Should LeeAnn Garrison murder be reopened

Kennett Native in Atlanta wrote:

<quoted text>
You are correct when you say that there is no statute of limitations on murder. However, there is a little thing called the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution, which addresses "double jeopardy." A person cannot be tried twice for the same crime once a final verdict has been rendered. So if the goal of re-opening the case is to re-try the person who was acquitted of the crime the first time around, in hopes of a different outcome, that will not happen.

That person could, however, possibly be tried under federal criminal law, depending on the charges brought. I got the impression the case was first tried under Missouri state law.

I'd be interested to see the evidence looked at forensically just to know the truth of what happened.

Glad Dawg wrote:

<quoted text>
That person could, however, possibly be tried under federal criminal law, depending on the charges brought. I got the impression the case was first tried under Missouri state law.
I'd be interested to see the evidence looked at forensically just to know the truth of what happened.

Civil Rights issues are a possibility, wrongful death, plus there are a few of Doc G's friends who weren't what I'd call of decent character. I was a Corinthian at that time.

Glad Dawg wrote:

<quoted text>
That person could, however, possibly be tried under federal criminal law, depending on the charges brought. I got the impression the case was first tried under Missouri state law.
I'd be interested to see the evidence looked at forensically just to know the truth of what happened.

In general, Federal criminal law focuses on issues related to the federal government, such as federal tax evasion, mail fraud, interstate crimes, or an attack on a federal government employee. I'm not sure how a federal law would apply.

curious in florida wrote:

<quoted text>
In general, Federal criminal law focuses on issues related to the federal government, such as federal tax evasion, mail fraud, interstate crimes, or an attack on a federal government employee. I'm not sure how a federal law would apply.

Certain federal civil rights laws might apply. Might also involve an interstate matter if the person crossed interstate lines doing the crime. Crim law's not my area of expertise. Next time I talk to a friend who used to be a federal defender and now teaches criminal law, I'll ask her what she thinks could work, if anything.

Glad Dawg wrote:

<quoted text>
Certain federal civil rights laws might apply. Might also involve an interstate matter if the person crossed interstate lines doing the crime. Crim law's not my area of expertise. Next time I talk to a friend who used to be a federal defender and now teaches criminal law, I'll ask her what she thinks could work, if anything.

Dawg,

I've been observing this thread but haven't popped in until now. First off, I am very familiar with Federal law so I wanted to say something. I understand your frustration, but murder is not a Federal crime. It's a state matter. Federal authorities will assist state/local agencies by retrieving persons who flee local jurisdictions, but they are then turned over to the state. The only exceptions are in the cases where Federal employees are targeted because of their position, certain military situations and possibly a few other instances. It certainly does not apply in this case.

This thread is a little perplexing since it seems no new evidence has been brought forth but you and others seem to keep bringing it up. I understand wanting to keep the victim's memory alive and looking for clues, but it seems in absence of any new information you keep recycling stuff that the very legal system you support has examined and ruled upon. Technology moves forward, this is true, but it's not a magic wand. Fingerprint technology hasn't changed and unless the DNA was very carefully preserved, it is probably no longer viable. So, to press for it to be re-examined might make you feel proactive, but it wouldn't seem to lead to any forward progress. IN fact, it makes you appear more vindictive than concerned about moving forward.

One last note. This is a public forum. It obviously grows every few days and has been around for a while now. I would caution you and others against saying things like "The DR did it" or "The woman he is married to now did it...". I've seen that kind of stuff posted, so I'm sure others have as well. If he was acquitted and she was not even charged, those comments might be deemed libel. If the family feels your comments cause them a loss because of it, you may end up being sued. It's been said here already that money talks. Just remember, free speech isn't always free. If he's an MD, he can probably afford a lawyer. Can you?

Good luck, and I hope you find peace somewhere.

Okie

OKIE-Good points! And you're right on. I've moved away but I know some Garrisons and I'm told they ARE starting legal action. They're sick of being slammed on here.

Thanks. Good luck to them.

Yes, Okie, you are confused. Let me give you a short lesson on tort law and First Amendment law, which are areas where I have some expertise, and some information on how federal law (not law enforcement, which is where you seem focused) works:

The First Amendment is extremely broad in protecting speech--speech we don't like, speech that makes us uncomfortable, speech that's unflattering--and that's particularly true when that speech involves what we call "public figures." Public figures are people who've become known in the news for acts that brought them to the public's attention. Lindsay Lohan and Bernie Madoff would be examples of public figures. For purposes of this event, meaning the murder of LeeAnn Garrison, a number of people would likely be public figures, including Dr. Garrison. People can say a lot of things about public figures--even things that are false--yet be protected by the First Amendment.

So, bottom line: Dr. Garrison has about a snowball's chance in hell of successfully suing me (or anyone else, for that matter) for something that's been said here in Topix pertaining to this murder. The case would be dismissed quickly, particularly if it were brought in federal court. And it can be, very easily.

That's only one defense. I could name several others that would apply to various potential tort actions.

It's possible invasion of privacy could have been a viable cause of action for the Garrison children, but their comments in this forum have pretty much evicerated that as a possible cause of action. They've brought their lives into the public arena. But even if that hadn't happened, it would have been a real stretch at best because of the public attention the murder has received over the years.

Furthermore, your analysis of federal law is incorrect. While murder is generally a state action, certain things can trigger murder or other state crimes as federal offenses. When I'm talking about crossing interstate lines, I'm not talking about people fleeing and police assisting. I'm talking about when a person crosses interstate lines in the commission of a crime, that can potentially bring a federal action into play. That has nothing to do with whether federal law enforcement assisted with catching a criminal. Has to do with a little something called the interstate commerce clause. Crim law isn't my area of expertise, but I do know a few folks who are experts in this area. Just spoke with one of them about two weeks ago. I'd be very interested in knowing her opinion about the matter, and I do plan to ask her next time we chat.

As for the forensic part of it, yes, the evidence is old. Preservation of evidence and reliability of evidence are things a defendant counts on as a way to sow doubt in a jury. I'm not really concerned about that aspect of it. I'd like to know what the evidence indicates, using today's forensic technology, and who it likely implicates. Crimes can be solved with old DNA evidence. It's done every day, even with crimes as old as this one.

One final thought: A lawsuit over comments made about this public matter (meaning the murder and the circumstances surrounding it) would not only have likely fail, but would open up a whole line of questions of people that couldn't have been asked otherwise. Their suit would have "opened the door."

I understand your desire to protect the family. Probably the best thing any of us can do is pray for them. But that's separate and apart from what should happen in terms of this cold case.

My thoughts for the day. Off to work now. Good luck to you as well.

My thoughts will always remain with Justice for the "real" victim, LeeAnne and her family.That's how it rolls, till the day I die. To "forget about it"," "put it behind you," "move on," are phrases of lack of persistence in respecting life, the Justice System, the Constitution, basic ethics and morality. May LeeAnne rest in peace, may her killer be brought to justice, no matter how long it takes.Like Nazi murderers, does it make a big difference if you kill one or a thousand? The fetid soul of a murderer remains the same.

Dawg,

It doesn't sound like we are all that far apart in our views. My thoughts were not directed solely at your posts, but also to others who seem to let the accusations fly. And you are correct. I am retired from a state police force and contracted with the OSI for several years after that. Now I golf and read this damed computer when I have time.

I remember hearing about this case in the 80s, so I think it's good the victim's memory is still alive. However, I am also familiar with the Interstate Commerce clause and with the US Attorney's Offices. Even if the situation appeared to have an interstate nexus, which I still maintain this one does not, then believe me when I say no AUSA would take this up after the state courts have dealt with it the way they have. It would appear too much like the Feds were dipping into the state's business. I think we had a little dispute over that very thing back in 1861. Of course we true southerners called it the war of northern aggression! Ha ha ha.

On the free speech issue, I'm don't disagree, but you missed my point. Do you really want to pick a fight that you can't win? You don't have to win a lawsuit to be successful. My question was whether you, or others, wanted to invite one. Even if you eventually have it dismissed, which can take years, can you afford it? Does it further your cause of help the victim? He's acquitted. He didn't bring himself into the public light as would a celebrity nor did he commit a crime that brought about his notoriety. Who wins is beside the point. If the family wins, you lose money and face. If you win, he's still innocent and you still paid a lot of attorney's fees.

I merely suggest you focus less on blaming the acquitted and more on cherishing the memory of the victim and seeking new information. In that vein, if the authorities looked into the old evidence and it was viable, then great! Maybe they can find something new, but approach it with the attitude of finding new leads, not attempting to prove your suspect did it. It would seem more productive and much less harmful if the children do still read these forums. I can't imagine their pain. I don't want to add to it, so I will just move on.

God bless.

Okie

Okie, I'm not worried about becoming entangled litigation for years. That's a red herring. There's no legitimate basis for a lawsuit here. A case would be probably be dismissed on the pleadings because it's clear this entire matter is one of public interest and that many of the players are public figures or limited public figures for purposes of this murder. A smart lawyer wouldn't touch the case, particularly since there's a good possibility of Rule 11 sanctions for the lawyer who brought a frivilous lawsuit. Federal judges don't like having their time wasted.

Of course, all this assumes one important element: that Dr. Garrison or one of his surrogates would win a motion to get an IP address from Topix so he'd know who to name as a defendant. That, too, seems highly unlikely due to the nature of the forum, the highly public nature of the case, and the nature of his involvement in it.

Now guess what I used to do for a living. Bet you can figure it out very quickly.

Also, so we're clear: I don't have an opinion about who committed the murder, although I'm very familiar with all the speculation. The reason: I don't know enough facts. Nor have I offered an opinion on who did it (and even if I had, that would be protected speech, too; the First Amendment has a number of qualified privileges to it). So you're talking to the wrong person about being vindictive. I've always been fascinated with mysteries, and frankly, I've always felt very bad about what happened, for everyone involved.

I will say, however, that I find your stance curious. As a former law enforcement officer, I'd think you'd want to get at the bottom of the matter. Instead, you seem to be defending someone, for some reason. That's my impression from your latest posts. From my viewpoint, the truth should come out, and let the chips fall where they may. The family could surely suffer no more harm to its interpersonal relationships than what appears to have already happened. And who knows, perhaps some healing might begin once the matter has been put to rest.

Because not talking about it doesn't make it go away.

Frankly, neither of us has any idea whether a USAG or the Missouri state AG would reopen the case. New administrations or people who want to make a name for themselves do different things when it comes to high profile cases. It does, however, seem like a ripe topic for a good show on forensic medicine.

Getting ready for a business trip now. Enjoy the rest of your day.

That should read "entangled in litigation." Mea culpa.:)

Old MO Man wrote:

OKIE-Good points! And you're right on. I've moved away but I know some Garrisons and I'm told they ARE starting legal action. They're sick of being slammed on here.

~~~~Maybe we're sick that LeeAnne was murdered and if they had any ethics at all, they TOO would want the case reopened if existing DNA evidence could be processed and return new information.What are they afraid of? Threatening lawsuits against idealistic people who are so injured by the fact that this young Mothers life was taken and her reputation sullied when she could not be here to defend herself~well, we are offended that justice is not demanded by them also. Imagine, just imagine, if it were your Sister, Mom, Aunt, Child. It's amazing how messed up some people are. And whoever was/is responsible ruined many lives.

Would like copy of book...Title??? By??? I was in Kennett over the weekend to see family...Thanks

Ray of KCK wrote:

Would like copy of book...Title??? By??? I was in Kennett over the weekend to see family...Thanks

Good luck it's out of print. And the only library in the country that has it is Kennett and Kennett will not let is out on inter-library loan. You might be able to find it in a used book store or on the net but I haven't been able to find it yet and I'm family.

Bought both books last year on Amazon.

enough!!! no one cares about this crap!!!! get a life!!!!

dilligaf2 wrote:

I;b<quoted text>
I've got no problem with them reopening the case, but use private funding for it. I would rather see the money put to use tracking down and solving other, more recent murders that have never had a prosecution. I am not trying to bash anyone here nor saying that the Garrison murder isn't worth reinvestigating. Just the prosecution has already tried one and failed. Move on to the next unsolved case. make the rotation, if it comes back around, then reexamine it.

Why is a more recent murder any more important than this young Mom? Why should ANY murderer feel safe that the long arm of the law won't reach out and make the rest of their life hell, like they deserve.I'd gladly sign petition!It's all H2O over the dam IF it's NOT your family member slain!

All I asked for was title to a book and who wrote it...And for ENOUGH.....your still on here so who needs to get a life......

Kennett Native in Atlanta wrote:

<quoted text>
You are correct when you say that there is no statute of limitations on murder. However, there is a little thing called the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution, which addresses "double jeopardy." A person cannot be tried twice for the same crime once a final verdict has been rendered. So if the goal of re-opening the case is to re-try the person who was acquitted of the crime the first time around, in hopes of a different outcome, that will not happen.

~~~Wrongful death, civil rights violation....etc. There HAS to be something. I will never forget this case as long as I live. DR. had a lot of skeavy friends and a person by the name of Hamlin had a shaky alibi.Claimed he was on houseboat with Dr.