I just read the Defence response. Ummmm WOW.
I think my most FAVOURITE part was the sarcastic and condesending tone about the inclusion of the history of spoliation in civil and criminal law. Which then did NOT include any case law from criminal cases in America in the last 200 years.
Oh and I really enjoyed how they basically just reiterated everything they said in the original motion and then added insult to injury by stating that by processing the scene and removing the little angels remains they "might" have distroyed exculpatory evidence.
*deep sigh* - that part really shows how the perp, to this very day, puts her own self before Caylee. Still not a shred of remorse...
I think my most FAVOURITE part was the sarcastic and condesending tone about the inclusion of the history of spoliation in civil and criminal law. Which then did NOT include any case law from criminal cases in America in the last 200 years.
Oh and I really enjoyed how they basically just reiterated everything they said in the original motion and then added insult to injury by stating that by processing the scene and removing the little angels remains they "might" have distroyed exculpatory evidence.
*deep sigh* - that part really shows how the perp, to this very day, puts her own self before Caylee. Still not a shred of remorse...
