Balloon Boy hoax and presumption of innocence....

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I'm royally confused.

In this article on CNN, their attorny states:

Their lawyer, David Lane, said that the sheriff was overreaching and that the family deserve the presumption of innocence.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/23/colorado.balloon.investigation/index.html

Okay--the article is about how the mom told authorities that they knew the boy was hiding the entire time.

Now--I know that when someone is going to be arrested, that they should be read their Miranda rights so they know that anything they say can be used against them...

But the attorney doesn't talk about that at all.

Just saying they are presumed innocent.

I know it isn't a court of law--but we essentially have an admission that they sent authoritieso on a wild goose chase.

What innocence are we supposed to presume?

 

[N.Bailey]

The presumption of innocence is only guaranteed in a court of law. The attorney knows this and is just trying to make a plea to the court of public opinion. If every cop in the country had to presume someone innocent, there would never be any guilty parties. People are arrested because law enforcement believes them to be guilty.

Presumption of innocence is for 12 jurors (and alternates) and the judge hearing the case. It beings there and it ends there.

 

[NLK]

Did anyone see them when they were on Wife Swap? I watched the show 2/3 months ago. I watched it and thought, "These two are CRAZY!!!" The woman who they swapped with had to leave the house because she was afraid for her life, because he was so crazy she thought he might hurt her. When I saw it was them that said their son was up in the balloon and then that it was a hoax, it didn't surprise me at all. They are just that crazy to do something like that.

 

[TinklednPants]

The presumption of innocence is only guaranteed in a court of law. The attorney knows this and is just trying to make a plea to the court of public opinion. If every cop in the country had to presume someone innocent, there would never be any guilty parties. People are arrested because law enforcement believes them to be guilty.

Presumption of innocence is for 12 jurors (and alternates) and the judge hearing the case. It beings there and it ends there.

That was very, very well stated. Succint and to the point. I congratulate you on a fine post! Now....time for another Mohito.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

The presumption of innocence is only guaranteed in a court of law. The attorney knows this and is just trying to make a plea to the court of public opinion. If every cop in the country had to presume someone innocent, there would never be any guilty parties. People are arrested because law enforcement believes them to be guilty.

Presumption of innocence is for 12 jurors (and alternates) and the judge hearing the case. It beings there and it ends there.

Thank you very much!

Though with her admission--it seems his focus should be on whether or not it was obtained correctly, wouldn't it?

Hard to presume innonocence when the folks are pretty much throwing up the white flag and stating they are anything but.

 

[maddmike]

News medias like to overreact. In 2001 I remember CNN and a few other networks reporting on the ALLEGED terrorists who flew the planes into the WTC. When they hijacked and crashed those planes I don't think they are alleged anymore.

 

[Imzadi]

Though with her admission--it seems his focus should be on whether or not it was obtained correctly, wouldn't it?

This was on Anderson Cooper tonight. He pointed out that the wife and the husband each have separate lawyers. Probably because the wife accused the husband of making up the hoax. The laywer who keeps taking about presumption of innocence is the husband's lawyer.

The sheriff, the day after heard her admission said he wanted to put her in a safe house away from the husband as he would get quite "angry" at her for spilling the beans nad he feared she might be in physical danger. Last March, there was a police report filed for spousal battery against the husband. The wife had a black eye, in the least, from him. But, she never filed charges in the end.

Anderson Cooper and pointed out that the wife did NOT have a lawyer/counsel present, and her lawyer might try to use that to say they coerced her into saying that, that since she didn't write it out in her own handwriting, (one of the deputies wrote it out,) she never said that, that she didn't understand what she was signing, yada.

So, until this goes to trial and a jury decides if she was telling the truth at the time and not one of these other possibilities that may be brought up, she's still presumed innocent.

 

[N.Bailey]

This was on Anderson Cooper tonight. He pointed out that the wife and the husband each have separate lawyers. Probably because the wife accused the husband of making up the hoax. The laywer who keeps taking about presumption of innocence is the husband's lawyer.

The sheriff, the day after heard her admission said he wanted to put her in a safe house away from the husband as he would get quite "angry" at her for spilling the beans nad he feared she might be in physical danger. Last March, there was a police report filed for spousal abuse against the husband. The wife had a black eye, in the least, from him.

Anderson Cooper and pointed out that the wife did NOT have a lawyer/counsel present, and her lawyer might try to use that to say they coerced her into saying that, that since she didn't write it out in her own handwriting, (one of the deputies wrote it out,) she never said that, that she didn't understand what she was signing, yada.

So, until this goes to trial and a jury decides if she was telling the truth at the time and not one of these other possibilities that may be brought up, she's still presumed innocent.

I concur that if it ever did make it to trial, it would be the state's obligation to prove that the husband knowing pulled off this publicity stunt. I'd image, they are in a position to do just that. The one guy came forward saying the family concocted this ahead of time and I'd bet my last dollar that computer forensics will prove as much too (though that's speculation on my part). They will be able to establish as fact that the wife's testimony is accurate IF it will be backed up by another source (possibly the computer analysis).

I would also bet my last dollar that a plea agreement will be reached and this will never be put into the hands of a jury. Less than 5 to 10% (depending on which statistic you want to believe) of all cases ever make it that far.

 

[Micca]

I concur that if it ever did make it to trial, it would be the state's obligation to prove that the husband knowing pulled off this publicity stunt. I'd image, they are in a position to do just that. The one guy came forward saying the family concocted this ahead of time and I'd bet my last dollar that computer forensics will prove as much too (though that's speculation on my part). They will be able to establish as fact that the wife's testimony is accurate IF it will be backed up by another source (possibly the computer analysis).

I would also bet my last dollar that a plea agreement will be reached and this will never be put into the hands of a jury. Less than 5 to 10% (depending on which statistic you want to believe) of all cases ever make it that far.

N. Bailey you're good with this stuff. Any relation to F. Lee???

 

[barkley]

i believe it will plea out as well.

what would it serve an attorney to try to take this to trial? the family does'nt appear to be well off enough to fund costly litigation, and it's not exactly the p.r. an attorney dreams of if they are successful-representing a man whose appeared not once but twice on national television where he's demonstrated that he is irrational, abusive, bullying, and puts his family's needs far behind his own desires. the time it would take dealing with muzzling the guy alone would be insane (i know he's not talking now but i suspect that won't last long). then if charges end up being leveled by cps AND now there are the old creditors coming out of the woodwork who might start going after the family for what they anticipate may be money they will receive for interviews and the like (though like the nadia sulleman situation i'm appalled at any media outlet that reinforces this kind of misbehaviour and child endangerment by paying/providing the attention these narcisists crave).

 

[Imzadi]

then if charges end up being leveled by cps...

Child Protective Services already spoke up about this. Unfortunately, as with most domestic violence cases , the wife did not press charges in the end when she reported the wife battering in which she had, at the least, a black eye. As such, with not even ONE charge of domestic violence on file, Child Protective Services cannot come in on behalf of the kids. They say there just currently is not enough proof the children are being abused or in danger.

 

[JerseyJanice]

I just hope there is someone in their extended family who can take the kids if the parents lose custody or wind up doing time. I haven't seen anything about any extended family (grandparents, aunts, uncles), but between the two parents, hopefully there is somebody. And it's someone who is good at teaching manners because those kids act as if they were raised by wolves now.