2011.02.10 Defense Accuses Detectives of Destroying Evidence

[strawberry]

So this is a reply to the stain motion, not yesterday's motion?:

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331535/detail.html

 

[Soju]

from the orlando sentinel article:

Ashton also challenges the defense team's contention that the stain evidence would impede Anthony's ability to get a fair trial.

"The defendant has failed to set forth what unfair prejudice they fear," Ashton writes. "If the jury concludes, based upon all of the evidence presented in the case, that the stain in the trunk of the car was caused by the decomposition of a body kept there, then it is powerful and appropriate evidence of her guilt."

However, he added, "If they conclude that the stain is from some other innocent source, then they would conclude that it is neither relevant nor prejudicial. Is the defendant seriously concerned about a bias against sloppy car owners?"


oh SNAP! I want to read this motion in the worst way!

 

[Numbers]

from the orlando sentinel article:

Ashton also challenges the defense team's contention that the stain evidence would impede Anthony's ability to get a fair trial.

"The defendant has failed to set forth what unfair prejudice they fear," Ashton writes. "If the jury concludes, based upon all of the evidence presented in the case, that the stain in the trunk of the car was caused by the decomposition of a body kept there, then it is powerful and appropriate evidence of her guilt."

However, he added, "If they conclude that the stain is from some other innocent source, then they would conclude that it is neither relevant nor prejudicial. Is the defendant seriously concerned about a bias against sloppy car owners?"


oh SNAP! I want to read this motion in the worst way!

Love that man!

He not only has a rapier wit, he has a tongue to match.

 

[AZlawyer]

So this is a reply to the stain motion, not yesterday's motion?:

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331535/detail.html

The document you linked is the defense's stain motion--apparently a response was just filed but AFAIK we haven't seen it yet. This motion (like the smell motion) also claims the FBI found no "biological" evidence in the trunk carpeting. Apparently JB thinks the only thing that is "biological" is blood, because that's the test he attached to prove his point.

 

[LancelotLink]

According to the motion, JB says SB said the smell came from the garbage bag. Not so.
In his deposition, SB stated "And, uh, we open the trunk up and there was flies and stuff and real bad smell, like oh, my God. And in the back of my head I'm going that isn't rotten garbage. You know I know what rotten garbage smells like. That doesn't smell like rotten garbage to me."

The only place I can recall reading that SB said anything different was from George. In his deposition with SA, he stated:
"I did not touch it. The attendant reached inside and says This is your smell."

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I'm a tellin' ya.....put the car in the courtroom and let the jury decide if it was garbage.

 

[strawberry]

According to the motion, JB says SB said the smell came from the garbage bag. Not so.
In his deposition, SB stated "And, uh, we open the trunk up and there was flies and stuff and real bad smell, like oh, my God. And in the back of my head I'm going that isn't rotten garbage. You know I know what rotten garbage smells like. That doesn't smell like rotten garbage to me."

The only place I can recall reading that SB said anything different was from George. In his deposition with SA, he stated:
"I did not touch it. The attendant reached inside and says This is your smell."

Great catch!!:great:

 

[Macushla]

Yeah, well, couldn't the defence accuse LE of many things without proof? I think it's another way to cast unreasonable doubt hoping for an ignorant and unthinking public and jury.

Where is their proof?

On page 3 of their motion they quote a supplemental report written by Det. Melich which THEY say states:

"Although there were food items inside, as well as small flies and maggots, the smell from the trash was distinctively different from the smell coming from the car."

BBM: This is where they get the information that there was food inside the trash bag. Now did Det. Melich actually mean food or when he said food items did he mean the wrappers, boxes, etc.

 

[Aedrys]

Grrr! Arg! AZ Help me out here, can JB really make these accusations of LEO?


extreme measures
law enforcement took great measures to attempt to preserve the carpet liner, they intentionally destroyed any evidence that could rebut their assertions.


Law enforcement decided to preserve certain evidence and destroy others.



the only logical explanation for these actions was to preclude Miss Anthony or her defense from demonstrating to the jury that the smell in the trunk of the vehicle came from the garbage bag and not a decomposing body.



(One hair was found with what the FBI labratory calls CONSISTENT with decomposition, while this word makes for a good sound bite on the six o'clock news it is far from a definitive answer as to whether a deadbody was ever in the trunk of that vehicle.)


Law enforecement has destroyed exculpatory evidence.

Has he even smelled the back of that car ONE TIME? Stuff like this tells me he NEVER HAS. Seriously! Maybe he wouldn't smell it so that he could properly defend Casey? And Baez, I would LOVE for you to have a jury smell a garbage bag and then smell the trunk of Casey's car! They are not stupid. Their noses will tell them what's decomposition and what's not!

The lack of logic and reasoning on the part of Baez is just staggering... :banghead:

 

[Aedrys]

from the orlando sentinel article:

Ashton also challenges the defense team's contention that the stain evidence would impede Anthony's ability to get a fair trial.

"The defendant has failed to set forth what unfair prejudice they fear," Ashton writes. "If the jury concludes, based upon all of the evidence presented in the case, that the stain in the trunk of the car was caused by the decomposition of a body kept there, then it is powerful and appropriate evidence of her guilt."

However, he added, "If they conclude that the stain is from some other innocent source, then they would conclude that it is neither relevant nor prejudicial. Is the defendant seriously concerned about a bias against sloppy car owners?"


oh SNAP! I want to read this motion in the worst way!

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh: OMG I love Ashton!!!! And as former sloppy car owner, I can say I NEVER had a stain in my car that smelled like decomp!

Go Ashton GO!

 

[Ssejors]

According to the motion, JB says SB said the smell came from the garbage bag. Not so.
In his deposition, SB stated "And, uh, we open the trunk up and there was flies and stuff and real bad smell, like oh, my God. And in the back of my head I'm going that isn't rotten garbage. You know I know what rotten garbage smells like. That doesn't smell like rotten garbage to me."

The only place I can recall reading that SB said anything different was from George. In his deposition with SA, he stated:
"I did not touch it. The attendant reached inside and says This is your smell."

TY TY TY! Lancelot! We pour over this information more than Baez does, apperently.


@Aedrys Wish the Jury could smell a garbage truck and then ICA car... See if they could tell the difference then.

SB stated "And, uh, we open the trunk up and there was flies and stuff and real bad smell, like oh, my God. And in the back of my head I'm going that isn't rotten garbage. You know I know what rotten garbage smells like. That doesn't smell like rotten garbage to me."

 

[logicalgirl]

They just stole the smell. INTENTIONALLY :great:

So I am a day late and a dollar short as usual, but is this the new evidence Baez wants to present at the convention? That the smell of garbage wasn't preserved? Or if it had been preserved it would have overpowered the smell of death? Or there was no smell of death it was the smell of garbage that smelled of death but only because the original smell of garbage wasn't preserved?:banghead:

Ahhh, you know all those bottles sitting in Baez's law library? They weren't full and unused - were they?:floorlaugh:

 

[Reagan]

I haven't had time to go through the entire thread, but I did want to say that I'm surprised that the defense is just now worrying about this. Isn't it too late to be filing these motions? I never thought the smell itself would make it to the jury, just details from people, but now I'm starting to wonder. Poor jury.

I've never heard the word 'dead body' being thrown around so much from a smell than in this case. No one said it smelled like trash, no one said it smelled like rotting meat. Everyone said something dead. Or in the words of GA, "dead..and I hate to say human".

Aside from sound, scent is one of our most powerful senses. Scents can trigger memories from decades ago that had been well forgotten. IF this jury gets to smell that can, It's over for KC. There have been people who, before they even found a deceased person, knew the smell of death before they even opened the door...And these weren't people who were experienced detectives or nurses of decomposition These were people who had never smelled death before but just knew.

I have never smelled a dead body, but I did ride my bike past something a few years ago, caught a huge whiff and before I could turn around I just knew I smelled death. When I turned around I saw decomposing groundhog. It was strong and it was just a little animal. That was my one and hopefully only experience. I haven't and don't want to know what a dead body smells like. From what others here describe, it is even more unmistakable and much stronger.

 

[goldleaf]

Jose Baez - the gift that keeps on giving. Just when you think he could not sink lower or be more unethical! At least in this respect he exceeds my expectations!

 

[kaRN]

Are volatile fatty acids not "biological"?:waitasec:

Yes but they don't contain DNA. Here's a great resource AZ http://www.tetonnm.com/pics/IndependentSamplePages/1-893441-42-3.pdf

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

Reagan,

Yep, ya got me, I snorted at your title:

It smells like there's been an empty pizza box in the damn car!

 

[cyberborg]

The odds are stacked heavily against JB. He can try to eliminate as much as he can BUT there is so much damning circumstantial evidence that the SAO don't need it all ... or can use something else. JB may win some of these battles but there is no way he is going to get to a point where ICA and her actions is defensible in court.

For SODDI the dead body in the car must be eliminated to distance ICA but there are so many other sources who describe the smell as a dead body ... including CA and GA themselves and LA's reaction. IIRC the car trunk still smells like a dead body.

My thought is that ... does JB think that this Motion is winnable because it can also cause harm in bringing this all back to the attention of the future Jury pool. If the Judge rules it is admissible then it is like a win for the Prosecution before trial -- so what do you argue to eliminate before trial versus during trial? Those motions JB does not stand a good chance of winning ... he should counter them at trial IMO.

 

[Nore]

from the orlando sentinel article:

Ashton also challenges the defense team's contention that the stain evidence would impede Anthony's ability to get a fair trial.

"The defendant has failed to set forth what unfair prejudice they fear," Ashton writes. "If the jury concludes, based upon all of the evidence presented in the case, that the stain in the trunk of the car was caused by the decomposition of a body kept there, then it is powerful and appropriate evidence of her guilt."

However, he added, "If they conclude that the stain is from some other innocent source, then they would conclude that it is neither relevant nor prejudicial. Is the defendant seriously concerned about a bias against sloppy car owners?"


oh SNAP! I want to read this motion in the worst way!

Now we must remember it is not easy to understand all this if one cannot
read big words and is computer challenged.:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::seeya::

 

[mymadori]

I have the ultimate solution to this problem. All we need to do is hit the local grocery store, purchase all of the items that we see in the pics displayed on the table...stick them in a bag, and put them in a room of the precise temperature ICAs car was... wait the appropriate number of days- and then "preserve" it by whatever means the defense so desires.

We can throw in the lunch meat, with the package ripped open, and maybe we can even give them the benefit of a doubt that there actually WAS pizza in there when LE recovered it and someone just ate it before storing the rest of the trash as evidence (ewwww)... so we'll throw in the pizza for good measure...

I guarantee you, a whole pizza pie, hunka velveeta and lunch meat galore, left in a place to replicate the conditions of ICAs car...will still smell absolutely nothing like the smell of the car's trunk.



:innocent:

 

[kaRN]

The odds are stacked heavily against JB. He can try to eliminate as much as he can BUT there is so much damning circumstantial evidence that the SAO don't need it all ... or can use something else. JB may win some of these battles but there is no way he is going to get to a point where ICA and her actions is defensible in court.

For SODDI the dead body in the car must be eliminated to distance ICA but there are so many other sources who describe the smell as a dead body ... including CA and GA themselves and LA's reaction. IIRC the car trunk still smells like a dead body.

My thought is that ... does JB think that this Motion is winnable because it can also cause harm in bringing this all back to the attention of the future Jury pool. If the Judge rules it is admissible then it is like a win for the Prosecution before trial -- so what do you argue to eliminate before trial versus during trial? Those motions JB does not stand a good chance of winning ... he should counter them at trial IMO.

Wouldn't JB's assertions be determined at the Frye hearing or is this an attempt to thwart the Frye hearing by having the contentious (sp?) science eliminated making the Frye hearing a moot point? I don't know.
I do know that it's probably a really slippery slope. The garbage can be re-created easily including some tissues with grave wax and subjected to the timespan and conditions known in Orlando during that time and presented to the jury for a sniff test. The SAO has time to do this even before the Frye hearing. You know when they do, it'll be done right with impecable documentation.
I'd be panicking if I were an A.