Charges dropped against Ill. man in girls' deaths

AP via MSNBC ^ | 08/04/2010 | Staff

[OldDeckHand]

WAUKEGAN, Ill. — A northern Illinois man jailed on first-degree murder charges in the 2005 stabbing deaths of his daughter and another young girl was a free man Wednesday after prosecutors dropped charges because DNA evidence from the crime scene matched that of another man.

[OldDeckHand]

This is a cautionary tale. A man who was distraught over finding his child and another girl dead, spoke to police without a lawyer present. He ended up confessing, because a competent investigator can get an emotionally unstable (as anyone is following the death of a child) "suspect" to confess to kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. Five years later, DNA proves beyond ANY doubt, the man was innocent.

NEVER speak to police without an attorney present - EVER.

[jagusafr]

NEVER speak to police without an attorney present - EVER.

Amen - from a judge, prosecutor and former defense counsel.

Colonel,USAFR

[E. Pluribus Unum]

YOUTUBE: "Don't talk to police."

[AppyPappy]

“because a competent investigator can get an emotionally unstable (as anyone is following the death of a child) “suspect” to confess to kidnapping the Lindbergh baby”

That is so much horsecrap. You can get a CRAZY person to do it. But no one is going to confess to murder by inference. It doesn’t even mention a confession. He pleaded not guilty.

[OldDeckHand]

"That is so much horsecrap. You can get a CRAZY person to do it. But no one is going to confess to murder by inference."

Spoken like someone who has never spent a minute around the criminal justice system. Almost everyday in America, someone is released from custody who was exonerated, but initially CONFESSED to a crime, just saying.

"It doesn’t even mention a confession. He pleaded not guilty."

And, reading comprehension isn't a strong suit either, I see.

Prosecutors alleged Hobbs killed them because he was angry his daughter was outside when she was supposed to be home. Police said Hobbs confessed to the slayings, but his attorneys said the confession was coerced.

[Seruzawa]

Who cares if he’s guilty? Get the case closed and get back to the doughnuts. Solving cases is WORK!

[colorado tanker]

Police said Hobbs confessed to the slayings, but his attorneys said the confession was coerced.

[OldDeckHand]

"Who cares if he’s guilty? Get the case closed and get back to the doughnuts. Solving cases is WORK!"

If you're interested, this article by a NW University professor details the pitiful incompetence by the police. But, if you're given to fits of rage about lazy, corrupt and just plain STUPID cops, you might not want to read it.

DNA test results suggest that Jerry Hobbs's confession is false

By the way, this article is from TWO YEARS ago. The police had more than enough information to spring Hobbs, but he stayed in jail for two more years.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

From the headline, I thought the charges were dropped because he was sick (Ill).

[discostu]

One of the things cops really excel at is constructing a scenario where you would have at least wanted to kill the person, and then tagging “that’s why you did it isn’t it”. This of course after hours of brow beating in a locked room. It’s really easy to get people to “yes” and now you confessed and you’re hosed.

[Jim from C-Town]

As I tell my wife, children and friends. NEVER talk to the police. They are NOT your friends. Always, always, always ask ‘am I under arrest?’, and if they say NO, ‘Am I free to leave.’

[AppyPappy]

Actually it is the exact opposite. Innocent people tend to stick to the same story

[momtothree]

“No one is going to confess to murder by inference”.

Not true. Years back the Lyons sisters disappearance showed this. The father (after no sleep and extreme stress -) admitted he did it and hid the bodies. No bodies were found and the case remains a mystery. The police always felt he did do it but had proof he was working at the time of the disappearance. With any homicide, the police are going to focus on the immediate family FIRST. Best to take the polygraph, get it out of the way and let the cops widen the circle. Just a thought.

[discostu]

Sorry but cases like this show you’re wrong. Innocent people tend to be the ones confused, they’re confused as to why they’re even suspected, and they’re scared because they’re being questioned, and they start off trying to be friendly and open with the cops, and they dig themselves right into a hole. And the cops take any misplaced agreement as a confession. Never ever talk to the cops without a lawyer, don’t even think about it, the innocent are in more danger than the guilty, at least if you did the crime you know what you did and how and can figure out from their questions whether they’ve got you or are just sniffing.

[discostu]

You were good until the second to last sentence. Never take the polygraph, they’re voodoo “science”, the only thing they prove is how skilled the interrogator is. Say nothing except “I want a lawyer” and if they mention polygraphs remind them the things are completely unadmissable and no thanks.

[The Pack Knight]

I like Professor Duane, and I highly recommend that video.

Professor Duane, guitar and all, came and gave that lecture to us at the Federalist Society when I was in law school. This is the sort of thing that should be taught in every civics class in America.

[The Pack Knight]

As I tell my wife, children and friends. NEVER talk to the police. They are NOT your friends. Always, always, always ask ‘am I under arrest?’, and if they say NO, ‘Am I free to leave.’

And if they say "Yes, you are under arrest" OR "No, you are not free to leave", YOU say "I want to speak to a lawyer. I will not speak without an attorney present." It is imperative that you unambiguously assert your right to remain silent and your right to an attorney.

This fact is reinforced by the Supreme Court's decision last month in Berghuis v. Thompkins, which revised and limited the protection provided by the Miranda rule. If you don't expressly and unambiguously assert your right to remain silent, then you are effectively waiving that right. Remaining silent or behaving uncooperatively isn't enough.

Also, after you have asserted your right to an attorney, the police will very likely attempt to persuade you to change your mind. Do NOT let them. They may have any number of reasons to want to talk to you without your lawyer present, but it is probably because they want you to say something your lawyer would advise you not to say.

[The Pack Knight]

Actually, the dirty secret is that almost all of forensic “science” aside from DNA identification is “voodoo ‘science’”.

DNA identification was invented by biologists. Everything else was invented by cops, with predictable results. That includes ballistics matching, “hair and fibers”, matching bite marks, blood splatter analysis, and even fingerprint identification (especially off of partial prints).

Unfortunately, shows like CSI have convinced far too many potential jurors that anything that comes out of a crime lab is gospel, when nothing could be further from the truth. Not only is much of it is based on shoddy pseudo-science, but, as we’ve seen too often, it may be intentionally fudged or even fabricated in order to get a conviction.

We’ve seen too many incidents where someone was wrongfully convicted based on supposedly “iron-clad” forensic evidence only to be later exonerated by DNA evidence. Sometimes that DNA evidence was intentionally concealed by the crime lab, as was the case in a recent North Carolina case.