The Evidence Trail - Zahra Baker

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Mountain_Kat said:
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/25950739/detail.html

I'm puzzling over this quite a bit. Thought I'd drop it in here so I'm not alone in my puzzling.
Click to expand...

I agree with what tlcox just said.

Except I don't see it as all that worrisome. Just a smart move by the DA (and police) IMO. They are still awaiting lab results (forensic evidence). They should stay tight-lipped about what's in the warrants at least until all forensic results are back - on the off-chance that forensics may incriminate additional person(s).
 
tlcox said:
Perhaps by the warrants being unsealed (read revealed) LE fears that this will tip their hand on things they are still compiling evidence on and further fears this will give party(ies) an opportunity to refute or explain away certain things?

In other words, building as airtight case as possible? This worries me because it indicates they are not confident evidenciarily to indict? Or perhaps they feel confident to indict one person but not convinced that wouldn't hamper their ability to indict more than one and that is where they think it is going?

Purely specuation and thinking out loud on my part.

Worrisome, I agree.
Click to expand...

BBM

That was my intial thought as well, TL. But the facebook/myspace stuff left me scratching my head alittle.
 
The social sites stuff is the thing that is least confusing to me. I think they are still working on those areas and are currently looking at connections via those sites. Those inquiries will also require warrants I would bet. Still pursuing the FB etc stuff is my guess. No hand tipping as to how far they've gotten. A warrant might have specifics as to what they were looking for on those sites and the release of that info prematurely might hamper them in following those leads to their conclusions. again, speculation.
 
Is there any truth behind the suggestion that Lisa Dubs and co. were the ones who actually located the prosthetic leg? :waitasec:

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2010/11/22/zahra-baker-case-following-the-progress-part-2/#comments

Sydney says:
November 24, 2010 at 5:49 AM
I gather Dubs is disliked locally

But from here, she appears to be the hero in the case

What would have happened if Dubs had not gone out and retrieved the prosthetic ?

Would EB have been ‘discovered dead in cell from suicide’ ?

Would AB have ‘been shot crossing the street by unknown and irate locals ‘ ?

Would the prosthetic ever have been discovered, if not for Dubs ?

Didn’t Dub’s virtual plonking of that evidence in LE’s lap (and ensuring the discovery was reported by the media) lead to the search and finds of the bone and remains ?

Did Dubs know something ? Did she suspect the investigation would be perverted unless she took extraordinary action ?
Click to expand...

BBM.
 
If there is some MSM link for that info about Dubbs finding the prosthetic then Sydney has scooped us all.

I have looked, I sure can't find it.
 
I believe that is in the motion for bail reduction.
 
they name the prosthetic as THE item that EB's counsel retrieved?? Or do they suggest that EB led them there and then seperately suggest that counsel retrieved an unnamed item of evidence and turned it over? Because I was really really sure it was the latter not the former?

ETA is there some new amended motion??

ETAA

http://media.wcnc.com/documents/111510+elisa+baker+bond+redux.pdf

May I call your attention to items b. through e. in the motion linked above
 
In the motion for bond reduction it stated the attorneys for EB were directed to a piece of evidence by EB, but never stated what it was. I believe it was in the house though.
 
In the bond reduction motion it states that LE recovered the gel liner. It never says specifically what item the "defense team" recovered that let them (the defense team) know that EB was giving them credible information.
 
scmom said:
In the bond reduction motion it states that LE recovered the gel liner. It never says specifically what item the "defense team" recovered that let them (the defense team) know that EB was giving them credible information.
Click to expand...

I know it says somewhere that LE found the gel liner when EB took them there. Like in when she was in the car.
 
cacookie said:
In the motion for bond reduction it stated the attorneys for EB were directed to a piece of evidence by EB, but never stated what it was. I believe it was in the house though.
Click to expand...

BBM. This is what I was also led to believe. I've searched for an MSM link and cannot find any mention of Dubbs actually finding the prosthesis. If in fact this is true wouldn't the prosthesis be negated as evidence in a trial? :furious:
 
snipped from duckys link above

On each search warrant, judges stated “the release of information contained in said search warrant and its return will potentially undermine an ongoing investigation or jeopardize the right of the state to prosecute a defendant or defendants or jeopardize the rights of a defendant or defendants to receive a fair trial.”

AND

unless they are sealed by the court.

If they are sealed, as the search warrants in the Zahra Baker case were, they “shall expire in 30 days unless a different expiration date is specified in the order,” according to the administrative order.

However, “the state may move for an extension of an order sealing or redacting a court document and the existing order shall remain in effect until the motion for extension is decided.”

ME: really comprehensive article involving timelines for release and conditions that may occur if not met. Buckle up kids, here comes all that legal wrangling I warned of in the emotional toll and other threads.

I sure hope we have good expert, verified lawyers that are interested in this case. I think we will need some serious expert play by play as things unfold.
 
Tl - the bet thing to do would be to put that link and your questions from it in the thread linked below, and use that thread as a reference, I think. I don't know that any verified lawyers still read Zahra's case regularly, so it's best to put them in the thread they will notice.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=118913"]Questions for our VERIFIED LAWYERS*~*~*NO DISCUSSIONS*~*~* - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
 
ty ducky! I know not many of the verified that am familiar with from other threads have popped up in Zahra's thread yet that I have seen. I appreciate the link above and assume it is a general one as I have posted legal questions in the one for Zahra and not yet received an answer yet. (I don't think but nowhaving said that, will go and check again just to be sure).

Perhaps if I compiled some sort of synopsis of the interesting legal angles involved in Zahra's case so far, I could get some of the verifieds to take a special interest?
 
tlcox said:
ty ducky! I know not many of the verified that am familiar with from other threads have popped up in Zahra's thread yet that I have seen. I appreciate the link above and assume it is a general one as I have posted legal questions in the one for Zahra and not yet received an answer yet. (I don't think but nowhaving said that, will go and check again just to be sure).

Perhaps if I compiled some sort of synopsis of the interesting legal angles involved in Zahra's case so far, I could get some of the verifieds to take a special interest?
Click to expand...

It is the Zahra one, but, noticing that it has not had a lawyer in it for some time, I have put out a BOLO to my fellow mods for some lawyery-goodness, should they know any they can snag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 115 more.
Total: 305 (members: 116, guests: 189)

Online statistics

Members online
116
Guests online
189
Total visitors
305
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,559
Messages
18,241,230
Members
234,401
Latest member
CRIM1959
Back
Top