Legal Spring Logo

"Why would I go anywhere else for Legal Services?"
Reviewing Legal Services Online
 LEGAL SPRING
     


Google
 
Chip Case



Jim
3/13/2004 10:24:20 PM


Just looking for some basic advice. Day care center reports
suspected abuse. Husband confesses to police (on video) to
physically hurting 6-month old baby (out of frustration, he says)
and then claims they tricked him into confessing...and he really
didn't do it. He's charged with 3 felonies. Social Services says
wife is in denial because she's not angry at him, and they begin
to doubt her ability to properly care for child. Social Services
schedules a "Chip Case", presumably to be gain guardianship
and possible custody of the child for indefinite amount of time.
Isn't it in the best interests of the mother not to antagonize
Social Services? Should she get a lawyer? Did husband
make a big mistake in confessing, regardless of circumstances?
Police are investigating no further because of this. He faces a
year in jail. The state is MN.
Thanks much!
Jim
 
 
"Richard"
3/13/2004 10:54:37 PM


Jim wrote:
Just looking for some basic advice. Day care center reports
suspected abuse. Husband confesses to police (on video) to
physically hurting 6-month old baby (out of frustration, he says)
and then claims they tricked him into confessing...and he really
didn't do it. He's charged with 3 felonies. Social Services says
wife is in denial because she's not angry at him, and they begin
to doubt her ability to properly care for child. Social Services
schedules a "Chip Case", presumably to be gain guardianship
and possible custody of the child for indefinite amount of time.
Isn't it in the best interests of the mother not to antagonize
Social Services? Should she get a lawyer? Did husband
make a big mistake in confessing, regardless of circumstances?
Police are investigating no further because of this. He faces a
year in jail. The state is MN.
Thanks much!
Jim
This is what happens when the cops really don't have a case.
They continously harass the chosen guilty party into a confession.
See the movie "persecuted" starring gene hackman.
An 11 year old girl was murdered and hackman, the astute high society man,
was blamed for it.
The investigator continued hounding hackman until hackman got sick and tired
of the inuendos and began to confess.
A detective comes bursting in and shows the evidence they found at another
crime scene by the real guilty party.
Only in Hollywood.
In the hey day of the geraldo rivera fiasco, the kids were being so hounded
by untrained investigators they began making up stories just to get the
investigators from talking to them.
If your guy is not guilty, he should have an attorney and learn to keep his
mouth shut.
"You have the right to remain silent." Excercise your rights.
Make the prosecution work to prove your guilt.
Innocent until PROVEN guilty rules.
One man I heard of did just that. He said absolutely nothing to the
investigators.
When asked by the judge why he did not say anything, he said, "I have the
right to remain silent and chose to excercise that right."
 
 
gordonb.k9ie0@sneaky.lerctr.org (Gordon Burditt)
3/14/2004 8:11:57 AM


"You have the right to remain silent." Excercise your rights.
I wonder if someone who is picked up on some relatively trivial
charge (say, jaywalking, public intoxication, littering, etc.) is
actually going to EVER be released by the police if he simply remains
silent in response to EVERY attempt at conversation made by the
police, or if he just responds "you have the right to remain silent"
in a tone of voice appropriate for "shut the hell up!". In practice,
someone doing this would probably be doing it to prove some kind
of point, as answering a query like "do you wish to use the rest
room" with dead silence is likely counterproductive.
I suspect what really happens is that someone trying this would end
up in a mental institution, or he'd repeatedly be convicted of some
idiotic charge like failure to identify himself and then serve the
sentence for it, or contempt of court for failure to enter a plea,
or peeing on a police officer's shoes when the police officer never
took him to the rest room, or contempt of court for refusal to sign
for his property on being released from jail, and 50 years later
he'd still be in police custody or dead.
Also think about the plight of deaf and dumb people (dumb = "cannot
speak", not "stupid") who cannot communicate with police (or perhaps
choose not to try to use sign language).
Make the prosecution work to prove your guilt.
Innocent until PROVEN guilty rules.
One man I heard of did just that. He said absolutely nothing to the
investigators.
When asked by the judge why he did not say anything, he said, "I have the
right to remain silent and chose to excercise that right."
And if he had said nothing to the judge, would he have been free to
leave? Or would he have been convicted of contempt of court?
Gordon L. Burditt
 
 
Report this post for offensive content


site map |  disclaimer |  privacy
All Rights Reserved, Legal Spring, Inc. 2004