Spoliation Motion Sept 22, 2009 Includes Response

[MissJames]

And why isn't is possible there were prints between the multiple layers of duct tape across Caylee's face? It seems to me if nowhere else, between the layers would be a place that would be protected from time and elements. Nothing holds prints like duct tape (and it's industrial strength, at that!). And that could be retained as work product....

I guess until I hear at trial that there were absolutely NO fingerprints, I will believe there were and the State is just holding onto that evidence for now.

JMO.

Perhaps used gloves? But I doubt it.
Once the sticky part with prints came into contact with something else [Caylee's skin,hair ]maybe the prints were ruined and the tape took on the print of the more recent contact.

 

[The World According]

Perhaps used gloves? But I doubt it.
Once the sticky part with prints came into contact with something else [Caylee's skin,hair ]maybe the prints were ruined and the tape took on the print of the more recent contact.

I suppose this is one of the questions posed to the Anthony's in depositions, if they kept gloves in their kitchen supplies. I wonder how much time and presence of mind Casey had while putting the baby in a bag, a laundry bag, then a eventual second trash bag. Ten more seconds to get the gloves from under the kitchen counter where she reached for the trash bags is not a stretch for me. She watched enough TV and movies to know about fingerprints. I always assumed she put on the yellow kitchen gloves we all have around the house. It is the only reason for the absence of prints on any of it , in my humble opinion. The fact that all the items in the bag trace back to her own home is very compelling for me.

 

[Sdavidson11]

I think I remember Dr. G's notes or statement about the adhesive of a heart shape of a sticker. If this is the case, I am sure she photographed that evidence. I am not stating this as fact, I will go look for a link, but my memory has something stored regarding that adhesive and Dr. G. Along with the CSI team that found the baby with duct tape on the front part of the skull holding the mandible in place, you would think they would photograph that from every angle and close up. After typing that the residue from a sticker is the least of the defenses problems again here starts the smoke and mirrors. This will be the beginning of the long list of slanderous conclusions by the defense and they are starting with the FBI, these folks have balls of Steele. This will be interesting in how far will they go and who will believe them in the deconstruction of the evidence. I am waiting to see how they will get around the 31 days.:crazy: All I can hope for is Justice for Caylee.

My memory was waaaay off. The only information that I found was that when the ME was finished the duct tape was sent to FBI. The lab did find the heart shaped residue and sent YM an initial report of the finding. So no photographic evidence of the heart shaped residue has been disclosed so far from any other source including the FBI. Only the visual from the FBI in the report to YM. So for the defense this will allow them to argue procedure. But as I have said the state has far more evidence than the heart sticker. I am bummed.:shakehead:

 

[Muzikman]

here is the Defense Reply to the State's Response to the Motion To Dismiss Due To Spoliation Of Evidence, filed today, Oct. 12 2009. Has an exhibit defining the term Spoliation, which they say the SA doesn't understand

Definitely interested in our esteemed legal eagles opinions of this reply...

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=13087975

 

[AZlawyer]

here is the Defense Reply to the State's Response to the Motion To Dismiss Due To Spoliation Of Evidence, filed today, Oct. 12 2009. Has an exhibit defining the term Spoliation, which they say the SA doesn't understand

Definitely interested in our esteemed legal eagles opinions of this reply...

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=13087975

I agree with the defense that their use of the civil term "spoliation" rather than the criminal term "unconstitutional destruction of evidence" is no big deal.

Instead, the problem with the defense's argument is that they use the word "destruction" to include incredibly careful, detailed and well-documented processing of a crime scene.

 

[sleutherontheside]

The State of Florida is fortunate to have AL on hand to serve as an extension of "DICTIONARY.COM".* I also feel the need to point out that the defense's CONTINUED "whining" (whether verbally or in written form) is getting old and more pathetic.* IF Caylee's body had been discovered in the home, identified by the defendant, and legal counsel was already on board MAYBE they could argue that they were unfairly denied access.* No, wait...I take that back....even that's not reasonable.* Bottom line.....Caylee's body was scattered in the woods.* She had to be identified by DNA.* Their argument that they were denied access is a moot point until a positive ID had been made.* Thanks to KC, that took a while.* Perhaps if she had directed them to the body earlier, they may have had a chance.* So JB.....King of the "It's not in my clients best interest to say anything that could be used blah blah blah" can't have it both ways. I'm beginning to wonder if he has a split personality because the constant dichotomy between what he says and what he does is beyond belief.

 

[Jolynna]

That is a pretty nasty response. They are accusing the state of deliberately destroying evidence.

 

[countzero]

That is a pretty nasty response. They are accusing the state of deliberate evidence destruction.

You betcha it is. Love to be a fly on the wall when Judge Strickland is reading these motions. Hope he has lots of pencils and/or erasers handy when he is jotting down his notes while reading them.

ALyons certainly is and in the future will NOT be making any friends in Orlando.

 

[cyberborg]

That is a pretty nasty response. They are accusing the state of deliberately destroying evidence.

Isn't that there only hope though? The dump location in Suburban is damning for KC with all of the evidence there and being so local. If the Defense can taint all that, even though the access to a crime scene is not reasonable / normal at the same time it is being processed by LE --- if the Defense can use this unusual circumstance with the perp already in jail and a Defense team in place --- to attack and seed suspicion that all traces of SODDI were destroyed, it is the only counter.

 

[sleutherontheside]

I always enjoy watching a movie until the VERY end in "case" it includes a goof / spoof reel. However, in the case of SOF vs. KCA......it will be anti-climactic as we are seeing everything in REAL TIME. JMO

 

[Valhall]

here is the Defense Reply to the State's Response to the Motion To Dismiss Due To Spoliation Of Evidence, filed today, Oct. 12 2009. Has an exhibit defining the term Spoliation, which they say the SA doesn't understand

Definitely interested in our esteemed legal eagles opinions of this reply...

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=13087975

You know, after the several weeks of cornholio motions from the defense, I think Judge Strickland has earned himself the right to a good ol' fashion "I'm half-past give a s***" speech. I'm hoping he cashes in that ticket at this week's hearing.

 

[JSR]

I agree with the defense that their use of the civil term "spoliation" rather than the criminal term "unconstitutional destruction of evidence" is no big deal.

Instead, the problem with the defense's argument is that they use the word "destruction" to include incredibly careful, detailed and well-documented processing of a crime scene.

Agreed that it wasn't as a big deal.

But in the big picture it says a lot about their work product and their dedication to helping save their clients life. If you play with the big boys in a DP case the appropriate terminology should have been used.

I have never filed in a criminal proceeding. But if my firm did do criminal work you can bet any filing that leaves our office would have been perfection. Absolute perfection. As it is with all firms, we have a duty to our client to put forth the best work product possible. I'm sure being in the legal field you're aware that most of the important work done in a case happens outside of trial. Every motion and filing is crucial to your case when and if it goes to trial.

In my opinion their motions have not been presented very well. And if they can't even get past getting a hearing to at least submit oral argument they're in a heap of trouble.

 

[cecybeans]

Spoliation, according to the defense, is the fact that HL was not allowed at the crime scene to contaminate or plant evidence, imo.

What a nauseating and obnoxious claim. LE had to spend all that time at the crime scene because IT TOOK THAT LONG FOR THEM TO FIND ALL OF CAYLEE'S LITTLE BONES THAT WERE SCATTERED.

In the motions, cases cited indicate the defense must prove bad faith (where is that evidcence?) or that the evidence destroyed must be potentially exculpatory.

Shouldn't they have to at least speculate what sort of evidence may have been destroyed and why it might be exculpatory? Shouldn't they have to even prove that evidence was actually destroyed? Simply claiming that a completely processed crime scene automatically has destroyed "potentially exculpatory" evidence sounds like another typical straw man argument the defense seems to wallow in. Smoke and mirrors.

 

[countzero]

Spoliation, according to the defense, is the fact that HL was not allowed at the crime scene to contaminate or plant evidence, imo.

What a nauseating and obnoxious claim. LE had to spend all that time at the crime scene because IT TOOK THAT LONG FOR THEM TO FIND ALL OF CAYLEE'S LITTLE BONES THAT WERE SCATTERED.

In the motions, cases cited indicate the defense must prove bad faith (where is that evidcence?) or that the evidence destroyed must be potentially exculpatory.

Shouldn't they have to at least speculate what sort of evidence may have been destroyed and why it might be exculpatory? Shouldn't they have to even prove that evidence was actually destroyed? Simply claiming that a completely processed crime scene automatically has destroyed "potentially exculpatory" evidence sounds like another typical straw man argument the defense seems to wallow in. Smoke and mirrors.

Add to yours, IIRC didn't Judge Strickland give JB a polite dressdown about how he legally could not interfere with LE's processing of the crime scene? As well as HL was actually going to be in town for some conference so HL could schedule his review of the crime scene around that? And that it wasn't the states responsibility but JB's to coordinate the defense's travel timeline around LE releasing the crime scene to the defense?

Let's also not forget the debacle regarding Caylee's remains being released and left sitting in a small cardboard box at the funeral was due to JB & crew's inadequacy.:furious:

 

[zoey]

Add to yours, IIRC didn't Judge Strickland give JB a polite dressdown about how he legally could not interfere with LE's processing of the crime scene? As well as HL was actually going to be in town for some conference so HL could schedule his review of the crime scene around that? And that it wasn't the states responsibility but JB's to coordinate the defense's travel timeline around LE releasing the crime scene to the defense?

Let's also not forget the debacle regarding Caylee's remains being released and left sitting in a small cardboard box at the funeral was due to JB & crew's inadequacy.:furious:

also after LE was done with the scene and ready to release it to jb and crew--they didn't want it---then finally someone told jb they did and they madet he night visits....

 

[BeanE]

I'm missing two things. Could one of you good people help me please?

1 - "Yet, the Defense has shown that the State knew the identity of the remains"

Can someone point me to where the defense showed the state knew the identity prior to confirmation?

2 - the references to the "potentially exculpatory evidence" that the state supposedly destroyed

*What* potentially exculpatory evidence are they referring to? (Or are they just sayng that *maybe* something was there that *maybe* coulda/woulda been exculpatory *maybe* was destroyed?)

TIA

 

[strach304]

That is a pretty nasty response. They are accusing the state of deliberately destroying evidence.

All in line with Casey's reasoning. SODDI and LE hates me and set me up. They wanted the FBI because local LE wasn't doing their job right and when they got the FBI and things didn't go their way I suppose they are corrupt also. The world according to the A's and Casey. That's all they have.

 

[whiteangora]

I'm missing two things. Could one of you good people help me please?

1 - "Yet, the Defense has shown that the State knew the identity of the remains"

Can someone point me to where the defense showed the state knew the identity prior to confirmation?

2 - the references to the "potentially exculpatory evidence" that the state supposedly destroyed

*What* potentially exculpatory evidence are they referring to? (Or are they just sayng that *maybe* something was there that *maybe* coulda/woulda been exculpatory *maybe* was destroyed?)

TIA

bbm
This is a sticky one AFAIC. I really believe that the State DID know, not officially, since the DNA testing took some time. But, they held out as long as they possibly could before coming right out and saying it was Caylee.
I can't fault them because their goal was to preserve the dump site,
but the day that Yuri got in the ME's van and rode with Caylee's little bones to the ME's office - I knew that they knew.

 

[Macushla]

bbm
This is a sticky one AFAIC. I really believe that the State DID know, not officially, since the DNA testing took some time. But, they held out as long as they possibly could before coming right out and saying it was Caylee.
I can't fault them because their goal was to preserve the dump site,
but the day that Yuri got in the ME's van and rode with Caylee's little bones to the ME's office - I knew that they knew.

BBM: I had not seen that information posted anywhere before. Can you tell me where it came from?

 

[cecybeans]

If the state knew the remains were Caylee prior to testing (and let's face it we all did, even the dispatcher groaned when she was told the "Caylee Anthony area" in the 911 call) - it was only after hearing about KC's response or lack thereof at the jail. (sarcasm intended).

This echoes the paranoia JB instilled in KC and his previous murder client by which they accuse the SA and court of being harsh simply because they wouldn't take a plea deal. Lame!