Tommy Croslin claims mistreatment in Putman Jail per Att

[Whisperer]

People have confessed to crimes they have not done....I agree.

That is why a confession is not enough to convict a perp. There must be evidence.

 

[1Chump]

I've been thinking about this complaint of Tommy's. Werter stated sometime ago that he DID NOT REPRESENT TOMMY CROSLIN for the Haleigh Cummings case. He only represented him on the drug charges.

soooooooooo Tommy is/was not represented by an attorney for the Haleigh Case and the questioning was about Haleigh not the drug case... what was wrong with that?

The Supreme Court has used 'in custody" as to when you are entitled to be mirandized. Originally, the "right to counsel" kick in once a person was considered a "primary suspect." LE got around the "right to counsel" by not naming someone a suspect. They would "interview" them as a "witness" instead of "interrogate" as a "suspect." As long as they were not named a "suspect" even if they requested an attorney, they had no legal right to an attorney. Therefore, LE could refuse to allow them an attorney. However, they were being treated as a suspect in every way. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled any time an individual was "in custody," they were entitled to their 5th Amendment Constitutional Rights. "In custody" was determined by any time an individual did not feel free to leave. It did not matter if they were a suspect or not, if they did not feel free to leave, they were considered "in custody" as far as their 5th Amendment rights.

The difference between "in custody" and "free to leave" is your 5th Amendment Rights only apply when you are "in custody." If you are free to walk out any time you want, you can state your "right to remain silent" or your "right to counsel" and LE can continue to question you. As long as you stay when you are free to leave, LE does not have to honor those rights. Because you can get up and leave at any time which will stop LE. But if you are "in custody," not free to leave, and you state your "right to remain silent" or "your right to counsel", LE has to stop talking to you because you cannot leave yourself to stop it.

Tommy was in jail, not free to walk out of that "interview." Therefore, it does not matter if Werter was representing Tommy in the Haleigh case. The minute that Tommy stated he wanted an attorney, they had to stop talking to him and get him an attorney.

 

[Concerned Papa]

1Chump, you are correct in that we know Tommy was in jail and not free to walk out. What we DON'T know is if this story is true or rather more of Tommy Croslin's frequent lies.

I said it repeatedly in response to his accusations against Joe Overstreet and I'm saying it again in regards to this Motion. You've got to give me more than the self serving words of a lying, incarcerated, drug addict for me to believe the story.

I suspect a judge might actually require something more than his say so as well. Time will tell.

 

[1Chump]

Did anyone find out what it means on Tommy's court docket?

07/02/2010 42 PROHIBITION REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED HEARING

I searched that a bunch. Can't find it, but did shorten it to prohibition request as different things applied to it. I got this.

Definitions of writ of prohibition on the Web:

a judicial writ from a higher court ordering a lower court not to exercise jurisdiction in a particular case

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


A writ of prohibition, in the United States, is an official legal document drafted and issued by a supreme court or superior court to a judge presiding over a suit in an inferior court. ...
en.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_prohibition

I liked it. Don't know how it would exactly apply, if at all, can only guess and have a few, but it's interesting as all get out to me!

You have to read the entire number 42 entry. 42 NOTICE OF HEARING SET ON 07/16/2010 AT 2:30 PM

42 DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE AND ORDER OF

42 PROHIBITION REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED HEARING

The docket does not have include either punctuation or conjunctions.

It would read NOTICE OF HEARING SET ON 07/16/2010 AT 2:30 PM (on)

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE AND ORDER OF

PROHIBITION (and) REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED HEARING

********
"Prohibition" has to do with the type of motion. In this case, prohibit the PCSO's from speaking to Tommy without his attorney.

Expedited Hearing means it needs heard on an emergency basis.

 

[dodie20]

The Supreme Court has used 'in custody" as to when you are entitled to be mirandized. Originally, the "right to counsel" kick in once a person was considered a "primary suspect." LE got around the "right to counsel" by not naming someone a suspect. They would "interview" them as a "witness" instead of "interrogate" as a "suspect." As long as they were not named a "suspect" even if they requested an attorney, they had no legal right to an attorney. Therefore, LE could refuse to allow them an attorney. However, they were being treated as a suspect in every way. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled any time an individual was "in custody," they were entitled to their 5th Amendment Constitutional Rights. "In custody" was determined by any time an individual did not feel free to leave. It did not matter if they were a suspect or not, if they did not feel free to leave, they were considered "in custody" as far as their 5th Amendment rights.

The difference between "in custody" and "free to leave" is your 5th Amendment Rights only apply when you are "in custody." If you are free to walk out any time you want, you can state your "right to remain silent" or your "right to counsel" and LE can continue to question you. As long as you stay when you are free to leave, LE does not have to honor those rights. Because you can get up and leave at any time which will stop LE. But if you are "in custody," not free to leave, and you state your "right to remain silent" or "your right to counsel", LE has to stop talking to you because you cannot leave yourself to stop it.

Tommy was in jail, not free to walk out of that "interview." Therefore, it does not matter if Werter was representing Tommy in the Haleigh case. The minute that Tommy stated he wanted an attorney, they had to stop talking to him and get him an attorney.

just curious...would Tommy being in jail on unrelated charges, have any bearing on his 'in custody' issues?

 

[1Chump]

Wonder if the 'unknown civilian attired parties' Werter refers to are FBI agents?

I hope Werter can prove he was indeed Tommy's attorney in other areas than the drug charges. The one statement Werter made to cover himself in that motion did not even make sense. I will quote it verbatim - (D) That they made promises that they are unauthorized to submitted regarding his drug cases if he spoke to them regarding criminal activity.'

Bolded. WTH does that mean? Is Werter referring to Haleigh's case in that statement? I am not intelligent enough to understand that poorly worded statement.

Good luck, Mr. Werter. I just do not think this is going to fly.

JMO

LE has no authorization to make deals and/or promises. Only the prosecutor can make deals and/or promises. So any promises LE made to Tommy were lies.

 

[1Chump]

Just spoke to someone involved in Florida Law. What was explained to me was that the PROHIBITION REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED HEARING was simply a request to get a fast hearing to stop anyone/everyone from talking to his client. But I also learned that LE can talk to the inmate about anything NOT concerning what the inmate is charged for. LE can say anything in an interview with this inmate as long as it does not have anything to do with what this person was charged for.
As far as I know the attorney that filed the complaint is not representing TC in this matter.

Yes and no. Yes they can talk to an inmate on anything not concerning the case with charges unless the person asserts their rights. Once they asset their right to remain silent or their right to an attorney, LE has to stop.

Although a recent Supreme Court ruling has stated that if an inmate asserts his right to remain silent, after 14 days they can question them again. Basically, now you have to "break" your silence to assert your "right to stay silent."

 

[1Chump]

just curious...would Tommy being in jail on unrelated charges, have any bearing on his 'in custody' issues?

Yes in that sense that Tommy is not free to walk out so once he "asserts" his rights, he is entitled to his Constitutional Rights.

Another way to look at "in custody" is can you alone assert your rights or do you need LE's help to assert your rights? If you are not "in custody' you alone can asert your rights by walking out and calling an attorney. But if you are "in custody" you need LE's help to call your attorney for you. Any time you are not free to assert your rights without help from LE, you are "in custody."

 

[Maryann123]

It's Tommy's word against LE's. Normally, you would take the word of LE over the criminal. Normally, LE would go by the book when dealing with someone accused of a homicide, or risk losing the case on a technicality. I worry that these particular LE officers have overstepped their boundaries with regard to Tommy and Lindsy. They have threatened to remove the kids from the home, and Lindsy hasn't been investigated for abuse, neglect, cruelty, or endangerment. I thought if LE became aware of a potential problem, but nothing concrete, it was investigated by DCF. I also thought if I had relatives that were convicted criminals, it was up to me to decide if I wanted my children around these people. Convicted criminals have children all the time. Why isn't LE standing outside the delivery room, waiting to take these kids from their parents. I think Tommy and Lindsy have had their rights trampled all over. What happened to Lindsy was harassment. I don't have a problem believing LE harassed Tommy, threatened him, or ignored any of his civil rights. Tommy has lied, and he could be lying now. Unless some of the people in "street clothes" come to his defense, he probably won't be able to prove his case. LE can protect themselves by taping all "interviews" or interrogations. Tommy doesn't have this option. If LE doesn't have a tape of the "meeting" with Tommy, I have to wonder if he really isn't telling the truth. There have been a lot of allegations with regard to PC, JM and others. At some point, you have to question why so many people are pointing the finger at them. Since these allegations are rumor only, I'm not posting links. Since we are allowed to discuss allegations against Tommy, it's only fair to mention allegations that point to the other side. Tommy hasn't been charged with any crime concerning Haleigh, so this is only rumor too.

 

[Concerned Papa]

I was reading the background page on Mr. Werter at this law firm's web site and couldn't help but notice the following statement:

Additionally, he taught law classes at Daytona Beach Community College.

http://www.werterlaw.com/background.htm

I'm curious if Mr Werter actually believes his actions of late in regards to Tommy Croslin are of "textbook legal strategy"?

He allowed his client to plead guilty of the drug charges he faced with no deal of any sort. In essence, he is throwing himself on the mercy of the court as to his sentencing. Then, a matter of days before his sentence is to be imposed, he files allegations of improper conduct against the very court's officers from whom he is hoping for their merciful consideration.

Something's not right with this picture.

 

[dodie20]

I was reading the background page on Mr. Werter at this law firm's web site and couldn't help but notice the following statement:



I'm curious if Mr Werter actually believes his actions of late in regards to Tommy Croslin are of "textbook legal strategy"?

He allowed his client to plead guilty of the drug charges he faced with no deal of any sort. In essence, he is throwing himself on the mercy of the court as to his sentencing. Then, a matter of days before his sentence is to be imposed, he files allegations of improper conduct against the very court's officers from whom he is hoping for their merciful consideration.

Something's not right with this picture.

In reality, he may be busting his rump, behind the scenes, but I get the feeling that he either just woke up from long nap, or he knows it's in Tommy's best interest to get out of Dodge, or it just dawned on him that LE isn't his friend. He made such a big deal out of their good working relationship, but I couldn't tell if he really believed that, or if he was wanting LE to think that he believed that. My brother is an attorney, & the 1st thing he told my daughter when she got in trouble over a fight with some girls, was 'don't talk to the cops again, because the cops are not your friend'. & he seriously meant it. My daughter is brutally honest, (the detective's words), & not talking to them was HARD, because although she admitted to throwing the 1st punch, she wanted the cops to understand why. Well, they didn't care about the whys, they just saw an easy, airtight case. BUT...the judge DID care why, & she explained her story, showed the proof, (texts, myspace messages, voice mails, where the girls were threatening to group jump her), & her lawyer showed a law on the books where the girls were essentially assaulting her 1st, & my daughter was just defending herself. My daughter won that case & was vindicated. She just wanted someone to use logic & understand the whys.

 

[Donjeta]

I absolutely believe that TC would lie about mistreatment by LE and prison officers if it benefits him somehow. I also believe that he would tell the truth about mistreatment by LE and prison officers if it benefits him somehow.

Time will tell, I s'pose. Would they have taped the interviews with Tommy?

 

[Concerned Papa]

Looks like Mr. Werter has decided to promote this issue on YouTube. From the werterlaw channel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQYDX3_YHrc

 

[dodie20]

I absolutely believe that TC would lie about mistreatment by LE and prison officers if it benefits him somehow. I also believe that he would tell the truth about mistreatment by LE and prison officers if it benefits him somehow.

Time will tell, I s'pose. Would they have taped the interviews with Tommy?

you are so right. if Tommy's mouth got him into a big enough bind, heck yeah, he'd try to weasle out of it. How can a judge sort through this? unless it was taped, it's just his word against theirs, & they're all liars. But even if Tommy wins this battle, what does he actually get? a little peace before his sentencing? or is this something his lawyer is gonna want to file away, for later use?

 

[nurselady]

I absolutely believe that TC would lie about mistreatment by LE and prison officers if it benefits him somehow. I also believe that he would tell the truth about mistreatment by LE and prison officers if it benefits him somehow.

Time will tell, I s'pose. Would they have taped the interviews with Tommy?

In all probability they taped it and he said something they could use against him...

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Wonder if the 'unknown civilian attired parties' Werter refers to are FBI agents?

I hope Werter can prove he was indeed Tommy's attorney in other areas than the drug charges. The one statement Werter made to cover himself in that motion did not even make sense. I will quote it verbatim - (D) That they made promises that they are unauthorized to submitted regarding his drug cases if he spoke to them regarding criminal activity.'

Bolded. WTH does that mean? Is Werter referring to Haleigh's case in that statement? I am not intelligent enough to understand that poorly worded statement.

Good luck, Mr. Werter. I just do not think this is going to fly.

JMO

Yes, indeed, this might be the most poorly written legal document I have ever seen. It gets worse if you link the bulleted item you quoted with its original stem, quoted exactly, errors and all:

Some the threats were as follows: ...That they made promises that they are unauthorized to submitted regarding his drug cases if he spoke to them regarding criminal activity.

Nearly incomprehensible. How is it a "threat" to make "promises" that are "unauthorized"? Who hadn't "authorized" the promises? The prosecutor's office? LE in another jurisdication? Werter???

The "criminal activity" could be anything but I've got to think he means "criminal activity" involved in Haleigh's disappearance. I still can't fathom the word "submitted". The only word that seems to make sense there in that spot is "make." If his legal advice is as bad as his writing, Tommy is in terrible trouble.

 

[suspicious1]

Maybe it's just me but I am having a hard time understanding what is going on here with Tommy.
Now, before we heard that Tommy failed a poly and then had a "godly moment" where he "wanted to come clean". Tommy told that "new story" that involved Jo.
LE went as far as conducting a search of the StJohns River behind this new information.
They considered the area a "crime scene" and then claims that there were "several persons of interest".

Did all of this occur because of Tommy's new information about JO?

Now, we have Tommy being moved to PC for whatever reason and now claiming that his rights were violated by LE.
If what Tommy is saying is true...and LE is still onto Tommy about information regarding Haleigh, tells me that LE isn't buying the "godly moment" new story about Jo. Not to mention, Jo is still a free man.
But if that's the case, why did they conduct the search of the StJohns River not knowing for sure if the story was true? Did they not give Tommy a LDT regarding this "new information"? We all know Tommy lies and LE knows it too, so why not verify the information first...That would be the logical thing to do, I would think. Maybe LE had information or evidence to support part of Tommy's story but not the whole story and that's why they felt the need to follow up with the search of the StJOhns River.
If what Tommy is saying is false....why the need to lie? I mean, is he now trying to stop communicating with LE, and think that this allegation would do the trick? I am just totally confused by this.

JMO only

 

[suspicious1]

you are so right. if Tommy's mouth got him into a big enough bind, heck yeah, he'd try to weasle out of it. How can a judge sort through this? unless it was taped, it's just his word against theirs, & they're all liars. But even if Tommy wins this battle, what does he actually get? a little peace before his sentencing? or is this something his lawyer is gonna want to file away, for later use?

That's what I am thinking too, dodie. What does Tommy gain by making this allegation against LE? For some reason I think it's going to be used at a later date and not about the drug charges but about Haleigh's disappearance.

JMO though

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Just got around to reading the closed thread re: Werter's appearance on JVM. Donjeta had posted substantive snips from the transcripts and two caught my eye:

WERTER: FDLE never uttered those kind of threats, they came out of someplace else. Not concerned that Tommy will be charged with felony murder. There's problems with this case with regard to charging the person that should be charged. Inconsistencies between Tommy's story and Misty's story.

What I noticed here is Werter's description of "Tommy's story and Misty's story." It's interesting that, in terms of language, he uses the word "story" to talk about what Tommy and Misty have told LE about Haleigh's disappearance. Stories, indeed. Certainly "story" is a simple shorthand for "what Tommy told LE about the night of Haleigh's disappearance"; but syntax reveals the things we link together in our unconscious minds. Werter sees both of these "stories" as equivalent, Tommy's story and Misty's story. In his statement, one's the same as the other. A look at the transcript will show that he never says "my client told LE the truth about the night Haleigh disappeared." He just says that his client should not be charged with "felony" murder and there's a "person who should be charged" who hasn't been because of these "inconsistencies." For inconsistencies, read "lies told by Tommy and Misty that don't add up" to confirming each other's "stories." This part of the text shows me that Werter doesn't even really believe his own client.

Now here's something I think he does believe:

JVM: What are they trying to get? If he knows what happened and he went down to the river and told them what he knows, then why are they threatening him?
Werter: “We covered this before about where the body might have been since it was dumped into that part of the river.”

This is an absolute statement that shows Werter does believe Haleigh was killed and that Tommy knows who did it. The sentence is kind of cryptic, as he is referring to some earlier discussion with JVM, but "where the body might have been since it was dumped into that part of the river" most likely means that the problem is locating the body "since [because] it was dumped into that part of the river." Less likely, but still possible, he could mean "since [the point in time] when it was dumped into that part of the river." First, I note that he is not talking about Haleigh, but rather, "the body," which suggests to me that he has fully accepted that she is dead and the body was dumped. And the "since" tells me that he believes the body was dumped "into that part of the river."

So I'd say whatever "story" Tommy is telling Werter and/or the rest of us about how Haleigh died and who did it, even Werter isn't buying it, isn't sure which "story" is closer to the truth, if such a thing is possible with Misty and Tommy. But I do think he believe she was "dumped" into that river. What Werter is doing now is trying to position someone else in that "felony murder" slot...

ETA: Thanks to Donjeta for posting those very interesting snips from the transcript. Here is one last snip, and her very cogent comment:

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Or we could be dealing with everybody is a pathological liar in this entire family, and that is why we can`t figure out what`s up and what`s down and where little Haleigh is.

BBM.

That's the case in a nutshell.

http://http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...2/ijvm.01.html

 

[dodie20]

Maybe it's just me but I am having a hard time understanding what is going on here with Tommy.
Now, before we heard that Tommy failed a poly and then had a "godly moment" where he "wanted to come clean". Tommy told that "new story" that involved Jo.
LE went as far as conducting a search of the StJohns River behind this new information.
They considered the area a "crime scene" and then claims that there were "several persons of interest".

Did all of this occur because of Tommy's new information about JO?

Now, we have Tommy being moved to PC for whatever reason and now claiming that his rights were violated by LE.
If what Tommy is saying is true...and LE is still onto Tommy about information regarding Haleigh, tells me that LE isn't buying the "godly moment" new story about Jo. Not to mention, Jo is still a free man.
But if that's the case, why did they conduct the search of the StJohns River not knowing for sure if the story was true? Did they not give Tommy a LDT regarding this "new information"? We all know Tommy lies and LE knows it too, so why not verify the information first...That would be the logical thing to do, I would think. Maybe LE had information or evidence to support part of Tommy's story but not the whole story and that's why they felt the need to follow up with the search of the StJOhns River.
If what Tommy is saying is false....why the need to lie? I mean, is he now trying to stop communicating with LE, and think that this allegation would do the trick? I am just totally confused by this.

JMO only

& this is a real possibility. Say that LE has been on to Tommy since he put himself at that trailer, banging on the door. No cop would take Tommy's word, that his involvement stopped at that door. So, they gather more evidence, but they need something substantial...so, LE concocts the 'missed detail' in one of Misty's lie test, & lets Tommy think they suspect Joe as the killer-but they need details to get him. Tommy seeing a way out of a huge jam, takes a gamble & gives them the details. He claims to have walked in & seen a dead Haleigh, & to have been forced by Joe, to help dispose of her body, & tells them how, with what & where. Did LE find anything of value, at the river search? I think so, & this is why, IMO...Misty admitted in a recording, that she was saying stuff because it had been put into her head. Tommy also backed away from the Joe story, but now he's back on it. Why? Because LE must've found something incriminating, & if Tommy stays backed off that story, that only leaves him. & my guess is that LE let him know that they found something, but it didn't point to Joe. & they might have let him know that Joe didn't lead them there, Misty didn't lead them there. He did.