GUILTY NH - AH, 14, North Conway, 9 October 2013 - #14

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
(Attys have been whispering).

JUDGE:There is no longer a need for a conference? [??]

STATE: So, can we come back and see you in chambers?

Judge: Yes.

All rise. (Nate leaves; attys go into chambers with judge; another break.)
 
my link not working...plz repost...are we still live? My feed says back after break but I thought would be back by now. TIA
 
I'm confused as to why this location needs to be preserved. Homes where murder occurred are not fenced off and guarded. If someone is determined to break into somewhere, whether it is a house, trailer, car, or bank, will most likely do so with or without a fence.
 
Fireweed said:
So this guy, nine days after the arraignment, still only has nine pages of documents relating to the case. Oh man, I am going to need a bigger bowl of popcorn.
Click to expand...

Can't speak for NH, but to me, that's not really that big of a deal. Cases crawl.

Speculation here, but I think the defense attorney is making a big issue out of all of this is that he's trying to put heat on the state and possibly create a speedy trial argument. If Kibby doesn't waive his speedy trial rights, they have to produce all these materials quickly. Seems like the defense attorney is hoping that he can get them unprepared and having to face a trial sooner, rather than later, in a tactical effort for his client.
 
bakerlady said:
I'm confused as to why this location needs to be preserved. Homes where murder occurred are not fenced off and guarded. If someone is determined to break into somewhere, whether it is a house, trailer, car, or bank, will most likely do so with or without a fence.
Click to expand...

Off the top of my head, defense counsel would likely want to photograph the placement of the trailer and shed and storage container themselves and really work with the scene to prove how unlikely it was that AH was there with no one knowing. It's difficult to make those kinds of arguments when the scene no longer exists.
 
bessie said:
I'll confirm and edit the post if neceesary. I'm pretty sure the figure was $5.00
Click to expand...

Yeah, I had to listen to it a couple times. The word "dollars" was never used, IIRC. He said "five thousand" (I thought he said "five dollars" at first).
 
PoirotryInMotion said:
(Attys have been whispering).

JUDGE:There is no longer a need for a conference? [??]

STATE: So, can we come back and see you in chambers?

Judge: Yes.

All rise. (Nate leaves; attys go into chambers with judge; another break.)
Click to expand...

Sounds like the attorneys have come to some sort of agreement on their own - sounds like defense counsel's tactical moves worked to a certain extent. Sometimes issues like this are overplayed as a means of negotiation.
 
I think what he is saying is that he can't argue for or against moving the trailer right now because he has only 9 pages from the state. He surmises that this case will generate thousands upon thousands of pages of transcripts, evidence, etc. He is arguing that right now, today, with what he has, he cannot say moving the trailer won't make a big deal because he doesn't know yet what the ultimate charges will be or what those thousands of pages will ultimately contain.

Therefore he wants things to stay where they are.

I think...
 
bakerlady said:
I'm confused as to why this location needs to be preserved. Homes where murder occurred are not fenced off and guarded. If someone is determined to break into somewhere, whether it is a house, trailer, car, or bank, will most likely do so with or without a fence.
Click to expand...

I think defense perhaps wants to preserve the scene possibly so that they can (if need be) re-enact if someone at that park who was outside the trailer could have heard Abby inside??
 
Back in session.

Judge: We're back.

Closing arguments?

DEF: I won't belabor main pts I've made. Issue is we don't have enough info in order to argue why this evidence needs preserved. We have identified this scene as being relevant, also material and exculpatory to Nate Kibby. (Brady v. MD case)
 
DEF: I've taken the state's argumt as to being more about practicalities. Nate claims innocence; asking State to do everything possible to preserve evidence.

STATE: we sought a warrant to remove property. Our reasoning is that the best way to protect integrity of the evidence is to remove it. Defendant can certainly have access to mobile home at wherever state brings it to. DEF will have access to diagrams, photos, etc.

We also indicated that to the extent that court grants motion, we'll have chain-link fence and defendant should help pay. He should also be aware, any damages are his problem.

DEF: Securing property is State's responsibility.

Judge: Okay, I'll take this all into consideration.

DEF asks Judge if that means nothing moved until her decision; STATE assures nothing will be. Judge clarifies with both attys that nothing will be moved on the property until her decision comes back.

All rise; judge exits room.

DEF and Kibby whispering.

Another break.
 
It sounds like the judge said part of the warrant allowing state to physically move the trailer is stayed. Meaning state cannot move it until she makes her ruling.
 
The container is divided into three sections, Young revealed in court.
She said the middle section “takes up the bulk of the container.” She told the judge that “the court is aware of” the third section of the container but she would not go into details about that section because the investigation is ongoing.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...fpfGe0eL6zDn0FbeyCYN/story.html?event=event25
 
tlcya said:
The container is divided into three sections, Young revealed in court.
She said the middle section “takes up the bulk of the container.” She told the judge that “the court is aware of” the third section of the container but she would not go into details about that section because the investigation is ongoing.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...fpfGe0eL6zDn0FbeyCYN/story.html?event=event25
Click to expand...

THAT, to me, is the most interesting bit to come out of today. The rest is just procedural jockeying, in my opinion.

Chilling, very chilling.
 
Is it over? If not, can someone please provide a link? TY:)
 
pinkandgreenmom said:
I think what he is saying is that he can't argue for or against moving the trailer right now because he has only 9 pages from the state. He surmises that this case will generate thousands upon thousands of pages of transcripts, evidence, etc. He is arguing that right now, today, with what he has, he cannot say moving the trailer won't make a big deal because he doesn't know yet what the ultimate charges will be or what those thousands of pages will ultimately contain.

Therefore he wants things to stay where they are.

I think...
Click to expand...

That's exactly what he said. My fingers couldn't keep up! Thanks for the recap. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 151 more.
Total: 1,839 (members: 152, guests: 1,687)

Online statistics

Members online
152
Guests online
1,687
Total visitors
1,839
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,967
Messages
18,196,030
Members
233,678
Latest member
Fil
Back
Top