• #2,021
My first thought was it looked like a cherry Starbust so looked it up. Earplugs? Is that even allowed in court? Shouldn't you be paying attention to what's said?

View attachment 653489

Maybe that’s why she gave the weird answer. Nothing new from Ms. Bizarro, I think she’s likely going to make some kind of insanity defense.
 
  • #2,022
My first thought was it looked like a cherry Starbust so looked it up. Earplugs? Is that even allowed in court? Shouldn't you be paying attention to what's said?

View attachment 653489

If thats her attorney on that side, its odd she would block out her own attorney's voice/instructions. I at first thought it might be a device to help her hear her attorney *better*. But yes, she is Ms Bizzaro.

On the "holiday" exception, could there be someone who can only visit her on holidays?
 
  • #2,023
She’s gotten a little fluffy!
The most common side effect of going on antipsychotic medication is weight gain.
 
  • #2,024
The most common side effect of going on antipsychotic medication is weight gain.
I don’t know much about this. Is it possible that she was thinner when Melodee went missing because she went off her meds?

I also wonder if maybe the reason she wasn’t present for the past few court dates is because she was adjusting to going back on meds/in psych.

JMO
 
  • #2,025
  • #2,026
  • #2,027

Through its investigation, law enforcement obtained warrants to search Buzzard’s house and storage locker, as well as the rental car she used on her October road trip.

Per the quoted MSM link, the defense filed a Motion to challenge a search warrant not publicly identified.

Public Defender Erica Sutherland clarified that the search warrant in question would remain sealed to the public.

Presiding Judge Stephen Dunkle said he had not yet had time to evaluate the motion.

He scheduled another preliminary hearing setting for April 1.

Given Buzzard's prior no-show history, I was surprised to see her dressed in street clothes during her short court appearance. JMO
 
  • #2,028
A brief court hearing Wednesday morning in the case against Ashlee Lynn Buzzard focused on next steps for a defense request that could affect what evidence is allowed in the case....
The court also set April 22 at 1:30 p.m. for a hearing on a separate motion to compel....

 
  • #2,029
“The defense has been waiting for the forensic files associated with Ms. Buzzard’s case for months,” the filing states, adding that the requested materials are believed to already exist and be readily accessible.

The defense also points to public statements made by Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown during a Dec. 23 press conference, where investigators announced that DNA analysis conducted by the FBI linked remains found in Utah to Buzzard, and that ballistics testing connected evidence from the Utah crime scene to a cartridge case recovered from Buzzard’s Vandenberg Village home.

Despite those public announcements, the defense argues that the underlying forensic data has not been provided.

More information in this article.
Sounds like the prosecutors need to get with it.

 
  • #2,030
“The defense has been waiting for the forensic files associated with Ms. Buzzard’s case for months,” the filing states, adding that the requested materials are believed to already exist and be readily accessible.

The defense also points to public statements made by Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown during a Dec. 23 press conference, where investigators announced that DNA analysis conducted by the FBI linked remains found in Utah to Buzzard, and that ballistics testing connected evidence from the Utah crime scene to a cartridge case recovered from Buzzard’s Vandenberg Village home.

Despite those public announcements, the defense argues that the underlying forensic data has not been provided.

More information in this article.
Sounds like the prosecutors need to get with it.

Seems odd they haven't turned over the requested evidence, wonder what's behind that?
 
  • #2,031
Seems odd they haven't turned over the requested evidence, wonder what's behind that?
I'm not sure. But I do remember a few cases where the defense kept stating that the prosecution was withholding discovery and they'd go into hearings demanding that the judge give sanctions for the late evidence, etc...

And then we'd learn that there were valid explanations.

Sometimes the evidence was provided but the defense had not found it in the massive files that were transferred.

For example, it was determined that some of the transferred files had glitches or something which prevented the defense from opening them. And neither side was aware of it initially.

And in another case, there was so much discovery, the defense was way behind. So even though they kept complaining that the state had not given them certain tests and reports, it turned out those files had already been turned over---but Defense was so far behind they just had not gotten to it yet.

So I am not yet convinced that the prosecution is withholding requested evidence. There might be an explanation?
 
  • #2,032
A hearing on the motion to compel forensic evidence is scheduled for April 22 in Lompoc, where a judge could decide whether prosecutors must release the requested materials. A second hearing on the search warrant challenge is set for May 6 in Santa Maria.

The case remains in its early stages, and no preliminary hearing date has yet been scheduled.


According to court filings submitted by Senior Deputy Public Defender Erica Sutherland, the defense has been requesting evidence from the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office for months, including detailed DNA testing files, ballistics reports and the victim’s autopsy report.

I think we will learn either by the Santa Barbara DA Office's response to the defense Motion or during the 4/22 hearing that the State has turned over all the forensic data received-- but the defense not satisfied with the amount of details available. We know that toxicology reports under normal circumstances can take months, and no surprise that Melodee's autopsy is not in final form!

Reminds me of a spirited defense attorney in Colorado who had to be reminded by the Judge that not being able to access and/or interpret the scientific data provided by the prosecution was NOT the equivalent of not receiving discovery delivered by the State. :rolleyes:

ETA: defense said it had not received the full forensic files, including underlying or “raw” data associated with those tests.

4/1/26 - Defense Allegations...
 
Last edited:
  • #2,033
1775275020137.png

1775275062082.png

1775275216371.png
 
  • #2,034
A hearing on the motion to compel forensic evidence is scheduled for April 22 in Lompoc, where a judge could decide whether prosecutors must release the requested materials. A second hearing on the search warrant challenge is set for May 6 in Santa Maria.

The case remains in its early stages, and no preliminary hearing date has yet been scheduled.


According to court filings submitted by Senior Deputy Public Defender Erica Sutherland, the defense has been requesting evidence from the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office for months, including detailed DNA testing files, ballistics reports and the victim’s autopsy report.

I think we will learn either by the Santa Barbara DA Office's response to the defense Motion or during the 4/22 hearing that the State has turned over all the forensic data received-- but the defense not satisfied with the amount of details available. We know that toxicology reports under normal circumstances can take months, and no surprise that Melodee's autopsy is not in final form!

Reminds me of a spirited defense attorney in Colorado who had to be reminded by the Judge that not being able to access and/or interpret the scientific data provided by the prosecution was NOT the equivalent of not receiving discovery delivered by the State. :rolleyes:

ETA: defense said it had not received the full forensic files, including underlying or “raw” data associated with those tests.

4/1/26 - Defense Allegations...
Reminds me of a spirited defense attorney in Colorado who had to be reminded by the Judge that not being able to access and/or interpret the scientific data provided by the prosecution was NOT the equivalent of not receiving discovery delivered by the State. :rolleyes:




Was that in the prior Murphew case?

I think I remember similar issues in a case---where the defense was unable to properly download/open the info that was sent to them. And they kept complaining that it was being with held so the state had to send a data expert to the defense team's office to show them how to access it. But I can't remember which case it was.
 
  • #2,035
Reminds me of a spirited defense attorney in Colorado who had to be reminded by the Judge that not being able to access and/or interpret the scientific data provided by the prosecution was NOT the equivalent of not receiving discovery delivered by the State. :rolleyes:




Was that in the prior Murphew case?

I think I remember similar issues in a case---where the defense was unable to properly download/open the info that was sent to them. And they kept complaining that it was being with held so the state had to send a data expert to the defense team's office to show them how to access it. But I can't remember which case it was.
Yes, good ole Iris -- talking out of both sides of her mouth, and Judge Murphy wasn't having it!
 
  • #2,036
I've tuned out of this one for a while. have we learned anything about  why she did it?
 
  • #2,037
I've tuned out of this one for a while. have we learned anything about  why she did it?
I don't think there was a clear motive.

I'm leaning towards insanity? Maybe not legally insane to the level that she didn't know it was wrong, etc---because she took obvious steps to try and conceal her actions.

But I can't help but wonder---did she have some kind of mental glitch---thinking she needed to 'save' her daughter in some way by sending her to heaven---that kind of insane reasoning some mothers have when they 'save' their children by killing. 😒
 
  • #2,038
I don't think there was a clear motive.

I'm leaning towards insanity? Maybe not legally insane to the level that she didn't know it was wrong, etc---because she took obvious steps to try and conceal her actions.

But I can't help but wonder---did she have some kind of mental glitch---thinking she needed to 'save' her daughter in some way by sending her to heaven---that kind of insane reasoning some mothers have when they 'save' their children by killing. 😒

I've wondered the same, except she might have been motivated by wanting to deny the paternal family access to Melodee.

Reportedly, Melodee's father died in an accident when she was less than five months old, without knowing her, but her paternal grandmother and uncle were Melodee's caregivers after the State last removed the child from AB's care. Seems to me AB had to know she was going to lose custody again, and would rather kill her than allow her daughter to live a normal life, attending school, etc.

I imagine AB was dependent on Melodee's survivor benefits, and losing custody would leave her needing to fend for herself.

No winners here. Even Mark Geragos refers to AB as a 'monster' lacking any maternal instinct.



Ashlee Buzzard case is ‘repulsive,’ hard to wrap your head around: Mark Geragos | NewsNation Prime​

 
  • #2,039
I've wondered the same, except she might have been motivated by wanting to deny the paternal family access to Melodee.

Reportedly, Melodee's father died in an accident when she was less than five months old, without knowing her, but her paternal grandmother and uncle were Melodee's caregivers after the State last removed the child from AB's care. Seems to me AB had to know she was going to lose custody again, and would rather kill her than allow her daughter to live a normal life, attending school, etc.

I imagine AB was dependent on Melodee's survivor benefits, and losing custody would leave her needing to fend for herself.

No winners here. Even Mark Geragos refers to AB as a 'monster' lacking any maternal instinct.



Ashlee Buzzard case is ‘repulsive,’ hard to wrap your head around: Mark Geragos | NewsNation Prime​

Yes, that's a good point. She was overly reactive towards the paternal relatives---cutting them all off when this poor child could have used the love and support.

I think it might be a combination of the two issues. She has mental health issues AND she is emotionally petty and shuts out loving family members who wanted to know Melodee. Mixed together creates a very toxic situation.

It is heartbreaking that sweet Melodee was never allowed to go to school or make friends and enjoy her life. :mad:
 
  • #2,040
Seems odd they haven't turned over the requested evidence, wonder what's behind that?
It's so hard to evaluate in this post-truth normal.

MOO
 

Guardians Monthly Goal

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
93
Guests online
3,974
Total visitors
4,067

Forum statistics

Threads
645,739
Messages
18,847,352
Members
245,778
Latest member
Common Sense Prevails
Top