own images? reality, once you make the decision to open your apartment or house, door, and walk out in the street you re giving up all the privacy images. only protection if someone using it for a commercial purpose. if someone takes my picture walking down sixth avenue and puts it on a box of fruit loops, i doubt anybody may want to do that but i may have some recourse. you never know. if anything newsworthy, we surrender that right. jenna: esther, a quick thought on that as well. tom s absolutely right. it s a crime scene. it is in the public view. google didn t break into anyone s house in order to take the picture. they took the picture from the sky. there is no expectation of private system unfortunate a child who was murdered and his father has to relive it every time he clicks on the picture. jenna: potential legal action we don t know what looks like at this time. good judgment comes through. because the photo could be taken anytime looking for satellite
memories. he is calling on google to take it down, adding he will not take no for an answer and he is prepared to lodge a complaint and reach out to lawmakers for help. what is the point? to show the pictures to the people, pictures of my dead son. this is painful for the whole family. jenna: joining us, esther panitche, criminal defense attorney and tom kenniff, former prosecutor. we reached out to google for a comment. have yet to hear back yet from google. so when we do we ll share that with our viewers. esther, does the father have a case here? i don t know he has as much of a legal case, this, if there is no law actually on the books already should appeal and he is, to google s sense of ethics and good taste. and that may carry the day more than a lawsuit might because at the end of the day why would google want to show this image? really too bad google didn t have the image of this boy s killer on their as their image
just happens to have a perfect confession that fits their theory at the end of the interview. let the jury decide. arthel: esther panitche, doug burns, have to leave it there. thanks to both of you. see you a little later in the show. my pleasure. thank you. jon: president obama admitting big government may not be the way to go for business. so has the private sector been doing it right all along? we ll report, you decide. and this man allegedly raked in millions by scamming our veterans. he is in court now facing fraud charges after he pleaded with politicians to back his story. we ll tell you about it coming up. i m only in my 60 s.
of the judge. the judge is going to address two things. the voluntariness of the statement based on all the facts and circumstances and then the truth of it. this particular defendant is saying not only was it not voluntary, they re not reporting accurately what i said. there will be a hearing and the judge will decide it. arthel: esther, how big of a deal is it going to be for the defense team to talk about the idea or notion that fbi agents didn t turn on the recorder for the first 90 minutes of her confession. to me it is always suspicious when the law enforcement has perfect confession at end of the interview but nothing from the beginning of the interview. that is always suspect. if they put it before jurors, jurors may have the same concerns that i m expressing and may hold that against the government. so, you know in the end i think the judge will let it go before a jury because the defense can cross-examine thoroughly as, and as aggressively as they can to show that the law e
defense is also requesting that any evidence filed by the prosecution now should not be allowed into court since the deadline has passed. this is including that piece of evidence that s being tested for dna. doug is saying, prosecutor saying it is critical to both parties in this case. so, esther will this request stick and what are the chances of the first-degree murder charges being dropped by the way? well, as to the new piece of evidence, it depends on what the discovery deadlines were and how egregious the failure to provide this in timely manner is to the defense. obviously very prejudicial to have it come in at the last minute. it is possible that the judge will give the defense a continuance in order to allow them to test the evidence themselves or have enough time to reevaluate the defense theory in order to incorporate the new piece of evidence. as to first-degree murder, it is unlikely that the judge before the trial will go on his own or