Huckaby defense seeks second Sandra Cantu autopsy

[snapdragon]

As to the "why" the defense requests this. They justify their request in the exhumation request as wanted their pathologist to examine the body due to the special circumstances nature of rape w/ foreign object. The defense's pathologst is going to want to take the stand and bring reasonable doubt into play with regard to the rape, and perhaps cause/time of death.

The good news is that child killers do not get very much sympathy from juries. If they keep the venue in the Central Valley, which tends toward the conservative, they will not have a chance. Move it to San Francisco tho, and all bets are off.

 

[archenemy toenail]

Personally, I feel that in order for the truth to brought to light, victims have to be willing to revictimize themselves, either spiritually, like a rape victim having to repeat their testimony over and over again to people who are trying to tear it apart, or physically, like Sandra's body being submitted for another autopsy, in order for all the evidence to be discovered.

Also, in order to convict criminals based on evidence and not the wild emotional need to punish someone when the unimaginable happens, both the defense and the prosecution need to be able to conduct their own investigation. Someone earlier in the thread posted an account of an incompetent medical examiner. It happens. Prosecutors and LE are human; they're not immune to bias and corruption. To ensure that criminals are convicted on the correct charges, evidence, i.e. the body, needs to be looked at from both sides.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Personally, I feel that in order for the truth to brought to light, victims have to be willing to revictimize themselves, either spiritually, like a rape victim having to repeat their testimony over and over again to people who are trying to tear it apart, or physically, like Sandra's body being submitted for another autopsy, in order for all the evidence to be discovered.

Also, in order to convict criminals based on evidence and not the wild emotional need to punish someone when the unimaginable happens, both the defense and the prosecution need to be able to conduct their own investigation. Someone earlier in the thread posted an account of an incompetent medical examiner. It happens. Prosecutors and LE are human; they're not immune to bias and corruption. To ensure that criminals are convicted on the correct charges, evidence, i.e. the body, needs to be looked at from both sides.

No one is saying the defense should not look at the evidence. They will have access to everything once the ME is finished and both sides will have the evidence then. It is not neccessary to include 2nd and 3rd autopsies to cancel each other out from the onset, imo.

If anything comes up which would warrant a second look...then after they get the final reports they should request it. I realize they say decomp will be a problem...but the fact is...decomp is already a problem. The body has already been altered by decomp and findings from earlier are all they both have to rely on anyway.

 

[panthera]

It's been my understanding that an independent forensic pathologist was brought in to do Sandra's autopsy. He most certainly has photographed and taken tissue samples from her remains. He is also awaiting toxicology results before determining a COD. After completion of his examination, Sandra's remains were released to her family. They chose to bury her, maybe even putting some of her favorite things in her coffin with her ~ as many people do when they're saying their final good-byes.

Now ~ here's my question. What IF Sandra's family had chosen to cremate her? What would the defense be able to do about it? Wouldn't they have to rely on the ME's findings and possibly have their own pathologist review and do additional tests on remaining tissue samples?

Let Sandra rest in peace and let her family try to heal. MOO

 

[LaLaw2000]

I wonder how Behar would feel if this was his 8 year old daughter and he had just laid her to rest? Do these defense attorneys EVER think about the victims and their families when doing these things?

:clap::clap::clap:

 

[Thinaire]

It has gotten to the point where you can't simply tell the truth in court anymore. I heard a talking head mention that a "guilty" plea isn't advised for any defendant in any court until later. Fair?

The backbone of our legal system has gone so far to the crooked side that an extraction of the spinal column wouldn't straighten it out. The very lawyers making or lobbying for the laws to protect the perps instead of the victims are the ones who are also making the money off the backs of the perps AND their victims (which of course is only my opinion).

:blowkiss: Can we get a triple THANKS button? Thanks SS for always finding the words I lack at 4 a.m..

 

[Thinaire]

There is a lot of gray area as to what and where these "limits" are.

You simply cannot take the humanity out of a case like this...gray areas are what make us human or monsters. This is not a case about a car or an appliance where all human emotions can be left out in the pursuit if a verdict.

A civil society has to define those areas and insist they be upheld in the courts we pay to protect us.

Let the court examine the evidence taken before demanding that that child be disturbed. The thought of it IS offensive, and thank God it still exacts that kind of response in our society. The defendants rights? I think of the families rights & suffering first.

Just my opinion, but defense attornies are given far too much leeway and go beyond the boundaries of even black and white law to WIN in court.

 

[Thinaire]

As to the "why" the defense requests this. They justify their request in the exhumation request as wanted their pathologist to examine the body due to the special circumstances nature of rape w/ foreign object. The defense's pathologst is going to want to take the stand and bring reasonable doubt into play with regard to the rape, and perhaps cause/time of death.

The good news is that child killers do not get very much sympathy from juries. If they keep the venue in the Central Valley, which tends toward the conservative, they will not have a chance. Move it to San Francisco tho, and all bets are off.

Sometimes the "why" is simply to horrify the victims family so much that they back off and accept or ask for a lesser plea for the perp just to end it. A well worn tactic...

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Personally, I feel that in order for the truth to brought to light, victims have to be willing to revictimize themselves, either spiritually, like a rape victim having to repeat their testimony over and over again to people who are trying to tear it apart, or physically, like Sandra's body being submitted for another autopsy, in order for all the evidence to be discovered.

Also, in order to convict criminals based on evidence and not the wild emotional need to punish someone when the unimaginable happens, both the defense and the prosecution need to be able to conduct their own investigation. Someone earlier in the thread posted an account of an incompetent medical examiner. It happens. Prosecutors and LE are human; they're not immune to bias and corruption. To ensure that criminals are convicted on the correct charges, evidence, i.e. the body, needs to be looked at from both sides.

Do we know that this is the case with this ME? Just because some may be swayed by either side they represent doesn't mean the vast majority are but are ethical and do their job as it should be done. How do we know that defense expert is not a hired gun who mostly testifies for the defense and has her own biases?

I think it is a little too early to be thinking that this ME is one of the corrupt ones unless we know that he has showed biases in past cases and corruption in the past.

Imo, there is no need to exhume Sandra's body and I cant think of one case where the loved one was exhumed unless the family of the deceased victim was in agreement with the exhumation. There is no way in hades that the Cantu/Chavez families will agree to this. They are the custodians of Sandra and what happens to her imo. She was released to them for burial and that has come to pass.

imo

 

[tmcws]

That would be a disservice to his client and the whole legal system for that matter... not to mention his professional obligations as a defense attorney.

If you stood accused and felt that the charges against you were erroneous wouldn't you want your attorney to do everything in his power to exonerate you?

I am also new here, but have been reading along with these threads. I see that you are a resident of Tracy - may I ask how you know Melissa? Your posts have an obvious slant, so I was just wondering how long you've known her?

Sorry all if this is OT and not allowed - just a question that kept popping up the more I read.

 

[QNA]

No one is saying the defense should not look at the evidence. They will have access to everything once the ME is finished and both sides will have the evidence then. It is not neccessary to include 2nd and 3rd autopsies to cancel each other out from the onset, imo.

If anything comes up which would warrant a second look...then after they get the final reports they should request it. I realize they say decomp will be a problem...but the fact is...decomp is already a problem. The body has already been altered by decomp and findings from earlier are all they both have to rely on anyway.

Disagree. If the defense's expert, Dr. Terri Haddix thinks information could still be ascertained from the body then I think her 10+ years of experience in this field holds more weight.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Disagree. If the defense's expert, Dr. Terri Haddix thinks information could still be ascertained from the body then I think her 10+ years of experience in this field holds more weight.

I think the defense is on nothing more than a fishing expedition.

I have not heard Haddix say she thinks SHE can ascertain more information from the body than the ME did.

If he is going to hire her as his hired gun he knows he is going to need an expert to try and refute the ME autopsy report.

Imo, this is not about proving she didn't murder her.....it is all about trying to refute that Sandra was raped with a foreign object because he knows if the jury believes THAT then Huckaby will most likely get death if it becomes a death penalty case.

I do not believe he nor his 10 year in the field experienced expert will be successful.

For all we know the foreign object may have contributed to her death.

imo

 

[QNA]

It may be the most plausible but I don't care if she didn't participate alone. She participated so she deserves to be punished. If there are others, I feel certain they will be arrested and punished also. But right now, the evidence that we have seen points to MH and to MH alone.

Agreed, but the evidence may indicate she played a lesser role in the crime then everyone thinks and if the death is found to be accidental then her sentence may not warrant the death penalty or even life.

I believe we have only scratched the surface of what really happened and who else may have been involved.

 

[QNA]

Statistics show that women are less likely to commit sexual offenses, true. But statistics also show that most people that are arrested and charged with a crime are eventually convicted, so since MH has been arrested and charged it would be safe to assume she will be convicted looking at just the statistics.

But to look at it this way is working backward logically. Individual cases are decided on the actual evidence and argument provided to the triers of fact. Each case is unique, and once adjudicated add to the body of statistical information available to us. The fact that women seldom act alone (if that is, indeed, the case which I am not conceding here) that has no bearing on whether or not THIS woman acted alone. This case in no longer a hypothetical. The results will be determined by the evidence, not past patterns of other defendants in other cases.

A very good logical point. Statistics do point to a conviction since she has been charged but it remains to be seen if THIS person charged will be convicted and to what degree. No doubt the evidence, both known and unknown, and the thoroughness of the investigation will be the deciding factor.

As I've stated all along, I don't think she is alone in all of this and as new things come to light and more of the existing evidence is revealed I think we will all be quite surprised at the revelations.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Agreed, but the evidence may indicate she played a lesser role in the crime then everyone thinks and if the death is found to be accidental then her sentence may not warrant the death penalty or even life.

I believe we have only scratched the surface of what really happened and who else may have been involved.

How can an act be deemed an accident when it was done when the perpetrator was in the commission of committing another felony...such as kidnapping? Melissa Huckaby had no legal rights to remove Sandra from her residential area and transport her to the church.

There have been people who died from a heart attack while a bank was being robbed and the perps were also tried for murder for that death since it happened in the commission of another felony. Then add on the rape, molestation and lewd and lascivious acts and she is cooked imo.

Of course imo, this was no accident. The DA has charged her with the counts they believe they can prove BARD. I think she and she alone did these dastardly crimes. Scratching the surface and uncovering what makes this particular woman tick is indeed like uncovering a cesspool.

imoo

 

[MCDRAW]

Agreed, but the evidence may indicate she played a lesser role in the crime then everyone thinks and if the death is found to be accidental then her sentence may not warrant the death penalty or even life.

I believe we have only scratched the surface of what really happened and who else may have been involved.

If she did play a lesser role in the crime then I believe she would be singing like a canary. I believe MH may think Sandra's death was an accident. Maybe she didn't mean to kill her. She just meant to kidnap and rape Sandra. It would still be kidnap, rape, and murder. In my opinion, You can not kidnap, rape and torture someone especially a young child and then when they die claim it was all an accident. MH may not get the death penalty but I believe she won't get anything less than LWOP.

 

[passionflower]

One autopsy should be enough. They should of been at that one.........
Leave the baby alone..........R.I.P. Sandra

 

[QNA]

I think the defense is on nothing more than a fishing expedition.

I have not heard Haddix say she thinks SHE can ascertain more information from the body than the ME did.

If he is going to hire her as his hired gun he knows he is going to need an expert to try and refute the ME autopsy report.

Imo, this is not about proving she didn't murder her.....it is all about trying to refute that Sandra was raped with a foreign object because he knows if the jury believes THAT then Huckaby will most likely get death if it becomes a death penalty case.

I do not believe he nor his 10 year in the field experienced expert will be successful.

For all we know the foreign object may have contributed to her death.

imo

I disagree. I think the defense is doing what it needs to to refute the evidence presented by the prosecution to the best of their abilities in the best interest of their client. It is their professional obligation to do so.

It's not a question of "if" they plan to hire Dr. Haddix, they already have. Obviously the defense feels there is a possibility that something can be ascertained from a second autopsy to refute the evidence against their client, otherwise they wouldn't go through the trouble. Since Dr. Haddix is now their expert I'm sure she is advising them as to what they can expect to find and whether or not it is even worth the trouble. Her expertise in these matters far outweigh any speculation on whether or not a select few deem it as a "fishing expedition". The prosecution is doing their job, so to must the defense be allowed to do theirs.

As far as what they are trying to prove or not prove, that is for them to decide. If the defense feels they have enough evidence to disprove murder they will certainly go forward with it. Disproving the rape charges may be only one facet of what they are trying to disprove. We don't know. If Melissa is saying she did not rape SC then the defense will do everything they can to prove this. This is all standard procedure.

What's more important than a simple conviction is for the truth to be ascertained. A person shouldn't have to pay for a crime he or she did not commit and certainly not for charges that may be "trumped" up to make it stick.

Soon all will be revealed.

 

[MCDRAW]

I disagree. I think the defense is doing what it needs to to refute the evidence presented by the prosecution to the best of their abilities in the best interest of their client. It is their professional obligation to do so.

It's not a question of "if" they plan to hire Dr. Haddix, they already have. Obviously the defense feels there is a possibility that something can be ascertained from a second autopsy to refute the evidence against their client, otherwise they wouldn't go through the trouble. Since Dr. Haddix is now their expert I'm sure she is advising them as to what they can expect to find and whether or not it is even worth the trouble. Her expertise in these matters far outweigh any speculation on whether or not a select few deem it as a "fishing expedition". The prosecution is doing their job, so to must the defense be allowed to do theirs.

As far as what they are trying to prove or not prove, that is for them to decide. If the defense feels they have enough evidence to disprove murder they will certainly go forward with it. Disproving the rape charges may be only one facet of what they are trying to disprove. We don't know. If Melissa is saying she did not rape SC then the defense will do everything they can to prove this. This is all standard procedure.

What's more important than a simple conviction is for the truth to be ascertained. A person shouldn't have to pay for a crime he or she did not commit and certainly not for charges that may be "trumped" up to make it stick.

Soon all will be revealed.

Bolded by me:

Do you seriously think that she is being railroaded with trumped up charges? If so, why wouldn't they have just charged one of the sex offenders living there? That would have been easier to believe.

 

[QNA]

How can an act be deemed an accident when it was done when the perpetrator was in the commission of committing another felony...such as kidnapping? Melissa Huckaby had no legal rights to remove Sandra from her residential area and transport her to the church.

There have been people who died from a heart attack while a bank was being robbed and the perps were also tried for murder for that death since it happened in the commission of another felony. Then add on the rape, molestation and lewd and lascivious acts and she is cooked imo.


Of course imo, this was no accident. The DA has charged her with the counts they believe they can prove BARD. I think she and she alone did these dastardly crimes. Scratching the surface and uncovering what makes this particular woman tick is indeed like uncovering a cesspool.

imoo

We don't know if the kidnapping charge is warranted as we don't know where death occurred. If death occurred at Melissa's home and it was an accident then transporting the body to the church does not construe kidnapping. LE believes death occurred at the church but we have yet to see what evidence they have to support this claim. It also cannot be ascertained whether or not SC was confined in any way prior to death which would also negate any kidnapping charges.

We don't even know if the rape was posthumous or postmortem. Again this has bearing on whether or not death occurred during the act of a felony. Again this could have a direct impact on an accidental death or one that was premeditated or caused in the act of a felony. Needless to say the differences have a tremendous effect on conviction and sentencing. We just don't know enough to reach any definite conclusions yet. Speculative ones yes, definite ones no.

LE believed they had enough evidence and charged her. How reliable, concrete and irrefutable it is has yet to be seen. I believe SC's death may very well have been an accident with with everything else being part of the cover up. It's been my gut since she was arrested. Like everyone else, I too must wait to find out the truth.