Spoliation Motion Sept 22, 2009 Includes Response

[Spangle]

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.

Oh, I do, I do. :dance:

I also like this, from the same article.

ndicating 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.

The experts now have to go shoot their own foot in an attempt prove the motion.

 

[lin]

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

As I wrote, I vaguely remember it from around 10 years ago; my mom didn't recall it today when I asked. Have I misunderstood what you're suggesting? I thought you were implying it's a big deal today and affecting the jury pool today. However, even way back when, I still think there were a lot of folks who felt the baby disappeared under very suspicious circumstances. Am I remembering incorrectly or were the parents never cleared in that investigation?

 

[marspiter]

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.

 

[lin]

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.

I think I misunderstood the post and maybe you did as well. A later post indicated it was a big case 1997-2001 so maybe affecting today's jury pool wasn't meant to be implied.

 

[lin]

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.

Excellent post, as always, Marspiter. Even if one takes the defense's allegations as 100% true; (which I do NOT); they are not so far alleging the prosecution fabricated evidence, iirc. Great point; great catch!

 

[marspiter]

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.

Been a year or two since I was in the area. Last I was there it was at least a good 50 miles (maybe further) from Lakeland to about Celebration before you had any urban sprawl. Granted it may be different from when I was there but Tampa and Orlando weren't exactly connected like the nearly entire east coast of Florida from Homestead to Jupiter. Then again it's not like crossing gator alley either.

edit: Forgot to put that I agreed with the description of the area not being all urban sprawl and that the Tampa and Orlando areas are clearly two entirely different metro areas. It's nothing like say New York and Newark.

 

[lin]

Before we discuss the Aisenberg case any further, it may be a good idea for all of us to review the [ame=http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4180166&postcount=447]Last Post[/ame] from the old thread.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

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

No,. no, no....I had asked a totally OT question about the Aisenberg case earlier....sorry

 

[MissJames]

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

I remember the case well,from the national shows.I just never heard any allegations of LE misconduct or tampering.
I can still picture Sabrina on the floor,smiling,with her dark hair.

 

[lin]

No,. no, no....I had asked a totally OT question about the Aisenberg case earlier....sorry

I'm guilty of going off topic in discussing that too so I also apologize.

 

[Dear Prudence]

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..."

I truly did LOL when I read the part I bolded above. I can't wait either to read Ashton's whole 5-page response. Just from the few sentences in the article I think it's brilliant. How would those experts know evidence was ruined if they haven't even examined it yet?

 

[Macushla]

I did not live in this area back when the Aisenberg case was going on, I don't know anything about it. However, one good thing came out of the OJ case at least in regards to crime scene techniques, etc. There was a lot of sloppy work done in that case (my opinion only) and it was a wake up call for LE everywhere. New standards, procedures, etc. were introduced all over afterwards to make sure nothing like that case happened again. Did every LE agency pay attention - I don't know. I am SURE OCSO, the FBI, FDLE, the ME's office and any other agency that worked this case were aware of how high profile it was and they all bent over backwards to make sure everything was done by the book, step by step, with attention to every detail. I think the Defense will be hard pressed to find ANY mistakes or errors - aside from perhaps a clerical error or two. These agencies knew they were being scrutinized by the media and every talking head on TV. As far as I can see, the biggest 'mistake' involved Kronk's earlier calls to LE about the area. That is troubling and will give the defense fodder for their 'SODDI' defense, but I do think the prosecution can explain the circumstances enough for a jury to understand.

I too am looking foward to reading Ashton's response - hope we get a chance to see it soon!

 

[The Eunice Burns]

I truly did LOL when I read the part I bolded above. I can't wait either to read Ashton's whole 4-page response. Just from the few sentences in the article I think it's brilliant. How would those experts know evidence was ruined if they haven't even examined it yet?

I LOL also. Wasn't that absurd how they showed up that day and gave their little pissy interview? What was Kathy Reichs thinking? Respectability, credibility, and the $$$$ she makes off her books wasn't enough? Baffling.:waitasec:

 

[Spangle]

I think I misunderstood the post and maybe you did as well. A later post indicated it was a big case 1997-2001 so maybe affecting today's jury pool wasn't meant to be implied.

"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."

Of course, I'm a total idiot. I should have realized that I was reading that wrong. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Snaz]

I have a vague memory of one of the defense attorneys (LKB perhaps?) making a statement that they had examined the crime scene..... under the guise of darkness so they could examine it without the media present. I got the impression she thought they were very clever. Which would mean, if I remember that statement correctly, that the defense has examined that area.... just not until after the investigators/CSI techs were through with it.

Does anyone else remember this?

 

[doogiesgirl]

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.

.....SNAP! Oh and thanks too! moo

 

[lin]

Spangle, please forgive my poor choice of words. The poster later clarified the case was from 1997 - 2001 so perhaps didn't mean to imply such an impact on today's jury pool as it may have had way back when. Your comprehension remains excellent.

 

[Muzikman]

I have a vague memory of one of the defense attorneys (LKB perhaps?) making a statement that they had examined the crime scene..... under the guise of darkness so they could examine it without the media present. I got the impression she thought they were very clever. Which would mean, if I remember that statement correctly, that the defense has examined that area.... just not until after the investigators/CSI techs were through with it.

Does anyone else remember this?

I recall something like that too. Seems like it was reported on by one of the local media...

 

[doogiesgirl]

Glad you came back to us! And thanks for looking up the case. That's something I've noticed with the defense all along; when they bother to cite a case, it generally doesn't stand for what they seem to think it does. That's been a regular feature of their pleadings along with supporting docs that don't support the allegations made in the pleadings, imo. For example, in one of the recent pleadings the defense alleged that the state tried to "trick" KC into having a private meeting with GA and the FBI. They attached a portion of a transcript that doesn't say anything like that to my reading. Remember that?

You say "creative" I say "sophomoric"

I say ADD. (No that is an insult to those with ADD who are usually very intelligent).

I'll change my answer to low IQ, more fitting. MOO

 

[Spangle]

I have a vague memory of one of the defense attorneys (LKB perhaps?) making a statement that they had examined the crime scene..... under the guise of darkness so they could examine it without the media present. I got the impression she thought they were very clever. Which would mean, if I remember that statement correctly, that the defense has examined that area.... just not until after the investigators/CSI techs were through with it.

Does anyone else remember this?

Now that you mention it, I do recall something like that. Oh boy, time to look at the ole threads. As you said, it would have been after the CSI was done with it. Cause they had it secured and the Media was hanging out there and at the A's. So no way they would have been able to sneak in there.

Until some of our more recent discussions, I never thought about that statement might mean she went even before the remains were discovered. But considering the PI, etc...

Going at night, she was just as likely to get 'caught' as during the day...