If there was information given about more than one cadaver dog hit then that is something that has not been released otherwise. Except by Ron Rugen's source.
Or maybe no reporters have asked.
If there was information given about more than one cadaver dog hit then that is something that has not been released otherwise. Except by Ron Rugen's source.
If there was information given about more than one cadaver dog hit then that is something that has not been released otherwise. Except by Ron Rugen's source.
Nothing was leaked. I called and asked. Everyhing I was told is pretty obvious anyway.
Or maybe no reporters have asked.
Or maybe no reporters have asked.
Or maybe no reporters have asked.
Stuff on HLN right now....
And while so many were so sure everybody in LE would know who Tim Miller is. I will bet that very few people as a whole know who he is. WE all know who he is because of this WS addiction problem most of us seem to have, but MOST people do not read past a headline on a story, let alone read most of the fine details.I also find it interesting that the officer never heard of TES and IMO, seemed to give the indication that there really wouldn't be a clear direction for them to search even if they were involved.
And while so many were so sure everybody in LE would know who Tim Miller is. I will bet that very few people as a whole know who he is. WE all know who he is because of this WS addiction problem most of us seem to have, but MOST people do not read past a headline on a story, let alone read most of the fine details.
Respectfully, I'm not sure I believe police are so free with their information about ongoing cases. At work, when I call to get a name or badge number, even if it's for a compliment letter, it can be like pulling teeth to even get a detective's name assigned to the case, if it's something big and/or ongoing. I'm skeptical they would be so free and easy with information, particularly additional information that hasn't been reported in any mainstream media.
Are you speaking in general terms or specifically about this dept?
JI & DBs position (if I understand correctly) = theyll submit to further in-person interrogation only if joint.
(Yes, I understand a few reasons why they may want joint.)
Tacopina & Picerno (IIUC) = now representing both JI & DB, not just one or the other.
If LE arrested both (IIUC) = theyd both have separate attorneys, not share one.
-------------------------------------------------------------IS THERE A LEGAL EXPERT IN THE HOUSE? --------------------------------------------------
This may seem like a Q for ask an attorney thread, but there may be other implications re interrogations, so posting here.
Do Mo & NY bar asscns conflict of interest provisions prohibit either Tacopina & Picerno (previous counsel UMKC Law Prof & Cindy Short)
from reping either JI or DB? If the answer is yes,
1. would all attys now or previously involved be prohibited from reping either JI or DB individually?
2. If so, prohibited when?
--- JI & DB did submit to separate interrogations, would an attorney accompanying each of them to separate interviews/interrogations,
that is, even pre-arrest, face conflict of interest issues?
---Or only post-arrest or post-charges?
3. If either JI, DB, or both were arrested and sought separate counsel and if both were to agree to and sign conflict of interest waiver,
would that fix the conflict problem for the attys? Or would the conflict not be client-waivable?
Could these issues be influencing the current attorneys tactics or approach here?
Thanks in advance.
Whether LE should or shouldn't answer questions is one thing (guess it depends on what is divulged), but I certainly don't doubt that natsound called and was told what she shared with us.