@doschicos by that point wouldn’t the defendant have been a high school graduate? I don’t have the timeline handy but I thought the accuser didn’t go to the police until after the graduation weekend.
You are correct, @GnocchiB.
I’d like to think that most parents of an 18-yr-old, whether immediately before or very soon after graduation, would like to be present during the non-custodial questioning of their child for a possible felony or multiple felonies. I know I would. Particularly if the interrogation is not being recorded.
This is how “redness” can become an “abrasion,” and an “abrasion” can become a “laceration.” Officers don’t always write down the exact words of a witness or suspect, and later inferences that are drawn from the inaccuracies can be significant.
@MidwestDad3 - I hear you and I definitely would if it were my kid but how much legal bearing does that have?
It’s also hard for me to fathom someone talking to the police for almost 4 hours without some kind of legal representation.
Let’s get real: I don’t think that any of us would want our 18 yr old kid going to a police station to be questioned about a potential felony without either a parent or legal representation.
You KNOW the police are able to use any unsavory technique they want to extract information, including outright lying. And they do it all the time.
And where was he supposed to get a lawyer, and what was he supposed to pay them with? I think that most kids in that situation, guilty or innocent, who have not been taught by their parents to ALWAYS ask for a lawyer immediately and say nothing would be easily manipulated into talking for four hours.
Lots of things to remind our kids about: Consent, being extremely careful about what you put anywhere on the internet or your computer, don’t talk to police without representation, and, most importantly, acting with kindness and decency towards others. I’m sure most of us have had these conversations with our kids at one point or another but they often don’t listen or it doesn’t really register, especially with the internet thing.
His mother came with him when he first met with police. At some point early on, a detective suggested to Labrie that he might be better if his mom wasn’t there when they questioned him given the nature of the subject matter. Labrie agreed.http://www.vnews.com/news/16059230-95/st-pauls-rape-suspect-remains-free-on-bail-hires-former-bulger-attorney You may not like it, but it’s perfectly legit.
I’ve been following this case pretty closely and felt for most of the trial that Labrie had a better than 70% chance of acquittal. I will say that after reading snippets of his conversations with the police and his friends, this kid is a pig. He is smart as a tack and has tried to manipulate the police and every other adult he comes in contact with. The fact that he sent his COLLEGE ESSAY to the detective who questioned him in the coffee shop speaks volumes about how he perceives himself. He seems to be a really gifted individual who believes himself to be above the rules. I had a shred of sympathy for his ruined future but it’s gone now.
^^This
Agree with @doschicos. I talk about being careful when posting things on the interwebs and, of course, acting with kindness and decency but it makes me sad to realize that I probably should talk with them about how to protect themselves if they ever are asked to speak with the police about a crime.
I guess the defendant didn’t have any sort of divine revelation about shutting up when speaking with the detectives.
According to CNN just now, Labrie suggested the coffee shop meeting over the police dept. He showed up with his mom who had a notepad with her. The mom kept interrupting saying my son didn’t do that, wouldn’t do that. Getting frustrated, the detective asked Labrie if his mom knew he wanted to be no 1 in sexual scoring. CNN reports that Labrie became uncomfortable and then agreed it would be better to go to the police dept.
At that point in time, it seems like it would have been extremely prudent for Labrie or his mother to say, “Hey, I think we need some legal representation.”
I couldn’t agree more with all @doschicos @midwestdad3 and @consolation. NO WAY would I want my 18 year old questioned by police without a lawyer present (personally would not insist a parent be there, I’d want legal representation there).
Yes these types of cases are great for opening dialogue with kids/young adults. The real world isn’t high school.
“I don’t think that any of us would want our 18 yr old kid going to a police station to be questioned about a potential felony without either a parent or legal representation.”
Heck, I don’t want them being questioned by the SCHOOL about a serious offense without a parent or attorney! I just got off the phone with a kid whose dean advised him that it wasn’t necessary to involve his parents in a sexual assault investigation because it was all going to blow over as long as he told the truth. Of course he was expelled. Kids, including kids who are over 18, have zero idea how to handle this kind of thing without parental help. That applies to accusers as well as accused. How much better off would the St. Paul’s accuser be if she’d called her parents for advice right after the event? We need the kind of movement we had with drunk driving that successfully taught kids and parents to talk about scenarios in advance and agree that kids can call for help at any hour, no questions asked.
I’ve read that Labrie’s parents are/were of fairly humble means, financially speaking. Perhaps the mom was hoping that son’s behavior, whatever it was, would not require a lawyer that she would have trouble paying for. She probably initially thought it was something she could try to handle herself. BAD IDEA.
@doschicos No legal relevance because he was an adult and not in custody. But in this case, appearances are everything and the legalities are pretty straightforward.
Khaas tweeted “Carney masterfully cross-examines police detective. Says she convinced him to go to PD, separated him from mom.” And then she (the detective) is joined at the PD by a second officer, an occurrence which was apparently not disclosed to the suspect or his mom. This scenario raises in the jury’s mind all the issues raised by @Consolation in post #304. The sad part is that the police department didn’t have to handle it this way. But now they have handed the defense one more item in a growing list of reasonable doubts.
@catlady Even in the light most favorable to the defendant, I agree with your characterization of him. I’d suggest, however, that it is entirely possible the PD asked for the essay to be handed over, and he merely complied. I know I would have asked for it if I had been an investigator, because on occasion students sometimes get a bit confessional when writing.
I think the fact that he talked to the police for hours without representation is an indicator of his cockiness, not of his youth or inexperience. When you think you’re the smartest person in the room, you really believe that prudent practices and following the rules are only necessary for “regular” folks. I think his bright mind and academic accomplishments allowed him to feel he could do and take what he wanted.
I don’t really see the relevance of having one or two detectives speaking with him at the police station. Am I missing something?
It in and of itself doesn’t scream “police misconduct” to me.
Where is the information about the defendant turning over his college essay?
This is so true. The problem is, no matter how much we try to be good parents, our kids sometimes just don’t do the right thing. I can’t tell you the number of times we told her daughter that she could always come to us, that we wouldn’t judge her, that bad things happen when you don’t involve your parents. We’d watch bad things happen to kids on TV shows, and say, “see, this is what we mean.” Yet I know for a fact that when something bad happened to her, she didn’t tell us. The guilt, the shame, something, prevents them from telling their parents.
Although in this case, it does seem like Labrie’s mom is at fault for not getting a lawyer.
I haven’t read all the articles or followed the trial as closely as some of you, but based on what I have read, I’d vote guilty. The girl said no, and that’s what matters the most to me. The gray areas I see – her emails after the fact, her delay in reporting – are irrelevant. What matters is what happened when they were together. It’s clear that he had an agenda, that he worked really hard to overcome her concerns because he wanted to achieve his goal. I agree with catlady, that he comes off as a total pig.
Anyone know if this mainly male jury has a lot of fathers on it? Fathers of girls? That’s the only hope I have of his being found guilty.
“The mom kept interrupting saying my son didn’t do that, wouldn’t do that. Getting frustrated, the detective asked Labrie if his mom knew he wanted to be no 1 in sexual scoring. CNN reports that Labrie became uncomfortable and then agreed it would be better to go to the police dept.”
Is this the detective’s characterization of what happened in the coffee shop, or the mother & son’s? I have a lot of respect for officers. But it is just a fact of life that the prosecutors depend upon them to build cases for them. There is a reason why there have been 155 death row exonerations since 1973.
Yes, I’d definitely agree that arrogance was a big factor at play.
From Peter Schworm’s tweets:
Informed about the girl’s accusation, Labrie asked detective “do you know anything about me?” and started telling her about himself
Labrie often sidetracked conversation with detective to mention his school accomplishments, detective testifies
@fireandrain, I don’t think I’ve seen anywhere a breakdown of the background of the jurors. That would certainly be interesting to know.