That's point a good I it now get. You made clear perfectly have yourself. The coercion/intimidation/threats prompting the suppression of Mr. Lebrum's is statements argument a good. It's no coincidence the AG's office has weighed the coercion/intimidation/threats and decided not to hear an appeal.tampa_griz wrote:Like I said, I don't blame you for changing the changing the subject about the suppression of Lebrum's statements implicating himself in the robbery/kidnap/murder of Mr. Wright. I would too if I was trying to further your argument. It's no coincidence his attorney moved to have Lebrum's statements implicating himself in the robbery/kidnap/murder of Mr. Wright.crazycat wrote:I can only assume that you're just kidding about changing the argument, because the legality of his statements (i.e. suppression) is something you keep bringing it up and I respond to. Responding to your statements isn't changing the subject.
I'm at least indifferent to wanting to change the subject to this, because the other events that have occured (county attorney's statement, the evidence and the Wright family's response) are all more powerful than the suppression ruling. Had the judge not suppressed the statement, it still seems like Lebrum would've been found not guilty based on the evidence supporting him (as Lambert indicated) and the lack of evidence against him (the shoe test results).
But while we're on the subject....
The attorney general’s office has decided not to hear an appeal of the judge’s ruling to suppress Lebrum's initial statement. Is that not enough to make it obvious that something about how the statement was obtained was improper. If not, what would have to occur to satisfy you that the statement needed to be suppressed. You seem to not be giving the judge and AG's office the benefit of the doubt here. As if they'd just let some very minor technicality override a very detailed admission of guilt, which neither is the case.
It should be reasonably obvious, based on the judge's and AG's decisions, that some more than minor infraction occured during the interrogation of Lebrum and/or that whatever he said to implicate himself was fairly harmless, yet would've allowed the prosecution the ability to unfairly incriminate him at trial. Miranda or no Miranda, statements, should the judge deem so, can be used against you depending on what and how you say them and the environment you say them in.
Sorry that it took me so long to understand that, I'm slow.