Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Sauna -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Poet who wrote (941)	7/17/2001 1:06:38 PM
From: Nemer	Respond to of 1857

T/F/C the priest probably "knew" of the attempt by the killer to get the attention of the court ... but still was torn by the consultation being an "official/potential" confession ... pitiful AND horrible ... he def should've sought advice from his superiors MUCH sooner .... of course, on the other hand, he could well have had knowledge from actual confessions that the kid was guilty of other killing(s) and let this muddy his thinking ... the entire deal, as far as I'm concerned is that little tag on line .... just granted absolution , kinda like the automatic "tacked on" dealie .... hmmmmmmm oh yeah .... let ONE get off without a sentence .... Allen P. W. Karen is guilty ===== of stupidity

To: Poet who wrote (941)	7/17/2001 1:12:02 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 1857

I concur with the indictments by Nemer. I would, however, add the Bronx prosecutors to the list for fighting the priest's testimony. Karen

To: Poet who wrote (941)	7/17/2001 2:46:24 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1857

Better slow this thread down because I will not be able to get on tonight. :-(

To: Poet who wrote (941)	7/17/2001 4:01:54 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 1857

If he'd been a shrink, an admission of an act that has bearing on one's personal safety or the safety of others must by law be reported to the authorities. Interesting point, whether the admission was one that had to be reported. The confessor wasn't threatening anybody. He wasn't going to do them any harm -- the State was, but that was 'legal" harm -- that is, it was taking place in a legal environment, it was the state who accused, brought to trial, etc. . So by keeping silent, the counselor was allowing harm to happen that could presumably have been avoid, but it wasn't his client who was going to cause the harm, and indeed if the shrink had told he would have caused serious hardship to his client. In this situation, a lawyer certainly wouldn't have an ethical duty, and maybe not an ethical right, to speak. I'm not sure about a shrink, but I doubt they could have testified if he had told them not to. ,