MO - Elizabeth Olten, 9, St Martin's, 21 Oct 2009 #6

[danni]

MY BOLD

I've thought the same thing. I think her siblings are very, very lucky. The truly dodged a bullet. And if this is true, I don't know if there exists enough counseling in the world to fix their collective survivors' guilt and trauma.

I am going to say something but first I want you to understand that I in NO WAY think this girl is "normal"...
Although I think she is VERY far removed from the norm. I think that she was not TOTALLY removed from reality. I PERSONALLY don't think the other children were ever in harms way. The children in the day care, had they ever come in contact with AB I think they MAY HAVE BEEN. But I believe that AB was not so far removed that she could do this to someone of her own flesh and blood.

I mean look at it, again IF the grave was predug, it sat there for a week. and she didn't put one of her brothers or sister in it. If there is truth to the fact that they didn't know the six year old was playing with EO for a couple hours I am sure she (AB) was aware that they would not know where the six year old was at all times she COULD have done it in the week prior to Elizabeth going missing. But she didn't, I think she had a "blood is thicker than water" mentality when it came to picking her victim!

 

[ynotdivein]

Hi all Haven't been here since Haleigh Cummings was the main theme. I am totally involved with trying to dig up as much about AB as possible. I note that only initials can be used but would it be permissable to give end initial of the first and last name or a sounds like? Would that be a violation. It took me about 6 hours to figure out AB and now I am really trying to figure out who is DN. I at one point thought I had found her boyfriend info online but his name starts with B. I cannot take my thoughts off of this case. It is so bizarre for a girl to do something like this. Thank goodness at least in this case the perpetrator was found not like the Haleigh Cummings saga. Thank you all for the fabulous sleuthing done so far.

kk, welcome from a relative newbie. Your questions are all answered on previous threads about this case. I know it's A LOT of reading (bc this site has A LOT of awesome sleuths!), but if you haven't at least scanned over them, I encourage you to do so... there's invaluable information and you will learn from other's experience what is and what is not OK to post. I think if it were ok to post any more than is currently onsite, it would be posted. If we're using first initials only, after 5 and a half threads, there's a good reason for it. Just my :twocents:

Glad you're here!

 

[lawlady84]

I had some time(out) :angel: to do some reading and thinking, so here are some responses to posts- I don't remember who wrote what, so its more general:

"Lock down" of ABs house: Without a court order, LE couldn't FORBID anyone from leaving. In fact, absent an actual "house arrest" sentence, I've never heard of LE ordering an entire family to stay in their house. If anything, LE will order everyone out of the house (with a warrant) to preserve evidence. Legally an "arrest" is a "seizure" by LE- if LE required everyone to stay in the house, its enough of a "restraint" of physical liberty to be considered an arrest of all of them and that's just so blatantly unconstitutional I will say that did NOT happen.

If LE had suspicions they may have had officers outside and "advised" everyone they stay in the house. Most law abiding people respect LE, and if in the middle of a missing child situation LE asks you to do something, you do it as if you didn't have a choice.

Not questioning AB til Friday: If its true that AB skipped school Thursday and was found by a counselor- I bet LE was called in immediately. It sounds to me that around this time they were tipped off either by someone or her demeanor. I am theorizing now- that they took AB home, obtained the warrant to search her house/room, explained the situation to the GP and kept an officer in the house (with the permission of the GP) to make sure AB did not go anywhere until questioning Friday.

This makes more sense if the rumors that AB was "high" Thursday are true. I remember earlier people questioning why wouldn't LE want to question her even more then if she was high since she'd probably let something slip. Sounds good, but it would run the officers into BIG trouble with the prosecutor. There's no way LE would even attempt to question her if there was even a thought in anyone's mind that she was high. First, they're questioning a juvenile- already a squishy area. Second, if you give a direct confession and you agree to swear in an affidavit that it's true, you also represent that you are doing so voluntarily and that you aren't impaired by drugs or alcohol. LE wouldn't want to risk her saying something valuable and not be able to get it in writing.

Worst case, IMO, for LE would have been to question her while she was high without a lawyer/parent, her say something incriminating, and before they could get anything in writing someone steps in and she lawyers up. If her lawyer argued LE got the information inappropriately (ie while she was high), the court could suppress everything they obtained from that information-- which could have included warrants, anything seized, etc.

 

[danni]

Check to see if you are in the right time zone at WS by doing the following:

Go To User CP
Select "Edit Options"
Scroll Down to "Date and Time Options"

Check here to make sure you are in the right time zone.

Thank you, I thought I changed it the other day, but I forgot to save the changes.

 

[danni]

Worst case, IMO, for LE would have been to question her while she was high without a lawyer/parent, her say something incriminating, and before they could get anything in writing someone steps in and she lawyers up. If her lawyer argued LE got the information inappropriately (ie while she was high), the court could suppress everything they obtained from that information-- which could have included warrants, anything seized, etc.

I got a question, had they questioned her while she was high and she gave them the same info that she gave them Friday morning, which is at the least she knew where the body was, could they also have that information thrown out? The fact that she was able to TAKE them to the body?

Another thing, according to ILC the grandparents opened their home with open arms to LE, and someone in the home allowed them to search the house, with focus on AB's room. That is when they found the diary. If they did not have a warrant to do this, is the AOK from the grandparents enough or can her lawyer get that thrown out?

I mean I know her lawyer can TRY to get anything and everything thrown out but in reality is there anything that can be done about it?
(I think I know the answer to at least this question but I wanna know for sure! )

 

[Kimster]

Lawlady, your post was VERY informative and I thank you very much for all that information! Very very helpful!!!

 

[lawlady84]

Also, this is O/T and I'll be quick. I went on "vacation" for a few days because I got carried away posting irrelevant information about innocent people, and I'm now going to be extra careful to stay on topic and not get carried away with the sleuthing. But early on it was suggested that I did something "illegal" in obtaining the information - and due to my time at the beach I was unable to respond. Because I respect all of you and WS so much, I want to clarify that I did NOTHING illegal and I respect the law more than I respect most people I know. Everything I posted - which I fully accept broke the rules & TOS here - was public information obtained from County Clerk websites and LexisNexis (which anyone can search if they buy a subscription). If I ever had access to confidential or privileged information about cases, which I don't (lawlady is more like lawbaby at the firm), I would never post it in a public forum or anywhere for that matter.

Just wanted to get that off my chest. Back to crime fighting! :blowkiss:

 

[Kimster]

Also, this is O/T and I'll be quick. I went on "vacation" for a few days because I got carried away posting irrelevant information about innocent people, and I'm now going to be extra careful to stay on topic and not get carried away with the sleuthing. But early on it was suggested that I did something "illegal" in obtaining the information - and due to my time at the beach I was unable to respond. Because I respect all of you and WS so much, I want to clarify that I did NOTHING illegal and I respect the law more than I respect most people I know. Everything I posted - which I fully accept broke the rules & TOS here - was public information obtained from County Clerk websites and LexisNexis (which anyone can search if they buy a subscription). If I ever had access to confidential or privileged information about cases, which I don't (lawlady is more like lawbaby at the firm), I would never post it in a public forum or anywhere for that matter.

Just wanted to get that off my chest. Back to crime fighting! :blowkiss:

Well, I didn't know about any of that! LOL! I'm the one who always looks for the best in everyone anyway. :blowkiss:

 

[akashana]

I am going to say something but first I want you to understand that I in NO WAY think this girl is "normal"...
Although I think she is VERY far removed from the norm. I think that she was not TOTALLY removed from reality. I PERSONALLY don't think the other children were ever in harms way. The children in the day care, had they ever come in contact with AB I think they MAY HAVE BEEN. But I believe that AB was not so far removed that she could do this to someone of her own flesh and blood.

I mean look at it, again IF the grave was predug, it sat there for a week. and she didn't put one of her brothers or sister in it. If there is truth to the fact that they didn't know the six year old was playing with EO for a couple hours I am sure she (AB) was aware that they would not know where the six year old was at all times she COULD have done it in the week prior to Elizabeth going missing. But she didn't, I think she had a "blood is thicker than water" mentality when it came to picking her victim!

You may well be right about that. But I think that once the grave was dug, her urge to kill must have intensified. But I wonder how long it would have sat empty if her attempt to ensare Elizabeth had been unsuccessful.

 

[ynotdivein]

I got a question, had they questioned her while she was high and she gave them the same info that she gave them Friday morning, which is at the least she knew where the body was, could they also have that information thrown out? The fact that she was able to TAKE them to the body?

My understanding is that any compromised information compromises the information that follows from it. So if while intoxicated she said she knew where the body was, and LE used that info and only that info to get to the crime scene/victim, then poof, LE has no crime scene and no victim to rely on in trial.

An interesting aspect of the questioning of the POI is whether the GPs were present during questioning. The question is whether a juvenile who asks for parental presence during questioning is in effect invoking their Miranda rights. CA State Supreme Court today heard an appeal case where a juvenile defendant in a second-degree murder case asked to speak to his dad during questioning. He was not allowed to speak to his father until after he had confessed. The confession was used at trial and the juvenile was convicted. The fact that he requested his father's presence during questioning is now being used in an attempt to overturn the juvenile's conviction.

I know it's tempting to blame LE for moving too slowly, but these cases are complex and have state- and nation-wide implications. I hope fervently that LE in this case acted prudently, even if it exposes them to public doubts in the short run.

 

[Jules71]

So if they found and took her diary during an unauthorized/illegal search, that would be thrown out and nothing from the diary could be used as evidence of premeditation (if that were the case)?

 

[Jules71]

I was reading the following and wonder if a search warrant would have been required if the homeowner agreed to the search without a warrant?

SEARCH AND SEIZURE, UNREASONABLE. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures." To circumvent this prohibition, the government must obtain a warrant to search and possibly seize one's person or property. The Fourth Amendment demands that such a warrant must be based on the sworn or affirmed testimony of a law enforcement official, must be specific as to the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized, and will not be issued "but upon probable cause."

 

[ynotdivein]

So if they found and took her diary during an unauthorized/illegal search, that would be thrown out and nothing from the diary could be used as evidence of premeditation (if that were the case)?

Yes... sort of. There is pretty much no such thing as an "illegal" search, which is sort of shocking to comprehend... but if the GPs invited LE in, warrant or no, that is legally grounds to say that they "invited" the search. It will likely be legally valid even if challenged later on. (In this case, at least, it seems the GPs would have consented even if presented with a warrant.)

Example: You get pulled over driving. Cops ask you to step out of the car. At this point it is prudent to lock the doors, step out, and close the doors, even leaving the keys inside... If you step out and leave the door open, LE will say that this was an invitation to search, even if when they asked, "Do you mind if we search your car?" you said "No," and even if while they were searching, you were shouting "I do not consent to a search" at the top of your lungs. (N.B.: I am in no way recommending this course of action. Don't drive with stuff that might get you in trouble, silly.)

Same goes for your house. If you are hosting a loud party and the police show up, leaving the door open when you step outside can and will be considered consenting to a search.

Caveat: I am a CA resident, and MO may have other laws... but I suspect that the tactics used by LE are not terribly different. Implied consent is enough for LE, and if the GPs invited LE in, then they will have a hard time arguing that the search was illegal later on.

 

[gitana1]

Mistivon, I agree that this "note" thing has taken on a life of its own. The most important thing to remember is that written evidence was the basis for the first degree murder charge - therefore, it had to be something authored by AB prior to the murder. If another person, juvenile or adult, would have given LE a note simply asking them to question her, it would have not been enough.

In the press conference, LE clearly said that written and physical evidence led them to AB. She then admitted it and led them to the body.

I don't think whatever AB possibly wrote had to be written before the murder for a first degree murder charge to be brought. She could have, on Wed. night, written about a premeditated killing she committed. Something like: "I did it. I dug the grave Sunday and then waited for my chance. On Wednesday, I got my chance..." Etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovecookies
no.

Le wanted to talk to ab on thursday, but she couldn't be found, and a school counselor found her outside the school with her bf. Thats when le suspected something. Then that night the grandparents allowed them in to search and the le took ab diary and before they read it they asked to speak with her at 10 on friday morning.


Do you honestly think that any LE agency would do this. Think of the lawsuits they opened themselves up for.

If I was EO's family I would be talking to an Atty as to how botched the search for EO was. The family suffered for 2 days while they played games with a 15 year old.

Or if while they were playing with AB she had harmed someone else or herself while being allowed to run around?

It is extremely hard to sue LE. They are protected by governmental immunity and can be generally sued only through 42 USC 1983 as an individual, operating outside the scope of his or her duties, rather than an agent of the gov..

I am reluctant to criticize LE here for what they may or may not have done. All is speculation here at this point. There are many cases where suspects are not immediately detained despite evidence linking them to a murder. I'm sure LE was watching. They had to question this girl first, even after reading whatever they did, to see if she would confess and most important, to see if she would lead them to Elizabeth. It is rare that a murderer of the type I think AB is, then murders others when under the watch of LE. She was laying low, IMO.

 

[lawlady84]

I got a question, had they questioned her while she was high and she gave them the same info that she gave them Friday morning, which is at the least she knew where the body was, could they also have that information thrown out? The fact that she was able to TAKE them to the body?

Another thing, according to ILC the grandparents opened their home with open arms to LE, and someone in the home allowed them to search the house, with focus on AB's room. That is when they found the diary. If they did not have a warrant to do this, is the AOK from the grandparents enough or can her lawyer get that thrown out?

I mean I know her lawyer can TRY to get anything and everything thrown out but in reality is there anything that can be done about it?
(I think I know the answer to at least this question but I wanna know for sure! )

The first question is tricky. If LE questions someone who is impaired it might not be considered "voluntary" testimony- and if LE continues to question, it could be considered "compelled" testimony, which could be protected by the 5th amendment. A court might also find that because she was high (and a minor), she wasn't coherent enough to invoke Miranda rights and refuse to talk- even if she wasn't under arrest yet. If she confessed, and brought them to the body- IMO the "worst" case would be what she said would be suppressed but the body would be admissible as long as LE didn't do anything wrong (like tricking her).

About the house, as long as the grandparents gave consent they could search the house. "Consent" makes the search per se reasonable, and a warrant technically wouldn't be needed. I thought for a second that AB could be able to claim it was "her room" and she didn't consent, but the GP own the house and are her guardian, so they can consent for her. But here I believe LE did get a warrant, at least to take whatever they took.

[note to all- these are just my opinions here, going on what i remember. i'm not doing any/much research, so i can't promise what i'm saying is totally right.]

 

[lawlady84]

I was reading the following and wonder if a search warrant would have been required if the homeowner agreed to the search without a warrant?

Believe it or not, there are books and books on that little sentence (the 4th Amendment). It's STILL not settled - hundreds of years later - whether the clause about "unreasonable search" is separate from the requirement of a warrant. The Supreme Court has gone back and forth from whether there is a "warrant requirement" (that a warrant is always needed) subject to certain exceptions, or if all searches just need to be reasonable - and having a warrant is just absolute proof of that.

IMO if the homeowner let LE in, consented to the search, and consented to a seizure, it would be a "reasonable search" and no warrant is needed. If you are consenting you are waiving your constitutional protections.

 

[Gray]

No family was questioned on wednesday, except the 6 yo who was reportedly playing with her. Further, from what i've been told AB was in the house all wednesday night (after the crime) and acted normal.

Edit your post to remove her name so you don't get busted!

With that being said, I wanted to say thanks for posting here. I don't ask a lot of questions, but I read a lot and I appreciate all the sleuthing and input everyone has!

 

[lawlady84]

Example: You get pulled over driving. Cops ask you to step out of the car. At this point it is prudent to lock the doors, step out, and close the doors, even leaving the keys inside... If you step out and leave the door open, LE will say that this was an invitation to search, even if when they asked, "Do you mind if we search your car?" you said "No," and even if while they were searching, you were shouting "I do not consent to a search" at the top of your lungs. (N.B.: I am in no way recommending this course of action. Don't drive with stuff that might get you in trouble, silly.)

Except if you are arrested in a car the police can search the entire inside of your car, and any containers in it. So I'd advise people to be careful about shouting too soon, lol, because you don't want to give LE a reason to arrest you (even on something stupid) and then find your million dollars worth of stolen diamonds hidden in the backseat. Also LE only needs probable cause - not a warrant - to search your car even without an arrest.

Houses are much safer. Commit your crimes at home, kids!

 

[lawlady84]

My understanding is that any compromised information compromises the information that follows from it. So if while intoxicated she said she knew where the body was, and LE used that info and only that info to get to the crime scene/victim, then poof, LE has no crime scene and no victim to rely on in trial.

An interesting aspect of the questioning of the POI is whether the GPs were present during questioning. The question is whether a juvenile who asks for parental presence during questioning is in effect invoking their Miranda rights. CA State Supreme Court today heard an appeal case where a juvenile defendant in a second-degree murder case asked to speak to his dad during questioning. He was not allowed to speak to his father until after he had confessed. The confession was used at trial and the juvenile was convicted. The fact that he requested his father's presence during questioning is now being used in an attempt to overturn the juvenile's conviction.

I know it's tempting to blame LE for moving too slowly, but these cases are complex and have state- and nation-wide implications. I hope fervently that LE in this case acted prudently, even if it exposes them to public doubts in the short run.

Great points. I'm surprised LE didn't allow him to see his father, did heads roll over that once this case came up?

Personally I tend to be more sympathetic when these arguments come from juveniles. Most kids don't know their rights, and the power-differential between the suspect and LE is so great. Granted most adults don't know their rights either, but they should know them!

O/T a little to everyone: There are great pamphlets from legal aid, the ACLU, and other organizations online that outline in plain-english your rights if ever arrested or confronted with LE. All people, IMO, should make themselves familiar with it.

 

[ynotdivein]

Except if you are arrested in a car the police can search the entire inside of your car, and any containers in it. So I'd advise people to be careful about shouting too soon, lol, because you don't want to give LE a reason to arrest you (even on something stupid) and then find your million dollars worth of stolen diamonds hidden in the backseat. Also LE only needs probable cause - not a warrant - to search your car even without an arrest.

Houses are much safer. Commit your crimes at home, kids!

Argh, lawlady I love your posts but the kid(s) seem to have committed the crime at home in this case and that is no no no good...

Still going to move that stash of diamonds from my trunk to my storage unit tonight.

Back on topic: It does seem we all agree that GPs inviting LE into the house does validate the results of the ensuing search. And many thanks to ILC for the refresher on what went on Wed. night.