I do try to post FACTS and links....especially about the "supreme court" and juveniles....Danni is also posting about this....

Facts..yet you have not replied to that?? I don't think it is fair to put out misinformation and then not recant it when it is proven to be wrong

Wrong. You must be an adult to register and ppost here at WS.

Hoppy
mod