Spoliation Motion Sept 22, 2009 Includes Response

[Oakley]

2 - 3 -6

 

[JBean]

Oh the tangled web we weave when all we're trying to do is set some simple guidelines, huh? Just want to make sure I understand -- claiming 'opinion' isn't an absolute reason to not report, correct? Like if I keep insisting 'imo Caylee disappeared in 2007' others should correct the date, providing whatever documentation they can to me and if I keep repeating this, though couched as my opinion, it should be reported to the moderators so it isn't carried forward as fact by someone else, correct?

Lin, stating that caylee disappeared ini 2007 isn't an opinion. It is mistating a fact and if the poster is corrected by another that should be sufficient. if 20 people correct that person it gets a little bullying in nature and pretty much unecessary. If the poster corrects themself it is all good.
if the poster continues to misstate, just shoot me a note that's it.

This really isn't complicated.
If you post to someone and they do not repsond to you, forget it.
If someone posts an obvious misstatement of fact, respond with the correct info and see what happens.
But when 20 of you gang up on the person that may have mistated the fact it gets a bit ridiculous. Just ignore it and report it.Everyone doensn't need to get on the band wagon and tell them how wrong they are LOL.

Just report it and move on.

If someone is interpreting fact differently than you, it does not mean you are right and they are wrong. That is what respectful discussion is about. Don't bully or badger are talk about the poster as if they don't know that you are referring to them. Just have respectful debate and discussion. We have lots of this here and that is one of the primary basics of thread discussion imo.

If I say, in my opinion KC is not the murderer and do not really have anything good to back it up with, just ignore me! But if I have some good points and am willing to engage in an articulate discussion of my reasoning, then embrace it and counter the points in a respectful way. If you are not convincing the other person and it is becoming annoying to you...go to another thread don't put them down!

Just because we might not agree doesn't mean they may not have some valid points. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I haven't had a chance to read the last thread so this has probably been mentioned but if KC gets her charges dismissed because her lawyers and their experts didn't get to physically examine every aspect of the crime scene, while the investigators did...wouldn't almost every murderer in jail today be eligible to have their sentences reversed??
Geragos didn't get to examine the crime scene or remains.I can't think of a single defense team that has.

That's the reason I found this motion to be downright offensive. It makes no sense. I know the defense must be zealous, but this is just pulling stuff out of nowhere and essentially trying to circumvent the system. It's really disturbing that this kind of thing goes on.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

2
3
6 lol

 

[mountaintime]

First they have to find a rabbit... then they have to catch it... then they have to get it into the hat in order to be able to pull it out. I'm not seeing any indication they even know what a rabbit is; or even a hat for that matter!

DWAT that pesky wabbit!

 

[BonKai]

I wonder how Judge Strickland reacts in private to JB's Motions; especially this one. Does he laugh, cry, or both?

I have the utmost respect for Judge Strickland. He conducts himself professionally while dealing with JB. I know I couldn't do it!

 

[doogiesgirl]

That's the reason I found this motion to be downright offensive. It makes no sense. I know the defense must be zealous, but this is just pulling stuff out of nowhere and essentially trying to circumvent the system. It's really disturbing that this kind of thing goes on.

It is not just circumventing, IMO it is polluting, impeding and downright attempting to clog up our already over burdened judicial system calenders. I wish when Judge's are handed motions like these, such as the one JB filed in regards to dismissing KC's case b/c the defense was not allowed on to an active crime scene....I wish the Judge had the power to literally "rubber stamp" it with "Imprudent, irrational, ludicrous poppycock---Dismissed", instead of taking up valuable court time. MOO

 

[doogiesgirl]

I wonder how Judge Strickland reacts in private to JB's Motions; especially this one. Does he laugh, cry, or both?

I have the utmost respect for Judge Strickland. He conducts himself professionally while dealing with JB. I know I couldn't do it!

Well it does handle JB and company very well IMO but during that Dec. 16th emergency hearing, where LKB was on the phone talking about the second autopsy, I thought I detected a bit of irritation on Judge SS's face as he had told them over and over, that is moot until the body has been officially ID'd. But he seems pretty patient. Unflappable...I'll be praying for him coz I know he's gonna need it! Let's hope they don't push him to going home and doing this :banghead: MOO

 

[cecybeans]

Lin, I vote you are officially in charge of creating ALL future polls!

Of course, I chose 2, 3 and 6 - (with a heavy emphasis on 6, although frankly I don't think it would have been written at all if it was just JB. One of the gals told him to do it - maybe LKB over the phone, like she had to do with that simple deposition we heard because nobody can apparently trust him to handle that alone. I don't think he's ever heard of "spoliation" before - although it describes his character pretty well).

The word sounds exactly like what the air sample of a pizza box left in KC's car would smell like...

 

[Jolynna]

I think the cases cited as the basis for the Motion to Dismiss are interesting.

In Arizona vs Youngblood, a 1988 case, the U.S. Supreme court reversed the Arizona court and sent Youngblood back to jail because Arizona officials hadn't purposefully (in bad faith) not refrigerated biological evidence. In Giglio vs U.S., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1972 that all potentially impeaching evidence about prosecution witnesses must be turned over to defense lawyers before a trial.

Youngblood: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/303.php; http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:VU9nggZ7PdcJ:www.denverpost.com/evidence/ci_6429277+%22Arizona+vs+Youngblood%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Giglio vs U.S.: http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache...rug+"giglio+vs+U.S."&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

My understanding from reading about Youngblood is that Arizona vs Youngblood was a landmark case that took away a defendant's constitutional rights by opening doors for prosecutors to deliberately destroy biological evidence because "bad faith" is next to impossible to prove. The Denver Post did a year long investigation about prosecutors across the U.S. getting rid of exculpatory DNA, post-Youngblood. http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/cmcj/pdfs/denverpost.pdf

AL & Baez are using an antiquated pre-DNA ruling based upon the definition of "bad faith" as the foundation of their argument. The premise is that the prosecutors have breeched any definition of "bad faith" and committed misconduct on the level of the huge level of bribing etc. that went on in Giglio.

It's creative.


IMO

 

[trafficsUP66]

Lin, thanks for giving this another chance. It almost begs for a poll (although there could be a lot of multiple choice answers)...

I also just wanted to add OT to JBean's great parameters for quoting, etc. that we should all remember that, due to circumstances beyond our control sometimes - some posters end up being "drive-by" types who post and then have to leave the forum for awhile to put out other fires. I am certainly one very guilty of that. I am always popping in and out - not only due to my WS-ADD, but to the darned outside world! I apologize if I have left anyone hanging, forgotten to retrieve information or left a question anyone asked unanswered, and have appreciated the patience I've seen here for that.

Thank you for this post cecybeans! I too am guilty of same and feel awful about this. Once I learn how to keep up the little energy I have due to illness is needed here in the home. Then I have to begin all over again, lost as to where I was at the last time I was here. I try to just read rather than post because of this but sometimes just can't help myself.

I also apologize to anyone I haven't answered and do appreciate the patience and understanding when this happens!

I have worried about this lots, specially lately since I've been very sick and unable to keep up.

A great day to All

: - )

 

[Muzikman]

I think the cases cited as the basis for the Motion to Dismiss are interesting.

In Arizona vs Youngblood, a 1988 case, the U.S. Supreme court reversed the Arizona court and sent Youngblood back to jail because Arizona officials hadn't purposefully (in bad faith) not refrigerated biological evidence. In Giglio vs U.S., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1972 that all potentially impeaching evidence about prosecution witnesses must be turned over to defense lawyers before a trial.

Youngblood: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/303.php; http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:VU9nggZ7PdcJ:www.denverpost.com/evidence/ci_6429277+%22Arizona+vs+Youngblood%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Giglio vs U.S.: http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache...rug+"giglio+vs+U.S."&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

My understanding from reading about Youngblood is that Arizona vs Youngblood was a landmark case that took away a defendant's constitutional rights by opening doors for prosecutors to deliberately destroy biological evidence because "bad faith" is next to impossible to prove. The Denver Post did a year long investigation about prosecutors across the U.S. getting rid of exculpatory DNA, post-Youngblood. http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/cmcj/pdfs/denverpost.pdf

AL & Baez are using an antiquated pre-DNA ruling based upon the definition of "bad faith" as the foundation of their argument. The premise is that the prosecutors have breeched any definition of "bad faith" and committed misconduct on the level of the huge level of bribing etc. that went on in Giglio.

It's creative.
IMO

Thanks for taking the time to look this up Jolynna. BBM - I wonder if this is the work of Andrea's students? Taking the time to look up any remote possibility....

 

[Jolynna]

Thanks for taking the time to look this up Jolynna. BBM - I wonder if this is the work of Andrea's students? Taking the time to look up any remote possibility....

I think AL's students worked on it. But, I think AL is very familiar with Arizona vs Youngblood. According to the Denver Post articles and some articles from the LA Times, Arizona vs Youngblood is a thorn in the Innocence Project's side.

I think it is interesting that a ruling which gives a great deal of power to the government is being cited by a defendant. The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the prosecutors and sent Youngblood back to jail. That DNA later showed Youngblood was innocent and that he was wrongfully locked up for more years because of the ruling is beside the point. The ruling that Youngblood couldn't prove Arizona failed to refrigerate biological evidence for malicious (or in "bad faith") reasons still stands.

I'm trying to twist my brain around to how it could be interpreted favorably for KC. It seems like Arizona vs Youngblood gives prosecutors free rein.

What am I not getting?????

jmo

 

[Woe.be.gone]

This has been on my mind lately. I don't know where to put it but since this thread deals with questions about posting I thought I'd try here.

1. I was leaning towards 2,3,and 6 before reading - so I see I'm in good company. I can't answer polls though when I'm not sure I know what I'm talking about. So No. 6 comes into play with me often!

I often read a post that sounds great to me but it would take research on my part to know if I can agree with it or not so I pass it up along with the "thanks" even though they are probably right.

2. I want my thanks to have integrity.

3. If I agree with 2/3's of the post wholeheartedly but 1/3 of the post is a comment that is stated as fact that I'm not sure about, I can't give thanks - a few times I have broken this rule of mine.

4. When I am fond of someone through their written posts, I will often thank them for sharing their thoughts on the forum.

5. Because they thank me (not just because though).

6. I give thanks to peeps who never thank me when they have a great point because I try to be honest and not competitive. Sometimes I wonder why certain folks never thank me or anybody for that matter. I've never taken a poll though.

7. I thank posters who have done a lot of work to provide the information in their post.

8. I thank posters who provide specific information - like links to informative articles about related legal stuff, psycho stuff, etc.

9. I want to thank people sometimes for their artwork and siggy's, etc. but that would be confusing.

10. I thank people for funny posts - posts that make me laugh but have no other value really. I've had some great laughs since I've been reading here. Comic relief I guess.

11. I thank posters who agree/support a thought/idea I have posted. Even if it turns out not to be true, I appreciate being heard/considered/listened to. I try to do the same to others when something sounds plausible.

12. I thank posters who take the time to explain stuff to me/us when they don't have to (like the virus thread stuff and various other stuff like JBean has done on this thread).

13. I thank the regular posters on the Media and Docs. threads who are constantly posting links to keep the motions and released docs. available to us. Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!

 

[sarah7855]

I think AL's students worked on it. But, I think AL is very familiar with Arizona vs Youngblood. According to the Denver Post articles and some articles from the LA Times I didn't link, Arizona vs Youngblood is a thorn in the Innocence Project's side.

I think it is interesting that a ruling which gives a great deal of power to the government is being cited by a defendant. The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the state and sent Youngblood back to jail. That DNA later showed Youngblood was innocent and that he was wrongfully locked up for more years because of the ruling is beside the point. The ruling was that Youngblood couldn't prove Arizona failed to refrigerate biological evidence for malicious (or in "bad faith") reasons.

I'm trying to twist my brain around to how it could be interpreted favorably for KC. It seems like Arizona vs Youngblood gives prosecutors free rein.

What am I not getting?????

jmo

I was thinking the same thing, reading through those articles...

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I think the cases cited as the basis for the Motion to Dismiss are interesting.

In Arizona vs Youngblood, a 1988 case, the U.S. Supreme court reversed the Arizona court and sent Youngblood back to jail because Arizona officials hadn't purposefully (in bad faith) not refrigerated biological evidence. In Giglio vs U.S., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1972 that all potentially impeaching evidence about prosecution witnesses must be turned over to defense lawyers before a trial.

Youngblood: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/303.php; http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:VU9nggZ7PdcJ:www.denverpost.com/evidence/ci_6429277+%22Arizona+vs+Youngblood%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Giglio vs U.S.: http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache...rug+"giglio+vs+U.S."&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

My understanding from reading about Youngblood is that Arizona vs Youngblood was a landmark case that took away a defendant's constitutional rights by opening doors for prosecutors to deliberately destroy biological evidence because "bad faith" is next to impossible to prove. The Denver Post did a year long investigation about prosecutors across the U.S. getting rid of exculpatory DNA, post-Youngblood. http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/cmcj/pdfs/denverpost.pdf

AL & Baez are using an antiquated pre-DNA ruling based upon the definition of "bad faith" as the foundation of their argument. The premise is that the prosecutors have breeched any definition of "bad faith" and committed misconduct on the level of the huge level of bribing etc. that went on in Giglio.

It's creative.


IMO

I don't see how it's creative though because they're not basing it on anything. They're claiming that because they didn't get some unheard of privilege of investigating the active crime scene that there was wrongdoing. Also they don't offer anything to point to what the crime scene people/ law enforcement did wrong. It was just a by the book investigation as far as anyone can tell...they took pictures, thoroughly combed the area to find her remains...what is their problem with that? Do you really just get to file motions for the sake of filing them? If so, what needs to happen to change this?

Another point... just thinking out loud here - not directed toward anyone...but why is this case so rife with the expectation of special privileges? I seriously do not understand it. Defense wants to investigate (active) crime scene, Anthony family wants special privileges at the jail (no taping, no chain around stomach, etc), Anthonys want to decide what is and is not relevant at the ZFG deposition and want sunshine laws to be ignored and restrict autopsy information, trying to control/threaten media and law enforcement, Baez at the jail with letters, laptop, the wristband contraband, etc etc etc.

This is a tragic case, and an unusual one, but the rules have to be the same for everyone - where are they getting the presence of mind to think they should be so 'special'??

 

[nyvictoria]

I don't see how it's creative though because they're not basing it on anything. They're claiming that because they didn't get some unheard of privilege of investigating the active crime scene that there was wrongdoing. Also they don't offer anything to point to what the crime scene people/ law enforcement did wrong. It was just a by the book investigation as far as anyone can tell...they took pictures, thoroughly combed the area to find her remains...what is their problem with that? Do you really just get to file motions for the sake of filing them? If so, what needs to happen to change this?

Another point... just thinking out loud here - not directed toward anyone...but why is this case so rife with the expectation of special privileges? I seriously do not understand it. Defense wants to investigate (active) crime scene, Anthony family wants special privileges at the jail (no taping, no chain around stomach, etc), Anthonys want to decide what is and is not relevant at the ZFG deposition and want sunshine laws to be ignored and restrict autopsy information, trying to control/threaten media and law enforcement, Baez at the jail with letters, laptop, the wristband contraband, etc etc etc.

This is a tragic case, and an unusual one, but the rules have to be the same for everyone - where are they getting the presence of mind to think they should be so 'special'??

I find these never ending motions sickeningly ironic. Casey was raised on a diet of spoon-fed special treatment. Mommy and Daddy constantly covering for her lies and thievery created a monster. She now has her attorneys doing the same. Of course it's their obligation to their client but in Casey's twisted mind, she'll continue to feel entitled and special. uke:

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I don't see how it's creative though because they're not basing it on anything. They're claiming that because they didn't get some unheard of privilege of investigating the active crime scene that there was wrongdoing. Also they don't offer anything to point to what the crime scene people/ law enforcement did wrong. It was just a by the book investigation as far as anyone can tell...they took pictures, thoroughly combed the area to find her remains...what is their problem with that? Do you really just get to file motions for the sake of filing them? If so, what needs to happen to change this?

Another point... just thinking out loud here - not directed toward anyone...but why is this case so rife with the expectation of special privileges? I seriously do not understand it. Defense wants to investigate (active) crime scene, Anthony family wants special privileges at the jail (no taping, no chain around stomach, etc), Anthonys want to decide what is and is not relevant at the ZFG deposition and want sunshine laws to be ignored and restrict autopsy information, trying to control/threaten media and law enforcement, Baez at the jail with letters, laptop, the wristband contraband, etc etc etc.

This is a tragic case, and an unusual one, but the rules have to be the same for everyone - where are they getting the presence of mind to think they should be so 'special'??

Everything that you say I have witnessed as well and it causes me to feel angry that other peeps and establishments are allowing typical "A-type behavior" to go beyond the A's own boundries. The A's appear as if they think/feel that one of theirs should be allowed to get away with murder - of their grandchild for cry'n out loud. I don't get it at all and it causes me to want to see them get the book thrown at them.

Somebody break this spell please in the name of justice!

By the way, do we know the exact reason why the death penalty was authorized again? Or is that held back until the trial? It was before the body was even found iirc, right?

 

[Macushla]

Another point... just thinking out loud here - not directed toward anyone...but why is this case so rife with the expectation of special privileges? I seriously do not understand it. Defense wants to investigate (active) crime scene, Anthony family wants special privileges at the jail (no taping, no chain around stomach, etc), Anthonys want to decide what is and is not relevant at the ZFG deposition and want sunshine laws to be ignored and restrict autopsy information, trying to control/threaten media and law enforcement, Baez at the jail with letters, laptop, the wristband contraband, etc etc etc.

This is a tragic case, and an unusual one, but the rules have to be the same for everyone - where are they getting the presence of mind to think they should be so 'special'??

You bring up an excellent question and perhaps it needs a thread all by itself! I agree with you that the A's and the defense team are of the opinion that they are special, maybe even 'above the law'. Does anyone know if JB tried all these same moves at his last murder trial? I think we all agree that KC feels she is above the law, and rule don't apply to her at all. It seems that this is a 'family trait'!

What really makes me scratch my head is the defense trying to get the charges dismissed because they were not allowed to 'inspect the scene' prior to LE finishing their investigation. Wasn't this shot down at an emergency hearing? Did they not pay attention that day?

Their sheer audacity just takes my breath away. I can only hope that Judge Strickland will 'hand them their heads' at the motions hearing and that at some point, down the road, the State will take Anthonys to task over their behavior. the longer they get away with it, the worse they will get.

 

[impatientredhead]

You bring up an excellent question and perhaps it needs a thread all by itself! I agree with you that the A's and the defense team are of the opinion that they are special, maybe even 'above the law'. Does anyone know if JB tried all these same moves at his last murder trial? I think we all agree that KC feels she is above the law, and rule don't apply to her at all. It seems that this is a 'family trait'!

What really makes me scratch my head is the defense trying to get the charges dismissed because they were not allowed to 'inspect the scene' prior to LE finishing their investigation. Wasn't this shot down at an emergency hearing? Did they not pay attention that day?

Their sheer audacity just takes my breath away. I can only hope that Judge Strickland will 'hand them their heads' at the motions hearing and that at some point, down the road, the State will take Anthonys to task over their behavior. the longer they get away with it, the worse they will get.

In all honesty I don't think the requests are that unusual. It is just that this case every move is being watched, reported and discussed. Defendants ask for special treatment all the time, want the rules bent for them, and attorney's file motions with no merit every minute of the day across our great country. It is just kind of nature of the beast kind of thing. moo