MS - Jessica Chambers, 19, found burned near her car, Panola County, 6 Dec 2014 - #7

[MyBelle]

Unless the defense attorney bought his degree out of a bubblegum machine, I can assure you the chain of evidence problems will be presented. It's possible that this will give a juror reasonable doubt.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-to-suppress-evidence.html
Chain of Custody Errors: The “chain of custody” refers to the documentation and proper care of evidence, from its seizure by police to its presentation at trial. If the chain of custody is broken, the evidence may lack credibility and could be deemed inadmissible.

MOO

Where was the chain of custody broken in this case? Did the tow truck driver turn his keys over to someone? When and where and how did he break the chain of custody? The car was on his truck and he was in control of it, afaik. That's all the chain of custody means. It was never out of his control.

A defense attorney who thinks there is a believable chain of custody issue that will persuade a jury not to convict in this case really shouldn't be practicing criminal law, imo. Perhaps a specialty in permits and inspections would be a better fit.

JMO

 

[Yvettea]

Say john doe is arrested and charged with the arson/murder.

Say those charges stem from his prints and or touch DNA or a fiber specific to that individual's shirt being on some specific area of the car.

Attorney will try to insert reasonable doubt by suggesting that John Doe had had the opportunity to touch or have his shirt come into contact with the vehicle after the fire, say while it was outside the M&M on the back of a tow truck while driver was inside getting a drink or smokes or whatever. JMO All an attorney is looking for is to implant doubt, even farfetched doubt, in enough areas of the evidence so that all those little improbable doubts will build up to one big reasonable one.

If the truck was stopped for a while at traffic light or a traffic jam (if Cortland even has a traffic light) there would be an opportunity to interfere with the evidence wouldn't there? Just thinking.

So won't it come back to the judge to decide if there was a problem with chain of custody?

 

[monster]

Did the tow truck driver leave his vehicle out of sight to go get cigarettes, or does M&M have a drive thru?

 

[FelicityLemon]

If the truck was stopped for a while at traffic light or a traffic jam (if Cortland even has a traffic light) there would be an opportunity to interfere with the evidence wouldn't there? Just thinking.

So won't it come back to the judge to decide if there was a problem with chain of custody?

Yes, which is why there are car covers or whatever LE uses. We see that here, I can't speak for any other locale.

Even when it's obviously an accident, the car is covered. Evidence has to be protected and preserved in case there'll be a lawsuit of some kind. Heaven knows people sue everything and every entity these days even when it's driver error, but it's got to be determined just in case it's manufacturer malfunction.

 

[brandalous]

Where was the chain of custody broken in this case? Did the tow truck driver turn his keys over to someone? When and where and how did he break the chain of custody? The car was on his truck and he was in control of it, afaik. That's all the chain of custody means. It was never out of his control.

A defense attorney who thinks there is a believable chain of custody issue that will persuade a jury not to convict in this case really shouldn't be practicing criminal law, imo. Perhaps a specialty in permits and inspections would be a better fit.

JMO

AA was able to get close enough to the car to take multiple photos of it. If the driver was stopped for a drink, then he was away from the truck. That right there is enough to raise questions, IMO.

 

[tlcya]

If the truck was stopped for a while at traffic light or a traffic jam (if Cortland even has a traffic light) there would be an opportunity to interfere with the evidence wouldn't there? Just thinking.

So won't it come back to the judge to decide if there was a problem with chain of custody?

Attorney could suggest monkeys flew out of Doe's butt to carry evidence to the car stopped at the light I suppose. But the fact that driver went inside the M&M (to me anyway) is a bit more than being stopped at a light and having someone unseen by driver still inside truck mess with car. I am thinking a defense attorney might have an easier time selling some juror on evidence got there during M&M stop while driver left his own (and with it, Jessica's) vehicle unsupervised to go into the establishment to buy whatever. But yeah, attorneys can and do suggest outrageous things to impart those pesky bits of doubt in jurors minds.

And yes, ultimately, I would think the judge would throw out certain evidence if (s)he thought there were genuine issues with the chain of custody. But that is not the only way to taint that evidence.

Even evidence that is in because judge ruled there was no issue with chain can still be trotted out and implied by attorney's to be "tainted" for the jury. Defense attorneys get pretty wide leeway IMO and IME (ala Caylee Anthony murder trial and the outrageous statement about George Anthony in Jose Baez's opening statements)

I think it will be interesting to see what comes at trial. And boy do I hope we even get that far in this case First we need a suspect, an arrest, charges, etc.

 

[absentia]

Where do you get that the car was exposed to other people? Was someone seen climbing onto the tow truck in the few minutes the driver was there? Just because something is possible doesn't mean it happened. The car was on a tow truck.

JMO

ever been in criminal court? they are vicious sharks - defense lawyers. IF it's possible, it will be inadmissible. it's the burden of 100% proof. without reasonable doubt.

 

[cady]

AA was able to get close enough to the car to take multiple photos of it. If the driver was stopped for a drink, then he was away from the truck. That right there is enough to raise questions, IMO.

Also, the tow with car had no Police escort. JMO

 

[cady]

ever been in criminal court? they are vicious sharks - defense lawyers. IF it's possible, it will be inadmissible. it's the burden of 100% proof. without reasonable doubt.

May have to stipulate to ease the pain of the mistake, and then heavily focus on other evidence. JMO

 

[OneLove]

Maybe Jessica blew the whistle on Tutor to Mister about some indiscretion and that's why Tutor texted Jessica and Mister referred to Jessica as a "good friend."

If we are allowed to hypothesize as to specific people and motive, I have a similar explanation but with a different twist.

I just don't want to post my thoughts in regards to this until I know if it is allowable. I sincerely do not want to violate TOS.

Does anyone know?

 

[tlcya]

Personally, I don't see a judge throwing out the car or any evidence associated with it based on a stop for a drink or whatever at a local gas station/convenience store.

I do think any defense attorney worth their salt will pick away at that stop and other things done in the initial investigation of the scene immediately following the fire. At least I would not leave such stones unturned. (IANAL I just watch a lot of them)

 

[dairydog]

The problem, IMO, is that the tow truck driver (who would be been the one in custody of the car) may not be able to testify that the evidence was NOT tampered with because he did not have physical and probably visual custody of said evidence while in the store. Its just an unfortunate thing that can throw a monkey wrench into the prosecution, MOO.

Like I mentioned in another post, that vehicle should have either been covered with a tarp or transported in a covered trailer.

 

[absentia]

here's an example:
man kicks down wife's bedroom door to gain access to her during a fight. she calls police. he is arrested for criminal mischief with DV enhancer. He has a prior police report of doing the same thing 4 years prior. He admits having done it to the police. They take pix of the damaged door. He admits it to the neighbors in front of a police officer during a civil stand by to get his belongings after he got out of jail.
He hires a defense atty. All of a sudden, a month after the crime, they claim that the woman threatened self harm and that's why the husband kicked down the door - to help her, although he did not call for help on the day of the fight or take her to a counselor or any hospital. The police report says nothing about this claim. The husband did not mention this claim to police when they arrived on the scene of the crime.
DA dismisses the case and refuses to even offer a plea to the defendant. It will never go to trial bc of the reasonable doubt that the husband really was possibly trying to help, even though he admitted fighting and kicking down the door. The restraining order is dropped.
Case closed. Justice NOT served. Woman not protected. Woman and her reputation and fitness as a mother is slandered.

 

[cady]

Personally, I don't see a judge throwing out the car or any evidence associated with it based on a stop for a drink or whatever at a local gas station/convenience store.

I do think any defense attorney worth their salt will pick away at that stop and other things done in the initial investigation of the scene immediately following the fire. At least I would not leave such stones unturned. (IANAL I just watch a lot of them)

YUP That is what the defense is supposed to do....focus on technicalities..if they don't get an acquittal, they at least have fodder for appeal. JMO

 

[dairydog]

OJ Simpson

Also Jon Benet; that house should have been sealed and secured but a lot of people tramped through before this happened.

 

[absentia]

Maybe I'm just too tired after a full day of work, but what, exactly, would be tampered with that would give reasonable doubt? Surely they took thorough crime scene photos of the car, inside and out. I'm not sure how you could tamper with a burn pattern, or introduce residue of a burned accelerant over the entire car. If any fingerprints were to be collected, I'd think they would have done that at the scene, before they moved the vehicle and took a crowbar to the trunk.

I'm not trying to be snarky. Really. I just don't know what could be tampered with that would give reasonable doubt.

I was thinking more along the lines of any DNA that is found in the car or of traces of an accelerant - could have been introduced by a bystander during the M&M stop.

 

[absentia]

If we are allowed to hypothesize as to specific people and motive, I have a similar explanation but with a different twist.

I just don't want to post my thoughts in regards to this until I know if it is allowable. I sincerely do not want to violate TOS.

Does anyone know?

this is what I'm not sure of either. If they have been named in MSM and we are posing a theory involving them and not accusing, can we state our thoughts?

 

[cady]

JMO The issue isn't just about some active TAMPERING, it also involves what could have been missed at the scene and what could have been lost from the unsecured car as well as the unsecured scene. UGH JMO

 

[southernyankee]

Yeah. Basically, a lot depends on how all the variables + factors in this case come together and are presented in court, as well as what a judge allows and does not where applicable. There are a lot of What Ifs, but it is prudent to assume that both the defense + the prosecution will use the law to the maximum benefit in arguing for each side.

A reminder that criminal cases are held to the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" while civil cases are decided on the "preponderance of the evidence."

Good old Wikipedia strikes again as a handy reference on the Legal Burden of Proof, y'all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof

 

[MyBelle]

AA was able to get close enough to the car to take multiple photos of it. If the driver was stopped for a drink, then he was away from the truck. That right there is enough to raise questions, IMO.

A car could have pulled alongside the tow truck and somebody snapped a photo and it would have no legal significance. Taking a photo doesn't mean the chain of custody was broken. I have yet to see any evidence in this case that the chain of evidence was broken by LE nor have I seen anything that indicates LE thought the car had any meaningful evidence still on it when the tow truck removed it.

JMO