GUILTY WI - 12-Year-Old Girls Stab Friend 19 Times for Slenderman, Waukesha, 31 May 2014 #1

[Spice]

While I agree with those who think the girls should have had an adult present during interrogation, in this case it is a non issue. They were caught with the weapons and the victim is alive and capable of testifying.

RSBM

The only reason that I feel that this is not a "non issue" is because when a law is questionable pertaining to constitutional rights, that means that my rights, your rights, all of our rights are potentially at risk. I am thinking of other cases, other children that may find themselves in this position and may be innocent, they should have adult representation regardless before waiving anything. It happened to work to our benefit in this case but that doesn't make it a non issue for the future.

The Central Park Five case and The West Memphis Three have proved that.

 

[blue22]

If it were easy, we wouldn't have the case law on Miranda, fleshing it out further, that we do.

Feelings or not, legal now or not, the fact remains that the confessions could be challenged, could be thrown out, and procedure changed as a result. That's how we ended up with Miranda in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, they would have an awful time getting confessions thrown out retroactively. They are legally obtained now, and they are going in the system now. All that matters now, is how the confessions were obtained and if it were legal...and it was. I fully expect a defense attorney to challenge the confessions. He would be worth nothing, if he didn't. With that said, I don't expect him to succeed. There are similar cases (not similar murders, but similar in the way the confessions happened) that have gone through the courts and held up. None of the confessions were inadmissible.

Yes, the law could be changed...eventually. That does not impact these girls right now. Look at the juvenile murder laws. Now juveniles can't be sentenced to death or life without parole. Those that were sentenced before the law are still sitting with their convictions. There have been a flurry of appeals, but not much else other than a few cases.

 

[Spice]

bbm I'm going with yes. Since they/she said they would become proxies I'm thinking they knew what the words meant.

They also appeared to believe that Slender Man lived in a mansion in the forest in their home state and they could live with them as "proxies." To the point of packing a picture of family so that they wouldn't "forget them."

It's important not to ignore their thought processes to try and understand their level of sophistication and comprehension. They are 12. This is not about vocabulary words.

 

[Elley Mae]

RSBM

The only reason that I feel that this is not a "non issue" is because when a law is questionable pertaining to constitutional rights, that means that my rights, your rights, all of our rights are potentially at risk. I am thinking of other cases, other children that may find themselves in this position and may be innocent, they should have adult representation regardless before waiving anything. It happened to work to our benefit in this case but that doesn't make it a non issue for the future.

The Central Park Five case and The West Memphis Three have proved that.

Maybe this case could be used as a teaching guide for 4th-5th graders about what happens when you try to kill someone and also teach them about Miranda Rights/Warnings.

 

[giagreen]

How many 12 year olds do you know that still believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny? I'm sorry but if these girls actually believed slenderman lived in a mansion in the woods then they have mental problems or they are far smarter and manipulative then we have a clue.

 

[Zuri]

Don't faint, But I completely agree with you. Something seems very very wrong about that. And it bothers me greatly.

I have seen interrogations where the police got kids to confess to things without parents and lawyers by lying to them and it comes out the kids were completely innocent.
In this case, I do believe these kids are guilty but STILL they should be legally protected against self incrimination and know their rights CLEARLY. I don't think that is possible for a 12 yr old.

How would a 12 year old be able to understand Miranda Rights? Is there a version of Miranda Rights for children? Were these 12 year olds truly able to discern, at the time of arrest, that what they did was so aborrhently wrong?

I am sincerely asking as I don't know the answers. Would love the feedback! :seeya:

 

[pjclover]

Legal or not, There is no way a 12 yr old knows the nuances of the law. I am not sure that this is legal and I am sure it will be challenged and possibly thrown out. No matter what It should not be leaked to the press.

I don't think it will be thrown out because of precedent, but it brings up an interesting point - although the law allows for minor interrogation without parental consent or knowledge (providing Mirandizing has occurred), there is also a burden on the officers to make sure the minor understands the rights. Lots of police departments have specific procedures when it comes to reading minors their rights for that very reason.

Does a 12 year old understand what remaining silent is? Sure. Do they understand that they can refuse to talk? Yeah, I think so. Do they understand the ramifications if they decide to talk anyway? I honestly don't see how they could and I've argued this point until I was blue in the face before, to no avail.

There are ADULTS that don't get that, from a legal standpoint.

But, as I said, there have been a multitude of rulings that have supported it. Same with adults with diminished IQs.

 

[bt208]

You can see their lack of understanding of their rights in how freely they spoke with the police. They were straight forward in their confessions and not because they were in any way remorseful. They had no idea of the enormity and weight of that. If they were as competent and calculating as a sociopathic adult that understood the system and their rights, they would have not said a word and asked for a lawyer.

...unless telling their story to police was part of their plan all along?

just another piece of their motivation, to solidify their place in history and have creepy on-line stories written about their act of violence. They've become monsters, like their idolized slenderman.

 

[Spice]

Adolescents also engage in what is referred to as "magical thinking" and "imagined audience" its a mark of that time in human development.

Magical thinking in childhood bears at least superficial similarities to obsessive compulsion, and recent cognitive models of obsessive compulsive disorder implicate forms of thinking akin to the magical. However, there has been little research on the relations between normal magical thinking in childhood and obsessive compulsion. The present study has two aims: to investigate magical thinking in young children and through to late adolescence, and to examine the relation between magical thinking and obsessive compulsion. It was found that children across the age range studied reported some magical thinking, and there was no general decline in the level of magical thinking with age. This overall pattern was complicated, however, by fluctuations in the level of magical thinking in later childhood and early adolescence, and by gender differences. There was a significant correlation between levels of magical thinking and obsessive compulsion. The results are discussed in the light of current theories.

The above is an abstract from an article in the British Journal of Developmental Psychology.

I'll see if I can find another scholarly resource that talks about it. Notice the correlation to magical thinking and obsessive thinking.

 

[blue22]

They also appeared to believe that Slender Man lived in a mansion in the forest in their home state and they could live with them as "proxies." To the point of packing a picture of family so that they wouldn't "forget them."

It's important not to ignore their thought processes to try and understand their level of sophistication and comprehension. They are 12. This is not about vocabulary words.

Well, we don't know if they believed it, or are using that ask an excuse to kill in the name of...

I think mental evaluations will tell the real truth. Either scenario is possible right now.

 

[blue22]

Sure. Anyone can read or hear those rights. But is a 12 year old sophisticated enough to comprehend the weight of what they are agreeing to waive? That is the question. Not whether or not the Miranda Rights are clearly defined or written. Comprehension and nuance is a part of understanding what you agreeing too. People , adults, sign things and contracts every day that they do not fully understand and they figure that out later, when its too late, that they have made a mistake. Never mind a twelve year old.

The law says they can.

Until the law changes, they were competent.

 

[Zuri]

Would the police have asked them if they wanted their parents called? And is there an obligation for the police to call their parents once they are taken into custody?

 

[Elley Mae]

I just don't have any sympathy for anyone that attempts to kill or kills, period. Life is too short as it is to be bogged down with worthless people. People that have weaknesses in life that causes them to steal, do drugs that are illegal,and other non life threatening crimes are the people that can change for the better with rehabilitation. Not attempted murderers. Like I said before I am hoping they get they max. If I were the parent of the victim, I would be trying to get the death penalty back for juveniles, in murder cases. jmo

 

[appleeye]

How would a 12 year old be able to understand Miranda Rights? Is there a version of Miranda Rights for children? Were these 12 year olds truly able to discern, at the time of arrest, that what they did was so aborrhently wrong?

I am sincerely asking as I don't know the answers. Would love the feedback! :seeya:

To me, this is the part that I am not understanding. I get that they were read their Miranda rights, I do hope that there was a social worker or something present that would be able to help them to understand what was being asked of them. I would hate for a case to hinge on something like that. People have gotten off for less, right?

I am wondering if they didn't understand their rights and confessed, if their confessions could be thrown out? I don't fully understand American Law so this is a genuine question.

 

[appleeye]

I just don't have any sympathy for anyone that attempts to kill or kills, period. Life is too short as it is to be bogged down with worthless people. People that have weaknesses in life that causes them to steal, do drugs that are illegal,and other non life threatening crimes are the people that can change for the better with rehabilitation. Not attempted murderers. Like I said before I am hoping they get they max. If I were the parent of the victim, I would be trying to get the death penalty back for juveniles, in murder cases. jmo

No sympathy for them either. Only sympathy for their families and for the victim.

I just don't want to see them off on a technicality when they have confessed.

 

[Ausgirl]

There can be a massive difference between 'intellectual intelligence' and 'emotional intelligence'. I am sure every parent who has had a smart pre-teen girl knows this.

They might ace the math quiz or have a better vocab than a good percentage of adults -- and still need a night light. Or do stupid, irresponsible things. Or get caught up in dramas and fantasies that are obviously not based firmly in reality.

And this is information I got from my highly qualified and renowned pediatrician.

So of course they 'were old enough to know right from wrong'. But their emotional intelligence could be much, much lower.

I am not trying to defend these girls' behaviour (because who on earth would do that, really). Just pointing out something that could be relevant to why otherwise intelligent kids can be very rash, and not comprehend consequences very well.

I truly wonder whether there were -any- signs of emotional disconnect in AW prior to the attack, and if so how long before. It's just a guess, but I think she could have a lot more issues than her friend in that dept.

 

[Spice]

Well, we don't know if they believed it, or are using that ask an excuse to kill in the name of...

I think mental evaluations will tell the real truth. Either scenario is possible right now.

I think it's both. Adults kill in the name of God all of the time and still believe that God is real even though they have never seen him.

I really don't think they used Slender Man as an excuse to get away with killing the victim. I believe they believed he was real, wanted to sacrifice her for him, and wanted to prove that he was real to non-believers and maybe even themselves.

However, this could still be layered. There can still be something in the dynamic between the two that attempted to kill that brought their thoughts to fruition. There could also be something in the dynamic that made them choose this victim, their friend. It can be all of the above and not just either or. In fact, I believe it will be shown to be all of these things.

At this time, I don't believe that they plotted to use Slender Man as an excuse to get away with it. I think they believed in him.

 

[Gardenlady]

Well, it's how anything gets changed, via legal challenge. That's what Miranda was originally, a case. I'm assuming anything that gets challenged has a chance at being overturned. So yes, I'd say it's possible. Id like to see it happen personally. I don't know how anyone can take a 12 year old child, call them worthless, and just lock them up forever. Or expect them to understand legal proceedings that *adults* need to hire highly educated professionals to guide them through.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Spice]

The law says they can.

Until the law changes, they were competent.

I know! LOL. That is the problem.

 

[Elley Mae]

Would the police have asked them if they wanted their parents called? And is there an obligation for the police to call their parents once they are taken into custody?

the two below have to do to with school and miranda and questioning.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.D.B._v._North_Carolina

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/23/134800896/Supreme-Court-Weighs-Miranda-Rights-For-Juveniles


I lost it now but did read something that said a minimal? appropriate?(can't remember the word used now) amount of time to locate parents/guardian. iirc