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

[tlcya]

That is why this is such an interesting aspect of the case to me. I can see both sides of the coin and I am very impressed with the defense attorney so far. I think he is making a pretty good argument for leaving the trailer in place but if I were the state and could move it I would be trying to do just what they are.

 

[Fireweed]

Yes but even a "real" home is not impervious to the elements. There is always that risk. The state can put a tarp over Kibby's home if it needs to. I just find hauling it off to be overkill when clearly the state has other ways of protecting the evidence.

BTW, IMO, hauling it off would be way more likely to damage evidence than just leaving it there. What if there was an accident on the road and the whole thing was destroyed?

 

[Orgona]

Sorry for OT, but while I was watching the video of Kibby at the police station, it stopped playing and Kibby lost his head... :thinking: :waitasec: :giggle:

 

[pinkandgreenmom]

I cannot link it for some reason but the Boston Globe just posted an article about the postponing of the hearing that says the judge has ruled in favor of the defense and the state will not be permitted to move the mobile home and the state must preserve the evidence "in place until the defense has a meaningful opportunity to investigate his defenses and is given constitutionally guaranteed access to all the evidence available at the actual scene."

I hope this is the right link. Sorry, computer problems and my tech support (13 year old) isn't available to help

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...aniel-kibby/z9o9SV1eKzEHhNxVHGlBZJ/story.html

 

[tlcya]

While arguing, Young described the container, saying it is split into three areas: “a front section, a middle section that takes up the bulk of the container and a third section that I will not go into details because the investigation is ongoing.”

http://abcnews.go.com/US/details-alleged-kidnappers-shipping-container-secret/story?id=24868893

I want to know more about that 3r section because it seems to be something the state is focuse on.

 

[bessie]

I Googled, and can't find a case with this name, or even changing it to Slipstream, in case they misspelled.

I don't have time to search, but there is a business by that name in Westwood, MA.

http://www.xommerce.com/company/city/westwood/29344/splitstream/6119943/

 

[bessie]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...aniel-kibby/z9o9SV1eKzEHhNxVHGlBZJ/story.html

---

“The court does not suggest that the State’s obligation is to preserve the scene and the structures in place until the end of Kibby’s case. Rather, the Court orders the State to preserve the evidence in place until the defense has a meaningful opportunity to investigate his defenses and is given constitutionally guaranteed access to all the evidence available at the actual scene where he is alleged to have held the alleged victim with the purpose of committing an offense against her,” Conway District Court Judge Pamela Albee said in a ruling this afternoon.

[...]

“For instance, if the mobile home and the crate are removed, the defendant will not be able to investigate the ability or inability of others to hear sounds from inside the structures, the effect the stream has on that ability or inability, what can be seen inside the structures by others on the outside, what could be seen by anyone from the inside of the structures, and what effect the tree canopy may have on what others may have been able or unable to hear,” the judge said.

In short, the judge said, defense attorneys wanted to recreate the scene “to evaluate the plausibility of another hearing or not hearing sounds consistent with someone being held against her will.”

"...efforts to preserve evidence actually have the effect of denying the defendant access to admittedly relevant and material evidence, the mobile home and the crate, at the scene.”

[...]

The judge also ordered the prosecution to release search warrants relative to the crime scene to the defense “subject to such protective orders as the State feels necessary to preserve the integrity of its on-going investigation.”

---

 

[tlcya]

OSSIPEE —A judge decided Nathaniel Kibby's mobile home and storage container will stay put till his lawyers get a chance to do a "meaningful" investigation of the scene as it is.

SNIP

But Kibby's public defender, Jesse Friedman, says members of his defense team need the items to stay put so they can conduct their own search for exculpatory evidence.

Albee said the defense must have an opportunity to investigate the property which includes taking photos and making measurements. She said the state must pay Kibby's lot rent until the defense can do its work. Albee also ordered the state release search warrants, but said that's subject to any protective orders the state needs to protect the investigation.

http://www.conwaydailysun.com/newsx/local-news/115714-kibby-probable-cause-postponed

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

There is a comment on that article that says this:

"They can't move this and there is a precedent for this with the State of Mass. vs Splitstream case when they tried to roll his "house" away."

Thought our legal experts might want to look at it.

I Googled, and can't find a case with this name, or even changing it to Slipstream, in case they misspelled.

I'll tweet McGovern and see if he is aware of the case. But just to clarify...this was posted by a commenter to the article or in the article itself? (on phone, can't pull it up right now)

I'm sorry; I've been traveling today and didn't end up tweeting McGovern about this--also partly because I didn't find the case mentioned in his article and didn't want to bother him about someone's comment. Anyway, guess it's a moot point in here now, since it appears the judge has ruled to keep the trailer on the property until defense has had a chance to gather their own evidence. FWIW, I sense that was probably a sound decision--for both sides.

 

[Fireweed]

I wonder how much evidence this guy was able to get rid of in that week before he was arrested?

 

[AnaTeresa]

Sounds to me like the judge tried to get at the heart of the issue with the ruling - give the defense ameaningful opportunity to investigate when apprised of the facts, but not forcing the state to spend a ton of money preserving the scene for however many years as this case plays out.

 

[tiredblondy]

Sounds to me like the judge tried to get at the heart of the issue with the ruling - give the defense ameaningful opportunity to investigate when apprised of the facts, but not forcing the state to spend a ton of money preserving the scene for however many years as this case plays out.

Yes I also think for the sake of the taxpayers a time limit should have been set. Or was it...

 

[SStarr33]

The judge's ruling is fair. The State forcing a freaking emergency hearing over that is why people don't trust LE.

 

[Fireweed]

The judge's ruling is fair. The State forcing a freaking emergency hearing over that is why people don't trust LE.

I still have to wonder how much evidence is still even in either of those buildings. Surely Kibby dumped anything too incriminating in the week before he was arrested.

 

[atthelake]

Per AAA, in NH, manufactured homes are real estate, not personal property.
http://drivinglaws.aaa.com/laws/titles-for-mobile-homes/

My AAA card states "member for over 35 years"...so I'm going with what AAA says :giggle:

 

[lawstudent]

As a tip, there are no cases with a party referred to as "State of Mass." - Mass. is a Commonwealth. They are always called Commonwealth v. Defendant. I'll look into it.

ETA: I can't find anything. Maybe this person has knowledge of a lawsuit that wouldn't be readily available and could be something like Slipstream being a company that tried to repossess a mobile home due to nonpayment? They could be confused.

 

[tlcya]

I wouldn't worry about it overmuch lawstudent. It was from a comment beneath the article so it could have just been someone who was mistaken

 

[SStarr33]

As a tip, there are no cases with a party referred to as "State of Mass." - Mass. is a Commonwealth. They are always called Commonwealth v. Defendant. I'll look into it.

ETA: I can't find anything. Maybe this person has knowledge of a lawsuit that wouldn't be readily available and could be something like Slipstream being a company that tried to repossess a mobile home due to nonpayment? They could be confused.

I did find this SlipStream item

http://www.superyachts.com/motor-yacht-4700/slipstream.htm

 

[SStarr33]

Here is another

http://www.superyachttimes.com/editorial/33/article/id/2699

LOL

 

[Not Without Peril]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized[FONT=Lucida Sans Unicode, Lucida Grande, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans serif].[/FONT]

[FONT=Lucida Sans Unicode, Lucida Grande, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans serif]Is not a part of that 4th amendment argument that places are searched and persons or things seized? I thought the defense was fighting the trailer and container being moved (seized). I thought it was arguing that the search warrants gave the right to search and not seize because it is a place, not a tangible "thing"[/FONT]

Kibby has not raised a Fourth Amendment issue. See Hearing.