Lawyers condemn 'sniper confession'

Lawyers condemn 'sniper confession'

Defence lawyers for the younger of two US sniper suspects have vowed to press for the suppression of alleged statements in which their client confesses to murder.

news.bbc.co.uk...

- qo.

How dumb, this is why lawyers have a bad name...because of money grubbing arseholes like those...how can those damned snipers even get an attourney?

One that cares I mean.

Sincerely,
no signature

are you familiar with the phrases "innocent until proven guilty", "fair trial", and "due process"?

- qo.

Are you on a secret mission to respond to every thread?

In case you haven't noticed in the past 20 or so decades, we have the justice system that guarantees legal process. The system only works when forced to keep honest. And part of that forced honesty is the legal defense of anyone accused of any crime.

Please, think before you post.

No I notice that there MUST be representation....however look at such cases as the one in Texas where a man who was condemned to death tried to appeal it because his lawyer slept through the whole trial, but Texas said he was there that was enough

That is how you'd think people would treat these snipers....sure if evidence arose that showed maybe they were innocent then they'd actually care.

But not when they actually admit to it, the lawyers should only be there as a formality, incase a real case is actually made, as of now...it's a shut case...let's just find all the evidence, see if we can't find anything and pass the dang verdict. But if I'm not mistaken, that boy's admitance should be a plea of guilty...although I'm not sure if he's pleaded anything yet.

[I]Originally posted by Freemason[/I]
One that cares I mean.

Don't be selective readers guys, that's not a good trait.

If you'd read the whole post you'd see I understand the law, I just don't see how when someone admits to something, these bastards sit there and go "he pleads innocent your honor" they just want the damn money.

Sincerely,
no signature

[Edited on 11-11-2002 by FreeMason]

~everyone~ pleads "innocent" to a murder charge. at least in the UK, and we don't even have the death penalty here. if nothing else, it prolongs the accused life by X months so that they can properly tidy up their affairs and say goodbye to their family. however, very occassionally appeals work, new evidence crops up, etc.

in the case of lawyers that 'care', having spoken to a few lawyers here there are many reasons why the lawyers for these two will put up a real fight. for some it might be a genuine belief that they are innocent, for other that the charge should genuinely be dropped to manslaughter or the sentence reduced. for others its simply a case of professionalism.

- qo.

Just a little note to say two words "due process".

I don't remember ever hearing a reason or motive for why they did it. Anybody?

Of course the lawyers will attempt to suppress the creature's confessions. That is what he gets paid for.
The only way the confessions will be supressed is if the cops stepped off their constitutional flagstone while obtaining the confessions.
Don't get caught up in the media looking for something to report.

that, i believe, is exactly what is being alleged:

"Mr Malvo was questioned by investigators on Thursday - an interrogation which his lawyers say was unconstitutional."

- qo.

another thing:

"US Attorney General John Ashcroft released both men from federal custody last week after deciding they should first face trial in Virginia - where both may face the death penalty - rather than Maryland which saw more fatal shootings but which does not execute juveniles."

is it just me, or is this really f*cked up?

- qo.

Interrogations are not unconstitutional. What about the interrogations was unconstitutional, is the question.

That, Quiet One, is just you.
Personally, I wish Alabama had the first crack at them. They shot a couple women here like dogs.

qo, what's so f*cked up about that? They're giving these killers to a jurisdiction that will have the best chance at executing them. Or is the death penalty the underlying issue? I am not a huge fan of such a penalty myself, though these types of cases really fit that penalty.

I don't care qo....they caught that bastard child RED handed in commiting at least the LAST murder, himself, now unless these B*#$%tches just happend to fall into the snipers car from the heavens, and are really sent by god like that retard in Green Mile, they should be hung.

Sure search for any evidence that might show they didn't do it, but if THEY THEMSELVES admit it of their own accord, no harm in the death penalty.

Sincerely,
no signature

Wow... you're one scary red-neck.

The death penalty should be the most difficult to obtain.

It should be, and it is. But what part of confession is it that is throwing people off? The story is he was even bragging about the killings. The creature admitted to being the shooter in the 13 year old shooting.

"But what part of confession is it that is throwing people off? The "

I guess its the part where we look back through history at confessions and realise that many oif them were false, fradulent, innacurate etc, and then we look at people calling anyone who's arrested a "killer" and wonder wether they're just being media schills.

the issue i have with where the trial is held is that ashcroft has - as bob88 said - placed them where they have the best chance of being executed. that not justice that your looking for, its the death penalty. see my point?

if a trial could not be properly held elsewhere, i would understand.
if there was a greater chance of conviction, i might just about understand.

the fact is the choice of location was purely so that on a guilty verdict they'd be killed. as i said, that's not justice, that's #ed up.

- qo.

I wowuldn't worry too much about that this time. They aren't lacking for crime scene evidence and information so the accuracy of Malvo's story will be easily verified.

Fox News is saying that the reason for the lawyers' angst is because they weren't present during the interview. Sorry. If Malso didn't declare that he was saying nothing until the lawyers were present, too bad. And, since he wsa allegfedly bragging about the murders, it'd appear that he didn't.

this sort of trial by inference is becoming worryingly prevelant in the U.S. at the moment.

who knows if he did it, he probably did, but lets look at what your saying:

"I wowuldn't worry too much about that this time. They aren't lacking for crime scene evidence and information so the accuracy of Malvo's story will be easily verified. "

exactly, the story has not yet been verified, theres plenty of evidence, but none has been used to link him and the story together yet, probably will, but it hasn't happened yet.
innocent until proven guilty.

"Fox News is saying that the reason for the lawyers' angst is because they weren't present during the interview. Sorry. If Malso didn't declare that he was saying nothing until the lawyers were present, too bad. And, since he wsa allegfedly bragging about the murders, it'd appear that he didn't. "

supposition, your purely speculating, based on a belief that he did it, on the ins and outs of his confession.
how ridiculous is that?

I'm sure the evidence will come through and he will be found guilty but until that happens no one knows what was said or why it was said.

the cops and the media think they have their man, so you think you have your man, so your fabricating the story around it baced on specualation concerning your opinion of a killer who may in the end turn out to be a lovely guy, we simply don't know.