Spoliation Motion Sept 22, 2009 Includes Response

[Friday]

On behalf of LE, I have to say that I find it sickening and despicable whenever the Defense implies that LE wants to pin the crime on poor "innocent" Casey so badly that LE'd not only lie and cheat, they'd also knowingly allow Caylee's "real" murderer to live a free and happy life! In actuality, this is the sort of repulsive behavior that Defense Attorneys routinely engage in--and proudly.

MOO.

 

[marspiter]

Muzikman, thanks for snagging this info for us. Always good to have a member at ground zero so to speak making sure we get all the latest info. *tips hat*

As for the SA's response....I couldn't help but snicker when reading it. That motion is wonderful. He argues the states stance perfectly and also gets in a few digs at JB & Co. The SA used case law that was pertinent to the motion and backed up his argument.

What I find amazing is comparing this to JB&Co. motions. Given that the defense has these high profile attorneys and one of which is a renowned lawyer who teaches other lawyers. You would think they could at least site case law that's pertinent to a criminal case and doesn't backfire on them. I think the best advice for the defense would be not to file a motion just to file one if all it's going to do is blow up in your face.

In other words it's one thing to throw a hail marry pass to try and go into half time on a positive note. It's another to toss an obvious interception and watch the opposition run it back for a touch down. Should have just taken the sack and come out fighting in the second half.

 

[lin]

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

<sarcasm alert>

And? Your point? I mean, just because these claims completely contradict one another... um... well... um...

Great catch!

 

[Brini]

On behalf of LE, I have to say that I find it sickening and despicable whenever the Defense implies that LE wants to pin the crime on poor "innocent" Casey so badly that LE'd not only lie and cheat, they'd also knowingly allow Caylee's "real" murderer to live a free and happy life! In actuality, this is the sort of repulsive behavior that Defense Attorneys routinely engage in--and proudly.

MOO.

Particularly since LE (who knew from the get-go that KC diddit) nearly bent over backwards in their initial theory that it was an accident.

 

[lin]

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??!

I don't think our Muzikman should or would tolerate her turning on him as she often does. If she started smarting off to Muzikman, I think I'd have to reach through the tv to smack her myself!

 

[Brini]

Muzikman,
I think it's early enough in the thread, that I can say
THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!
Without out it being totally OT.

~ you know I luv u man! Right? Right?

Doesn't this ENTIRE thread brighten your WHOLE day?

I mean, aside from giving us all some chuckles.

 

[Brini]

Muzikman, thanks for snagging this info for us. Always good to have a member at ground zero so to speak making sure we get all the latest info. *tips hat*

As for the SA's response....I couldn't help but snicker when reading it. That motion is wonderful. He argues the states stance perfectly and also gets in a few digs at JB & Co. The SA used case law that was pertinent to the motion and backed up his argument.

What I find amazing is comparing this to JB&Co. motions. Given that the defense has these high profile attorneys and one of which is a renowned lawyer who teaches other lawyers. You would think they could at least site case law that's pertinent to a criminal case and doesn't backfire on them. I think the best advice for the defense would be not to file a motion just to file one if all it's going to do is blow up in your face.

In other words it's one thing to throw a hail marry pass to try and go into half time on a positive note. It's another to toss an obvious interception and watch the opposition run it back for a touch down. Should have just taken the sack and come out fighting in the second half.

It's often said that when one loads a gun, it's good to thoroughly understand WHICH end to aim!

The right caliber of ammo is also an obvious (to most) necessity.

 

[Trapshooter]

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

SSSnnnaaaapppppp!!!!

 

[coco puff]

It amazes me that LKB refers to over 200 cases that have had wrongly convicted innocent people and doesn't want her client to be one of them. She knows they have been exonorated (for the most part) because of DNA. Now she basically says that the same science is no good and should not be used to convict her client because it is junk. Good to be the queen I guess!

 

[Brini]

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?

Don't think they CAN.

They have to PROVE that evidence was destroyed or mishandled, and that it would potentially have exonerated KC. They pretty much volunteered to do that, when they submitted that document.

LE doesn't just dig up remains, IIRC. There's this entire gridding and anthropological brush excavation thing with photos at every, single, tedious, step.

LE can prolly throw an entire excavation procedure manual at the defense, if they so chose.

And, weren't at least some of those excavators FBI forensic anthros? Or, am I misremembering (again).

 

[Brini]

It amazes me that LKB refers to over 200 cases that have had wrongly convicted innocent people and doesn't want her client to be one of them. She knows they have been exonorated (for the most part) because of DNA. Now she basically says that the same science is no good and should not be used to convict her client because it is junk. Good to be the queen I guess!

And, JB says, on that vid, "The science never lies."

 

[RR0004]

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.

I haven't had a chance to read everything...did Ashton actually say they haven't reviewed everything...even after the stink the defense made about the crime scene photos and the autopsy?! Unbelievable!

 

[RR0004]

Here's a downloadable version, better quality.

Click "Download This File", enter some Captcha letters/numbers, and it will download the PDF to your computer. No sign-up needed.

http://www.filedropper.com/092209saspoliationresponse

Thanks, MM for the treat!!

 

[momtective]

Couldn't wait for media to put this up, went and got it myself (along with a couple other things, heh). Thought it was worthy of a thread of it's own for discussion.

I'm pasting the pages here to make it easier for WS'rs; you cannot see them unless you are logged in (and have at least 50 posts, for you newbies)

I will also post the PDF for download shortly, for those that want a better copy.

Page 1:

Page 2:

Page 3:

Page 4:

Page 5:

Enjoy!

Here's a downloadable version, better quality.

Click "Download This File", enter some Captcha letters/numbers, and it will download the PDF to your computer. No sign-up needed.

http://www.filedropper.com/092209saspoliationresponse

Just thought I'd bring this forward so it doesn't get lost in the thread.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

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.

In my head, I was reading that motion veeerrry slooowly - like it was written for a (JB) child :crazy::crazy::crazy:

 

[kaRN]

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.

I guess the defense got their overwhelming evidence that Casey couldn't have planted Caylees body where she was found because she was in jail before LE found her then.
Oooopsy. LOL!
ITA it's offensive. Imagine if crime scenes could never be re-opened (?) and victims buried until an accused got arrested, got legal representation and experts lined up to examine the crime scene.

 

[strach304]

I haven't had a chance to read everything...did Ashton actually say they haven't reviewed everything...even after the stink the defense made about the crime scene photos and the autopsy?! Unbelievable!

Yup. Autopsy only.

 

[strach304]

Look at how long they had poor Caylee's remains before releasing them to George and Cindy. Didn't they also request to be at the autopsy and the judge said no, do your own?

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Look at how long they had poor Caylee's remains before releasing them to George and Cindy. Didn't they also request to be at the autopsy and the judge said no, do your own?

Going strictly by memory and after much searching fo a link to this, IIRC, it was said they couldn't perform a proper autopsy on the bones because they were vacuum-sealed in plastic.

It seems to me that once the remains were released from the ME, they could have removed them from the plastic.

Plus, the term "autopsy" doesn't actually apply here. There was no body for autopsy. They could only examine the bones.

It breaks my heart to think of this is what Caylee came to.

 

[Macushla]

When the defense was in court trying to get the crime scene photos - didn't JB say he would install a completely secure server (such as the one at the ME's office) at his offce to view the photos on, so there would be no chance of the photos being leaked? I never heard another word about that - do we know whether they ever did that? If they didn't, I am pretty sure that means they haven't even looked at that 'evidence' yet. This tends to make me think they don't feel the crime scene photos are too important. Maybe he could not afford a secure server OR has no idea how to use something so sophisticated (*snicker, snicker*)