GUILTY HI - Carly Joann 'Charli' Scott, 27, pregnant, Makawao, 9 Feb 2014 - #3

[heartgoesout]

p.s. I know blue jeans is the general term and not necessarily the color of them.

 

[Kapua]

Eligible for parole doesn't mean a person will get parole. Charles Manson and his sick followers make the news every time one of them comes up for parole, but they are all still imprisoned.

 

[Kapua]

Good to hear that there is evidence tying SC to Charli's blood, and that it's admissible.

 

[PeterTosh]

Even better. I read that as CS's hair.

As did I. And I read over and over with great satisfaction.

 

[PeterTosh]

I have no reporting as to the size of the hair but it certainly does not have to be much today.

 

[puakenikeni]

I got the Maui News app. Thanks for the suggestion, Pua.
I don't know Maui Now's reputation, but they had an in-depth report of the first day of proceedings.
If those jeans do belong to SC, then I doubt the clothes, etc. were "planted". Something must have scared him off. What a huge blunder to leave them there, even w/o the hair in the pocket. Couldn't skin cells be tested for DNA?

Mamamerced, so glad you mentioned Maui Now. Very good source in my book, doesn't always report in the same level of detail as Maui News has been, but they went the whole mile on this one, yay!
Link to Maui Now article on the motions:
http://mauinow.com/2016/05/20/dna-test-results-still-under-discussion-on-eve-of-murder-trial/ DNA Test Results Still Under Discussion on Eve of Murder Trial

Maui News articles (cached links that only work until the link changes, but Maui News App works):
Defense attorneys move to exclude DNA test results
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7pszsiF0t54J:www.mauinews.com/page/content.detai...results.html?nav=10+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Capobianco’s alleged words to be allowed as evidence in trial
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us#sthash.qWN88sJT.dpuf

Short articles from local affiliates of TV networks, showing the wider coverage is on again in the state:
HNN brief article: http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/32032708/jury-selection-in-maui-murder-trial-set-to-begin
KITV: http://www.kitv.com/story/32032702/jury-selection-begins-monday-in-high-profile-maui-murder-case

 

[puakenikeni]

THURSDAY look:

FRIDAY look:

 

[heartgoesout]

He always looks different. Getting ready for jury selection...

 

[puakenikeni]

The DNA match from the hair is to Steven. That is the DNA link they are missing. They have plenty of DNA to prove Charli was the victim.

If you remember back in January, the prosecution moved to delay the trial because the results they got pack from the police lab in Honolulu on the blood-stained clothing did not give them the link they needed to tie Steven to the murder, but they had been told that different testing methods might. The issue was the sample (blood) was weather-degraded. Prosecution said clearly they had no DNA evidence linking SC to the crime scene, so they needed to run this additional testing.

Sorenson Forensics is the advanced lab they used after the trial delay was granted. They sent Sorenson the same clothing that had not worked out in the first testing in Honolulu. It says in the first Maui News article from this week that these further tests didn't do much better in matching to the "defendant." SC couldn't be excluded, but neither could half the population of Maui, is quoted in the article.

The hair was found by an officer on Maui after the jeans came back from Honolulu. The hair was found after the trial continuance and the agreement for extra testing. The hair got sent to Virginia to be tested by the FBI. Apparently this testing worked out well, probably because a) it was hair and not blood, so the rain wouldn't degrade it the same way, and b) it was deep in the pocket and protected.

I agree with Mamamerced that the clothes and jeans were not planted. Neither were they hidden, even though the terrain had many spots to hide stuff. It seems to me they were collected and the plan was to take them, probably to put them in the blanket and/or bag them, but he or they had to leave the scene in a big hurry. I think MM is right that they were scared off. It's a place frequented by hunters and fishermen, so it's not at all unlikely. People camp there. The mystery is why he didn't manage to get back for them on Monday night.

It's also somewhat possible he brought her out there on a different night, having killed them and stored them elsewhere, in order to dispose of the body and evidence, after the search had begun. There are still different scenarios.

Anyhow, the judge has not ruled on the DNA test admissibility. There will be another hearing.

 

[Mamamerced]

He always looks different. Getting ready for jury selection...

Interesting you say this, HGO. He always looks the same to me, despite different hair styles.....sort of frozen, trapped in headlights look.

 

[Mamamerced]

I am still unclear if the hair was proven to belong to SC. I can't find, or am overlooking, a definitive statement on this.
From the Maui Now article Pua linked: "On the motion relating to DNA lab results from Sorenson Forensics and the FBI lab, Judge Cardoza said an actual “factual record” has not been presented to the court. He said, “This is obviously a very important issue, but all we have is an argument–not the type of record the court should be using.”
And, I find this concerning..."Judge Cardoza said there is an argument about how the information unfolded that relates to timing and discovery. He said there is still sufficient time to conduct a hearing on the matter to determine if there is further reason to consider the item."

 

[puakenikeni]

I put together a timeline of this DNA testing from a combo of the articles, for any who are interested or confused. I know it confused me.

Jan 16 -

request for more DNA testing and continuance until March
First Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Robert Rivera said further testing was being sought based on results the prosecution received Jan. 7 from DNA testing of clothing recovered from the crime scene a few days after the alleged murder.

- See more at: http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us#sthash.mF1YSP8u.dpuf
Note: the additional testing of the clothing was sent to and done by Sorenson, apparently a top of the line DNA service.

Jan. 25
date given by Rivera the hair was discovered.

After the jeans were returned to the Maui Police Department following DNA testing by the Scientific Investigation Section of the Honolulu Police Department, Detective Nelson Hamilton found the single hair, which previously hadn't been recovered, in the jeans pocket, Rivera said.
He said the hair was recovered Jan. 25 and sent Feb. 16 to the FBI lab.

Note: Prosecution did not tell defense they had found the hair, as far as I can tell, and they did not give the results to the defense right away, although they say it was "soon after."

Feb 16
Hair sent to FBI lab

"First Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Robert Rivera said the FBI lab tested and analyzed "a single hair found in a pair of blue jeans" that had blood matched to Scott."

(note it is the jeans that had Scott's blood, not the hair.)

March 10
Continuance granted until May 23.

March 29
FBI testing on the hair came back.
"On March 29, Hamilton received conclusions from the FBI analysis, Rivera said."
march 10 continuance to May 23

MAY
This week (motion in limine by defense):

In asking to disallow the DNA evidence, Capobianco's attorney Matthew Nardi said the prosecution had turned over incomplete information about the FBI lab testing and the testing by Sorenson Forensics.
Even if the missing information were provided to the defense now, Nardi said it would take about five weeks for another laboratory to review the results. The analysis by a laboratory hired by the defense wouldn't be available in time for the defense to use in jury selection and opening statements in the trial, Nardi said.
Rivera said only procedural information about the testing was missing from the FBI laboratory information.
"Unlike the single strand of hair" tested by the FBI lab, Rivera said the results from Sorenson Forensics "were pretty much minor."
He said the sample was "too degraded," and the results were inconclusive in the Sorenson testing.
"Although the defendant could not be excluded, neither could more than half the population on Maui be excluded," Rivera said. "It's not prejudicial to the defense because nothing came up out of it."

- See more at: http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us#sthash.q1y6EhxL.dpuf

 

[puakenikeni]

I am still unclear if the hair was proven to belong to SC. I can't find, or am overlooking, a definitive statement on this.
From the Maui Now article Pua linked: "On the motion relating to DNA lab results from Sorenson Forensics and the FBI lab, Judge Cardoza said an actual “factual record” has not been presented to the court. He said, “This is obviously a very important issue, but all we have is an argument–not the type of record the court should be using.”
And, I find this concerning..."Judge Cardoza said there is an argument about how the information unfolded that relates to timing and discovery. He said there is still sufficient time to conduct a hearing on the matter to determine if there is further reason to consider the item."

They're not going to publish the results of the hair testing, because it's a motion to exclude the evidence, and if the evidence result gets broadcast on the news, it can't be put back in the bag, will taint the trial. At the same time, it's clearly evidence that matters to the prosecution, because Rivera is fighting for it to stay in, plus he says the other testing is immaterial because it was useless. So they might as well say the hair matched to SC.

The sentences you quoted are confusing to me too, but I think the essence is that the defense has an argument that prosecution held back the evidence too long, and did not allow the defense sufficient time for independent review of the results. Each side is allowed to have an expert opinion on forensic analysis.

Even though they found this great new evidence, if the prosecution screwed up with the timetable required for discovery (sharing info with the defense), the hair could become inadmissible on a procedural basis rather than because of its evidentiary value.

 

[puakenikeni]

Oh, and my interpretation is that Cardoza is saying he can't rule on the motion on the DNA because the motion wasn't properly written. Defense is making an argument saying the evidence was sprung on them, but didn't compile an accounting of the facts, timetable, etc.. to prove that.

As an analogy, when your kid tells you to punish his brother because his brother punched him, that's just an argument.
When kid shows you the bruise and produces a witness, that's an actual factual record that is a basis for the argument.

However, the point is so important to the trial and possible appeal of the verdict later on (by defense), that Cardoza can't just throw out the motion, and is giving the defense time to prepare it correctly and there will be another hearing on the motion. Cardoza is saying there is time for the hearing without once again delaying the trial.

 

[Mamamerced]

I am grateful to have your trained legal interpretations, Pua, as well as your willingness to explain, in detail, in everyday language for us (or me, at least). Legalese is mainly gobbledegook to me and made even more confusing by much of the reporting.
I assume Cardoza knows the results, not just infers. Gawd, I hope Rivera knows what he is doing.

 

[heartgoesout]

I hate to be Debbie Downer but this hair makes me nervous. If it is allowed, in my opinion it will have to be perfectly explained to a jury why the jeans where found in an area that had already been search, by a family member, and touched without police presence. (no blame there) : )
Then the jeans are sent for professional analyzing only to be sent back and a a police officer finds one single random hair stuffed deep in a pocket. Why is a police officer handling the jeans anyway? Then the hair is sent to a "more professional" place and then the prosecution does not reveal the finding in a timely manner.
Again I hate to be Debbie Downer and I have followed Charli's story from day one and pray for her justice, but this is sitting weird for me and is going to be hard for a jury to swallow when a good attorney shreds this apart as being planted.

 

[Mamamerced]

I agree, HGO. Just didn't want to put it out there. (I can't recall if the article said policeman or LE, though.)

 

[puakenikeni]

I share the nervousness.

So, part of your question can be addressed. The jeans were found at the same time and in the same place as Charli's clothes and blanket, so they are no more suspect than anything else found by the search party.

The officer who found the hair was a Detective in rank, and it sounds like he is the one who was receiving the returned evidence. Probably taking a last look before putting it into the evidence locker.

As far as planting evidence goes, there is a presumption that LEO's do not plant evidence, and I don't believe there is a chain of custody problem so long as the police and forensics maintain custody carefully, which they did. There would need to be some evidence that police were acting outside the law to do a frame, and I don't believe there is anything in this case, nor is the defense making any accusations. What they are complaining about is that key evidence came in last minute, and their due process was not possible in the time frame of the trial date.

Then the hair is sent to a "more professional" place and then the prosecution does not reveal the finding in a timely manner.

Well not exactly, the hair was sent to the FBI. The clothes were sent to a DNA analysis company that is a global leader in the science, which the Honolulu PD is not, to conduce advanced method testing that the HPD does not handle in its lab.

This is spec, but possibly the hair was sent to the FBI for faster results, as the DNA testing companies apparently have a long turnaround time.

If the defense wanted to cast doubt on the MPD integrity, or of an individual detective, then I don't believe that is something they can pursue in the middle of the trial to cast doubt. Now is the time to do that, with a motion in limine, and they haven't done that at all.

Nothing happens immediately in a police force. When results come back, they have to go through review and different channels before being turned over to defense. It appears the prosecution thinks they did it reasonably expeditiously, and defense says it was eve of trial bombshell. Truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[puakenikeni]

I am grateful to have your trained legal interpretations, Pua, as well as your willingness to explain, in detail, in everyday language for us (or me, at least). Legalese is mainly gobbledegook to me and made even more confusing by much of the reporting.
I assume Cardoza knows the results, not just infers. Gawd, I hope Rivera knows what he is doing.

You're so kind, MM.
Yes, the judge gets to know everything, and knows what is at stake. But can't let that knowledge drive his decision, has to separate out the legal basis for his decision.
The press is annoyingly sloppy. They are still writing lines like saying Charli's family is the source saying Charli drove out Hana Highway to help Steven as if they had knowledge this really happened. By now they should have got it straight that the family never heard she planned any such thing.
The reporter also said that the "defense" was using Sorenson and the FBI for DNA testing, when that portion was clearly about the prosecution, not the defense.

 

[heartgoesout]

All the legal terms in the world does not change a jury's interpretation of information. Pua, do not be so naïve that what your saying above will be exactly what a jury thinks.
I'm a huge supporter and that hair found deep in a pocket after it was professionally looked over for DNA is sketchy, no matter how nicely you word it.
I'm expressing my opinion because I COULD be a juror...