GUILTY NH - AH, 14, North Conway, 9 October 2013 - #14

[pinkandgreenmom]

Thank you Fireweed and Not Without Peril for really flushing out the legal argument that had been bothering me but that I couldn't quite put my finger on.

 

[white rabbit]

agree, pinkandgreen, and my thanks as well fireweed and NWP.

 

[white rabbit]

Attorneys for Abby Hernandez’s accused kidnapper are flying blind. After more than a week during which various authorities have dug through every inch of his Gorham, N.H., property, Kibby’s court-appointed counsel is armed with only a nine-page summation of the state’s case.

And now, armed with a warrant, prosecutors want to take his mobile home and controversial shipping container to an undisclosed location — before his attorneys have had a chance to fully inspect the property.

“How can I have any clue what I’m supposed to be looking for?” said Jesse Friedman, Kibby’s exasperated attorney. “They say that I should talk to the defendant. The last I knew, it’s his constitutional right to be defended and have the state prove the evidence against him. Quite frankly, at this point, Nate maintains he’s innocent. … I have almost nothing to review with my client at this point to figure out what we’re going to need to refute down the road”

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinio...ving_target_in_abby_hernandez_kidnapping_case

 

[white rabbit]

He wouldn't answer any questions but did say this: "Guys it's been a long day. I appreciate it we're just looking for a fair trial thank you."

Jane young also declined any comment after court today.

The prosecution planned to remove the storage container and the mobile home by early next week but nothing will happen in this case until the judge makes a decision on this motion.

CBS 13 reached out to the Hernandez family, they have no comment on the court proceedings.

http://www.wgme.com/news/features/t...ndez-kidnapping-case-23574.shtml#.U-OBXSx0yM8

 

[bakerlady]

That is simply untrue. You're forgetting about witness testimony.

Yes but most of the time that is not enough.

 

[bakerlady]

I'm not sure that is right because JC Dugards' kidnapper got charged with both. Is your information from NH state law?

AFAIK he was only convicted of the kidnapping and rape charges. A charge does not always mean a conviction.

 

[SStarr33]

It really is complete BS that the state thinks they can move everything before the defense gets their turn at the property. Makes the state look like they are trying to hide something.

And take a look at Ariel Castro's house on google images. They did not put anything over the top of it not to mention the fence was easily scalable.

 

[gnomony]

I spent many years writing and editing newspaper articles about many hundreds of criminal cases and nothing about the legal squabbles in this case seems particularly unusual to me.

1) Typically, in a complicated case, the suspect is arrested on a holding charge -- the minimum charge that the prosecutor is confident in proving and that will get the guy off the street.
2) Once the person is incarcerated and the investigation is going full speed ahead, there is absolutely no incentive for the prosecution to move quickly with additional charges. The more they delay, the less time the defense has to put together a response.
3) The defense, of course, acts "exasperated" and has good reason to be, since they know that more charges are coming, but they can't anticipate exactly what those charges will be.
4) In such a situation, then, the defense has every incentive to object to everything, and to ask for or demand everything they can think of.
5) If they don't object now (even though they may not know exactly what they are talking about), they may jeopardize their right to appeal.
6) Similarly, they have an incentive to ask for everything they can think of. They may not know if anyone has had a medical exam, for example, (because the prosecution won't tell them), but it is prudent of them to ask for blood test results -- or for the results to be protected -- just in case they exist. So their motions or objections contain laundry lists designed to cover all possibilities.
7) IMO, the defense has a excellent point that (if the expected charges come, regarding alleged crimes on the property) the lines of sight and the ability to hear voices or screams could be crucial, and once the buildings are removed, proving or disproving such elements would be virtually impossible.

For what it's worth…

 

[AnaTeresa]

It really is complete BS that the state thinks they can move everything before the defense gets their turn at the property. Makes the state look like they are trying to hide something.

And take a look at Ariel Castro's house on google images. They did not put anything over the top of it not to mention the fence was easily scalable.

I actually don't think it's BS. I understand why the defense may want to keep things in place, at least in terms of layout, giving them a chance to look at the scene, etc. But I can see why the State wants to put it in storage - that really would be the best way to prevent issues down the road with preservation of evidence, really combing through the items by both parties, etc.

I don't think moving it would be as much of an issue if they were more forthcoming with Kibby's attorney with police reports or other preliminary discovery. Right now, he's fighting this because he has no idea the scope of the case.

 

[bessie]

TOS prohibits posting information about individuals who have not been named as parties in a case. Generally, "sleuthing" is limited to suspects and victims.

 

[Fireweed]

Unless there is some type of video/photo evidence or a child in the womb or items disposed in the trash with DNA (sorry ew), then there really would be no way for the state to build a rape case. If they did file charges without evidence they would surely lose IMO. My guess is that there is no evidence.

What are you talking about? There would be an excellent way for the state to build a rape case! The reason rape cases are hard to prosecute, is because almost all of them hinge on the question as to whether the victim consented or not. There is generally little physical evidence.

Kidnapping a minor, confining her in a storage container for 9 months, would be two very huge pieces of evidence to convict a man of rape. If the victim said, "he raped me" and you had the evidence of kidnapping and imprisoning, then that right there would be a slam-dunk rape case.

 

[Aleph]

Yeah, whatever is in that third room in Kibby's storage container might be very good evidence of rape.

 

[Fireweed]

The entire circumstances would be very, very good evidence of a rape. If a man takes and keeps a teenage girl and keeps her confined, and if she later says that sex took place, then that right there would be astoundingly good evidence of rape. The defendant's only defense would be that she consented. Can a person who is completely under the control of a another person consent to sex? No.

Let me put it this way. Let's say Tom kidnaps Sally and keeps her confined in a locked room. She is totally, completely dependent on him for food, water, heat and everything else a person needs to survive. She has no way to leave the locked room and no way to get help. Would any sex that took place under those circumstances be consensual? I don't think so. Even if she told him, "yes, I want to have sex with you tonight," it would still not be consensual. Her consent would have be coerced by the circumstances that the Tom intentionally put her in. He has no reasonable belief that her consent has been freely given.

Heck, I would think that any woman in Sally's position might consider it prudent to make Tom think she loves him. That still would not be consensual sex. It would be rape.

 

[SurfieTX]

Didn't LE take Isreal Keyes' shed from the property? IIRC, I think they did.

 

[Fireweed]

Didn't LE take Isreal Keyes' shed from the property? IIRC, I think they did.

They took a shed, not an entire house, and he was a serial killer.

 

[AnaTeresa]

I think a key difference here is the fact that this is a mobile home - not a building. By its nature, a mobile home is more vulnerable to damage from the weather, by vandals, being moved, having the landlord tow it away, etc. etc.

I know I said this previously, but in some cases, they really take an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink policy for collecting evidence. Even smaller cases have TONS of evidence seized. I really don't think seizing the mobile home is unprecedented.

 

[Inthedetails]

I think a key difference here is the fact that this is a mobile home - not a building. By its nature, a mobile home is more vulnerable to damage from the weather, by vandals, being moved, having the landlord tow it away, etc. etc.

I know I said this previously, but in some cases, they really take an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink policy for collecting evidence. Even smaller cases have TONS of evidence seized. I really don't think seizing the mobile home is unprecedented.

And it's mobile. It can be moved by LE. Most homes cannot.

 

[Fireweed]

And it's mobile. It can be moved by LE. Most homes cannot.

So LE must have some sort of procedure in place for dealing with homes that are immobile, right? Then what the defense is asking for is certainly something that the state and LE can easily comply with.

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

Worth a read:

<snipped>

Prosecutor Jane E. Young said authorities don&#8217;t want the public destroying the property. Granite State legal experts are unconvinced.

&#8220;No matter how difficult it is, the government has a responsibility to maintain the evidence until the defense has had an opportunity to get all the information they need from it,&#8221; said Timothy Goulden, an attorney who is not part of the case. &#8220;They&#8217;re trying to move it without giving the defense the same opportunity that they&#8217;ve had to look and check and analyze the scene as it is.&#8221;

In criminal cases, the government can take evidence that will be relevant and then give defense counsel a chance to investigate. But with Kibby&#8217;s mobile home and shipping container &#8212; which have the odd characteristics of being both crime scene and evidence &#8212; part of the analysis has to be the surroundings. Could the nearby river drown out noises? Could neighbors see in? Those questions can&#8217;t be answered when the crime scene has been towed away.

&#8220;It&#8217;s highly unusual for the state to completely remove evidence of this nature from the scene,&#8221; said Richard Samdperil, an attorney not involved in the case. &#8220;He has an absolute constitutional right to know what evidence is being used against him.&#8221;

<snipped>
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinio...ving_target_in_abby_hernandez_kidnapping_case

(Apologies if already posted; still catching up on the thread today.)

 

[tlcya]

https://www.facebook.com/justiceforAliahnaLemmon/posts/284346734945999

Bessie posted more on this case a few pages back. In the murder and dismemberment of Aliahna Lemmon the entire trailer was moved from the park.

The fact that the home is meant to be mobile makes this a request that is not unheard of but does not come up very often MOO. Really anxious to see which way the judge rules on this aspect of the motions filed by defense attorney.