Spoliation Motion Sept 22, 2009 Includes Response

[sarah7855]

Couldn't wait for media to put this up, went and got it myself (along with a couple other things, heh).

snipped

So, just out of curiousity, why do you think that the media isn't swarming all over these yet and posting them? there's been several docs/doc dumps that the media hasn't posted. Do you know why that might be? anyone? I'm sooo thankful that you are able to go get these docs, MM! you are the best!

 

[KenoshaKid]

pg 2



Way cool! The Defense can't just claim it. They got to prove that the evidence would have proved her innocence.

That in no way was what the defense wanted.

The defense was trying to make a case that since they were not at the scene when the evidence was being collected, that they were not able to 'save' the evidence that proved KC innocent. That there was such evidence is suppose to be accepted as fact.

Seems there is a case law that says the defense has to prove that there was such evidence, that it proved KC was innocent. Can't just assume.. :dance:

My bold.
I am wracking my brain to think of something that could be found at the crime scene that would be able to prove her innocence. Someone else's fingerprints on the duct tape, maybe? I mean, what could PROVE it wasn't KC? There is no Zanny, so its not like you're going to find something from her apartment there!

 

[MissJames]

Wow! Well done, Ashton! Talk about making a silk purse out of a sow's ear... Looks to me like he did it with the nonsense motion by flipping it around to demand a list of their witnesses and indicating he's deposing them all. WTG!

'Tis a thing of beauty! I love the way the State tells it like it is.
Thanks Muzikman.You made my day :woohoo:

 

[nums24]

Muzikman thank you!!!!

I feel so much better after reading this motion! Excellent job Mr. Ashton!

 

[Muzikman]

snipped

So, just out of curiousity, why do you think that the media isn't swarming all over these yet and posting them? there's been several docs/doc dumps that the media hasn't posted. Do you know why that might be? anyone? I'm sooo thankful that you are able to go get these docs, MM! you are the best!

I think that it's just all the other big news happening right now - the Isleworth murder, for example, is getting all the media time right now.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I'm not a lawyer either. And I realize folks might not realize how what their saying sounds on the other end. I wasn't upset with your opinion then or now on case issues. It was your option of folks who think XXXXX that was the slap. Like I was some sort of bad person for seeing some good in the OJ trial that helps us today. That is why I said my opinion didn't change in my reply.

All JB has it an attempt to find some sort of mistake on the part of the LE/CSI/SA. And hope he can make a case out "it" enough to get it tossed out.

I think they have all ready shown enough to prove this is a DP case in Florida. If the child died while in the act of child abuse, then it's automatically considered a DP case. The placement of the tape before the child died, shows some form of child abuse was going on at that time she died. That in it's self makes it a DP case. The tape doesn't have to be the cause of death. But it does show some sort of child abuse going on.

When they got the report (oral or written) from Dr. G, that the tape was on Caylee before she died, isabout the time this changed to a DP case. That doesn't mean they will give her the DP. Just that if found guily, she could get the DP. The Jury still decides in the end.

Like you, I hope they got more, to ensure she gets a harsh sentence. ( for the jury)

Maybe I'm wrong but I thought that the fact it was a child under 12 yrs that automatically qualified it for the death penalty?

 

[strach304]

As Ashton pointed out, they haven't even looked at said evidence to know if there is that possibility to make such a claim. Ridiculous. This prosecution team is going to send them packing right along with Casey's sippy cup gang.

Thanks MM.

 

[Sdavidson11]

Just to start off with the picking of all of the great sleuth's brains, what can the defense possibly throw out for the second concept as to what was destroyed, the time of destruction, and its value to prove innocence for the defendant? Will the answer have to come from only the documents that we have seen or is there other information the defense is privy to that they can use to reply to this question?

 

[Brini]

First impression: M. Ashton, Esq., was smirking, when he dictated this. It's smug almost to the point of snarkiness.

I LIKE that in a prosecutor!;-)

Second impression: The defense got a whuppin' with its own willow wand! ("Schooled" on its own precident citation, then a few others thrown at them, for good measure)

SO.. the defense has not yet been able to answer the earlier state request for discovery.

Now, the defense has voluntarily assumed a burden of proof that it is ALSO unlikely to be able to meet.....

 

[autumnlover]

Thank you, Muzikman. You keep us sleuthers up-to-date before even the media does! I am eternally grateful. Ever think of appearing on NG??!

 

[reeseeva]

gotta love Ashton. he really has a way of sticking it to Jose without veiling his true feelings at all. i find myself grinning after reading his motions.

BBM

I just wish he would keep his emotions in check, when he is in court with Jose..........

 

[momtective]

:floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:
Celebrity experts!

 

[coco puff]

Just to start off with the picking of all of the great sleuth's brains, what can the defense possibly throw out for the second concept as to what was destroyed, the time of destruction, and its value to prove innocence for the defendant? Will the answer have to come from only the documents that we have seen or is there other information the defense is privy to that they can use to reply to this question?

and didn't the defense already claim that they have proof of KC's innocence BASED on evidence provided by SA? :banghead:

 

[essies]

The "CELEBRITY EXPERTS" speak 12/13/08 on Geraldo!! Remember Caylee hasn't been identified yet!!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nOwn6mNDCQ"]YouTube - Geraldo 12/13/08 Part 2[/ame]

 

[whiteangora]

The "CELEBRITY EXPERTS" speak 12/13/08 on Geraldo!! Remember Caylee hasn't been identified yet!!

YouTube - Geraldo 12/13/08 Part 2

Thanks for that refresher! And thanks as always to Muzikman.
I can identify all of the experts except the one behind Dr Lee with the dark blue jacket, anyone know who he is?

 

[JSR]

This is a WONDERFULLY written motion!!! This is how a motion is supposed to be done! Well done, very well done.

If any of you are interested, I pulled the case law cited in the brief. I will attempt to attach it in case any of you are interested in reviewing the law Ashton used.

 

[Brini]

LE was processing the crime scene in this case. I have never seen or heard of a defense attorney being allowed on a crime scene while LE is still processing it as part of their investigation. Many times the defense is allowed back into the scene once it has been processed in order to take their own photos and such but the defense is never allowed to process a fresh crime scene before or during the LE investigation. To me this motion is a clear act of desperation on the defenses part. Yes it's common to make a motion to dismiss and I'm actually surprised that the motion hasn't come before now.

To me though what they are asking a dismissal for shows the defense has nothing and is grasping at straws. This coming from a defense that is so adament the their client is innocent. Where was that evidence of innocence again? Oh yeah you don't have any.

As far as the Aisenburg case I just don't see the parallels here. In this case you have a SOP processing of a crime scene. The Aisenburg case had malicious fabrication of evidence if I'm not mistaken. At no point do I think the investigators in this case fabricated evidence or maliciously destroyed evidence in order to convict Casey. If anything the defense and the A's have shown questionable methods in regards to evidence in this case imho.

Yep! IIRC they had some malicious editing of audio tapes. Or, maybe it was interpretation of tapes.

Don't remember if they were finally cleared, though.

 

[JSR]

BTW, I'm not surprised the opening Motion to Dismiss was filed. This is a pretty common maneuver from Defence counsel. In both civil and criminal actions. However, this particular opening Motion to Dismiss will be granted when pigs fly. They simply did not provide enough evidence or support to have their request granted.

 

[Brini]

They're between a rock and a hard place and the state just called them on it. IF the experts file reports supporting the motion to dismiss and it's not granted, then their opinions are worthless at trial. "Um, didn't you previously file a report that in your expert opinion it was impossible for you to dispute the state's case based on the evidence available due to the processing of the crime scene?" On the other hand, if they do not file such statements, then there is no basis whatsoever for that motion to be filed, much less granted. What a pickle JB is in, huh?

Just a little more spaghetti flinging.

Spaghetti only sticks if it's al dente. It won't stick if it's half-cooked.

 

[strach304]

Casey was charged with murder long before there was a crime scene to investigate. What about that evidence? Nothing there to base a motion to dismiss on? After all, Ashton does state that the defense experts haven't even examined any evidence from the site.