Spoliation Motion Sept 22, 2009 Includes Response

[Spangle]

Tee hee
IT sounds like in Jeff Ashton wrote a five-page response to the motion to dismiss, that there will be, more or less, a hearing where the defense will have to prove this motion by bringing out expert witnesses, etc.

Since the defense MO hasn't be to responed in a correct, legeal way.. Any guess what the response to this is going to be? Tee hee..

 

[lin]

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?

I don't think the state has ever given specific reasons other than "new evidence" which many of us, myself included, believe came from the remains/remains site, especially the duct tape placement over mouth and nasal cavities. That screams "murder" to me and may very well have to the state.

 

[lin]

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.

ITA -- and am glad to see you back with us too!

 

[lin]

Very interesting.

I sometimes wish I was smart enough to get a law degree as I imagine I would want to work for an innocence project. So many innocent people in prison due to "lost" evidence or corrupt officials.

No chance of that for KC. I will not lose one wink of sleep when she is convicted as we all know she is guilty and it will be proven in a court of law. MOO

With all due respect, I must strongly disagree with your first paragraph. JB got a law degree and even managed to pass the bar. (Finally.) You are easily "smart enough" but maybe haven't had the time or inclination before now.

But I do agree with your second paragraph just as strongly as I disagree with your first -- I won't lose a wink either, even if the sentence is DP.

 

[hannahsnana]

Apologies if this has already been posted; have not read back on all the posts. I became curious of the word 'spoilation' used in the motion, so looked it up online. Merriam Webster defines spoilation as an act of plundering, of injuring beyond reclaim. So it appears that the defense is claiming that LE plundered the crime scene in their collection of evidence. Has such a claim ever been put forth before that anyone is aware of?

 

[MissJames]

I think they will realize that the 31 day wait period played a big factor in the lack of much evidence.

Big,Big factor.ITA, And even with the missing 31 days ,there is still much evidence.

 

[lin]

What concerns me is that the Defense's tone is one of wanting to try the Police/Authoriative system before they can trust the police work prior to bringing the perp to trial. The Defense and the A's allude to a frame up or a let's just charge her for the sake of it (so that LE would not loose face - etc.). Am I interpreting the Defense actions correctly?

Is corruption rampant? I sure hope not. Am I naive?

We all know by now (I never doubted) that OJ is guilty of murdering two people in cold blood. How can anyone consider the fact that he got off a good thing? It is hurtful in every way to the people involved and society as a whole. I can't understand it and the defense lawyers knew he was guilty. That's just wrong.

To me, KC's circumstances are vague, in that, it's possible someone else is involved too. If OJ got off, then why not her? How much more brutal can a crime get than what OJ did? We don't really know yet what KC purportedly did exactly. We think we know but we don't know for sure the circumstances surrounding Caylee's death. The death penalty seems harsh without having all the factual information available to us imo. I'm not comfortable with the disparity that exists across the country.

I understand what you're saying, I think but the thing is, we do try to convict those that are guilty. That we sometimes fall short of that goal should not mean that all guilty go free. To protect society the guilty must be punished and/or permanently removed from society. Also to protect society there are rules, procedures, and the jury system that allowed OJ to go free. Better a hundred guilty go free...

 

[RR0004]

Woe.be.Gone: You and I are recognizing the same tone in the defenses statements and motions.

In this particular area of Florida, this case and the way the defense is handling it, is, IMO, harkening to the Sabrina Aisenberg case which happened in Tampa. Tampa is so close to Orlando that the two cities are nearly joined by urban sprawl. This link from the St. Pete Times will tell you a great deal about the Aisenberg case which did include police corruption, manufactured evidence and prosecutorial misconduct. That case, in particular, has made people who live in the area very sensitized about these issues.

http://www.sptimes.com/News2/Sabrina/default.shtml


The suggestion of corruption will, IMO, play well to those in the potential jury pool in the area who are already mistrustful of LE after the Aisenberg case.

Only if the trial is held in Tampa and even then I'm not sure. These are two very different places IMO.

 

[lin]

Woe.be.Gone: You and I are recognizing the same tone in the defenses statements and motions.

In this particular area of Florida, this case and the way the defense is handling it, is, IMO, harkening to the Sabrina Aisenberg case which happened in Tampa. Tampa is so close to Orlando that the two cities are nearly joined by urban sprawl. This link from the St. Pete Times will tell you a great deal about the Aisenberg case which did include police corruption, manufactured evidence and prosecutorial misconduct. That case, in particular, has made people who live in the area very sensitized about these issues.

http://www.sptimes.com/News2/Sabrina/default.shtml


The suggestion of corruption will, IMO, play well to those in the potential jury pool in the area who are already mistrustful of LE after the Aisenberg case.

I disagree with your view of Tampa and Orlando being nearly joined. It's quite a drive along I-4 to get to Orlando and a lot of it is pretty desolate; or at least it was the last time I was through there a few months ago.

As for the case you reference, well, the publication you referenced isn't highly thought of around here generally but then again, I'm not actually in St. Pete so maybe those residents like it. I have a very, very vague memory of that case from around ten years ago. I highly doubt it is high in anyone's mind today that isn't directly involved in it. I haven't seen it in the news in quite a while; certainly not as a lead story; other than referenced in the Haleigh case.

Maybe the defense will cite the case in trying to cast doubt on the authorities but I can just about guarantee that it would backfire on them if they tried. That case left a bad taste in the mouths of many for a lot more than the charges against LE. A baby disappeared under very suspicious circumstances. While the parents haven't been convicted, they sure haven't been cleared either, iirc.

 

[lin]

Apologies if this has already been posted; have not read back on all the posts. I became curious of the word 'spoilation' used in the motion, so looked it up online. Merriam Webster defines spoilation as an act of plundering, of injuring beyond reclaim. So it appears that the defense is claiming that LE plundered the crime scene in their collection of evidence. Has such a claim ever been put forth before that anyone is aware of?

In the OP there are links to the discussion in the old thread on this term. I was unable to find a single criminal case citing this term or the variations I tried. (There are some civil cases.) Even so, processing a crime scene is hardly destroying evidence. The defense filed an emergency motion demanding access to the crime scene which the court denied. There's also a link to an article quoting the judge on that in the OP, iirc.

 

[lin]

I"ve lived in the so called 'spraw' area for well over a decade. I've not heard of the case. Nor does the case effect my thoughts on this case.

ITA although I don't live in the "sprawl" I do shop in Tampa and Orlando fairly regularly or go to the convention center in Orlando or the Tampa Zoo and often listen to local news for those areas. My mom is in a suburb and I just called and asked her if she'd ever heard of the case. Nope.

 

[Balthazar]

I apologize for being OT here - bur re the Aisenberg case (which was way before my obsession with crime cases and before WS!!)...were the secret recordings of the conversations between the husband and wife wherein he supposedly confessed, ever brought into evidence? I mean...if you have a confession....come on

No, there was no confession.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Cohen_(attorney)

All charges were dropped against the Aisenbergs in 2001 for lack of evidence and the government was sued for malicious persecution and forced to pay a landmark $2.9 million settlement. In addition to this, the prosecutor was demoted and stripped of his supervisory responsibilities while his partner was transferred to a different department. Both are under investigation by the Justice Department. The two sherrif's detectives were reprimanded for botching the investigation.

http://www.sptimes.com/News/122001/TampaBay/Report_clears_Sabrina.shtml

"U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Pizzo heard two weeks of testimony to consider whether sheriff's detectives deliberately misled Judge Alvarez. In a blistering opinion issued Feb. 14, 2001, Pizzo said four of 12 tapes he reviewed were unintelligible. On the others, he said, detectives recklessly took statements out of context or distorted the meaning. "

http://www.sptimes.com/News/122001/TampaBay/Report_clears_Sabrina.shtml

 

[AZlawyer]

In the OP there are links to the discussion in the old thread on this term. I was unable to find a single criminal case citing this term or the variations I tried. (There are some civil cases.) Even so, processing a crime scene is hardly destroying evidence. The defense filed an emergency motion demanding access to the crime scene with the court denied. There's also a link to an article quoting the judge on that in the OP, iirc.

There are definitely criminal cases regarding LE destroying evidence, etc. They may not use the word "spoliation" like the civil cases--probably they say "violation of due process." But in this case, I wholeheartedly agree that there is no way the normal processing of a crime scene would qualify as either spoliation of evidence or a violation of due process.

 

[RR0004]

orlando sentinel

Clipped from the Sentinel article:

"What are noticeably absent are the affidavits from their panel of celebrity experts, who appeared for a photo opportunity at the crime scene..."

You just gotta love Ashton for this.

 

[RR0004]

No, there was no confession.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Cohen_(attorney)

All charges were dropped against the Aisenbergs in 2001 for lack of evidence and the government was sued for malicious persecution and forced to pay a landmark $2.9 million settlement. In addition to this, the prosecutor was demoted and stripped of his supervisory responsibilities while his partner was transferred to a different department. Both are under investigation by the Justice Department. The two sherrif's detectives were reprimanded for botching the investigation.

http://www.sptimes.com/News/122001/TampaBay/Report_clears_Sabrina.shtml

"U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Pizzo heard two weeks of testimony to consider whether sheriff's detectives deliberately misled Judge Alvarez. In a blistering opinion issued Feb. 14, 2001, Pizzo said four of 12 tapes he reviewed were unintelligible. On the others, he said, detectives recklessly took statements out of context or distorted the meaning. "

http://www.sptimes.com/News/122001/TampaBay/Report_clears_Sabrina.shtml

...and you think there's malicious persecution going on here?

 

[lin]

Can't wait to read that 5 page response by Ashton, heh heh heh.

http://www.wftv.com/news/21066700/detail.html

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/orl-bk-casey-anthony-092209,0,1836397.story

"...Ashton wrote how it was "baffling" that the defense filed the request before their experts examined the evidence already collected.

"What are noticeably absent are the affidavits from their panel of celebrity experts, who appeared for a photo opportunity at the crime scene, indicating that they have examined the available evidence and photographs and find they are insufficient to allow them to arrive at reliable conclusions which might challenge those of the state's experts," the prosecutor wrote..."

 

[lin]

There are definitely criminal cases regarding LE destroying evidence, etc. They may not use the word "spoliation" like the civil cases--probably they say "violation of due process." But in this case, I wholeheartedly agree that there is no way the normal processing of a crime scene would qualify as either spoliation of evidence or a violation of due process.

I agree with you but there aren't any on point with their allegations, I'm betting.

 

[RR0004]

There are definitely criminal cases regarding LE destroying evidence, etc. They may not use the word "spoliation" like the civil cases--probably they say "violation of due process." But in this case, I wholeheartedly agree that there is no way the normal processing of a crime scene would qualify as either spoliation of evidence or a violation of due process.

Just curious...if they thought they had a right to examine the crime scene of a victim who had yet to be identified, then why didn't they cite cases where this had been allowed?

PS- I guess that's a rhetorical question.

 

[Spangle]

ITA although I don't live in the "sprawl" I do shop in Tampa and Orlando fairly regularly or go to the convention center in Orlando or the Tampa Zoo and often listen to local news for those areas. My mom is in a suburb and I just called and asked her if she'd ever heard of the case. Nope.

I'm more towards Orlando. But I do get out towards Tampa at times. I just don't know anyone who has the implied attitude towards LE, in the area mentioned, based upon that court case.

 

[Balthazar]

ITA although I don't live in the "sprawl" I do shop in Tampa and Orlando fairly regularly or go to the convention center in Orlando or the Tampa Zoo and often listen to local news for those areas. My mom is in a suburb and I just called and asked her if she'd ever heard of the case. Nope.

Oh, really? Wow that's amazing! I live on Davis Island part time and everyone there knew about the case when it was happening! It was a huge topic of conversation. We all knew about the massive ground search in Tampa, the huge billboard at the corner of Marion and Scott streets facing I-275 traffic and the national headlines. The Aisenberg case was featured on CNN, Larry King Live, 48 Hours, Unsolved Mysteries, MSNBC News, America's Most Wanted and Dateline, not to mention Good Morning America, Today and even Oprah and it was a cover story for People Magazine. It's even featured as one of the top 10 Missing Children cases on the Investigation Discovery website - they rank the Aisenberg case at number 7 whereas the Caylee Anthony case is ranked at number 2. I can't imagine how you an your mom missed this story! It was as big as the Casey Anthony case at the time (1997 - 2001)!

http://investigation.discovery.com/...wns/missing-children/missing-children-07.html