quote: John Evander Couey, a 47-year-old convicted sex offender, gave the confession to detectives, but also told them that he wanted to consult a lawyer. He wasn't given the opportunity to do so.
Jessica Marie Lunsford was found kneeling and clutching a stuffed animal, hands tied with speaker wire and fingers poking through the garbage bags in which she was buried alive in March 2005. Two days earlier, Couey told detectives he kidnapped, raped and killed the 9-year-old girl.
quote: Couey admitted to consuming drugs and alcohol, saying he was foggy on the day he abducted Jessica. He also told detectives that he cooked her a hamburger and made her urinate in the closet to aviod being seen by his housemates. Couey told detectives that he allowed her to watch television through the slightly opened closet door and claimed she was aware of news reports about the search for her.
At the end of his statements to detectives, he said he wished he could go back and change things. "You know what I am?...I'm a convicted child molester. I didn't know what to do. You know, I got scared. I panicked. I feel guilty about it now, but it's too late, you know, and I do feel for her parents."
-------------------- "Bad grammar makes me [sic]" -- seen on a t-shirt Posts: 319 | From: Upstate NY | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is the most basic legal knowledge, yes. Of course, I would imagine that even without the confession they should have enough evidence to prove him beyond a doubt the perpetrator.
Posts: 411 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's an EXTREMELY hard position to defend, but I still agree with the law: evidence obtained illegally can't be used. It ensures that law enforcement will continue to follow the Constitution in searches.
And no, setting up some kind of precedent wherein cops are punished for conducting illegal searches isn't enough. I don't trust the police to police themselves well enough.
Further, it keeps with the spirit of the Constitution. Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." Not, "Don't worry, if we catch you illegally, with contraband, we'll be sure to punish the guys who did it." The people are "secure...against unreasonable searches and seizures." If the search was unreasonable, it didn't happen.
quote:hands tied with speaker wire and fingers poking through the garbage bags in which she was buried alive in March 2005. Two days earlier, Couey told detectives he kidnapped, raped and killed the 9-year-old girl.
If she was buried alive, then he didn't kill her. Could he have though he had killed her, then buried her alive? Could he be saying that he killed her because the knew the burying would kill her? It just seems and odd way to phrase things.
I agree with Amigone201. The only way to make sure that procedures and rights are respected is to make it so the police can't use anything they get because they violated procedures and rights.
The second article says:
quote:The alleged murderer and child rapist had requested to consult a lawyer during his confession.
Shouldn't the police be able to use the parts of his confession that happened before he asked for a lawyer?
-------------------- IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GenYus: The second article says:
quote:The alleged murderer and child rapist had requested to consult a lawyer during his confession.
Shouldn't the police be able to use the parts of his confession that happened before he asked for a lawyer?
Defense will argue coerced confession, or counsel wasn't present, or wasn't given an opportunity to speak with counsel, etc. They can try, but a good defense attorney will get it tossed.
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by GenYus:
quote:hands tied with speaker wire and fingers poking through the garbage bags in which she was buried alive in March 2005. Two days earlier, Couey told detectives he kidnapped, raped and killed the 9-year-old girl.
If she was buried alive, then he didn't kill her. Could he have though he had killed her, then buried her alive? Could he be saying that he killed her because the knew the burying would kill her? It just seems and odd way to phrase things.
He could have knocked her unconsious and thought she was dead. THen, after burial, she awoke and struggled until death.
-------------------- Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!
quote:He could have knocked her unconsious and thought she was dead. THen, after burial, she awoke and struggled until death.
I read in one of the many articles on this that in his confession he made it seem like she was very docile and got into the hole willingly. Doesn't make sense.
You know, the more I think about his confession -- how she supposedly stayed quiet in his closet for up to 3 days and didn't arouse his housemates, how he let her watch TV through a crack in the door, how he cooked her a hamburger, how she got into the garbage bags and then into the hole willingly (which doesn't make sense) -- it almost sounds to me like a demented fantasy in a B horror movie, like he had already killed her and couldn't deal with that, so he pretended she was still alive.
He admitted that he was on drugs, so for some twisted and horrifying reason the scenario that he pretended her corpse was alive right up till the point of burying her seems more believable to me than imagining she could be quiet through that ordeal.
I know they said that her fingers had poked through the bag when they found her, but could that have happened another way?
-------------------- "Bad grammar makes me [sic]" -- seen on a t-shirt Posts: 319 | From: Upstate NY | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Genyus: I was thinking the same thing, but another thought also occured to me. Could he have buried her alive, and then confessed two days before her body was found, telling the police where he buried her? I'm not sure if it makes much sense, but that's the only alternate scenario I could think of.
-------------------- Have you heard the Word? Praise Hircine! Posts: 283 | From: Ohio | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
