pinkandgreenmom
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,189
- Reaction score
- 674
Thank you Fireweed and Not Without Peril for really flushing out the legal argument that had been bothering me but that I couldn't quite put my finger on.
That is simply untrue. You're forgetting about witness testimony.
I'm not sure that is right because JC Dugards' kidnapper got charged with both. Is your information from NH state law?
It really is complete BS that the state thinks they can move everything before the defense gets their turn at the property. Makes the state look like they are trying to hide something.
And take a look at Ariel Castro's house on google images. They did not put anything over the top of it not to mention the fence was easily scalable.
Unless there is some type of video/photo evidence or a child in the womb or items disposed in the trash with DNA (sorry ew), then there really would be no way for the state to build a rape case. If they did file charges without evidence they would surely lose IMO. My guess is that there is no evidence.
Didn't LE take Isreal Keyes' shed from the property? IIRC, I think they did.
I think a key difference here is the fact that this is a mobile home - not a building. By its nature, a mobile home is more vulnerable to damage from the weather, by vandals, being moved, having the landlord tow it away, etc. etc.
I know I said this previously, but in some cases, they really take an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink policy for collecting evidence. Even smaller cases have TONS of evidence seized. I really don't think seizing the mobile home is unprecedented.
And it's mobile. It can be moved by LE. Most homes cannot.
<snipped>
Prosecutor Jane E. Young said authorities don’t want the public destroying the property. Granite State legal experts are unconvinced.
“No matter how difficult it is, the government has a responsibility to maintain the evidence until the defense has had an opportunity to get all the information they need from it,” said Timothy Goulden, an attorney who is not part of the case. “They’re trying to move it without giving the defense the same opportunity that they’ve had to look and check and analyze the scene as it is.”
In criminal cases, the government can take evidence that will be relevant and then give defense counsel a chance to investigate. But with Kibby’s mobile home and shipping container — which have the odd characteristics of being both crime scene and evidence — part of the analysis has to be the surroundings. Could the nearby river drown out noises? Could neighbors see in? Those questions can’t be answered when the crime scene has been towed away.
“It’s highly unusual for the state to completely remove evidence of this nature from the scene,” said Richard Samdperil, an attorney not involved in the case. “He has an absolute constitutional right to know what evidence is being used against him.”
<snipped>
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinio...ving_target_in_abby_hernandez_kidnapping_case