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

[southernyankee]

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?

To err on the side of playing by the rules - I would NOT name anyone by a full name specifically in a theory that suggests that individual committed a crime for which there is currently NO proof or factual evidence in MSM.

 

[absentia]

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

and also that DA's have a moral obligation to ensure Prima Facie. If there is evidence to dispute Prima Facie, the DA risks his reputation as a lawyer taking it to trial.
http://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=1598

and a better explanation, specific to an affirmative defense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie

 

[cady]

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

Another thing I can comfortably (almost) guarantee you, is that you will not read about it in the Panolian. You will hear about it if you follow a trial which most of us hope will happen, short of a full confession. JMO

 

[southernyankee]

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

It's entirely possible + even totally likely that there was no tampering with the car or other evidence in this case.

The problem is that the opportunity for someone to have done so was there.

It is, at the very least, suggestive of the credibility of those handling the evidence that they were negligent enough to allow for that opportunity.

Not necessarily a nail in the coffin for either side, but it could be a dent. And please don't be confused by that - I mean this as a figure of speech + I hope all understand.

 

[absentia]

It's entirely possible + even totally likely that there was no tampering with the car or other evidence in this case.

The problem is that the opportunity for someone to have done so was there.

It is, at the very least, suggestive of the credibility of those handling the evidence that they were negligent enough to allow for that opportunity.

Not necessarily a nail in the coffin for either side, but it could be a dent. And please don't be confused by that - I mean this as a figure of speech + I hope all understand.

I think the car will be allowed to show the extent of the burns, but beyond that, any evidence that remained on it will not be allowed.

 

[PeterThomasFan]

From Wikipedia - Chain of Custody BBM

An example of chain of custody would be the recovery of a bloody knife at a murder scene:

1. Officer Andrew collects the knife and places it into a container, then gives it to forensics technician Bill.
2. Forensics technician Bill takes the knife to the lab and collects fingerprints and other evidence from the knife. Bill then gives the knife and all evidence gathered from the knife to evidence clerk Charlene.
3. Charlene then stores the evidence until it is needed, documenting everyone who has accessed the original evidence (the knife, and original copies of the lifted fingerprints).

The chain of custody requires that from the moment the evidence is collected, every transfer of evidence from person to person be documented and that it be provable that nobody else could have accessed that evidence. It is best to keep the number of transfers as low as possible.

In the courtroom, if the defendant questions the chain of custody of the evidence it can be proven that the knife in the evidence room is the same knife found at the crime scene. However, if there are discrepancies and it cannot be proven who had the knife at a particular point in time, then the chain of custody is broken and the defendant can ask to have the resulting evidence declared inadmissible.

So, I hope that Mr. Towtruck Driver documented that he stopped at M&M's for a Snapple and some Ports!

 

[cady]

I think the car will be allowed to show the extent of the burns, but beyond that, any evidence that remained on it will not be allowed.

Bummer. You are probably right. And anything IN the car could have been critical evidence. UGH

 

[MyBelle]

It's entirely possible + even totally likely that there was no tampering with the car or other evidence in this case.

The problem is that the opportunity for someone to have done so was there.

It is, at the very least, suggestive of the credibility of those handling the evidence that they were negligent enough to allow for that opportunity.

Not necessarily a nail in the coffin for either side, but it could be a dent. And please don't be confused by that - I mean this as a figure of speech + I hope all understand.

Actually, I have yet to see any problem at all. I prefer not to bash law enforcement, attack their credibility or accuse them of negligence unless I have a stronger basis than just wild speculation.

JMO

 

[southernyankee]

Oh man, while we're on the Wikipedia legal wavelength... this is some good food for thought should it indeed come into play in court... Fascinating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_declaration

 

[eileenhawkeye]

The murder is receiving tremendous local media coverage and the Governor has weighed in as well. I doubt there is anyone locally who is not reading local media and instead turns to Nancy Grace. This is not a missing person case. I think if LE thought it would be helpful, they would ask Nancy to do a segment.

JMO

Media coverage (especially national) has become symbolic. It is not wanted because it will truly make a difference, but because it is a way of acknowledging that a case is "important". Being a local story, no matter how prevalant, is seen as not "good" enough.

 

[southernyankee]

Actually, I have yet to see any problem at all. I prefer not to bash law enforcement, attack their credibility or accuse them of negligence unless I have a stronger basis than just wild speculation.

JMO

If the car was at any point left unattended or unsecured - as it is suggested to have been while the tow truck driver stopped at M&M gas station later in the evening of December 6th - there was an opportunity for it to have been mishandled or tampered with, period.

No wild speculation, and certainly not a swipe at LE - simply an observation, and it is fair for that observation to be pointed out in court.

 

[absentia]

Actually, I have yet to see any problem at all. I prefer not to bash law enforcement, attack their credibility or accuse them of negligence unless I have a stronger basis than just wild speculation.

JMO

the fact is, the car was unattended at M&M while the tow truck driver went in to buy cigs. The fact that AA took and posted pix of it on FB shows that anyone could have had access to it. Based on the law, this allows the defense to argue that anything found in or on the car not be admitted as evidence. This is true regardless of what you believe about the law or LE.

 

[MyBelle]

I think the car will be allowed to show the extent of the burns, but beyond that, any evidence that remained on it will not be allowed.

I think you are making an assumption something of evidentiary value remained on the vehicle after it left the scene. I think anything inside the car deemed of forensic value whether it be charred purse, water bottle, anything at all, was removed and bagged prior to the removal of the vehicle from the scene. LE has said damage to the trunk occurred when they pried it open.

JMO

 

[cady]

Actually, I have yet to see any problem at all. I prefer not to bash law enforcement, attack their credibility or accuse them of negligence unless I have a stronger basis than just wild speculation.

JMO

I for one, respect LE, but I also expect that they know and operate under basic investigatory rules. When those rules are breached, we have problems with trust. In my personal opinion, this investigation was botched. JMO

 

[absentia]

I think you are making an assumption something of evidentiary value remained on the vehicle after it left the scene. I think anything inside the car deemed of forensic value whether it be charred purse, water bottle, anything at all, was removed and bagged prior to the removal of the vehicle from the scene. LE has said damage to the trunk occurred when they pried it open.

JMO

not an assumption - just acknowledging the possibility. IF anything were found in or on the car, it can be argued out of evidence. and that sucks.

 

[MyBelle]

If the car was at any point left unattended or unsecured - as it is suggested to have been while the tow truck driver stopped at M&M gas station later in the evening of December 6th - there was an opportunity for it to have been mishandled or tampered with, period.

No wild speculation, and certainly not a swipe at LE - simply an observation, and it is fair for that observation to be pointed out in court.

You say "If the car was at any point left unsecured or unattended" yet you don't know whether it was or not, nor have you linked to any requirement that dictated how it must be handled. That's pretty wild speculation being used to bash LE.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

I for one, respect LE, but I also expect that they know and operate under basic investigatory rules. When those rules are breached, we have problems with trust. In my personal opinion, this investigation was botched. JMO

I've repeatedly asked for a link to those "basic investigatory rules" that the LE in this case have breached.

Until such a link is posted, we'll agree to disagree.

 

[absentia]

From Wikipedia - Chain of Custody BBM

An example of chain of custody would be the recovery of a bloody knife at a murder scene:

1. Officer Andrew collects the knife and places it into a container, then gives it to forensics technician Bill.
2. Forensics technician Bill takes the knife to the lab and collects fingerprints and other evidence from the knife. Bill then gives the knife and all evidence gathered from the knife to evidence clerk Charlene.
3. Charlene then stores the evidence until it is needed, documenting everyone who has accessed the original evidence (the knife, and original copies of the lifted fingerprints).

The chain of custody requires that from the moment the evidence is collected, every transfer of evidence from person to person be documented and that it be provable that nobody else could have accessed that evidence. It is best to keep the number of transfers as low as possible.

In the courtroom, if the defendant questions the chain of custody of the evidence it can be proven that the knife in the evidence room is the same knife found at the crime scene. However, if there are discrepancies and it cannot be proven who had the knife at a particular point in time, then the chain of custody is broken and the defendant can ask to have the resulting evidence declared inadmissible.

So, I hope that Mr. Towtruck Driver documented that he stopped at M&M's for a Snapple and some Ports!

MyBelle - in case you missed this.

 

[SteveP]

You need 100% for a conviction. Why give a defense any room for question? Totally idiotic IMO to stop anywhere on the way back to the impound lot with a key piece of evidence. Not much room for debating it either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You obviously don't smoke. Give the poor tow truck driver a break. He was probably having a nicotine fit. (no, I am not serious)

 

[SteveP]

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

They don't have a drive thru, but apparently you can order chicken and get it hand delivered without going inside.