Could Jessica Lunsfords’ killer walk ?
BillO
This is a partial transcript from “The O’Reilly Factor,” June 17, 2005, that has been edited for clarity.
Watch “The O’Reilly Factor” weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the “Radio Factor!”
BILL O’REILLY, HOST: In the “Factor Investigation” segment we are looking into the brutal murder of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford in Florida. She may have been buried alive clutching a stuffed animal.
Police believe Jessica was held in a small trailer for days while her confessed killer, John Couey, sexually abused her. Also in that trailer, three other people who have not been charged by prosecutor Brad King (search), even though there’s evidence they helped Couey.
Thousands of you have contacted Governor Jeb Bush about the case, and here is a statement he is issuing: “The Florida Constitution limits the governor’s intervention in matters that should be resolved through the court system. The elected state attorney has the sole discretion to file or decline to file criminal charges in a particular case.”
So Bush is staying out of the Lunsford situation, which is interesting, because just today the governor asked another Florida prosecutor to investigate Michael Schiavo (search).
Also there are now reports police may have not properly advised [John] Couey, the confessed killer, of his rights.
Joining us from Orlando is radio talk show host Pat Campbell, who’s closely following the case, and from Fort Lauderdale, Herb Cohen, the attorney representing Jessica’s father.
Counselor, is it true that the police in Citrus County (search) didn’t advise John Couey of his rights and that a lot of the things he told them may be thrown out? Is that true?
HERB COHEN, ATTORNEY FOR MARK LUNSFORD: Basically, the answer to that is yes. What is true is that, at some point during the ” there’s a number of conversations Couey had with police. The first one doesn’t count. The second one that did, which is an extensive admission and confession of all the things he did and how he did it, may be lost because of a lack of Miranda warnings (search).
Loading ...
June 20, 2005 - 05:19 PM on June 20th, 2005
This has got to be one of the most outrageous things I have heard in a long time. One would think that a Miranda warning to a cop would be like a breath to you or I. It is an involuntary action that we just do naturally. I guess that isn’t so in this case. I also must stand behind Bill on this. Jeb Bush couldn’t see fit to get involved in Jessica’s case, but he had the authority to get involved in the Schiavo case? Outrageous.
June 20, 2005 - 05:23 PM on June 20th, 2005
Peejz…
I actually agree with you on this one….
June 20, 2005 - 05:37 PM on June 20th, 2005
3,
+1 on this one, but Jeb can’t get involved really- civil rights are civil rights and little can be done to say that.
With that said, shit rolls uphill IMO and Florida’s complete facet of idiotic mess ups should be addressed by him.
Ted
June 20, 2005 - 05:49 PM on June 20th, 2005
3-It isn’t the Miranda Rights that he isn’t involving himself in. Since the capture of Couey, O’Reilly has been following the case. The 3 people living/staying at the home when the crime was committed are not going to be charged. They were there for the 3 days she was held and raped. They were there when she was buried alive. They will not be charged. Yet Jeb can see fit to see if a prosecutor can charge Michael Schaivo.
June 20, 2005 - 06:25 PM on June 20th, 2005
5. peejz, I, too, agree with you re: not giving Miranda. As to Jeb’s involvement (or lack thereof) in the two cases, I too am confused. Is he picking and choosing where and how to apply Constitutional constraints? Frankly, I think he’s off-base on Schiavo, and wonder if his involvement there isn’t driven by outside forces given the nature of the case.
June 20, 2005 - 06:41 PM on June 20th, 2005
5- I will agree with you on that. He finds it troubling that there may have been a lapse in the time between when Terri was found and a call to 911 was made, but he sees nothing troubling about 3 people basically aiding and abetting in the rape and torture of a 9 year old girl? Give me a break!
June 20, 2005 - 09:59 PM on June 20th, 2005
In these days when we are getting tougher on crinimals any judge or what ever who would allow a convicted murderer to walk free should be sent to prison the killer should be sent to thhe electric chair without all those years of those stupid appeals and lets ban murderers from evern being let out any time no more parole for killers:mad:
June 21, 2005 - 01:24 AM on June 21st, 2005
[...] have, and John Couey “walks” because of it, he won’t walk far. [Source: Right Voices] This entry [...]
June 21, 2005 - 07:01 AM on June 21st, 2005
4.
I know about how O’Reilly is involving himself re: the other three that were in the trailer, but he also had a story (the one above) about Couey walking because his Miranda Rights were not administered. That’s what I am addressing.
Ted
June 21, 2005 - 07:32 AM on June 21st, 2005
9- I may have misunderstood you then Ted. I thought you were saying Jeb couldn’t get involved in the 3 accomplices walking. That also angered me in the story and I find it more than disturbing that he can’t talk to the DA about the 3 but he can find it within his power to talk to another DA about the Schaivo case.
June 21, 2005 - 07:37 AM on June 21st, 2005
10,
Yes- I agree with that. But when it comes to the lack of Miranda warnings, not a whole lot he can do, unfortunately.
Ted
June 21, 2005 - 07:43 AM on June 21st, 2005
11- I knew that, nor was I saying he could.
June 21, 2005 - 07:56 AM on June 21st, 2005
It seems that the Miranda rights have protected criminals from their crimes more than from abuse. Why can’t we just hand it out in school? Make it a public service announcement on TV and radio? Ignorance of the law doesn’t make it okay to commit a crime unless you are conveniently ignorant of Miranda. It just doesn’t make sense.
June 21, 2005 - 08:03 AM on June 21st, 2005
13- Josh sometimes it does appear that way, but there is a reason for the Miranda warning, and there is no excuse for not giving it.
June 21, 2005 - 08:28 AM on June 21st, 2005
How about castration for repeat child molesters?
Mr. Couey should be deprived of his testicles before the state deprives him of his life.
June 21, 2005 - 08:38 AM on June 21st, 2005
15- I want the death penalty for all of them. One doesn’t need testicles or a penis to do perverse acts on a child.
June 21, 2005 - 08:51 AM on June 21st, 2005
15. I’m with you here Zelda
and I would start with the Gay catholic Priests.
bye bye ball bag!!!!
June 21, 2005 - 08:57 AM on June 21st, 2005
You don’t need testicles to molest children, but you need them to WANT to molest children. Get rid of the testicles and you will greatly reduce the potential for molestation.
June 21, 2005 - 08:59 AM on June 21st, 2005
18-Get rid of the perp and you remove the risk entirely.
June 21, 2005 - 09:06 AM on June 21st, 2005
why bring homosexuals into the discussion of child molesters? the majority of molestation is heterosexual. why not start with them and work your way down the percentages - down the way you’ll find homosexuals and those who like sheep and chickens and porn …..
June 21, 2005 - 09:10 AM on June 21st, 2005
why are you so afraid to call those Catholic priests what they are….GAY.
they aren’t molesting alter girls after all.
June 21, 2005 - 09:40 AM on June 21st, 2005
But let’s not forget there are a number of female teachers getting caught doing their 12 & 13-year-old male students. What do we do with them? Or is that somehow okay because it’s what every boy wants at that age (or so it’s thought)?
I’m only asking because this subject has come up before and no one’s mentioned the female offenders.
June 21, 2005 - 10:38 AM on June 21st, 2005
22- Great point Sasha. I find it troubling that people think nothing of a female molesting boys. To me it falls under child predetor.
June 21, 2005 - 10:45 AM on June 21st, 2005
what offends me is that political correctness and the defending of gays at all costs, keeps us from getting to the heart of some of these issues.
June 21, 2005 - 12:15 PM on June 21st, 2005
24: It’s a side issue to me, mike. Too many people think kids are little adults.
The overriding is this: Kids can’t legally consent, no matter how willing a participant they may have been or wanted to be at the time.
Regardless orientation, what do we do to those adults who think a kid’s “yes” is the same as an adult’s “yes”, or that the kid is there for the adult’s gratification?
July 2, 2005 - 11:14 PM on July 2nd, 2005
:cry:I don’t know what has happened to America when facts hold no meaning and obstruction of justice is accepted.
July 22, 2005 - 01:34 PM on July 22nd, 2005
July 23, 2005 - 01:27 AM on July 23rd, 2005
To my way of thinking, there are various levels of guilt. In a crime like John Couey committed against Jessica Lunsford, that is the maximum degree of guilt, and the punishment should be at the maximum allowable.
However, there are other “sex crimes” that are in a grey area when there was no intention or plan to act illegally. Such cases usually come up with charges such as “statutory rape” or “contributing tot he delinquency of a minor” and only because the person charged didn’t know the true age of the person involved in a sex act. Even State law makers are not sure about what the “Age Of Consent” should be because it ranges from 14 to 18 depending on what State you happen to be in at the time. Also, I have seen 13 year-old young ladies that can and do pass themselves off as 18 year-olds.
I’m just saying that its not the same crime and there has to be some consideration of that.
J.D.
July 23, 2005 - 05:48 AM on July 23rd, 2005
J.D.- I agree that there are various degrees, but what I am talking about is the child molestors. Those that prey on children. Those such as the Coueys of the world.