In NYC missing boy case, complex question of duty

[WiccanLiberal]

"NEW YORK — Decades before he was arrested in one of the country's most haunting missing-child cases, Pedro Hernandez told people he had killed a child, police and relatives say.
His alleged remarks in the 1980s made their way just last month to New York City police, who say Hernandez then told them he'd strangled 6-year-old Etan Patz in 1979. Although one relative says she tried to tell authorities years ago about a rumor that he'd confessed in a prayer group to a child slaying, other people apparently stayed silent.

It's not yet clear what will become of a murder case that hinges heavily on confessions from a suspect who is schizophrenic, according to his lawyer. Regardless, the account of loved ones and acquaintances hearing his disturbing claim long ago raises a sensitive legal and philosophical question: What's a person supposed to do with information like that?

Are the obligations different for someone who is party to an oblique confidence about a seemingly serious crime than for an actual witness to one? What if the scenario is laced with family ties or religious fellowship?"


http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/in-nyc-missing-boy-1451535.html

[jimnyc]

This is a good question. I'm pretty familiar with this case as I kind of grew up with it here as things progressed. Me? I think if someone admits to a capital crime, confidence in privacy goes down the drain. Just like a shrink has a duty if one admits a serious crime or pending crime. But from what I understand, this guy has been fruit loops nuts for his whole life. Maybe no one took him seriously? What I would like to know is, if shit was reported to them years ago about this guy - I'd like to read all the notes on the case and find out where their investigation of him took them.

It wouldn't have saved this kids life, but as a parent, I can't imagine not only losing your young child, but then you have to deal with the whereabouts and "who" for all those years. I couldn't. I'd probably off myself.

[Shadow]

"NEW YORK — Decades before he was arrested in one of the country's most haunting missing-child cases, Pedro Hernandez told people he had killed a child, police and relatives say.
His alleged remarks in the 1980s made their way just last month to New York City police, who say Hernandez then told them he'd strangled 6-year-old Etan Patz in 1979. Although one relative says she tried to tell authorities years ago about a rumor that he'd confessed in a prayer group to a child slaying, other people apparently stayed silent.

It's not yet clear what will become of a murder case that hinges heavily on confessions from a suspect who is schizophrenic, according to his lawyer. Regardless, the account of loved ones and acquaintances hearing his disturbing claim long ago raises a sensitive legal and philosophical question: What's a person supposed to do with information like that?

Are the obligations different for someone who is party to an oblique confidence about a seemingly serious crime than for an actual witness to one? What if the scenario is laced with family ties or religious fellowship?"


http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/in-nyc-missing-boy-1451535.html

While it doesn't really surprise me that people have a tendancy not to turn people in that belong in their circle of friends or whatever. It certainly goes to a person's integrity. Could you imagine having to deal with the fact that several people in your community had this information years and years ago...but kept silent and never felt compelled to put your family at peace? And some were not even relatives or bound to a code of silence like a Priest,Doctor or Psychiatrist might be.

I don't understand this thinking.