2011.02.10 Defense Accuses Detectives of Destroying Evidence

[LancelotLink]

And SB wasn't just going off of memory as GA was concerning the smell. SB had a car on the other side of the lot where a guy had committed suicide and wasn't found for four or five days. So that smell was "fresh" in his mind.

So, JB and CM, LOL with that.

 

[tlcya]

So now, when calling the "sniffer stuff" junk science did not get the desired result, Jose is claiming that the garbage storage was mishandled and now jurors can't smell it for themselves?? Tell me I am not reading this article correctly. What was the prosecution to do? keep the garbage that Jose claims was rotting food in a sealed drum only to open and "unveil" said garbage in open court after having continued to putrify for several years in the interim?? That would not have been a fair example of what the garbage did or did not smell like at the time of its discovery.

what a joke.

 

[NoNameLeft]

<snip>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? </snip>

Yes, I was wondering about that as well! While it's completely in character for the defense to file a silly motion well past the deadline, this does seem like a rather desperate attempt. Because the way I look at it (aside from the content of the Motion) there are a few obstacles for the defense to tackle:

• Not only are they late filing, this Motion needs an evidentiary hearing and the deadline for such hearings was December 31, 2010. Good luck explaining that to the Judge if there is no good cause for being late.
  
• The way they filed it - pretending to amend a prior Motion - doesn't seem correct either. It looks like a separate Motion to me.
  
• Adding it to the original Motion may be some lame attempt to excuse them for exceeding the deadline, but it might create a different problem for the defense. Let's assume the prior Motion For Spoliation will be heard. They will need affidavits/ testimony from experts like Dr. Henry Lee to substantiate their claims. But it doesn't seem like these experts are willing to do so.

I know the defense could just be lazy or stupid, but I always have hope there is some sort of strategy in their madness. So my speculation is they were recently thwarted in their attempts to get the air sample thrown out.

There is a smell related Frye hearing scheduled for next month. The defense was planning for Dr. Logan to testify that the 'sniffer machine' wasn't made to sniff decomposition. According to Baez this was the guy who played hide and seek with them. His report is due in 4 days. Perhaps Dr. Logan finally answered his phone and told the defense they should not count on a (favorable) report about the sniffer stuff. In that case they don't have an expert witness for the Frye hearing - unless an unique opportunity comes along, of course - and this filing was damage control.

Since the State's did not yet file a response to this air spoliation, I went back to read Mr. Ashton's response to the original spoliation motion. For those interested, click here to read it. It seems to me a lot of the arguments presented back then also apply to this latest motion.

 

[Ssejors]

Since the State's did not yet file a response to this air spoliation, I went back to read Mr. Ashton's response to the original spoliation motion. For those interested, click here to read it. It seems to me a lot of the arguments presented back then also apply to this latest motion.

i would chortle so loud if JA submits the same response to this new motion

 

[faefrost]

i would chortle so loud if JA submits the same response to this new motion

I'm hoping the state finally loses it and presents an aggressive response regarding the well past deadline filing of this motion.

Lawerly types please correct me, but wouldn't fighting to simply throw out the motion as filed to late be a much better option for the State, rather than actually pushing a response to the facts or inaccuracies or outright BS of it? Challenging it on JB's facts no matter how insane, leaves an avenue open for appeal. But if he missed filing deadlines and the court simply opts not to hear it, doesn't that make it a dead issue come appeals time? if it was not presented to the trial court in a timely and proper manner it cannot be raised on appeal?

 

[tlcya]

Not a lawyerly type but moo is that I would respond with a motion regarding the lateness of this issue being raised and attempt to have it heard and ajudicated before Baez's is heard, if that were not possible or allowed, or if the motion and my response must be heard at the same hearing, I would use a two pronged approach and address the lateness of the motion attempting to have it thrown out AND arguing that if the court deems fit to entertain the motion by Baez, [insert many of the same arguments used in the sniffer stuff response as suggested by poster previously upthread]. It is not unheard of to argue a point from several different angles and do not think one precludes the other. In all my unlawyerly wisdom, I would think hitting JB with both in the response would be the way to go.

 

[joypath]

:twocents: I :innocent: KNOW that the defense MUST practice as Baez stated a few times "due diligence" within the case BUT does he also HAVE TO practice "due duplicity" in the TERMS provided within the motions filed or even in the language utilized within the courtroom?

Chatted with the LE resource with whom I sleep :great: (HUSBAND, minds outta the gutter!) and he LOST it over the "intentionally" destroying the smell charge! The evidence techs were required & did separate, analyze, photograph & catalog the evidence and MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENSE for review. Now not being a lawyer, he also commented that the statements made by varied sources (family, LE, Tow yard guy) are from folks who have experienced ordinary household garbage smells and declared that THIS odor WAS ABNORMAL, resurrecting deep set memory of a DEATH SMELL. My comment: shrinks have documented via studies that smells can bring back deep set, hidden memories. :great:

BTW: Didn't the defense have the opportunity to file this motion back when they examined the CAR et al. with the high powered experts :banghead: (you know, back when LKB could have written a thoughtful, accurate motion)?

:twocents: MY TURN:innocent:: THAT CAR will still have essence of death! The stain was saturated with fluids, fluids that did not contain celluar material which would have presented DNA and then the SA would have had the proverbial almost "slam dunk". Why no DNA? Because it appears that Caylee's death was a "soft" kill vs a hard, invasive murder with "blood & guts" pouring out. The "HAIR" statement is another interesting point where Baez is, well trying to "split hairs" in his interpretation. floorlaugh: You KNOW I had to work something wicked into this!) Given the fact that there was ONE exemplar to work with, the analyst was able to make a statement where she was comfortable and yet remain within scientific parameters on paper. "Consistent with decomposition" is vernacular that can/will be "fleshed" out on the stand or at a depo.; it frequently leads to follow-up investigations/discovery/more evidence recovery.:rocker:

 

[MD MOMMY]

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:

He was with HL when he examined the car. I'm sure he caught a whiff JMO.

 

[Ssejors]

Chatted with the LE resource with whom I sleep :great: (HUSBAND, minds outta the gutter!) and he LOST it over the "intentionally" destroying the smell charge! The evidence techs were required & did separate, analyze, photograph & catalog the evidence and MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENSE for review. Now not being a lawyer, he also commented that the statements made by varied sources (family, LE, Tow yard guy) are from folks who have experienced ordinary household garbage smells and declared that THIS odor WAS ABNORMAL, resurrecting deep set memory of a DEATH SMELL. My comment: shrinks have documented via studies that smells can bring back deep set, hidden memories. :great:

BTW: Didn't the defense have the opportunity to file this motion back when they examined the CAR et al. with the high powered experts :banghead: (you know, back when LKB could have written a thoughtful, accurate motion)?

:twocents: MY TURN:innocent:: THAT CAR will still have essence of death! The stain was saturated with fluids, fluids that did not contain celluar material which would have presented DNA and then the SA would have had the proverbial almost "slam dunk". Why no DNA? Because it appears that Caylee's death was a "soft" kill vs a hard, invasive murder with "blood & guts" pouring out. The "HAIR" statement is another interesting point where Baez is, well trying to "split hairs" in his interpretation. floorlaugh: You KNOW I had to work something wicked into this!) Given the fact that there was ONE exemplar to work with, the analyst was able to make a statement where she was comfortable and yet remain within scientific parameters on paper. "Consistent with decomposition" is vernacular that can/will be "fleshed" out on the stand or at a depo.; it frequently leads to follow-up investigations/discovery/more evidence recovery.:rocker:

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:


:loveyou::heartluv:

Joy! You are my new Pink! Such Whit!

 

[LinasK]

Or Thwarted by squirrels..perhaps not so happy squirrels?

Resurrecting this gem:

 

[faefrost]

Yes. He can make these accusations because (1) he knows that he is protected from a defamation claim as long as he confines these accusations to court documents and hearings, and (2) the accusations are mostly "spin" rather than fact-based.

Exactly how protected is he? I thought there was a limit in how far an attorney could go in accusing sworn state officers and officers of the court of deliberate misconduct without providing some reasonable evidence of an actual deliberate act, mis-truth or malfeasance?

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

Am I wrong in thinking that that one line may have crossed the line into an area that may bring yet another ethics violation investigation? While I do not believe that the officers could sue for statements made in open court or filings, by the same token are not Lawyers held accountable to those same statements via the ethical rules of their profession and license?

And this also shows JB's tit for tat 2 year old childlike behavior before the courts. "Well they accused me of evidence tampering so I get to accuse them!" "They accused me of missing deadline so I get to yell "BUT MOOOOMMMM THEY DID IT TOOOOO!!!!"

Sadly he may have an out with regard to the late filing. Doesn't the schedule say that motions relating to the scientific and forensic evidence must be heard by Feb 28th?

 

[Aedrys]

He was with HL when he examined the car. I'm sure he caught a whiff JMO.

Then why he is acting like it smelled like roses? Are defense attorneys supposed to ignore the obvious to defend their clients? I don't see how they do it. If he smelled he, he knows darn well what it smelled it like and it ain't garbage. I guess he has try, it just seems like a half hearted, let's see if this will stick, kind of try. :maddening:

 

[RR0004]

So now, when calling the "sniffer stuff" junk science did not get the desired result, Jose is claiming that the garbage storage was mishandled and now jurors can't smell it for themselves?? Tell me I am not reading this article correctly. What was the prosecution to do? keep the garbage that Jose claims was rotting food in a sealed drum only to open and "unveil" said garbage in open court after having continued to putrify for several years in the interim?? That would not have been a fair example of what the garbage did or did not smell like at the time of its discovery.

what a joke.

But didn't Henry Lee ask LE to bring him the garbage? Wouldn't it have been opened then? Did they want it hermetically sealed? Are we to believe that good 'ole Henry's nose is the official sniffer nose?

 

[zoey]

Or Thwarted by squirrels..perhaps not so happy squirrels?

I still remember that the day Caylee was found when LE went over to the A's, one of the officers went towards the back of their yard--where all of sudden I saw a squirrel running ---- perhaps that would be the thwarted squrirel???? :waitasec:

Along the line of the garbage......can anyone imagine the stink of rotting food for almost 3 years? (that is if there was food---which only in defense land)

 

[ThoughtFox]

I haven't been following the trial because the Defense drives me crazy, and I knew they were going to drag this out as long as possible, but honest to God, when I saw this headline I felt compelled to post.

:banghead: The Jurors don't need "smellivision" in order to render a verdict!

Doesn't Cindy Anthony's 911 call usurp all this nonsense? She's the one who said the car smelled like a dead body!!!

911 Call:
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/16980266/detail.html

"There is something wrong. I found my daughter's car today and it smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car."

Doh! Didn't Casey say the only thing in the car had been some dried up pizza? What rotten food? What lunch meat? :floorlaugh:

 

[miss plum]

The thing is, before CA or GA or YM or anyone else ever said anything, ICA herself complained in her texts to Amy that her car smelled of death, of decomposition. She said there was definitely part of a dead animal plastered to her car. That was ICA's own pronouncement on the source of the terrible smell in her car. If it had been caused by a bag of forgotten garbage in the trunk she would have found it during the search that located the phantom squirrel, blamed it on that, and got rid of the bag. Once again the defendant's own words, her busy typing fingers, have nimbly (and callously) pre-empted and rebutted any explanation for the smell that the defence might offer the court.

 

[faefrost]

I haven't been following the trial because the Defense drives me crazy, and I knew they were going to drag this out as long as possible, but honest to God, when I saw this headline I felt compelled to post.

:banghead: The Jurors don't need "smellivision" in order to render a verdict!

Doesn't Cindy Anthony's 911 call usurp all this nonsense? She's the one who said the car smelled like a dead body!!!

911 Call:
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/16980266/detail.html

"There is something wrong. I found my daughter's car today and it smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car."

Doh! Didn't Casey say the only thing in the car had been some dried up pizza? What rotten food? What lunch meat? :floorlaugh:

BBM, This is what drives me crazy. Jurors are not stupid. Why is JB still fixated on the smell, and precise scientific evidence regarding the smell, and the dogs? When the chance of challenging the smells literally went out the window when the child's remains were found?

Early on, when the smell and finicky forensic evidence in the car trunk was the only real evidence that Caylee was dead, it was a viable avenue to challenge. But know? There is a dead body in play here. It has been in play here for 2 years now. As I said jurors are not stupid. All they will need is the proof of a dead Caylee and CA's 911 comment "It smells like there has been a dead body in the car!" Both of these are already coming in at trial and will be almost impossible to challenge. At this point the smell itself, the garbage, the stain, the cars contents. It's all just corroborating evidence. And there is sooo much of it. Challenging one little piece on some obscure ground will not do what he needs. (Heck nothing really will, he's just to self absorbed to realize that).

 

[Intermezzo]

Resurrecting this gem:

Thanks

I never saw that one before.

 

[nums24]

Does anyone else find it ironic that JB is quoting opinions from Dr. Wise of Oak Ridge National Labs (The Body Farm) in this motion to exclude car evidence, yet fighting in other motions to have the Oak Ridge results tossed out?

 

[AZlawyer]

Exactly how protected is he? I thought there was a limit in how far an attorney could go in accusing sworn state officers and officers of the court of deliberate misconduct without providing some reasonable evidence of an actual deliberate act, mis-truth or malfeasance?

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

Am I wrong in thinking that that one line may have crossed the line into an area that may bring yet another ethics violation investigation? While I do not believe that the officers could sue for statements made in open court or filings, by the same token are not Lawyers held accountable to those same statements via the ethical rules of their profession and license?

And this also shows JB's tit for tat 2 year old childlike behavior before the courts. "Well they accused me of evidence tampering so I get to accuse them!" "They accused me of missing deadline so I get to yell "BUT MOOOOMMMM THEY DID IT TOOOOO!!!!"

Sadly he may have an out with regard to the late filing. Doesn't the schedule say that motions relating to the scientific and forensic evidence must be heard by Feb 28th?

It's not a lie, it's just spin. LE indeed intentionally failed to put the trash in a sealed metal can to preserve the smell in the same manner that they preserved the smell of the trunk carpet.

Of course, the REASON the two things were treated differently is because, IMO, the fact that trash smells like trash is not evidence, whereas the fact that a car trunk smells like death IS evidence. But JB says that the trash didn't smell like trash; it smelled like death. If true, IMO that was only because there were paper towels in it that had been used to wipe up decomp. So I'm not sure what his point is. :waitasec: But no, I don't think he crossed any ethical line by saying this.