Can you show me if there is an evidence log? Because there isn't one. That is the problem here. And because they said so doesn't really cut it. I know you have watched many trials mrjitty, this is NOT normal. There is always a chain of custody log.
I appreciate your detailed response Missy!
What I am trying to focus on, is what evidence is actually admitted or given as testimony in this trial. I agree that the departmental system is not what we usually see, but that does not mean there is not a system. The system appears to be that they used the printed labels as the check in/check out. So in other words, the evidence was bagged and then labelled by the evidence officer when it goes into his custody and then the next entry (on the bag system) is when it goes out to the Crime Lab.
Trooper DiCicco apprently printed the label. But he didn't bag it, and we have no idea where it went after that. There is typically what happens examples, but there is no logs whatsoever. The next "known" movement of that bag was when it was logged in at the Crime Lab in mid March.
BIB. Jackson did not put this allegation to YB - only the part about who bagged it. If he had made this allegation, the CW would call the evidence officer, who would testify about his normal procedures and that he tagged the bag and put it into the evidence room. Then it was checked out to be taken to the Crime lab weeks later by MP which is marked on the bag. My understanding is that the Crime lab is not waiting on standby to work on new cases and that it is common at some appropriate point, for all the evidence to be transferred to them - even weeks later. MOO.
Part of the admin of trial is that it has all been agreed long before trial what evidence the defence will stipulate to and what they will contest, and who will admit each piece of evidence. So I think it's fair to say the defence do not actually contest that part of the COC.
When they ask the Crime lab witness about the previous chain, that is a bit of a cheapo, because that witness can never testify to the prior part of the chain.
In any event this all goes to the point that none of this is actually a chain of custody issue. AJ alleged corruption by MP (and effectively YB and Chief KB as well), starting in the Sallyport after 5pm. So the chain does not matter to that because AJ is alleging MP already broke out the tail light earlier that day, staged it at 34F, and then has access to the shirt directly all day on the 29th, which he would have anyway, no matter what documentation was done or not done or drying done or not done. (And the drying needed to be done or biological forensics would be lost).
I couldn't recall if DiCicco (who MP or YB mentions is the one that printed the labels) testified last trial (I don't believe he did).. but in my search, I found another "fun fact"...
The reason the evidence officer didn't testify is the Defence isn't contesting that part. The defence could actually make the CW prove every step in the chain - but this doesn't generally happen because it is a waste of court time. Jackson only wanted to dispute custody from 29th - 4th.
The Defense had NO IDEA about the other tail light pieces being found by Proctor or anyone until 2023. The only reason they found out is because the photos of the bags that the Crime Lab took.
Motion filed in Sept 2023:
View attachment 587889
drive.google.com
In another motion filed a month later by the Defence... Proctor wrote a report AFTER they were ordered to provide evidence of those searches and any logs, etc.
Yes this is in YBs testimony. IIRC the next major recovery was documented by the crime scene photographer, but the later ones the only documentation was the bag labels when each recovery was logged. IIRC two photographers testified - one from the SERT recovery and one a subsequent day - i think it's 4 February - maybe that is helpful if you want to check back.
While it's not ideal that the report didn't exist for each one, given what this case turned into, I think it's not surprising that they didn't document (i.e photograph) exact recovery sites for all of it the subsequent searchs. They already had 2 documented recoveries. Why would they think they would need more? What that of course means now is they now can't prove the whole debris field, which would have been extremely useful.
View attachment 587891
drive.google.com
I stumbled across this ... I knew the reports were written MUCH later then when they were found, but I had no idea that the only reason why the report as written was because the defense filed a motion for discovery because of the pics. They had nothing until Proctor wrote a report in Nov 23.
Yes - though I think in T1 he just testified to it all anyway. I of course agree that these failings on contemporaneous records is not great, so the later recoveries can't be used to prove anything about the debris field. They are only useful on the re-assembly.
I really do believe that not only did the Mc/A's suggest she plea deal out, I think everyone expected her to do that and a lot of this wouldn't matter. But that is JMO.
IMO it's a mix of crappy standards and resource allocation. I can understand why if they have two documented recoveries, they are not bothering to document the later ones because why would they think they need that even if it goes to trial.
Ditto with the drying room - what else should they do exactly? AJ's demands for a drying room log are pointless because why would a corrupt officer fill it out?
End of the day I have sympathy for any defence which has to argue corruption because it is extremely hard to show if you don't have any physical proof of it. I think AJ has done a reasonable job of showing opportunity, but he still doesn't have any tangible evidence anyone did anything corrupt IMO.
MOO etc. YBs testimony linked in my previous post.
