I’m pretty sure Miranda (or Article 31b) doesn’t apply to spontaneous confession.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Bonhomme Richard fire
- Thread starter Treetop Flyer
- Start date
I was literally thinking this this morning.
That's not the whole case, though. It's just what's being used to show probable cause to get a warrant to search his emails, phone, and so on.
True. If it was really "after" the interview but during booking, the interogation part of custodial interogation is probably missing so it wouldn't matter. Same if he just randomly said it (which the article kind of makes it sound like). But if I'm stuck defending the turd, and he was never Mirandized, I'm going to give it a shot and make whatever argument I can that someone from the government illicited the confession to try to get it tossed. Pretty darn unlikely that would be the case at the end of a 10 hour interview, though, so just a bunch of far out what ifs.
Honestly, after the Gallagher case, it seems like it's really "never say never" when it comes to potential JAGC prosecutorial buffoonery.
Wow is right . . . . . the Internet is forever.
nodropinufaka
Well-Known Member
I’m kind of a skeptic on if they have enough to charge and prosecute him (separate from if I think he did in fact do it)
I don’t see enough to charge him or convict him. Lack of eye witnesses, people saying maybe, disgruntled sailor, mumbling a confession, etc. doesn’t seem enough to secure a conviction.
Lets not forget what the Navy is capable of on making stuff up to not look bad. 47 sailors died in a major incident on the Iowa and the Navy went to great lengths to assign blame.
Just a little over thirty years ago the Navy claimed that a ship and explosion was caused by two gay lovers in a quarrel with one blowing themselves up cause he was suicidal over a relationship. When in fact it was the Navys fault and a CMC and LCDR experimenting with explosives in the turret.
The Navy showed that they have went on wild goose chases to assign blame and wouldn’t surprise me if they do it again.
I don’t see enough to charge him or convict him. Lack of eye witnesses, people saying maybe, disgruntled sailor, mumbling a confession, etc. doesn’t seem enough to secure a conviction.
Lets not forget what the Navy is capable of on making stuff up to not look bad. 47 sailors died in a major incident on the Iowa and the Navy went to great lengths to assign blame.
Just a little over thirty years ago the Navy claimed that a ship and explosion was caused by two gay lovers in a quarrel with one blowing themselves up cause he was suicidal over a relationship. When in fact it was the Navys fault and a CMC and LCDR experimenting with explosives in the turret.
The Navy showed that they have went on wild goose chases to assign blame and wouldn’t surprise me if they do it again.
Yep- the Iowa debacle, the Tailhook '91 investigation, recently punting the Gallagher case into the stands.
As it appears right now, it looks like this guy did it, but call me a skeptic and a cynic. The Navy has a pretty terrible track record when it comes to high profile, national news kind of investigations.
The Hultgreen mishap investigation didn't inspire much confidence in "the system" either.
As it appears right now, it looks like this guy did it, but call me a skeptic and a cynic. The Navy has a pretty terrible track record when it comes to high profile, national news kind of investigations.
The Hultgreen mishap investigation didn't inspire much confidence in "the system" either.
Did you read the document? There is no doubt, as there was on the Iowa, about the source of this fire. It doesn’t say an exact number, but the fire investigation found about four or five infernal devices designed to start a fire - they weren’t built into the ship. There is no doubt that someone started the fire but there is some doubt that Mays was that person, thus the search. A trial requires means, motive, and opportunity and all three appear to be there. It strikes me that the investigation is looking for an electronic trail to find out who moved the bottle marked by the fire investigation.
There really is only the slightest comparison to the Iowa in that they were both ships and both had fires on board.
nodropinufaka
Well-Known Member
I read it.
They tested for DNA on that bottle that they believe was used and it wasn’t a match.
Only thing putting that individual in that space was the one witness and even then he came back and changed his story to thinking it was him afterwards (defense atty will easily tear that too pieces).
The whole search warrant had all sorts of misinformation that’s going to come out in trial.
1- Sailors wear their NWUs under coveralls? Since when? That never happens and it’s too hot and it’s never been normal.
2- DCA saying that it’s tampered with and that his team did check? Well of course he’s going to say that. There’s a chance though that it was Gun decked by the watch team.
3- The social media posting of “I love the smell of napalm…” that’s from the movie Apocalypse Now.
4- lack of eyewitnesses
I don’t think they got enough to even get it to trial to be honest.
I draw the similarity between this and the Iowa because the Navy has shown time and time again they will go to great lengths to assign blame in the name of PR and not admit they messed up or it was a safety issue.
nodropinufaka
Well-Known Member
Was part of a counter drug task force for feds overseas. Depends on the situation and if the individual is a US Citizen and if you’re going to question him.
If the suspect starts blabbing on their own…that’s all fair game for the most part.
Just cannot say anything to illicit them to start talking like the Christian burial speech.
Clarify the context here. In the criminal justice system non-US citizens are afforded the same civil rights as citizens. Happens thousands of times a day.
Oh OK, non-attorney spokesperson for the "Big Navy is out to get everyone" club. Let's just call the whole thing off based on your expert analysis. FFS.
Some of the pontificating in this thread is, ridiculous, frankly. You're making judgments on the strength/validity of the case based on a charging document. None of you have any idea what evidence the government has against the perp.