That is, a prime example of why innocent people with nothing to hide might nevertheless have good cause not to talk to the police. Because it seems any little detail you might relay inconsistently will be taken as evidence of some sort of nefarious intent.
When, maybe, you were just really tired that day, you were preoccupied about something (like, maybe your missing son and his deceased under suspicious circumstances fiancé?), and as you were mumbling your reply either you misstated the day of the week, misremembered it, or… maybe whoever you were talking to misheard you?
As to why different agencies aren’t on the same page… you know that’s a thing, right? Where sometimes different government agencies, at different levels of government, don’t communicate so good and information doesn’t get passed on in a timely manner? Or someone doesn’t get the email? Or whoever was speaking to the press that day wasn’t included in the email? Etc etc.
I’m not sure what you mean, but if they represented that he was in the house when he wasn’t, that could arguably be a material false statement, or perhaps not as there was no warrant for his arrest at the time.
But “omission” is not against the law. Again, nobody has any duty to assist the police in an investigation. Not legally, and I have argued that if it is you as a possible suspect, then not even morally, because as we have seen in this case, very innocent activities are sometimes seen as nefarious. Don’t be the person that writes your own jail commit order.
People are terrible at remember details and times. I can’t really put too much weight on messing that up. “But it was a really important thing,” still doesn’t help people remember it exactly. That’s why the advice of writing things down if you witness a crime.
I’d feel a bit different if the confusion was material. For example, does leaving Tuesday provide an alibi that leaving Monday would not? In this case, no.
Right, and this is a case study in that because we now know for a fact that the Laundries did not help him evade capture. He went exactly where they said he went, and that what they said was indeed confusion on their part. But so many people were claiming that this was proof that they aided in his escape.
An attorney’s job is to represent their client’s legal interests. Giving press interviews opens up the possibility that he might, through accident or merely being inarticulate, say something that would prejudice their defense. There is no reason for him to be speaking to the media aside of, “On my advice, my clients are declining to speak to the media.”
That’s a whole other discussion. I did some Googling on him and he has some pretty shitty reviews, and is getting inundated with criticism and snark. One would think that any decent attorney would conclude that “I don’t get paid enough to put up with this shit”, but maybe he feels that the national exposure will ultimately be beneficial for him. And, hey, if the parents get charged with obstruction … $$$ profit $$$!
Disagree. There is a perfectly good reason to speak to the media. That’s is, if the client says, “Among my goals for representation is to do something to stop this terrible witch hunt. In fact, that’s the only thing we want you to do, because we know we are innocent, and we had no reason before we got the call from Gabby’s parents to think anything so terrible had happened. So, please, convey at least to the media some narrative that clarifies our bewilderment and our concern and the extent to which we have interacted with authorities to date.”
I was already clear. The article raised good questions on timelines.
Hey, if someone asked a month later what day I’d gone to the dentist, I might get that wrong. It’s a little detail and a long time afterward. The day Brian left on the hike is not a little detail. And it was only a few days later. That may simply mean the Laundries were under so much stress, they could barely speak. It may mean that Bertolino screwed up. Or law enforcement. It’s simply odd.
As for agencies not speaking to each other, of course that happens. And if the FBI had the information and didn’t pass it along to the North Port police even though they were aware (because of Chief Garrison’s Tweets, among other obvious clues) that the NPPD was operating on the assumption BL was still at the house, that’s on the FBI. It’s be especially weird, though, since, as the NPPD spokesperson said,
“NPPD, working with the FBI from the onset, did everything within the law, with the information we had, to surveil and collect information.”
Whew. I think that’s about enough out of me. What’s that I hear? A hearty chorus of “No shit”? I’ll step back now.
A client can ask, and I don’t think it would be unethical for him to comply. But it is unwise. Particularly where he’s making statements to the press about factual matters such as what his clients did and did not do and what they told the police. If the police find evidence that contradicts his statements, it could vastly complicate his ability to defend his clients.
I would tell them that I am a lawyer, not a media relations specialist. If they want one of those, they should hire one, but I advise against it. Worry about what people think later. Worry about prison now.
That those questions seem indicative of malicious intent or willful obfuscation to you and so many others, however, is the sort of “meta point” I am trying to convey to you.
Because what you are doing, pinging on these apparent contradictions in the timeline (received second, third, and possibly fourth hand, no less) and then citing that as evidence that they must be hiding something, they must have something to do with this disappearance, they must be up to no good, etc. is precisely the sort of thing police do that gets innocent people out in jail. Our recent discussion elsewhere on this board about the Amanda Knox saga also springs to mind, with someone making a big deal of the fact that one of the accused apparently concocted a story to explain the presence of blood on a knife that the police insisted was there (but maybe wasn’t in fact) and then pointed to the fact that he’d lied rather than just persist in saying “I don’t know how the blood got there” (as in fact no one would, if there really wasn’t any blood) as evidence that he must have had something to do with the murder.
Because an innocent person wouldn’t make up a cover story to account for damning (but possibly false, as it happens) evidence of their guilt, right?
Just like an innocent person would surely not refuse to talk to police…
…would never misremember dates…
…etc…
Sure. But that is in some attorneys’ wheelbook, right? That they do see part of their role in advocacy as helping their clients to navigate a media shitstorm, and to dampen the harm done in the media if that’s what the clients want them to do, after having received their attorneys advice one way or the other, right? Perhaps the attorney in question is such an attorney, and were he not, the parents would have hired someone else who was.
I read your link and summary. It was interesting. But is there any validity in a timeline relayed to an attorney and then relayed to the police? It makes for an interesting discussion. But I would expect the police timeline to be more accurate because it’s something documented in real time by multiple people. If it can be established that Brian had left when the police came to question him and this wasn’t disclosed then it would be a lie by omission.
How so? Setting aside the point someone previously made about the absence of a duty to speak at all (that is, there is no duty to tell the police someone they are looking for isn’t there at the moment), there is also the possibility that “He doesn’t want to talk to you” or words to that effect, are a perfectly reasonable and true thing to say when police arrive to interview someone who you believe is only temporarily absent. Whether or not the person is there, the thrust of what that says is quite likely true: that there is no point in coming back later, this person does not want to talk to you and the fact they are not here right now is irrelevant by comparison.
When the police show up without an arrest warrant or search warrant, it is a consensual encounter, no different than me knocking on the neighbor’s door and asking to speak with someone inside. The police, like me, in that situation have no power to demand that anyone present themselves at the door.
I’ll step back now.