GUILTY HI - Carly Joann 'Charli' Scott, 27, pregnant, Makawao, 9 Feb 2014 - #5

[Mamamerced]

Nikki, it's hard not to conclude that MPD dropped a giant crucial ball. That was the single most important DNA evidence linking Steven, and it should have been rushed through the chain, especially after the trial continuance in January already making it very unlikely to get another delay.

Help me here: if the hair w/root is the most incriminating evidence Rivera has why then wasn't the trial delayed? There must be, I hope, a solid reason to go into trial without that nail in SC's coffin.

 

[puakenikeni]

Help me here: if the hair w/root is the most incriminating evidence Rivera has why then wasn't the trial delayed? There must be, I hope, a solid reason to go into trial without that nail in SC's coffin.

i believe it was because the defense opposed the delay and the prosecution couldn't provide a good enough reason why defense wasn't given timely notice.
And it was "eve of trial" ... (Not saying I am happy about it)

 

[Kapua]

Help me here: if the hair w/root is the most incriminating evidence Rivera has why then wasn't the trial delayed? There must be, I hope, a solid reason to go into trial without that nail in SC's coffin.

Maybe the prosecution has other incriminating evidence. The phone/cell tower records are likely to paint a damaging picture. Also, we have a muddy green cell phone case in SC's vehicle, and an eyewitness that said that SC was driving a newer model 4Runner in Hana on Feb. 9 and she didn't see Charli or her dog in the vehicle. We still haven't heard all of the evidence and we don't know what else the prosecution has up its sleeve.

They charged SC with arson, too. I have been wondering all this time where they found evidence linking him to the arson.

 

[heartgoesout]

Agreed a 6 foot tall man would wear 32 inch pants. Unless of course you saved them from high school and they were good enough to romp around in.

 

[heartgoesout]

So where Was Charli while he was driving her 4runner??

 

[Nikki Lisette]

Agreed a 6 foot tall man would wear 32 inch pants. Unless of course you saved them from high school and they were good enough to romp around in.

He could've borrowed Grandpa Carlos Young's jeans. He had access.

 

[Kapua]

Agreed a 6 foot tall man would wear 32 inch pants. Unless of course you saved them from high school and they were good enough to romp around in.

Spot on, HGO.

 

[Mamamerced]

i believe it was because the defense opposed the delay and the prosecution couldn't provide a good enough reason why defense wasn't given timely notice.
And it was "eve of trial" ... (Not saying I am happy about it)

Thanks for the explanation, Pua. Do you recall what Rivera's excuse was? Sometimes I don't think it's justice being pursued. So many procedural knots.

 

[puakenikeni]

Maybe the prosecution has other incriminating evidence. The phone/cell tower records are likely to paint a damaging picture. Also, we have a muddy green cell phone case in SC's vehicle, and an eyewitness that said that SC was driving a newer model 4Runner in Hana on Feb. 9 and she didn't see Charli or her dog in the vehicle. We still haven't heard all of the evidence and we don't know what else the prosecution has up its sleeve.

They charged SC with arson, too. I have been wondering all this time where they found evidence linking him to the arson.

Sorry, I didn't mean the most incriminating of all evidence, but it was apparently the only DNA evidence that nailed Steven. Of course DNA is not the only way to win. But it would help, a lot.

 

[puakenikeni]

Thanks for the explanation, Pua. Do you recall what Rivera's excuse was? Sometimes I don't think it's justice being pursued. So many procedural knots.

Well, it was MPD at fault for holding onto it so long, not really the prosecution.
The article I linked may say more; or it is in another article that came out right near the same time, which could be linked in the media topic. It's been too much information through the brain for me to remember those details today, sorry.

 

[Hapworth]

Agreed a 6 foot tall man would wear 32 inch pants. Unless of course you saved them from high school and they were good enough to romp around in.

I doubt a 6ft man would wear a 30inch inseam...yes to a 32inch waist however. I'm 5ft 11 and I wear a 32/32. I agree, they could belong to grandpa.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[Kapua]

Sorry, I didn't mean the most incriminating of all evidence, but it was apparently the only DNA evidence that nailed Steven. Of course DNA is not the only way to win. But it would help, a lot.

Yes, it sure would. But if the prosecution was able to present the evidence, Apo would argue that the police planted the bloody hair.

 

[puakenikeni]

Maybe he wore something the wrong size and left the bloody jeans so easy to find because
"if the jeans don't fit, you must acquit." :scared:

 

[MakaniKitty]

What concerns me is that so far as I know, the prosecution has not provided sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that SC committed the crime. A blown apart alibi isn't enough, and the only DNA evidence that I'm aware of isn't allowed in court.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[puakenikeni]

Yes, it sure would. But if the prosecution was able to present the evidence, Apo would argue that the police planted the bloody hair.

Maybe. But I don't think it is a bloody hair, have we heard that? I read it as the detective found one of SC's hairs, with a root, inside of bloody jeans with the blood on them matching Charli.

 

[heartgoesout]

So let me ask a question...for arguments sake, let's say for a moment there is truly nothing tying SC to those jeans. Are they allowed to present them at all?
Could they present random finds like maybe a bloody knife, a random mans tee shirt with cut marks, anything found along that highway that works in the prosecutions benefit even if the can't tie it to the defendant? Or do they have to make a connection some how? Right now it seems like ok you found jeans but who's are they? Could have been a hunter or a hiker who got cut...etc See I told you I was that juror. ; )

 

[heartgoesout]

Maybe. But I don't think it is a bloody hair, have we heard that? I read it as the detective found one of SC's hairs, with a root, inside of bloody jeans with the blood on them matching Charli.

Remind me which jeans. The ones found at the guard rail or the ones found at Paraquats referred to as pants?

 

[puakenikeni]

The jeans found over the guardrail near Kaumahina. That's what the most recent article is about. We have no testimony about the clothes found near the blanket other than the story of finding them. Nothing. Just set those clothes out of your mind until such time, if ever, that they come up again. At which point we will all be super clear ... Lol.

The jeans under discussion are tied to the crime, because of Charli's blood. So not from a hiker who cut himself or similar.

 

[heartgoesout]

But is the jury being presented that those jeans had Charli's blood on them?

 

[Kapua]

Maybe he wore something the wrong size and left the bloody jeans so easy to find because
"if the jeans don't fit, you must acquit." :scared:

LOL!

There are several possibilities. I like HGO's thought - they could have been an old pair of jeans from high school that fit him well enough except for being a bit short.

Or they could have been his grandfather's old jeans, maybe his grandfather gave them to him and he used them when he worked on cars.

Or like a lot of young men, he could have worn his jeans kind of saggy.