Princess Ryans Knickers: It's the man's fault. He was obviously abusing her and she was defending herself! She's innocent!
Cognitive Displaysia: EatsCrayons: Fano: She IS that stupid. IIRC from the original story, after she pushed him off, when the cops asked where he was, she said "he left with friends." No matter that she actually had an alibi in the form of "he was standing near the cliff and then he tripped and fell over," or some equally plausible thing. Nope, he left with some anonymous friends, officer, yeah, that's the ticket!Maybe, but then he'd actually have to be equally moronic to put a blindfold on by the top of a cliff. It's a lot more believable to me that he'd be carrying something as mundane as a bandana or muff, because it's an ordinary, common thing to have when you're hiking.Like the hoofprints in Kansas are probably from horses, not zebras.Why horses? Why not a donkey, or a deer? What about bovine creatures?
Theaetetus: FLMountainMan:You have a conclusion, and are doing everything you can to justify it. Really, read the rules of evidence or a primer on investigations.I've read and studied both the FRE and my state's rules extensively as part of passing the bar. Do you have a particular rule in mind? Or is this just a "I can't actually cite anything in support of what I'm saying, so I'm going to throw out a vague 'read the rules' in the hopes that (a) you won't bother, and (b) haven't done so previously"? Because that isn't going to work.Or even a basic psychology textbook. Or even Florida law that prohibits recorded conversation without the consent of both parties (absent a warrant or various other legal devices).Maybe you should go back and read the law. You're referring, of course, to Fl. Stat. 934.03, that prohibits recorded conversation without the consent of both parties except (2)(a)(3)(c) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an investigative or law enforcement officer or a person acting under the direction of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception and the purpose of such interception is to obtain evidence of a criminal act.And since we're talking about cops recording interrogations where, by definition, the cop is a party to the communication, it's explicitly legal (not to mention the fact that it's also to obtain evidence of a criminal act).
Theaetetus: Of course, nothing is actually "off the record", contrary to your agreement.
Theaetetus: In fact, I'd go even farther and say that when you "do it all the time" and "agree to talk 'off the record'", you likely are not turning off your recording device. After all, what if, unprompted, they immediately confess? You'd want that record. In fact, the only time in which you'd turn off your recording device is when you know ahead of time that you are going to something illegal or improper. The very fact that you don't have a recording, during a time period in which making a recording was under your sole control, means that you probably did something you didn't want recorded... and juries should take a very harsh view of anyone who does that, particularly if they later rely on either the recording or their report of what occurred.Hence why I say, if you have a recording that is missing a crucial time period, then anything you claim happened during that time period should be presumed false, because Occam's Razor says it probably is.
Theaetetus: FLMountainMan: Theaetetus: There should be a rule that, if the cops record part of something, and then mysteriously fail to record another part, the jury should be instructed to draw a negative inference that anything the cops say occurred during that time is likely false, unless they can prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.Rules of Evidence. Read it sometime, pretty interesting, and there are free outlines available on the internet.Yes, and? Which one of the FRE or the various applicable state rules of evidence has any bearing on what I just said?And not recording part of an interview is Investigation 101. I do it all the time. Agree to talk "off the record". Target incriminates themselves. Act nonchalant. Kill time a little bit with some filler questions, state that we've wandered far off the beaten path and need to get back on the record to get an official statement - rules are rules, after all. More filler questions, then subtly ask questions you know will have to be answered in a way that will repeat the previous incrimination.Of course, it sounds like the investigators here botched the whole thing, but there ya go.You mean "lie"? Yes, I know lying is part of investigation 101. That's exactly why I think juries should draw a negative inference whenever it's likely that you're lying by purposely avoiding making a contemporaneous record. Don't like it, then keep the recording on. Or, give the interrogated person a tape recorder and let them make their own record. Why should people who care about justice make it easy for you to lie?
Theaetetus: There should be a rule that, if the cops record part of something, and then mysteriously fail to record another part, the jury should be instructed to draw a negative inference that anything the cops say occurred during that time is likely false, unless they can prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.
I_Can't_Believe_it's_not_Boutros: This is why I think all cliffs should have fencing.
EatsCrayons: FormlessOne: As a jurisprudence fetishist, I, too, hope she gets off on technicality...Seriously, though, the circumstantial evidence does strongly suggest manslaughter, if not murder, and the idea that the couldn't have been arguing because he was "wearing a blindfold" is ludicrous. If anything, I'd be more inclined to believe that she had planned it because he was wearing a blindfold - "hey, honey, let's do something... interesting..." Guy giggles, buys into the game, puts on blindfold. She pushes him off the cliff, pretends to discover the body, admits she lied, then claims it was an accident.Or he had a bandana on his head or around his neck (early July I would still have one with me in case mosquitoes were bad and I needed to cover my face). His body wasn't found blindfolded. They found a "piece of cloth" in the river. It would be really stupid to blindfold somebody and risk having the body found that way if you're big plan is to say "Oopsie, accident!" Granted, she may be that stupid.Prosecutors are probably city folk who've never gone hiking and wouldn't know why someone would carry a bandana or neck sock in the woods.
Marcus Aurelius: Maybe he got scared on the way down and decided to blindfold himself so he couldn't see the impact.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Mar 01 2017 15:07:08
Runtime: 0.206 sec (206 ms)