View Full Version : Huckaby defense seeks second Sandra Cantu autopsy
DairyGirl
04-17-2009, 12:13 AM
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090416/A_NEWS/90416015/-1/A_NEWS
STOCKTON — A judge refused to rule on a request today by Melissa Huckaby’s attorney to have 8-year-old Sandra Cantu’s body removed from her Tracy mausoleum so the defense could conduct its own autopsy.
San Joaquin County Deputy Public Defender Sam Behar’s request — drawing the judge’s reproach and sharp opposition from the prosecutor — unfolded in a Stockton courtroom the same afternoon thousands of mourners gathered in Tracy to remember Sandra’s short life.
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090416/A_NEWS/90416015/-1/A_NEWS
STOCKTON — A judge refused to rule on a request today by Melissa Huckaby’s attorney to have 8-year-old Sandra Cantu’s body removed from her Tracy mausoleum so the defense could conduct its own autopsy.
San Joaquin County Deputy Public Defender Sam Behar’s request — drawing the judge’s reproach and sharp opposition from the prosecutor — unfolded in a Stockton courtroom the same afternoon thousands of mourners gathered in Tracy to remember Sandra’s short life.
Good lord, they should have requested that before she was laid to rest. And I hope the judge rules against them and their stupid fishing expedition. They can't even let her rest in peace.
Lovejac
04-17-2009, 12:40 AM
Sweet Jesus! How much more can this poor family take???
Sweet Jesus! How much more can this poor family take???
I agree. This is so sad... I guess Huckaby and her defense team really don't have any shame...
Dr. Know?
04-17-2009, 12:52 AM
What did this PD do, take Jose Baez lessons? How awful to ask.
Salem
04-17-2009, 01:01 AM
Good lord, they should have requested that before she was laid to rest. And I hope the judge rules against them and their stupid fishing expedition. They can't even let her rest in peace.
You took the words right out of my fingers, Levi! How dare they now, come in with such a request. This should have been brought up at the arraignment so that the family would know such a thing was coming before the memorial service and Sandra's internment. How dare they! :furious::furious:
I can not stand the thought of having Sandra subjected to anymore - so I can only imagine the pain her family must feel because of this request. Enough - leave them alone now.
Salem
JoeFromLB
04-17-2009, 01:07 AM
Well, well, well...the circus begins.
I wonder what kind of a "Dream Team" she's going to come up with.
What did this PD do, take Jose Baez lessons? How awful to ask.
I know the name Jose Baez came right to mind when I read about this stupid stunt!
I wish they would just go ahead an disbarr Baez, he is worse than Nifong, but that is another rant for another case...
Some defense lawyers make me angry! :behindbar
You took the words right out of my fingers, Levi! How dare they now, come in with such a request. This should have been brought up at the arraignment so that the family would know such a thing was coming before the memorial service and Sandra's internment. How dare they! :furious::furious:
I can not stand the thought of having Sandra subjected to anymore - so I can only imagine the pain her family must feel because of this request. Enough - leave them alone now.
Salem
Anyone know the name of the attorney representing Huckaby?
Dr. Know?
04-17-2009, 01:47 AM
Anyone know the name of the attorney representing Huckaby?
I thought it had been published but after searching, all I could find was the woman representing her at the arraignment was not going to be her PB. Sorry.
DairyGirl
04-17-2009, 02:05 AM
Anyone know the name of the attorney representing Huckaby?
Sam Behar, a longtime attorney in the San Joaquin County Public Defender's Office, said Wednesday that he will represent Huckaby. He said he knows little about the woman and could not discuss the case.
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090416/A_NEWS02/904160336
JoeFromLB
04-17-2009, 02:10 AM
Anyone know the name of the attorney representing Huckaby?
Public Defender Ellen Schwarzenberg represented MH at the arraignment.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090414/ap_on_re_us/girl_in_suitcase
Bobbisangel
04-17-2009, 02:40 AM
Whether we like it or not the judge who has the case at trial is going to have to allow this. If not, it will probably be grounds for a mistrial. They could have at least had enough respect for little Sandra and her family to make this request before the little one was laid to rest. It just goes to show that they weren't thinking of Sandra or her family but only of Melissa H. For the defense it is all about Melissa now.
I would guess that the defense is going to try and get a forensic expert to do the second autopsy so that he can say there was no rape by foreign objects. That is probably what they are aiming for. The rape and molestation is a biggie in this case.
Good lord, they should have requested that before she was laid to rest. And I hope the judge rules against them and their stupid fishing expedition. They can't even let her rest in peace.
The defense would not be doing their job very well if they didn't explore/confirm/deny the prosecutions evidence. This is standard procedure folks. Remember, not all conclusions drawn from evidence is black and white. There is often a lot of gray area in regards to interpretation of said evidence. The state and their experts are not infallible.
"Innocence until proven guilty in a court of law" applies to everyone or no one at all.
daisy.faithfull
04-17-2009, 05:05 AM
No.:no: No.:no: No.:no: No.:no: This feels like one more violation. How much more can her family take? No.:cry: No.:cry: No.:cry: This seems so wrong on so many levels. Can the prosecution present this as further evidence of cold heartedness and indifference. :rage::rage::rage:
The judge better think about this one. Has there ever been a case where this kind of request has been denied? I truly feel for the judge who has to make this call if they indeed are bound by law to allow this.
On the other hand I'm wondering why this was not considered before releasing her body to the family.:curses: Could this situation have been avoided with a little forethought from "the powers that be". I wouldn't think that it is unusual for the defense to request such a thing. I would think that they actually should have anticipated this. There better be some heads rollin' if this is the case.:viking:
I understand the "guilty until proven innocent" concept. I just think that this is also a case of victim rights. Not sure if I am stretching the definition for that one, but I see this as such a violation.
docwho3
04-17-2009, 05:17 AM
I wonder if sometimes, when an atty. has a client that has so much evidence stacked up against them the accused is certain to be convicted, that perhaps it is decided to put up a really lousy defense so that a few years later it can be said that the accused was denied an adequate defense and thus get a new trial. After so much time has passed you can count on some evidence getting lost and some witnesses may move, die or no longer have a clear memory of the case. The chances of the client at that 2nd trial might thus be better.
Or I suppose one could ask for something sensitive such as a 2nd autopsy but only after the victim has been buried so the chances are greater the request might be denied and thus lay grounds for a retrial down the road again.
Maybe those things never really happen in such serious cases. . . . . . . maybe. I don't know but it makes me wonder.
SharetheLight
04-17-2009, 08:22 AM
No.:no: No.:no: No.:no: No.:no: This feels like one more violation. How much more can her family take? No.:cry: No.:cry: No.:cry: This seems so wrong on so many levels. Can the prosecution present this as further evidence of cold heartedness and indifference. :rage::rage::rage:
The judge better think about this one. Has there ever been a case where this kind of request has been denied? I truly feel for the judge who has to make this call if they indeed are bound by law to allow this.
On the other hand I'm wondering why this was not considered before releasing her body to the family.:curses: Could this situation have been avoided with a little forethought from "the powers that be". I wouldn't think that it is unusual for the defense to request such a thing. I would think that they actually should have anticipated this. There better be some heads rollin' if this is the case.:viking:
I understand the "guilty until proven innocent" concept. I just think that this is also a case of victim rights. Not sure if I am stretching the definition for that one, but I see this as such a violation.
bolded by me for reference
Did you mean Innocent until proven guilty or did I misunderstand what you are saying?
It is terribly sad for Sandra and her family, but a necessity for a proper defense. Why this request wasn't more timely? One can only speculate. And yes I am angry about it.
jblfelines
04-17-2009, 08:34 AM
I know the name Jose Baez came right to mind when I read about this stupid stunt!
I wish they would just go ahead an disbarr Baez, he is worse than Nifong, but that is another rant for another case...
Some defense lawyers make me angry! :behindbar
They just throw out the BS and spin stories. I am surprised Geragos didn't get into this one. He loves the camera.
This seems to be a theme these days,...second autopsy. I just hate the thought of Sandra being violated one more time. :(
I hope that the person who performed the original autopsy was fully certified and they can move on from there, using his findings. IF the alleged killer had been captured, say 2 weeks after Sandra had been buried, I doubt we would hear this same request. I don't recall in past cases, where the perp was caught some time later, where they exhumed the body to do a second autopsy. Usually, IMO, a second autopsy isn't requested unless a different COD is being sought, ie. murder vs. say accidental or whatever.
IMO, they're most likely trying to investigate the alleged sexual abuse aspect of the crime.
This is the part I hate. The accused gets all the Rights, the victim is victimized again and again and again,.................with no voice of their own.
JMHO
fran
Mouser
04-17-2009, 09:37 AM
If I were Sandra's family, allowing anyone aligned with Melissa Huckaby to have access to, control over, or in anyway touch, poke or prod Sandra's body would feel like a second rape. It may be legal, but I feel bad for the family if they have to endure this autopsy.
greatwhitenorth
04-17-2009, 09:52 AM
With all the laws we have WHY can we not protect victims and their families from further suffering. It feels to unjust.
Sorry I am a member of that catagory. Lost a friend last year to a re-offender. I will now due everything I can to fight for victim rights. We all need to...
snapdragon
04-17-2009, 10:13 AM
WHAAAT???? OMG, that is just awful. I can't even imagine what poor Sandra's family must be feeling and now this. I wish she'd just plea guilty and be done with it. The trial will be terror on Sandra's family...
I can tell you now, what with all these crazy requests, if the judge does not grant everything thing the PD wants during trial, there will be NO DP! Man, our society has really gone downhill. MH will have all the rights, the Chavez's will have little rights. Backwards.
Lady Loves Lurking
04-17-2009, 10:19 AM
I hope her Mother can withstand this. I hope she can find some peace with the thought that Sandra's body is only a shell and her baby is heaven now, impervious to all of this. I am not sure I could survive something like this happening to my child. I imagine her mom must be devastated.
If Melissa Huckaby did kill Sandra, and I am pretty sure she did, it's too bad she could not have enough compassion to spare Sandra's family the horrific details that will be revealed in the trial. The decent thing to do would be to plead guilty.
Lady Loves Lurking
04-17-2009, 10:23 AM
If they don't kill her I'm pretty sure the inmates will. Melissa Huckaby will be in protective custody, much like Casey Anthony for her entire incarceration.
I'd be begging for the death penalty, anything to spare me the years of fear and intimidation she will face.
Part of me says that is justice. Then a bigger part of me rationalizes there is no justice when a child is brutally murdered by someone she trusted. This case makes me sick.
snapdragon
04-17-2009, 10:28 AM
You know, I wonder if MH is insisting to her PD that she did not molest/rape Sandra... MH has PROVEN herself to be a pathological liar. The days preceeding her arrest, she made NUMEROUS conflicting statements to the press and LE, all is a very carefree manner. She was even texting the media! She obviously lies so much she can't remember her lies. That fact will make this trial difficult.
snapdragon
04-17-2009, 10:33 AM
If they don't kill her I'm pretty sure the inmates will. Melissa Huckaby will be in protective custody, much like Casey Anthony for her entire incarceration.
I'd be begging for the death penalty, anything to spare me the years of fear and intimidation she will face.
Part of me says that is justice. Then a bigger part of me rationalizes there is no justice when a child is brutally murdered by someone she trusted. This case makes me sick.
I hear ya, LLL! Sometimes I think the death penalty is too good for her too. But you're right. She'll be in protective custody in jail... after awhile, she'll acclimate. The DP is the best we have.. but even if she gets it, chances are in CA she'll never be executed. Our only hope is MASSIVE public outcry. Believe it or not, Jerry Brown (mostly a liberal), who I believe will run for governer again, is actually VERY tough on crime. He, as mayor of Oakland, did a lot to support law enforcement and lower their crime rate. I believe (don't have the source to site) that he believes in DP, with SWIFT action.
BeanE
04-17-2009, 10:40 AM
The defense would not be doing their job very well if they didn't explore/confirm/deny the prosecutions evidence. This is standard procedure folks. Remember, not all conclusions drawn from evidence is black and white. There is often a lot of gray area in regards to interpretation of said evidence. The state and their experts are not infallible.
"Innocence until proven guilty in a court of law" applies to everyone or no one at all.
So you mean there was something that prevented the defense from doing their job *AND* showing some respect to this molested, raped, and murdered little girl by requesting and performing the second autopsy *BEFORE* she was laid to rest?
Sandra's memorial and burial were widely publicized. It would be hard for me to believe that the defense attorney(s) didn't know the date and time it would take place. And hard for me to believe the judge wouldn't have bent over backward to hear the motion on an emergency basis in order to expedite the second autopsy taking place before Sandra was buried.
The lack of respect shown to these defenseless, innocent, murdered children is just really more than I can take or stomach. We MUST value our children more. We MUST insist that the dignity and respect of these murdered children come first and foremost. Excuses to do otherwise are reprehensible and unacceptable.
LaLaw2000
04-17-2009, 10:41 AM
:furious::furious::furious:
I am just now reading this and cannot believe it!
I may be wrong, but I do think the judge can rule against a second autopsy. The Cantu's just buried their child and went through the Memorial Service yesterday. This is just too much. It is another violation of Sandra.
So is MH saying she did not do this? Is there not enough proof from the Medical Examiners autopsy?
Where are our WS attorneys? I would like to see where it is stated in the law that the defense of an alledged murderer has a right to a second autopsy! Please, anyone?
LaLaw2000
04-17-2009, 10:47 AM
Sam Behar, a longtime attorney in the San Joaquin County Public Defender's Office, said Wednesday that he will represent Huckaby. He said he knows little about the woman and could not discuss the case.
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090416/A_NEWS02/904160336
Thanks for the link, DairyGirl.
I have bolded what I think about this man. :furious:
Lady Loves Lurking
04-17-2009, 10:50 AM
I would think they could simply have another Medical Examiner examine the findings of the first... If they find a problem with the autopsy then I could see requesting she be exhumed. It seems to me they are risking making a jury even less sympathetic with this. I know if I was sitting in that box it would weigh on my mind.
An update article on the one that Dairygirl posted as the OP. (Thank you very much Dairygirl)
April 17, 2009 6:00 AM
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090417/A_NEWS/904170320
...Murray said he was disappointed Behar approached him and not Superior Court Judge Terrence Van Oss, who has been assigned to take up Huckaby's case next Friday.
Behar said Van Oss is not on the bench this week, and he also expects Van Oss to dismiss himself because of a conflicting case with Huckaby's prosecutor. Behar said he couldn't wait and had no choice but to ask Murray...
...Most homicide cases involve a single, independent pathologist's report such as the one performed by the San Joaquin County Coroner's Office...
...Put off by Murray, Behar has two options: to make his case before the state's 3rd District Court of Appeal or to wait for next Friday's scheduled hearing in Stockton.
San Joaquin County Deputy District Attorney Thomas Testa argued against Behar, saying he needed time to prepare a written response, consult with Tracy police detectives and his pathologist and give Sandra's family a chance to be in court and state their own objection to disturbing the girl's remains...
More at link. I think I like Testa given his response.
As for presumption of innocence until proven guilty...I'm going to let the court and the jury to decide the defendent's fate to entertain presumption of innocence. I, for one, trust that TPD has arrested the correct person and because I am not going to be a member of that jury and I am not a court official This is only a discussion board and I do not have to abide by the rules of the court in order to express an opinion. If we were to assume that all defendents of all cases here on this board were innocent then there really wouldn't be much to discuss JMHO
SeriouslySearching
04-17-2009, 10:53 AM
I have to disagree the defense should have asked prior to her being laid to rest after we watched Caylee held hostage by the defense team/family for so long. At least Sandra's family didn't have to wait to hold services and Sandra wasn't used in a tug of war for their (defense's) own purposes.
The defense does not require a second autopsy or have it go towards automatic mistrial etc., imo. They should have adequate photos and evidence from the ME to use for their case. I am sure this point is not going to be lost on the Judge.
If they are allowed to do a 2nd autopsy, I don't see it as a horrible thing. We all want justice for Sandra and her family. If this is part of putting the witch behind bars or to send her to death row then it becomes neccessary to move this case forward. We have to let the defense do their job in order to insure she receives a fair trial. It would be far worse to have Melissa back out in society later.
SeriouslySearching
04-17-2009, 11:02 AM
An update article on the one that Dairygirl posted as the OP. (Thank you very much Dairygirl)
April 17, 2009 6:00 AM
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090417/A_NEWS/904170320
More at link. I think I like Testa given his response.
As for presumption of innocence until proven guilty...I'm going to let the court and the jury to decide the defendent's fate to entertain presumption of innocence. I, for one, trust that TPD has arrested the correct person and because I am not going to be a member of that jury and I am not a court official This is only a discussion board and I do not have to abide by the rules of the court in order to express an opinion. If we were to assume that all defendents of all cases here on this board were innocent then there really wouldn't be much to discuss JMHO
:clap::clap::clap::clap: I could not agree more! We can have our opinions on the guilt/innocence of the perp or express our thoughts on the outcome of cases. Innocent until proven guilty ONLY exists within the walls of a courtroom.
Columbo
04-17-2009, 11:06 AM
Here we go. The criminal has all the rights, the victim gets violated over and over again.
It sounds as if they have to let the second autopsy take place in order to get a solid trial. Geesh. Not fair!!!
"Justice" in this country is not sensible anymore. When it is obvious & proven that someone is guilty of doing something so horrendous, why do they get a break (Charles Manson, Scott Peterson). Well--in California, at least. By "break" I mean they get to live for 20 years, even if it is on Death Row.
LaLaw2000
04-17-2009, 11:08 AM
Well, I think it is totally disgusting. Testa is not happy about it either. Sandra's family has probably read the article and it is graphic as to what the defense wants to determine. I am just sick over this.
So you mean there was something that prevented the defense from doing their job *AND* showing some respect to this molested, raped, and murdered little girl by requesting and performing the second autopsy *BEFORE* she was laid to rest?
Sandra's memorial and burial were widely publicized. It would be hard for me to believe that the defense attorney(s) didn't know the date and time it would take place. And hard for me to believe the judge wouldn't have bent over backward to hear the motion on an emergency basis in order to expedite the second autopsy taking place before Sandra was buried.
The lack of respect shown to these defenseless, innocent, murdered children is just really more than I can take or stomach. We MUST value our children more. We MUST insist that the dignity and respect of these murdered children come first and foremost. Excuses to do otherwise are reprehensible and unacceptable.
I believe she (MH) is being represented by the state at the moment. The public defender who represented her at the arraignment will not be representing her in the future. From what I understand another PD has already been assigned to her case who I imagine is the one asking for a second autopsy. I'm pretty sure I heard her first PD say at the arraignment that she had conferred with MH just briefly prior to the proceedings... which would probably mean that she (PD) had just been assigned the case. i.e. The arraignment being her first order of business.
oceanblueeyes
04-17-2009, 11:29 AM
It sure makes me feel that the autopsy report is as bad as it can get concerning Melissa's guilt and the damage done to Sandra by her.
I think it will be denied. They will be given access to all of the photos, analysis and all the tissue samples taken for forensic testing. The state has to leave enough for the defense to let their own expert run their own testing.
I don't think this is going anywhere.
imo
You know, I wonder if MH is insisting to her PD that she did not molest/rape Sandra... MH has PROVEN herself to be a pathological liar. The days preceeding her arrest, she made NUMEROUS conflicting statements to the press and LE, all is a very carefree manner. She was even texting the media! She obviously lies so much she can't remember her lies. That fact will make this trial difficult.
Lying for ten-plus days to cover up your involvement in a crime does not make you a "pathological" liar. It just means you don't want to get caught. The lying would have to be habitual in nature to be considered pathological and I don't recall any proof of this coming to light. Ten days and some change does not constitute "habitual". So nothing has been proven.
We have to be careful not to incite the mob mentality and go hunting for witches...
JoeFromLB
04-17-2009, 11:55 AM
Lying for ten-plus days to cover up your involvement in a crime does not make you a "pathological" liar. It just means you don't want to get caught. The lying would have to be habitual in nature to be considered pathological and I don't recall any proof of this coming to light. Ten days and some change does not constitute "habitual". So nothing has been proven.
We have to be careful not to incite the mob mentality and go hunting for witches...
Well, it just might be more habitual than we think. We're hearing now about a restraining order she took out in 2002 against a boyfriend for "stalking" and also her accusations against her husband JH which he vehemently denies on GMA today. Somebody's lying here.
I'd like to know much more about her life. It's very relevant.
LaLaw2000
04-17-2009, 12:02 PM
It sure makes me feel that the autopsy report is as bad as it can get concerning Melissa's guilt and the damage done to Sandra by her.
I think it will be denied. They will be given access to all of the photos, analysis and all the tissue samples taken for forensic testing. The state has to leave enough for the defense to let their own expert run their own testing.
I don't think this is going anywhere.
imo
Oh, I really hope it will be denied, oceanblueeyes! I really value your opinion and have seen that you are usually right!
adnoid
04-17-2009, 12:06 PM
I wonder if sometimes, when an atty. has a client that has so much evidence stacked up against them the accused is certain to be convicted, that perhaps it is decided to put up a really lousy defense so that a few years later it can be said that the accused was denied an adequate defense and thus get a new trial. After so much time has passed you can count on some evidence getting lost and some witnesses may move, die or no longer have a clear memory of the case. The chances of the client at that 2nd trial might thus be better...
It's a pretty risky way to go, and I know of no case where it has been done. If you are accused of a crime you have an absolute right to a trial before your freedom can be taken, but if you are convicted you have NO absolute right to an appeal. In California if you are sentenced to execution the law requires the State to prepare a single direct appeal on your behalf, but that appeal can be rejected once it is done - there is no guarantee any judge will take any action on it beyond saying "no".
Further, deliberately throwing a trial would be malpractice and would end an attorney's career if proven. Would YOU want a defender who admits that he/she sends clients to death row on purpose as part of a strategy? People die in prison at the hands of other inmates, and even if you eventually get your conviction reversed you'll be in about the worst place you can for a couple decades.
Some people are guilty and all the strategy in the world won't counter the facts. Some defense attorneys are better than others, but if one of them has EVER thrown a trial on purpose I've never heard of it. I could be wrong, of course.
SharetheLight
04-17-2009, 12:06 PM
I believe she (MH) is being represented by the state at the moment. The public defender who represented her at the arraignment will not be representing her in the future. From what I understand another PD has already been assigned to her case who I imagine is the one asking for a second autopsy. I'm pretty sure I heard her first PD say at the arraignment that she had conferred with MH just briefly prior to the proceedings... which would probably mean that she (PD) had just been assigned the case. i.e. The arraignment being her first order of business.
If the PD's office doesn't have it together enough to assign counsel timely, this could be the reason for the delayed request for a second autopsy.
I am not excusing this, I am angry about it, but I am trying to look at all the circumstances which may have resulted in the delayed request.
LaLaw2000
04-17-2009, 12:08 PM
Lying for ten-plus days to cover up your involvement in a crime does not make you a "pathological" liar. It just means you don't want to get caught. The lying would have to be habitual in nature to be considered pathological and I don't recall any proof of this coming to light. Ten days and some change does not constitute "habitual". So nothing has been proven.
We have to be careful not to incite the mob mentality and go hunting for witches...
Well, MH's ex husband felt the allegations of abuse and domestic violence were lies and he stated that he did not even get to see these papers at the time as I recall from his interview today.
She has lied in this case. I have a feeling that lying comes very easy to MH.
I do not think there is a mob mentality here. And as for 'witches', the witch has been found and is in solitary confinement as we speak!
adnoid
04-17-2009, 12:17 PM
Lying for ten-plus days to cover up your involvement in a crime does not make you a "pathological" liar...
True. But it does make you a liar.
Well, MH's ex husband felt the allegations of abuse and domestic violence were lies and he stated that he did not even get to see these papers at the time as I recall from his interview today.
She has lied in this case. I have a feeling that lying comes very easy to MH. ...
Plausible. It's still his word against hers. However it does shed a little light on the subject and if proven would indicate a pathological trend.
... I do not think there is a mob mentality here. And as for 'witches', the witch has been found and is in solitary confinement as we speak!
Many innocent "witches" were burned at the stake with this same mentality years ago... let's wait for the evidence to surface before we light the match ok?
SeriouslySearching
04-17-2009, 12:32 PM
And not a very good liar to boot. ;) She was so transparent with those lies I could see right through them and the guilt was blinding to me.
True. But it does make you a liar.
...and he who has never told a lie, let him throw the first stone...
JoeFromLB
04-17-2009, 12:41 PM
And not a very good liar to boot. ;) She was so transparent with those lies I could see right through them and the guilt was blinding to me.
If Connie ends up testifying in court that the conversation about the suitcase never took place, MH is sunk.
Just speculation on my part at this point, but the whole suitcase-missing-from the driveway/lost cell phone/keys thing seems like a crock.
adnoid
04-17-2009, 12:41 PM
...and he who has never told a lie, let him throw the first stone...
I have never told a lie to law enforcement when questioned about a crime. That's the issue here. As Marc Klaas said, "The truth doesn't change".
SeriouslySearching
04-17-2009, 12:41 PM
Many innocent "witches" were burned at the stake with this same mentality years ago... let's wait for the evidence to surface before we light the match ok?I lit my match when I put together all the statements she made to the press in the first two interviews. It really wasn't difficult to decifer her lies or to figure out she was involved in Sandra's murder.
Originally posted by SeriouslySearching on 4-10-09
Melissa Huckaby admitted to:
1) Owning the suitcase in which Sandra's body was found.
2) Seeing Sandra at the time she went missing (last known person to see her alive).
3) Going to the church during the time Sandra went missing.
4) Admitting she has frequented the dump site where Sandra's body was found in HER suitcase.
5) Having a note which details the exact location of Sandra's body.
6) Having no alibi at the time Sandra went missing unless she was seen at the church by someone else.
SharetheLight
04-17-2009, 12:42 PM
If Connie ends up testifying in court that the conversation about the suitcase never took place, MH is sunk.
Just speculation on my part at this point, but the whole suitcase-missing-from the driveway/lost cell phone/keys thing seems like a crock.
I agree and wonder did she take it initially, was it at the church, or did she go back for it??
Salem
04-17-2009, 12:43 PM
Respectfully snipped ~
If Melissa Huckaby did kill Sandra, and I am pretty sure she did, it's too bad she could not have enough compassion to spare Sandra's family the horrific details that will be revealed in the trial. The decent thing to do would be to plead guilty.
And this is what her God-fearing family should be counseling her to do! Step up to the plate, take responsibility for what she has done and ask the Lord for forgiveness. She has broken one of the 10 commandments, in a church, a place of worship, peace and sanctity. If she did this and her family begins to act like the A's, I will be writing a weekly letter to the editor of the Tracy Press calling them all on their false religion.
Salem
If the PD's office doesn't have it together enough to assign counsel timely, this could be the reason for the delayed request for a second autopsy.
I am not excusing this, I am angry about it, but I am trying to look at all the circumstances which may have resulted in the delayed request.
Very plausible.
SharetheLight
04-17-2009, 12:45 PM
I have never told a lie to law enforcement when questioned about a crime. That's the issue here. As Marc Klaas said, "The truth doesn't change".
I think this is the distinction. There is a difference between lying about something insignificant vs. lying to LE about a crime that was committed.
SeriouslySearching
04-17-2009, 12:46 PM
Respectfully snipped ~
And this is what her God-fearing family should be counseling her to do! Step up to the plate, take responsibility for what she has done and ask the Lord for forgiveness. She has broken one of the 10 commandments, in a church, a place of worship, peace and sanctity. If she did this and her family begins to act like the A's, I will be writing a weekly letter to the editor of the Tracy Press calling them all on their false religion.
SalemShe has broken more than one!
Altho not confirmed by LE, she has supposedly confessed to it being an "accident". This would mean she admitted to being there at the time of Sandra's death and placing her in the suitcase etc.
SeriouslySearching
04-17-2009, 12:52 PM
I think this is the distinction. There is a difference between lying about something insignificant vs. lying to LE about a crime that was committed.I don't see a difference! Lying is lying. It means you are not credible in any situation. (If she lied previously to the court about her ex, it also means she has committed perjury.)
Salem
04-17-2009, 12:56 PM
Respectfully snipped ~
If they are allowed to do a 2nd autopsy, I don't see it as a horrible thing. We all want justice for Sandra and her family. If this is part of putting the witch behind bars or to send her to death row then it becomes neccessary to move this case forward. We have to let the defense do their job in order to insure she receives a fair trial. It would be far worse to have Melissa back out in society later.
I hear what you are saying with my head, but my heart says if I was Sandra's mother, I would trade a push for the DP in order to keep the defense/defendant from touching my child again. I understand most of the legal mumbo jumbo, but when it comes to the emotions - they don't have to make sense, they are what they are, and I would be screaming out loud at the thought that this POS could be anywhere near my child again. I know - the POS won't be there - but again - the autopsy would be for HER benefit. I would stand in front of that mosoluem (sp?) and let my fury out on ANYONE who tried to get past me. And then they would take me to the hospital in a straight jacket :mad:
Putting the whole thing in the press doesn't help.
Salem
warbuckle
04-17-2009, 01:01 PM
[Some defense lawyers make me angry! :behindbar[/QUOTE]
Thank you for saying "some". :blowkiss: They aren't all bad...especially this one :angel:
SeriouslySearching
04-17-2009, 01:02 PM
A kidnapping/rape/molestation/murder trial is never easy or pleasant for the family of the victim. The right thing would be for Melissa to confess to everything she did and take LWOP which keeps the family from having to go through a trial. The problem only comes in when a defense attorney rears his/her ugly head and decides to fight against her telling the truth, imo.
LaLaw2000
04-17-2009, 01:06 PM
Plausible. It's still his word against hers. However it does shed a little light on the subject and if proven would indicate a pathological trend.
Many innocent "witches" were burned at the stake with this same mentality years ago... let's wait for the evidence to surface before we light the match ok?
I see no one burning anyone 'at stake'. This is a forum and we are not required to wait for all the evidence to form an opinion. We are not in a courtroom here.
We have come a long way in this country and in our justice system since anyone was burned at stake. I just have to say that I do not understand your analogy with the witches. :waitasec:
I think this is the distinction. There is a difference between lying about something insignificant vs. lying to LE about a crime that was committed.
No I disagree. Anytime you deceive someone for your own benefit you are committing a sin. The circumstances surrounding that "lie" matter little in regards to distinction. The act itself is the transgression. Significance is relative.
warbuckle
04-17-2009, 01:11 PM
A kidnapping/rape/molestation/murder trial is never easy or pleasant for the family of the victim. The right thing would be for Melissa to confess to everything she did and take LWOP which keeps the family from having to go through a trial. The problem only comes in when a defense attorney rears his/her ugly head and decides to fight against her telling the truth, imo.
It is about finding the truth, but I don't see it your way. If your client tells you it was an accident or they are innocent then you need to verify your client's statements. They are innocent until proven guilty. So if an atty's client says she is innocent, he/she should check it out. If that means getting a second autopsy then it should be done. Just because she has confessed to many suspicious things doesn't make her guilty of this crime. Look at the guy who claimed he killed JBR. He had inside info and looked freaky, but it turned out he didn't.
KoldKase
04-17-2009, 01:19 PM
I haven't noticed any precedence wherein the defense gets to conduct their own autopsy.
Think of how that would go....
What victim and his/her family wouldn't feel doubly violated if defendants all got to demand their own autopsies. Once a precedence is set, it opens a floodgate. Graveyards all over opening up.
What's next? Defendants get to do physical GYN exams on rape victims?
I don't think this is going to happen.
This attorney isn't doing his/her job. He/she is asking to RAPE THE VICTIM AGAIN. Bastid.
SeriouslySearching
04-17-2009, 01:20 PM
I guess that is my low opinion of what defense attorneys do to protect their client, but as I see it...telling the truth in court isn't allowed anymore. It is all about the spin.
I don't think for a minute this woman is innocent or that they are going to be able to prove accident here. I don't think they will be able to pull off an Insanity defense either. They did not arrest her on a whim...they arrested her on evidence they collected which definitely tied her to the crime and her own words.
KoldKase
04-17-2009, 01:28 PM
The medical examiner who does the autopsy is a scientist, as well as a medical doctor. Asking for a second autopsy would be paramount to calling the ME corrupt and/or incompetent. Without SOMETHING to base that upon, some ACTUAL EVIDENCE, I don't see this happening. It will take a judge agreeing to violate the victim and her family again, as well as calling the medical examiner's skill and honesty into question.
And as I said, a precedent of just letting a defendant have access to the body just in case would open up legal issues that would have victims' families rioting in the streets, as every convicted killer would be asking for the same on appeal.
Think of the expense to the government, as well. Bodies of victims will have to be held indefinitely in the morgue because the cost of burying and digging up and re-burying bodies would be enourmous. Morgues would overflow....
I will be shocked if this happens. It would be extremely stupid, and most judges don't want to be known for being stupid.
adnoid
04-17-2009, 01:30 PM
No I disagree. Anytime you deceive someone for your own benefit you are committing a sin. The circumstances surrounding that "lie" matter little in regards to distinction. The act itself is the transgression. Significance is relative.
That's right. In front of a judge and jury, when someone lies the theory is "false in one, false in all" and the judge and jury will be asked by the opposing advocate to ignore all the evidence given by the one that lied, which the judge may instruct the jury that they have the discretion to do (ref. Wigmore on Evidence (http://www.aspenpublishers.com/Product.asp?catalog_name=Aspen&product_id=0316939706&cookie_test=1), Vol. 30, Sec. 1008) For instance, if MH's defense wants to bring in supposedly exculpatory statements where she claims in interviews with LE that she did not do it, or it was an accident, the prosecution will bring out all of her previous conflicting statements about other things and make the case that her denials should be ignored because she is a proven liar.
Truth never hurt a just cause.
KoldKase
04-17-2009, 01:34 PM
It is about finding the truth, but I don't see it your way. If your client tells you it was an accident or they are innocent then you need to verify your client's statements. They are innocent until proven guilty. So if an atty's client says she is innocent, he/she should check it out. If that means getting a second autopsy then it should be done. Just because she has confessed to many suspicious things doesn't make her guilty of this crime. Look at the guy who claimed he killed JBR. He had inside info and looked freaky, but it turned out he didn't.
I see your logic, but I so disagree with a defendant having some "right" to the body of the person they are accused of killing.
That body does not belong to the defendant. It does not belong to the state or federal government. It belongs to the family. So to get a subpoena to autopsy it AGAIN, a medical examiner will have to be brought in...AGAIN. SOME EVIDENCE that the original autopsy is flawed in some way MUST be cited to get a subpoena. Since the ORIGINAL AUTOPSY hasn't even been FINISHED, I doubt Huckaby's defense has that evidence.
A lawyer does NOT have the sanction of the court to ABUSE the body of a murder victim JUST BECAUSE he/she wants to protect his/her client. This request was made way too early, obviously to sensationalize the case even more. I consider it a very poor move, and so did the judge, apparently. The public will only hate Huckaby more for such antics.
LaLaw2000
04-17-2009, 01:35 PM
I guess that is my low opinion of what defense attorneys do to protect their client, but as I see it...telling the truth in court isn't allowed anymore. It is all about the spin.
I don't think for a minute this woman is innocent or that they are going to be able to prove accident here. I don't think they will be able to pull off an Insanity defense either. They did not arrest her on a whim...they arrested her on evidence they collected which definitely tied her to the crime and her own words.
:clap::clap::clap:
Lady Loves Lurking
04-17-2009, 01:39 PM
I have no problem with defense attorneys. Justice isn't supposed to be metered out by me with my torch. Be nice if it was though...:furious:
[/B]
I see no one burning anyone 'at stake'. This is a forum and we are not required to wait for all the evidence to form an opinion. We are not in a courtroom here.
We have come a long way in this country and in our justice system since anyone was burned at stake. I just have to say that I do not understand your analogy with the witches. :waitasec:
I use the "burning of witches" as an analogy to what I see going on here. -The accused has been hunted down by the mob, strung up and burned alive. All this well ahead of any concrete evidence or trial. I find this somewhat disturbing. Not enough for a call to arms but good enough for a wince... a wince that may feel the need to express it's distaste in the form of a reply from time to time.
And YES this is a forum and NO you needn't wait for concrete evidence in order to form an opinion but does that opinion have to hold so much venom? The question is rhetorical. Let it drift.
I see your logic, but I so disagree with a defendant having some "right" to the body of the person they are accused of killing.
That body does not belong to the defendant. It does not belong to the state or federal government. It belongs to the family. So to get a subpoena to autopsy it AGAIN, a medical examiner will have to be brought in...AGAIN. SOME EVIDENCE that the original autopsy is flawed in some way MUST be cited to get a subpoena. Since the ORIGINAL AUTOPSY hasn't even been FINISHED, I doubt Huckaby's defense has that evidence.
A lawyer does NOT have the sanction of the court to ABUSE the body of a murder victim JUST BECAUSE he/she wants to protect his/her client. This request was made way too early, obviously to sensationalize the case even more. I consider it a very poor move, and so did the judge, apparently. The public will only hate Huckaby more for such antics.
So the state needed permission from the family to do the first autopsy?
LaLaw2000
04-17-2009, 01:48 PM
I use the "burning of witches" as an analogy to what I see going on here. -The accused has been hunted down by the mob, strung up and burned alive. All this well ahead of any concrete evidence or trial. I find this somewhat disturbing. Not enough for a call to arms but good enough for a wince... a wince that may feel the need to express it's distaste in the form of a reply from time to time.
And YES this is a forum and NO you needn't wait for concrete evidence in order to form an opinion but does that opinion have to hold so much venom? The question is rhetorical. Let it drift.
We will agree to disagree which is what we should do. I do not recall any opinion I stated as being so venomous.
SeriouslySearching
04-17-2009, 01:48 PM
I have no problem with defense attorneys. Justice isn't supposed to be metered out by me with my torch. Be nice if it was though...:furious:Can I borrow your torch then?! LOL
I have a problem with some defense attorneys, but am seeking a remedy for it. ;) (It is called reform of our justice system.)
That's right. In front of a judge and jury, when someone lies the theory is "false in one, false in all" and the judge and jury will be asked by the opposing advocate to ignore all the evidence given by the one that lied, which the judge may instruct the jury that they have the discretion to do (ref. Wigmore on Evidence (http://www.aspenpublishers.com/Product.asp?catalog_name=Aspen&product_id=0316939706&cookie_test=1), Vol. 30, Sec. 1008) For instance, if MH's defense wants to bring in supposedly exculpatory statements where she claims in interviews with LE that she did not do it, or it was an accident, the prosecution will bring out all of her previous conflicting statements about other things and make the case that her denials should be ignored because she is a proven liar.
Truth never hurt a just cause.
Ok so she hasn't lied in front of a judge or jury... that makes any lies she may have told insignificant or at least in the same "significance" as the lies you have told in your past.... if I am understanding you correctly.
Lady Loves Lurking
04-17-2009, 02:03 PM
I use the "burning of witches" as an analogy to what I see going on here. -The accused has been hunted down by the mob, strung up and burned alive. All this well ahead of any concrete evidence or trial. I find this somewhat disturbing. Not enough for a call to arms but good enough for a wince... a wince that may feel the need to express it's distaste in the form of a reply from time to time.
And YES this is a forum and NO you needn't wait for concrete evidence in order to form an opinion but does that opinion have to hold so much venom? The question is rhetorical. Let it drift.
I have come to find that most people on this message board are parents that are frightened and outraged by crime. I think that most of us can look into the faces of our children and see Caylee and Sandra and Haleigh and Trenton reflected there.
Our venom comes from a place of not knowing what kind of world we have brought out children into.
IMO.
Lady Loves Lurking
04-17-2009, 02:04 PM
Can I borrow your torch then?! LOL
I have a problem with some defense attorneys, but am seeking a remedy for it. ;) (It is called reform of our justice system.)
I have extras. :)
:blowkiss:
KoldKase
04-17-2009, 02:06 PM
I use the "burning of witches" as an analogy to what I see going on here. -The accused has been hunted down by the mob, strung up and burned alive. All this well ahead of any concrete evidence or trial. I find this somewhat disturbing. Not enough for a call to arms but good enough for a wince... a wince that may feel the need to express it's distaste in the form of a reply from time to time.
And YES this is a forum and NO you needn't wait for concrete evidence in order to form an opinion but does that opinion have to hold so much venom? The question is rhetorical. Let it drift.
QNA, if you're looking for a cold, legal argument, you obviously have missed that you're in an environment that advocates for victims a great deal.
I do take issue with your patronizing INSULT. Don't call us witch-hunters again, thank you. I see NO ONE hanging from a tree nor burning at the stake, and I certainly don't see anyone holding the reins nor the match.
As to how much venom we hold, sorry, we've seen a lot of murdered children in a world that seems to have no way to protect them, and this one is as ugly as it gets. Anger will happen.
Nonni Brenda
04-17-2009, 02:16 PM
I don't see a difference! Lying is lying. It means you are not credible in any situation. (If she lied previously to the court about her ex, it also means she has committed perjury.)
I agree! Someone who lies about something "insignicant", they will lie about something important, if it serves their purpose. A liar is a liar is a liar! MOO,Nonni
KoldKase
04-17-2009, 02:21 PM
If the PD's office doesn't have it together enough to assign counsel timely, this could be the reason for the delayed request for a second autopsy.
I am not excusing this, I am angry about it, but I am trying to look at all the circumstances which may have resulted in the delayed request.
Huckaby was arrested Friday night. She was arraigned on Tues. Given that Saturday and Sunday are not court days, exactly what do you consider "timely"?
There was no delayed request.
QNA, if you're looking for a cold, legal argument, you obviously have missed that you're in an environment that advocates for victims a great deal....
I'm new here but I'm beginning to see that is the case. I will keep that in mind.
...I do take issue with your patronizing INSULT. Don't call us witch-hunters again, thank you. I see NO ONE hanging from a tree nor burning at the stake, and I certainly don't see anyone holding the reins nor the match....
Sorry but I call em' as I see em' My intent is not to insult and I'm sorry if you take it as such. As far as "seeing or not seeing " what I see, well, sometimes it's hard to see the forest for the trees.
...As to how much venom we hold, sorry, we've seen a lot of murdered children in a world that seems to have no way to protect them, and this one is as ugly as it gets. Anger will happen.
Fair enough.
Nonni Brenda
04-17-2009, 02:22 PM
A kidnapping/rape/molestation/murder trial is never easy or pleasant for the family of the victim. The right thing would be for Melissa to confess to everything she did and take LWOP which keeps the family from having to go through a trial. The problem only comes in when a defense attorney rears his/her ugly head and decides to fight against her telling the truth, imo.
MH has already proven that she doesn't know the meaning of "the right thing" by what she did to sweet Sandra. It would be easier for Sandra's family (and all of us) to think with our hearts, but the DA is getting paid to think with their heads for the family:(. I know they will make the right decision here.
daisy.faithfull
04-17-2009, 02:23 PM
bolded by me for reference
Did you mean Innocent until proven guilty or did I misunderstand what you are saying?
It is terribly sad for Sandra and her family, but a necessity for a proper defense. Why this request wasn't more timely? One can only speculate. And yes I am angry about it.
I meant to say that she is "guilty until proven innocent." :doh: Thank you for catching that. :thumb:
SeriouslySearching
04-17-2009, 02:28 PM
I have no problem with the SA's office going after her if she doesn't take a deal or offer a full confession. I want them to go after the perp with guns blazing and all their ducks in a row which in this case...I believe they have both. They have the ammo and the ducks are standing at attention.
KoldKase
04-17-2009, 02:31 PM
So now the defense attorney has to be an "azzhole" for doing his job to the best of his ability... how unfortunate for him... the accused ... and the whole legal system for that matter.
...And your warning has been noted.
When a defense attorney OVER REACHES, yeah, he/she is being an azzhole. Remember when rape victims were called every name in the book on the witness stand by defense attorneys? Before the Rape Shield laws?
There's nothing unfortunate about not letting a defendant re-victimize the victim and/or family of a victim, even if the defendant is not guilty. I consider that actually A GOOD THING. The VICTIM sure isn't GUILTY.
BeanE
04-17-2009, 02:37 PM
I believe she (MH) is being represented by the state at the moment. The public defender who represented her at the arraignment will not be representing her in the future. From what I understand another PD has already been assigned to her case who I imagine is the one asking for a second autopsy. I'm pretty sure I heard her first PD say at the arraignment that she had conferred with MH just briefly prior to the proceedings... which would probably mean that she (PD) had just been assigned the case. i.e. The arraignment being her first order of business.
Yes, I understand. But how did any of that prevent the motion and hearing for the second autopsy being expedited so that the second autopsy could be conducted prior to Sandra being laid to rest, thereby allowing Sandra the dignity and respect she deserves?
2step
04-17-2009, 02:43 PM
Question for those "law savvy" folks...
Is this a common occurance (defense asking to do their own autopsy?) I have never heard of such a thing!!
Seems like they're just rubbing salt in the wounds of Sandra's family... :(
Lady Loves Lurking
04-17-2009, 02:45 PM
They exhumed Darlie's boys. I know that.
KoldKase
04-17-2009, 02:47 PM
Yes, I understand. But how did any of that prevent the motion and hearing for the second autopsy being expedited so that the second autopsy could be conducted prior to Sandra being laid to rest, thereby allowing Sandra the dignity and respect she deserves?
On what grounds would a second autopsy be demanded? I see none, as the first autopsy hasn't even been completed? How many autopsies does a victim have to undergo? What if this defendant has her charges dismissed and a second person is later arrested? Does he get another autopsy, too, just because his defense wants one, with no grounds? What if that autopsy is considered insufficient without any grounds named? How about another one, just in case?
This would go beyond the pale of injustice, it would be a legal nightmare.
KoldKase
04-17-2009, 02:48 PM
They exhumed Darlie's boys. I know that.
Who requested that one?
SeriouslySearching
04-17-2009, 02:51 PM
Question for those "law savvy" folks...
Is this a common occurance (defense asking to do their own autopsy?) I have never heard of such a thing!!
Seems like they're just rubbing salt in the wounds of Sandra's family... :(The most recent case was that of Caylee Anthony. A second autopsy was requested, fought over, and given to the defense. The defense then took her body and held her for an extended (IMO, inappropriate) period of time which meant the accused killer/mother had complete control over the victim's remains. I honestly felt like Caylee was being held hostage and revictimized by the accused killer in that case.
Yes, I understand. But how did any of that prevent the motion and hearing for the second autopsy being expedited so that the second autopsy could be conducted prior to Sandra being laid to rest, thereby allowing Sandra the dignity and respect she deserves?
I couldn't begin to answer that without knowing the level of efficiency of the CA public defender system... I suppose you would have to ask them as to the why or why nots. I can't imagine the state (PD) is doing it on purpose to disrespect the victim or the victims family.
bp531
04-17-2009, 02:53 PM
I use the "burning of witches" as an analogy to what I see going on here. -The accused has been hunted down by the mob, strung up and burned alive. All this well ahead of any concrete evidence or trial. I find this somewhat disturbing. Not enough for a call to arms but good enough for a wince... a wince that may feel the need to express it's distaste in the form of a reply from time to time.
And YES this is a forum and NO you needn't wait for concrete evidence in order to form an opinion but does that opinion have to hold so much venom? The question is rhetorical. Let it drift.
IMO the accused voluntarily approached the mob(LE) with conflicting statements. Those statements lead to plenty of concrete evidence. Therefore it appears that the accused strung herself up.
They just throw out the BS and spin stories. I am surprised Geragos didn't get into this one. He loves the camera.
Geragos is still busy looking for the homeless satan worshippers in a brown van that murdered Laci...
SeriouslySearching
04-17-2009, 02:55 PM
Reminder: Attack the post not the poster. ;)
KoldKase
04-17-2009, 02:55 PM
Question for those "law savvy" folks...
Is this a common occurance (defense asking to do their own autopsy?) I have never heard of such a thing!!
Seems like they're just rubbing salt in the wounds of Sandra's family... :(
I can't speak to the question of whether this has ever happened before. I simply question whether it can be done without grounds. Perhaps others know the answer to your question.
What the judge decides, I don't know. But I would be shocked to see this request granted considering that the original autopsy isn't even finished. How can the defense cite any grounds without even seeing the orginal autopsy?
Guess we'll find out, as the talking heads will weigh in on this, no doubt. And the judge will rule on it, as well, eventually.
SeriouslySearching
04-17-2009, 02:58 PM
This reminds me of another case where the defense team demanded the right to the crime scene DURING the time LE was processing the scene. It was a failed attempt only staged for publicity as they knew darn well they had no right to request such a thing!
CountryGirl
04-17-2009, 03:00 PM
I haven't noticed any precedence wherein the defense gets to conduct their own autopsy.
Think of how that would go....
What victim and his/her family wouldn't feel doubly violated if defendants all got to demand their own autopsies. Once a precedence is set, it opens a floodgate. Graveyards all over opening up.
What's next? Defendants get to do physical GYN exams on rape victims?
I don't think this is going to happen.
This attorney isn't doing his/her job. He/she is asking to RAPE THE VICTIM AGAIN. Bastid.
Hi KK! I seem to remember Scott Peterson's team examining the bodies, although I don't know if that was considered a second autopsy. I believe there was a second autopsy also done on Caylee Anthony. But in both cases there hadn't been a burial yet I believe.
I read this story this morning and it really made me angry. I guess I shouldn't be surprised or shocked at the request. I am hoping the original autopsy was documented completely and there will be no need to exhume Sandra.
:wave::wave:
Nonni Brenda
04-17-2009, 03:02 PM
I use the "burning of witches" as an analogy to what I see going on here. -The accused has been hunted down by the mob, strung up and burned alive. All this well ahead of any concrete evidence or trial. I find this somewhat disturbing. Not enough for a call to arms but good enough for a wince... a wince that may feel the need to express it's distaste in the form of a reply from time to time.
And YES this is a forum and NO you needn't wait for concrete evidence in order to form an opinion but does that opinion have to hold so much venom? The question is rhetorical. Let it drift.
I can't resist adding my:twocents: . There is a difference in venom, and NORMAL ANGER. I am hearning anger not venom. Secondly, I feel this same anger myself! Not only for the sweet innocent child that was possibly drugged, and raped with A FOREIGN OBJECT, and murdered!:furious: That to me is enough bring out this degree of anger in any normal person. Then add that MH may have done this to other children, and the fact that we are all keeping our children now under lock and key to protect them from monsters like MH (alledegly???), afraid to let them even go to school, or play in our own back yards. YES WE ARE ANGRY!!! AND PROBABLY WILL BE UNTIL THIS B#### COMES TO JUSTICE. :furious::furious::furious::furious::furious::furi ous: NONNI
Nonni Brenda
04-17-2009, 03:05 PM
Am I gonna get a TO now? Never had one. Sorry, just telling you "what I really think." Nonni
SeriouslySearching
04-17-2009, 03:07 PM
There was an exhumation done in the case of Drew Peterson's ex-wife (Kathleen Savio) several years after her burial. Most exhumations and second autopsies are the result of new evidence coming to light to bring into question the first autopsy.
I think asking for a second autopsy to be performed on Sandra does go against the standard when the first has not been completed or if there is no known reason for it to be called into question already (my opinion only).
tiredofthis
04-17-2009, 03:07 PM
Am I gonna get a TO now? Never had one. Sorry, just telling you "what I really think." Nonni
Probably not.
KoldKase
04-17-2009, 03:12 PM
I think Darlie did???? They were trying to match the "foreign" fingerprint.
So the victims' family agreed, as well as there was the fact that the ME didn't take fingerprints of the victims. That would also be grounds for an exhumation, to collect evidence not taken at the original autopsy, though I have no idea if the state played a part in the second autopsy request.
KoldKase
04-17-2009, 03:13 PM
Am I gonna get a TO now? Never had one. Sorry, just telling you "what I really think." Nonni
Well, at least I'll be in good company when I get mine! Pass the cig's! :behindbar:behindbar
KoldKase
04-17-2009, 03:17 PM
There was an exhumation done in the case of Drew Peterson's ex-wife several years after her burial. Most exhumations and second autopsies are the result of new evidence coming to light to bring into question the first autopsy.
Wasn't that autopsy requested by the state, of Mrs. Peterson, when the circumstances of the first wife's death came to light? Maybe I'm not remembering that right though.
adnoid
04-17-2009, 03:21 PM
Folks, be mindful of the rules. Don't go after each other. Passion is fine, attacks are not. Clear enough?
KoldKase
04-17-2009, 03:21 PM
Hi KK! I seem to remember Scott Peterson's team examining the bodies, although I don't know if that was considered a second autopsy. I believe there was a second autopsy also done on Caylee Anthony. But in both cases there hadn't been a burial yet I believe.
I read this story this morning and it really made me angry. I guess I shouldn't be surprised or shocked at the request. I am hoping the original autopsy was documented completely and there will be no need to exhume Sandra.
:wave::wave:
IIRC, the defense was allowed to examine the remains of Lacy and her baby, but I don't believe they had been buried yet. So I don't believe the bodies had been released to the famlly, though again, it's been a long time and I may be wrong on this.
KoldKase
04-17-2009, 03:22 PM
Folks, be mindful of the rules. Don't go after each other. Passion is fine, attacks are not. Clear enough?
Crystal! :behindbar
adnoid
04-17-2009, 03:23 PM
IIRC, the defense was allowed to examine the remains of Lacy and her baby, but I don't believe they had been buried yet. So I don't believe the bodies had been released to the famlly, though again, it's been a long time and I may be wrong on this.
No, you are correct. They made their request immediately and it was all done before they were buried (iirc, of course, but I followed that one pretty closely).
Annie
04-17-2009, 03:24 PM
I haven't noticed any precedence wherein the defense gets to conduct their own autopsy.
Think of how that would go....
What victim and his/her family wouldn't feel doubly violated if defendants all got to demand their own autopsies. Once a precedence is set, it opens a floodgate. Graveyards all over opening up.
What's next? Defendants get to do physical GYN exams on rape victims?
I don't think this is going to happen.
This attorney isn't doing his/her job. He/she is asking to RAPE THE VICTIM AGAIN. Bastid.
Just put the words second autopsy into search and you may be surprised how often it is done. There are several pages on it. I think the question the defense may have is about the rape. I hope this is done right, and if there needs to be a second autopsy, it won't hurt Sandra. I think Melissa H did this but do not think she was the only one involved. I think she might be protecting someone. I hope the total truth comes out.
KoldKase
04-17-2009, 03:27 PM
The most recent case was that of Caylee Anthony. A second autopsy was requested, fought over, and given to the defense. The defense then took her body and held her for an extended (IMO, inappropriate) period of time which meant the accused killer/mother had complete control over the victim's remains. I honestly felt like Caylee was being held hostage and revictimized by the accused killer in that case.
But again, the family was Caylee's family and the defendant's family, so no one was complaining on behalf of Caylee, since the grandparents are defending Casey as innocent. So maybe that's an issue.
I doubt that Sandra's parents would find this acceptable and not be devastated by it.
oceanblueeyes
04-17-2009, 03:33 PM
Oh, I really hope it will be denied, oceanblueeyes! I really value your opinion and have seen that you are usually right!
TYVM.
I certainly hope so too.
It would be like re-victimizing Sandra to disturb her from her final resting place.
For quite awhile I have had such a queasy uneasy feeling that this is even worse than any of us can imagine. I keep thinking about the words of Sgt. S. when he said that Sandra had no VISABLE signs of trauma. The police are so guarded with their words but I just get the most sickening feeling the trauma that may have contributed to her death was INTERNAL.
And that is why the defense knows they must find hired experts to refute the MEs conclusions and cause of death, imo.
imo
KoldKase
04-17-2009, 03:40 PM
This reminds me of another case where the defense team demanded the right to the crime scene DURING the time LE was processing the scene. It was a failed attempt only staged for publicity as they knew darn well they had no right to request such a thing!
Oh, that was the Phil Spector murder, right?
Yeah, that was a big brouhaha. Spector's getting used to his new digs now. :clap:
ishouldbworking
04-17-2009, 03:42 PM
Oh, that was the Phil Spector murder, right?
Yeah, that was a big brouhaha. Spector's getting used to his new digs now. :clap:
i didnt follow Spector...but it was also done in the Caylee Anthony Case...
KoldKase
04-17-2009, 03:44 PM
i didnt follow Spector...but it was also done in the Caylee Anthony Case...
Oh, that I can see the Anthonys doing. Thanks for the info.
LaLaw2000
04-17-2009, 03:47 PM
Huckaby was arrested Friday night. She was arraigned on Tues. Given that Saturday and Sunday are not court days, exactly what do you consider "timely"?
There was no delayed request.
An arrestee has to be arraigned (or first court appearance) within 72 hours of arrest. MH was read her charges on Monday. She was arrested late Friday evening and in court on Tuesday. This was indeed 'timely' as the weekends do not count.
SeriouslySearching
04-17-2009, 03:48 PM
Wasn't that autopsy requested by the state, of Mrs. Peterson, when the circumstances of the first wife's death came to light? Maybe I'm not remembering that right though.Yes and her family supported it.
gitana1
04-17-2009, 03:49 PM
It sure makes me feel that the autopsy report is as bad as it can get concerning Melissa's guilt and the damage done to Sandra by her.
I think it will be denied. They will be given access to all of the photos, analysis and all the tissue samples taken for forensic testing. The state has to leave enough for the defense to let their own expert run their own testing.
I don't think this is going anywhere.
imo
I agree with this Ocean. Though I'm not a criminal attorney, it seems to me that second autopsies are not necessary to a defense. The ME is supposed to be a NEUTRAL expert whose findings are to be examined and used by BOTH sides. The only time second autopsies are necessary is when there is an issue with the coroner or new evidence has surfaced much later which may put into question results of the first autopsy. For example, in some Muchausen Syndrom by Proxy cases where the mother is killing all her babies, during inital deaths, the coronoer may have no reason to suspect murder and that affects his findings. After several subsequent deaths, there is reason to dig deeper and so a second autposy is ordered. I don't see anything like that here. There is no reason to believe the coroner did not do his or her job perfectly.
Plausible. It's still his word against hers. However it does shed a little light on the subject and if proven would indicate a pathological trend.
Many innocent "witches" were burned at the stake with this same mentality years ago... let's wait for the evidence to surface before we light the match ok?
At WS, we vent. It is a place for us to express our opinions. No one on here has ever tried to organize a mob to go burn a witch or lynch a suspect. In general, I feel we all respect the legal system but as we are not jurors, we are allowed to form an opinion based on what info we have. That is what we are doing here. In fact, I think our opinions may prove valuable to either side of a case because they represent a microcosm of what the public at large thinks. That is helpful to determing strategy for both sides.
Look, I'm angry as he!! and I think I have a right to be. Someone precious was taken from us. I have no reason to think that LE has not and is not doing their job in a completely professional manner. I don't think they honed in on MH until she inserted herself into the case. I trust they have the evidence they need and that the right person was arrested.
The medical examiner who does the autopsy is a scientist, as well as a medical doctor. Asking for a second autopsy would be paramount to calling the ME corrupt and/or incompetent. Without SOMETHING to base that upon, some ACTUAL EVIDENCE, I don't see this happening. It will take a judge agreeing to violate the victim and her family again, as well as calling the medical examiner's skill and honesty into question.
And as I said, a precedent of just letting a defendant have access to the body just in case would open up legal issues that would have victims' families rioting in the streets, as every convicted killer would be asking for the same on appeal.
Think of the expense to the government, as well. Bodies of victims will have to be held indefinitely in the morgue because the cost of burying and digging up and re-burying bodies would be enourmous. Morgues would overflow....
I will be shocked if this happens. It would be extremely stupid, and most judges don't want to be known for being stupid.
Bump. Well said, totally agree.
2step
04-17-2009, 03:50 PM
There was an exhumation done in the case of Drew Peterson's ex-wife several years after her burial. Most exhumations and second autopsies are the result of new evidence coming to light to bring into question the first autopsy.
I think asking for a second autopsy to be performed on Sandra does go against the standard when the first has not been completed or if there is no known reason for it to be called into question already (my opinion only).
Makes sense to me when there's a possibility of more evidence, but not when they JUST completed the first autopsy and JUST buried the victim. I seriously hope that the judge will NOT allow this kind of circus in this case... :hand:
scandi
04-17-2009, 03:51 PM
I have no problem with the SA's office going after her if she doesn't take a deal or offer a full confession. I want them to go after the perp with guns blazing and all their ducks in a row which in this case...I believe they have both. They have the ammo and the ducks are standing at attention.
ITA SS, If there ever was a case where LE held their ducks close to their vest as they lined them up all in a row, this one is one of the tightest I've seen except for the Michelle Young case.
Furthermore LE was greatly assisted by the accused as she handed ammo to them on a silver platter, almost to say come and get me if you can!
SeriouslySearching
04-17-2009, 03:51 PM
Oh, that was the Phil Spector murder, right?
Yeah, that was a big brouhaha. Spector's getting used to his new digs now. :clap:No, it came from the Casey A. dream team. They stood in the street at the site while LE was still processing it and kvetched to the media about not being allowed access to the dump site during the investigation. It was ridiculous, imo.
oceanblueeyes
04-17-2009, 03:51 PM
Yes and her family supported it.
I am trying to remember back about some of these instances where the body was exhumed and so far the ones I can recall the family of the deceased person gave their permission or was in agreement with the state to have it exhumed.
I cannot see that happening with the Chavez/Cantu family.
imo
KoldKase
04-17-2009, 04:01 PM
Here is a CNN transcript of the Anthony case where the issues of the second autopsy was being discussed. I believe the judge had denied it at this point, but differing points of view are expressed:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0812/16/ijvm.01.html
Here is a timeline page where it lists the issue of the second autopsy in the Anthony case being denied:
http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2008/12/12/minutetominute_update_in_remains_discovery_12_11.h tml
Tuesday, Dec. 16
2:25 p.m.
Judge Stan Strickland denies the defense's request for photos, drawings and videos from the discovery site. He also says the request for a second autopsy is moot because the first autopsy has not yet been complete.
LaLaw2000
04-17-2009, 04:05 PM
Here is a CNN transcript of the Anthony case where the issues of the second autopsy was being discussed. I believe the judge had denied it at this point, but differing points of view are expressed:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0812/16/ijvm.01.html
Here is a timeline page where it lists the issue of the second autopsy in the Anthony case being denied:
http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2008/12/12/minutetominute_update_in_remains_discovery_12_11.h tml
Tuesday, Dec. 16
2:25 p.m.
Judge Stan Strickland denies the defense's request for photos, drawings and videos from the discovery site. He also says the request for a second autopsy is moot because the first autopsy has not yet been complete.
Thank you, KoldKase!!!
Judge Stan Strickland is one smart judge!
I do hope the judge in Sandra's case will hold the same standard!
SeriouslySearching
04-17-2009, 04:06 PM
I agree. The Judge should deny the request in Sandra's case.
LaLaw2000
04-17-2009, 04:12 PM
I do hope MH's defense attorney is not another Baez. I just do not want this to turn into another circus like little Caylee's case has.
Does anyone local know anything about him?
KoldKase
04-17-2009, 04:41 PM
Here is a more detailed article on the defense request. Apparently he is trying to find evidence there was no rape, or that the rape wasn't committed by Huckaby, no doubt to remove the death penalty from the table.
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090417/A_NEWS/904170320
Defense request to disinter body on hold
By Scott Smith
Record Staff Writer
April 17, 2009 6:00 AM
STOCKTON - A judge refused to rule on a request Thursday by Melissa Huckaby's attorney to have 8-year-old Sandra Cantu's body removed from her Tracy mausoleum so the defense could conduct its own autopsy.
San Joaquin County Deputy Public Defender Sam Behar's request - drawing the judge's reproach and sharp opposition from the prosecutor - unfolded in a Stockton courtroom the same afternoon thousands of mourners gathered in Tracy to remember Sandra's short life.
San Joaquin County Superior Court Presiding Judge William J. Murray Jr. said he would not make a final determination on Behar's motion, because that decision rests with the judge assigned to the case.
Murray said he was disappointed Behar approached him and not Superior Court Judge Terrence Van Oss, who has been assigned to take up Huckaby's case next Friday.
Behar said Van Oss is not on the bench this week, and he also expects Van Oss to dismiss himself because of a conflicting case with Huckaby's prosecutor. Behar said he couldn't wait and had no choice but to ask Murray.
"Every hour is critical," Behar told the judge, adding that he's worried Sandra's body is deteriorating. "Any delay will be prejudicial to my client."
[snip]
Behar's request came the day after he was assigned to represent Huckaby, the 28-year-old Tracy woman charged with murder and the special circumstances of kidnapping, lewd and lascivious acts on a child, and rape with a foreign object - charges that make her eligible for the death penalty if convicted.
Sandra's body was placed in a casket even before Huckaby's arrest. Behar, who was later assigned to Huckaby's case, implied that the autopsy was conducted without Huckaby's interests being represented.
Most homicide cases involve a single, independent pathologist's report such as the one performed by the San Joaquin County Coroner's Office.
Behar said in the 14-page request that he wants his own analysis of "genital trauma" Sandra allegedly sustained that supports the lewd and lascivious acts and sexual penetration charges.
Behar seeks to have the Sheriff's Office send officials to Fry Memorial Chapel, who would then take custody of Sandra's body, which was entombed Wednesday at the Tracy Mausoleum.
The Sheriff's Office would "preserve" and "deliver" the body to the Coroner's Office "with all due haste" to prevent further deterioration. Behar's defense pathologist would examine and then return the body to Fry's or Sandra's family, the court motion requests.
"In this case, Ms. Cantu's body is of such material evidence and that, without immediate intervention by this court, her defense will be prejudiced," Behar's motion says.
This is the last chance Huckaby's defense pathologist will ever have an opportunity to refute the people's case, the motion says. Huckaby was not in court for the hearing. Behar declined to comment further outside court.
Put off by Murray, Behar has two options: to make his case before the state's 3rd District Court of Appeal or to wait for next Friday's scheduled hearing in Stockton.
San Joaquin County Deputy District Attorney Thomas Testa argued against Behar, saying he needed time to prepare a written response, consult with Tracy police detectives and his pathologist and give Sandra's family a chance to be in court and state their own objection to disturbing the girl's remains.
"It's obscene. I'm outraged by it," Testa told the judge. "Let me have my detectives here, my doctor here, (Sandra's) family here."
Murray, in declining to rule on Behar's motion, said he did some research on the law before the brief hearing, and the arguments Behar cited did not convince him he has the right to remove Sandra's body from the mausoleum.
"If I thought your legal arguments were compelling, I might be of a different thought," Murray said. "But I'm not."
Sweetie_PI
04-17-2009, 05:19 PM
Sam Behar, a longtime attorney in the San Joaquin County Public Defender's Office, said Wednesday that he will represent Huckaby. He said he knows little about the woman and could not discuss the case.
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090416/A_NEWS02/904160336
Sam Behar, a San Joaquin County Public Defender once said "I'd call my own Mother a liar if it would get my client off."That's the mind-set of many defense attorney's.
Reference:
http://forums.recordnet.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=sr-news&tid=3022
Sheromom
04-17-2009, 05:33 PM
"It's obscene. I'm outraged by it," Testa told the judge. "Let me have my detectives here, my doctor here, (Sandra's) family here."
It really is just........obscene! This is the family who couldn't even stand to look at the loving teddy bear's left for their daughter; I don't see how they could possibly have to endure having her body reviolated. Even the thought of it is revolting to ME; I could not stand to be her parent and having this being brought up right now. They need and deserve to be left in peace.
snapdragon
04-17-2009, 05:51 PM
Sorry if I'm posting this twice.. do not have time to review all the posts. Here is the actual exhumation request:
http://llnw.static.cbslocal.com/station/kovr/docs/2009/4/cantu%20body%20exhumation%20request.pdf
SeriouslySearching
04-17-2009, 05:59 PM
Just what Sandra does not deserve...a grandstander.
snapdragon
04-17-2009, 06:08 PM
Looks like Terri Haddix will be the defense's pathologist.... don't have time to google her at the moment, will later. This was in the Exhumation request I posted above.
arielilane
04-17-2009, 06:29 PM
I'm outraged by this news. Sandra's family has been through too much already. MH needs to stop the lies and take responsibility for her criminal actions.:furious:
arielilane
04-17-2009, 06:30 PM
Defense wants Sandra Cantu exhumed for second autopsy
On the same day that thousands mourned the loss of Sandra Cantu, the public defender of alleged murderer Melissa Huckaby asked to have the 8-year-old’s body exhumed for a second autopsy.
In a report filed yesterday from the San Joaquin County Superior Court, defense attorney Sam Behar called for a second autopsy so Huckaby can defend herself against allegations of rape. According to the report, Behar’s office hired Dr. Terri Haddix as its pathologist on Wednesday to perform the proposed autopsy.
http://www.tracypress.com/pages/full_story?page_label=home&id=2339037-Defense+wants+Sandra+Cantu+exhumed+for+second+auto psy&article-Defense%20wants%20Sandra%20Cantu%20exhumed%20for%2 0second%20autopsy%20=&widget=push&instance=home_news_lead_story&open=&
arielilane
04-17-2009, 06:34 PM
A judge is expected to rule next week on whether to dig up the body of 8-year-old Sandra Cantu so the public defender can have its own pathologist perform a second autopsy.
http://www.tracypress.com/pages/full_story?page_label=results_content&id=2339037-Defense+wants+Sandra+Cantu+exhumed+for+second+auto psy&article-Defense%20wants%20Sandra%20Cantu%20exhumed%20for%2 0second%20autopsy%20=&widget=push&open=&
JoeFromLB
04-17-2009, 06:40 PM
"It's obscene. I'm outraged by it," Testa told the judge. "Let me have my detectives here, my doctor here, (Sandra's) family here."
It really is just........obscene! This is the family who couldn't even stand to look at the loving teddy bear's left for their daughter; I don't see how they could possibly have to endure having her body reviolated. Even the thought of it is revolting to ME; I could not stand to be her parent and having this being brought up right now. They need and deserve to be left in peace.
Obscene is the right word here. "Dastardly" and "Disgusting" also come to mind.
arielilane
04-17-2009, 06:44 PM
Does anyone think it would help if we wrote to the judge to express how much we are against exhumation for a second autopsy?
SeriouslySearching
04-17-2009, 06:59 PM
No. I don't think it would matter to a Judge what we thought about any of his decisions. ;)
lawlady84
04-17-2009, 07:17 PM
Can I borrow your torch then?! LOL
I have a problem with some defense attorneys, but am seeking a remedy for it. ;) (It is called reform of our justice system.)
I agree- I think there's too much money in criminal defense these days. If you represent an "infamous" client, you are looking at a multi-million dollar book deal. That introduces a huge conflict of interest: an early plea bargain does not make as interesting of a story as a long trial does. Especially from the defense lawyer's point of view - the defense lawyer can only use public information and information their client waives privilege on. If its a hush-hush deal, the defense lawyer's book is going to be very short - if its a long, drawn out public trial, there's plenty to say without violating privilege.
Historically if you want to make a lot of money as a lawyer, you go into finance or join a huge law firm. But our 24/7 media culture now makes it "tempting" for people to go into criminal defense - huge (possible) paycheck plus name all over the news?
Personally I think there should be a gag order on the lawyers. No profiting from your client's crime. Its sick. And I don't think there's any way to do this, but I want these lawyers to start having to pay the court the equivalent of the free national advertising they get.
All of that was O/T, but MH's lawyer is a public defender - he might not have asked until now b/c he was just put on the case. BUT, I don't think you should be able to ever do a 2nd autopsy. The Medical examiner is not a prosecuting lawyer; she's supposed to be a neutral party. That would be like challenging each of a judge's orders. Usually you have to have some basis.
I think this guy watched too much coverage of the Caylee circus; the only reason JB got his hands on the victim is because his client is the victims mother. That little fact just made me sick thinking about. Talk about victimizing Caylee twice.
lawlady84
04-17-2009, 07:22 PM
Does anyone think it would help if we wrote to the judge to express how much we are against exhumation for a second autopsy?
No, but legally I don't think the judge will grant it. The ME report will be stated in general terms: cuts here, contusions here. It won't say "MH raped the victim." I don't think the defense lawyer has any grounds here. The prosecution interpreted the medical report as evidence of rape; the defense can explain at trial why the bruising is accidental or whatever he is going to make up. There's no reason to doubt the science.
adnoid
04-17-2009, 07:25 PM
Looks like Terri Haddix will be the defense's pathologist.... don't have time to google her at the moment, will later. This was in the Exhumation request I posted above.
Here's a start. (http://med.stanford.edu/profiles/neuropathology/faculty/Terri_Haddix/)
Interesting conference where she spoke. (http://www.cdia.org/spring%2008%20outline.html)
And a little more info... (http://www.forensica.com/fasc/_default.asp?x=fsd_team.htm)
Another speaking engagement 2 weeks ago (http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/Events/ForensicMeeting_agenda?Opendocument)
She seems to work for the defendants...
SeriouslySearching
04-17-2009, 07:41 PM
Stanford, eh? Not too shabby of a defense expert for a woman who has no job and income of possibly $600.00 a month.
daisy.faithfull
04-17-2009, 07:42 PM
Is it possible that this is some kind of attempt to attack the science in general involved in the state's case against MH? If the defense can find something to present as sloppy procedure on the part of the medical examiner would they be able to then question what else about the case could have been mishandled?
SeriouslySearching
04-17-2009, 07:44 PM
When they don't have a defense, the first thing they do is go after the people collecting the evidence and performing the testing etc.
adnoid
04-17-2009, 07:46 PM
Stanford, eh? Not too shabby of a defense expert for a woman who has no job and income of possibly $600.00 a month.
Public defender. That means it's free, because the government will pay for it!
(As a U. C. Berkeley grad I could make a remark about Stanfurd but will restrain myself.)
adnoid
04-17-2009, 07:48 PM
Is it possible that this is some kind of attempt to attack the science in general involved in the state's case against MH? If the defense can find something to present as sloppy procedure on the part of the medical examiner would they be able to then question what else about the case could have been mishandled?
It's criminal defense. They will attack and malign anyone and everyone EXCEPT MH.
Perhaps Mark Geragos will get involved. That would be glorious. His guilty clients tend to get maximum sentences.
arielilane
04-17-2009, 07:51 PM
Is it possible that this is some kind of attempt to attack the science in general involved in the state's case against MH? If the defense can find something to present as sloppy procedure on the part of the medical examiner would they be able to then question what else about the case could have been mishandled?Unfortunately, probably so...that is their intent. I have faith in the prosecution...justice will prevail.
arielilane
04-17-2009, 07:52 PM
When they don't have a defense, the first thing they do is go after the people collecting the evidence and performing the testing etc.
Amen, it definitely speaks volumes of a weak..no case.
daisy.faithfull
04-17-2009, 08:12 PM
From Wikipedia's entry for Witch-hunt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt
"Some sociologists have attributed the occurrence of witchhunts to the prevalent human tendency to blame unexplainable occurrences on someone or something familiar."
As I was reading about witch-hunts, the above statement got me to thinking about a possible line of defense for MH. Is it possible that the defense could attempt to play upon the societal tendency to not want to believe that a crime like this could be committed by a woman not under the duress of a man, or by a woman period? If they find or manipulate findings to appear that they are not consistent with MH's confession could they present that to a jury as evidence that she was manipulated to take the fall for someone or was made to watch the crime being committed and feels so guilty for not being able to help Sandra she was willing to take complete blame for the crime itself?
daisy.faithfull
04-17-2009, 08:25 PM
It's criminal defense. They will attack and malign anyone and everyone EXCEPT MH.
I am without a doubt still a newbie, and I just want to take this opportunity to thank EVERYONE who answers my questions. :clap: So many times after I get an answer I feel like it should have been obvious to me. :doh:
Perhaps Mark Geragos will get involved. That would be glorious. His guilty clients tend to get maximum sentences.
Really? I knew there was something about him I liked...:puke:
oceanblueeyes
04-17-2009, 09:13 PM
Defense wants Sandra Cantu exhumed for second autopsy
On the same day that thousands mourned the loss of Sandra Cantu, the public defender of alleged murderer Melissa Huckaby asked to have the 8-year-old’s body exhumed for a second autopsy.
In a report filed yesterday from the San Joaquin County Superior Court, defense attorney Sam Behar called for a second autopsy so Huckaby can defend herself against allegations of rape. According to the report, Behar’s office hired Dr. Terri Haddix as its pathologist on Wednesday to perform the proposed autopsy.
http://www.tracypress.com/pages/full_story?page_label=home&id=2339037-Defense+wants+Sandra+Cantu+exhumed+for+second+auto psy&article-Defense%20wants%20Sandra%20Cantu%20exhumed%20for%2 0second%20autopsy%20=&widget=push&instance=home_news_lead_story&open=&
Personally I think this defense attorney is already working on part B (the sentencing or death penalty phase) of this case. Imo, the cliffhanger between whether she gets life or death is the rape with a foreign object. He knows if the jury believes that she is going to be marched right onto death row.
I think she has confessed and all the evidence is going to show that she and she alone did all of these disgusting crimes. While she can try to claim she accidentally killed her she cannot say she accidentally raped her and committed lewd and lascivious acts.
This tends to make me believe the examination by the ME was thorough and noted as such on his report and he will also testify in court. So the jury is going to know all about the genital trauma that Sandra suffered.
The defense can always find a hired expert to muddy up the water but in this case I don't believe it is doable and as it stands now, I think the defense attorney knows it too. I smell desperation.
imoo
nursebeeme
04-17-2009, 09:50 PM
The defense would not be doing their job very well if they didn't explore/confirm/deny the prosecutions evidence. This is standard procedure folks. Remember, not all conclusions drawn from evidence is black and white. There is often a lot of gray area in regards to interpretation of said evidence. The state and their experts are not infallible.
"Innocence until proven guilty in a court of law" applies to everyone or no one at all.
bumping this... as it is the way I feel as well. The timing... it sucks. The violation... unimaginable to the family.
I am not all the way thru the thread yet, but Huckaby has a "he" representing her now (name starts with a B I think).. OH~~ HERE IT IS
defense attorney Sam Behar
http://www.tracypress.com/pages/full_story?page_label=home&id=2339037-Defense+wants+Sandra+Cantu+exhumed+for+second+auto psy&article-Defense%20wants%20Sandra%20Cantu%20exhumed%20for%2 0second%20autopsy%20=&widget=push&instance=home_news_bullets&open=&
perhaps the switch in legal representation is the reason they were not able to get a second autopsy request in before little Sandra was interred? Just a thought
Silver~Bell
04-17-2009, 09:58 PM
Don't shoot the messenger!!!!:crazy:
Hundreds of cases in Texas and Alabama, right now, are being reviewed because of someone authorities are calling an incompetent medical examiner, Corinne Stern, MD, whose botching of autopsies and determining COD has evidently led to false convictions, near-convictions, and likely to freed perps.
I do recall also a number of other incompetent M.E.s/coroners who have damaged getting justice for victims, by missing things (such as in the case of 2nd wife's death of Peterson not recognized as a homicide), or who got innocent people into trouble by misinterpreting things drastically, and for those who want "chapter and verse" on these cases, please avail yourselves of the search engines, just as I do! :blowkiss:
THIS IS NOT TO SAY I like the idea of Sandra being exhumed and looked at again. I think the request was premature unless the defense knows something extremely negative about the person who did the first autopsy. Sometimes people do know the rep of someone else and know it is awful. There are LE in our city, I'm sure in yours, who would miss clues galore or who are sloppy or uncaring and they do get a rep others know about. I'm not saying the original autopsy was flawed in any manner, however.
I take a real dim view of some of these "experts" both sides call in when they are trying to get something in contention. Some are just money grubbers or spotlight-grabbers, and it's insulting to see them used as experts. However I have not found anything negative on the doctor the defense wants to do a 2nd autopsy. But I do feel it is def premature.
BeanE
04-17-2009, 10:00 PM
I couldn't begin to answer that without knowing the level of efficiency of the CA public defender system... I suppose you would have to ask them as to the why or why nots.
Thank you.
I can't imagine the state (PD) is doing it on purpose to disrespect the victim or the victims family.
Nor I. It's a matter of not extending the effort to ensure that the victim is not disrespected. Insensitivity.
BeanE
04-17-2009, 10:04 PM
On what grounds would a second autopsy be demanded? I see none, as the first autopsy hasn't even been completed? How many autopsies does a victim have to undergo? What if this defendant has her charges dismissed and a second person is later arrested? Does he get another autopsy, too, just because his defense wants one, with no grounds? What if that autopsy is considered insufficient without any grounds named? How about another one, just in case?
This would go beyond the pale of injustice, it would be a legal nightmare.
I didn't mean to imply that *I* thought a second autopsy was necessary. Some other posts implied that, and I had that in mind when I made my post.
You make excellent points.
nursebeeme
04-17-2009, 10:05 PM
Sam Behar, a San Joaquin County Public Defender once said "I'd call my own Mother a liar if it would get my client off."That's the mind-set of many defense attorney's.
Reference:
http://forums.recordnet.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=sr-news&tid=3022
THUD!!!!!!:eek:
MCDRAW
04-17-2009, 10:08 PM
I use the "burning of witches" as an analogy to what I see going on here. -The accused has been hunted down by the mob, strung up and burned alive. All this well ahead of any concrete evidence or trial. I find this somewhat disturbing. Not enough for a call to arms but good enough for a wince... a wince that may feel the need to express it's distaste in the form of a reply from time to time.
And YES this is a forum and NO you needn't wait for concrete evidence in order to form an opinion but does that opinion have to hold so much venom? The question is rhetorical. Let it drift.
This crime was a horrible crime. If a crime ever deserved venom, it's this one. How can a Mother that has a young daughter of her own take someone else's young daughter and rape and kill her? Sandra's death may have been an accident but I can not for the life of me figure out how someone can rape someone by accident. I also can not see how someone can kidnap a young girl by accident. MH is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. My opinion is that the evidence is pointing to her and her alone at this time. My opinion will not send her to death row but the evidence might.
nursebeeme
04-17-2009, 10:08 PM
Here's a start. (http://med.stanford.edu/profiles/neuropathology/faculty/Terri_Haddix/)
Interesting conference where she spoke. (http://www.cdia.org/spring%2008%20outline.html)
And a little more info... (http://www.forensica.com/fasc/_default.asp?x=fsd_team.htm)
Another speaking engagement 2 weeks ago (http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/Events/ForensicMeeting_agenda?Opendocument)
She seems to work for the defendants...
Thanks for that adnoid.. intersting... for an expert she only has ten years of experience (not much in that field)
oceanblueeyes
04-17-2009, 10:09 PM
Here's a start. (http://med.stanford.edu/profiles/neuropathology/faculty/Terri_Haddix/)
Interesting conference where she spoke. (http://www.cdia.org/spring%2008%20outline.html)
And a little more info... (http://www.forensica.com/fasc/_default.asp?x=fsd_team.htm)
Another speaking engagement 2 weeks ago (http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/Events/ForensicMeeting_agenda?Opendocument)
She seems to work for the defendants...
Yes, it sure seems like she does work for the defense teams.
imo
MCDRAW
04-17-2009, 10:22 PM
Here is a more detailed article on the defense request. Apparently he is trying to find evidence there was no rape, or that the rape wasn't committed by Huckaby, no doubt to remove the death penalty from the table.
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090417/A_NEWS/904170320
I would think the death penalty would still be on the table because a murder was comitted during a kidnapping. JMO
JoeFromLB
04-17-2009, 10:23 PM
When they don't have a defense, the first thing they do is go after the people collecting the evidence and performing the testing etc.
Yep, that's what O.J. Simpson's "dream team" did against the crime scene investigators, and the lousy judge just let them pursue any angle they desired.
They kept hammering away for weeks at the collection of evidence, but finally hit paydirt when they played the race card against Mark Fuhrman.
Look for a cheaper version of the "Dream Team" for MH's trial, but they will try every trick in the book to get her off. It's going to be a circus, I fear.
passionflower
04-17-2009, 10:35 PM
If MH and family are truely religious they would not let Sandra's tomb to be violated.
Lawyers had time and have an autopsy to go on already.............
Hisimage
04-17-2009, 11:07 PM
If the woman who killed my daughter defense attorney wanted my daughter pulled out of her resting place, I'm afraid you might be visiting in jail or a psych ward. I don't say that to be funny at all!
Infojunkie
04-17-2009, 11:24 PM
Let them do this, it's one less avenue for appeal. The wound for the Cantu family is fresh, do it now, not years from now when a court can say she didn't have adequate defense.
snapdragon
04-17-2009, 11:49 PM
A case featuring Terri Haddox and Testa in Lodi, CA (not far from Tracy)...
http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2003/02/12/export15789.prt
KoldKase
04-18-2009, 12:07 AM
Tell you what. To hell with our legal system. It no longer works except to help criminals get off, re-victimize the victims, and make scumbag lawyers wealthy.
I say do away with the courts altogether and let's go back to the Wild West. That's what it's come to anyway, only the criminals get all the breaks after they commit their awful crimes while we sit on our hands trying to be law abiding citizens, only to get bent over again and again.
I go to forum after forum to see people arguing THE LAW as if it 's all about DEBATE--have to make sure the KILLER gets ALL THE BREAKS the LAW allows! Damn the victim and damn the families. So what's the point? The law is supposed to be about JUSTICE. Obviously, that's no longer the case.
I say it's time to take care of our own. Let Huckaby out. Drop the charges and let her walk out the door. Better than spreading that baby out for the defense to violate for Huckaby again.
Let Huckaby walk out and face that community. Then Huckaby can see what her lies, baby raping, and murder bring her.
Salem
04-18-2009, 01:04 AM
It appeared to me, from reading the motions and the orders in the document thread, that the judge has allowed the second autopsy, to be performed by April 24th. Order was made on April 17th.
This saddens me greatly. I think the only reason this 2nd autopsy was allowed was because the death penalty was (or could be) on the table. I can not imagine how Sandra's family must feel. They can't say no, they have no choice, no control yet again. So very, very sad for this family. I hope they have faith to hold on to during this very trying time. This is going to be a very difficult trial.
Salem
ETA: http://llnw.static.cbslocal.com/station/kovr/docs/2009/4/cantu%20body%20exhumation%20request.pdf on pages 10, 11, 12.
But maybe I am reading this wrong and these are only the order Behar hopes to get? However, one states the body must be released no later than April 17th, at 5:00 p.m.
Help - anyone? Did this happen? Do we know? Or did the judge push the hearing to the 24th? I'm confused.
Salem
04-18-2009, 01:13 AM
Okay - never mind, I figured it out :)
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=6767730
This article says the judge will consider the motions early next week. So it HAS NOT been granted yet - it was just Behar's wishful thinking.
Thank goodness!
Salem
Dr. Know?
04-18-2009, 02:21 AM
Salem, we must be distant cousins. I usually feel the same as you do. Thanks. xxxooo's.
Not kissing kind.
paperwing
04-18-2009, 02:29 AM
This is a tough one, and what I'm going to say will probably get me pummeled big time, but please understand - I am NOT defending the monster who did this to little Sandra. Never. No how. No way.
I am surprised, though, given the drawn out autopsy/forensic exams on other high profile cases (which this has rapidly become) how quickly such examinations were completed in this case.
The last thing I want is for the perpetrator of this crime to get off or earn a lower sentence based on a technicality. I don't want this little girl to be exhumed, touched or violated ever again in any way - but if the defense can use something like this to dismiss half the prosecution's evidence, then I don't want to see them have that chance.
The PD who was with MH during the arraignment was her PD for her petty theft charge. Apparently, Behar has subsequently been assigned, so his asking for this now is probably due to the fact that he's new to the case.
The judge didn't rule (from what I just heard on television - for what that's worth, on Nancy Grace - again, fwtw), on the exhumation request because he is not the judge assigned to the case.
THAT judge is currently on vacation (how convenient for Behar..grr) and even so there may be a conflict of interest with this judge - I don't know what the particulars are on that.
Bottom line - I don't want to see a disservice of justice because the state cut corners or didn't allow whatever is legally appropriate to the defense - even if it is disturbing.
The biggest tragedy would be if the guilty person got off on a lesser charge (or worse) because her defense was denied legal access to anything they are allowed.
That said, even though this little angel was laid to rest far more quickly than other cases in recent history where forensic/toxicological determinations were key to either side, it seems that the defense would need to prove that the extant findings were incomplete and what they would need from the body that could not be gleaned from the ME reports and documentation. I would hope they'd have to prove that FIRST if they're going to go through with this.
I'm going to be very unpopular for saying this, but I'd rather have this happen now than have MH have a loophole and get out of this because the state didn't follow the necessary protocol. If there are still questions on either side, why was the body not held by the ME for further determination?
I don't want to be short-sighted on this if it means weakening the prosecution's case - even in this circumstance. And believe me, I take no joy in saying such a thing.
SeriouslySearching
04-18-2009, 02:31 AM
I wonder how Behar would feel if this was his 8 year old daughter and he had just laid her to rest? Do these defense attorneys EVER think about the victims and their families when doing these things?
Thinaire
04-18-2009, 02:54 AM
I wonder how Behar would feel if this was his 8 year old daughter and he had just laid her to rest? Do these defense attorneys EVER think about the victims and their families when doing these things?
No amont of money could make me be a defense attorney...:furious: Somewhere down the line it has gotten way past ridiculous the lengths they go to perverting whats left of justice.
I saw the story on HLN with Mike Glanos and was literally shouting in an empty house in frustration and anger!
My first thought was that sickening boat stunt Geragos pulled in the Peterson trial...and how people here and locally stood up for what was decent and right, and BURIED that boat in flowers. If I lived there...I would be standing vigil at that little childs graveside...a little civil disobedience for what is "human. decent and moral."
paperwing
04-18-2009, 02:55 AM
SeriouslySearching - I agree. But... would that be worse than seeing his 8 year old daughter's murderer not charged and pay the consequences because the defense lawyers caught a loop hole? Either one is unimaginable, granted. And no, it's not my daughter in that pink casket so maybe this is too easy to say... but I would want the defense to have no procedural arguments up their sleeves that would take away from what really matters in this - which is having the person responsible pay to the fullest extent of the law.
Maybe I would feel differently if it was my child... I don't know. I can't even imagine that. I just don't want anything to get in the way of Sandra's murderer receiving the harshest penalty allowed by law. She's lucky she's not free - out in the community. That'd be a lot more dangerous than several decades on death row...
It kills me that there are people evil enough to do things like this to children... the most innocent, trusting and vulnerable of all. I just - it's incomprehensible, that's all.
Thinaire
04-18-2009, 03:03 AM
This is a tough one, and what I'm going to say will probably get me pummeled big time, but please understand - I am NOT defending the monster who did this to little Sandra. Never. No how. No way.
I am surprised, though, given the drawn out autopsy/forensic exams on other high profile cases (which this has rapidly become) how quickly such examinations were completed in this case.
The last thing I want is for the perpetrator of this crime to get off or earn a lower sentence based on a technicality. I don't want this little girl to be exhumed, touched or violated ever again in any way - but if the defense can use something like this to dismiss half the prosecution's evidence, then I don't want to see them have that chance.
The PD who was with MH during the arraignment was her PD for her petty theft charge. Apparently, Behar has subsequently been assigned, so his asking for this now is probably due to the fact that he's new to the case.
The judge didn't rule (from what I just heard on television - for what that's worth, on Nancy Grace - again, fwtw), on the exhumation request because he is not the judge assigned to the case.
THAT judge is currently on vacation (how convenient for Behar..grr) and even so there may be a conflict of interest with this judge - I don't know what the particulars are on that.
Bottom line - I don't want to see a disservice of justice because the state cut corners or didn't allow whatever is legally appropriate to the defense - even if it is disturbing.
The biggest tragedy would be if the guilty person got off on a lesser charge (or worse) because her defense was denied legal access to anything they are allowed.
That said, even though this little angel was laid to rest far more quickly than other cases in recent history where forensic/toxicological determinations were key to either side, it seems that the defense would need to prove that the extant findings were incomplete and what they would need from the body that could not be gleaned from the ME reports and documentation. I would hope they'd have to prove that FIRST if they're going to go through with this.
I'm going to be very unpopular for saying this, but I'd rather have this happen now than have MH have a loophole and get out of this because the state didn't follow the necessary protocol. If there are still questions on either side, why was the body not held by the ME for further determination?
I don't want to be short-sighted on this if it means weakening the prosecution's case - even in this circumstance. And believe me, I take no joy in saying such a thing.
Not pummeled Paperwing :blowkiss:...you make an excellent summation.
But...when is enough enough? How many tests are enough? If the state took all the samples they needed, photos, etc. why more? If for example there are 30 standard steps, why allow 31 at the expense of heaping more grief on the family?
The defense ( I am just doing a what if here :)) can even use the argument to NOT rebury a body citing "future tech tests", a line must be drawn somewhere.
SeriouslySearching
04-18-2009, 03:05 AM
I don't disagree as I stated basically the same thing earlier on this thread, Paperwing. However, I do realize how this will affect her family and others.
The right thing is for the Judge to insure the defense has access to everything held back for them during the first autopsy and allow them to work within those guidelines instead of exhuming her body. It can be done as it is done every day.
It does bother me this defense attorney has not even seen the evidence or the reports from the ME to make a determination if there is something to question or not enough samples for them to use. What are they basing the need for the exhumation on? Gut feelings? Can't play well with others? What?
paperwing
04-18-2009, 03:46 AM
Thinaire: Thanks - and good point: When and where is the line drawn? I think the answer is probably a fluid one, and depends on the laws of the state. I did find it curious that there was no weeks and weeks of waiting for autopsy/tox results in this case when the opposite has been true in others.
I don't want the defense to find a "gotcha" here... I hope they'll have to prove why they need to exhume and what it is they can't discern from the autopsy reports, but it did worry me that everything happened so quickly when there are so many crucial forensic observations/determinations in this case. I don't want the defense to have the ability to cry "foul".
paperwing
04-18-2009, 03:48 AM
SeriouslySearching - I don't have it in me to relay the Behar's reasons... I can't put it in writing. I'll try to pull up the pdf for you...
http://llnw.static.cbslocal.com/station/kovr/docs/2009/4/cantu%20body%20exhumation%20request.pdf
paperwing
04-18-2009, 04:09 AM
Searching - do we really know that Behar has ignored available evidence? The problem is - if a defense is allowed A, B or C, they're not going to accept not getting A, B or C... whether it seems deserved or not. Denying them such seems to lead to an even less favorable outcome.
Believe me - I could not be any less sympathetic for the defense than I am. If shown a photo of my daughter, many people would say she was a twin or sister of Sandra. They look that much alike. I'm startled every time I see Sandra's picture in the news... I think it makes me harder on the state for that reason, maybe... I want this done right.
Law and legal procedures are convoluted - and often irrational. The only thing that really seems to matter is that both sides have equal footing on all terms.
I think the biggest mistake may be in proceeding with the burial so rapidly. That goes against everything I feel emotionally, as a parent or otherwise, but I'm puzzled that given the fact that the primary judge is not available, given that the defense was not formally assigned and given that the likelihood of the defense arguing on anything - I think the family was ill-advised because it would have been far less painful if this had been argued before the final placement rather than after.
bumping this... as it is the way I feel as well. The timing... it sucks. The violation... unimaginable to the family.
I am not all the way thru the thread yet, but Huckaby has a "he" representing her now (name starts with a B I think).. OH~~ HERE IT IS
http://www.tracypress.com/pages/full_story?page_label=home&id=2339037-Defense+wants+Sandra+Cantu+exhumed+for+second+auto psy&article-Defense%20wants%20Sandra%20Cantu%20exhumed%20for%2 0second%20autopsy%20=&widget=push&instance=home_news_bullets&open=&
perhaps the switch in legal representation is the reason they were not able to get a second autopsy request in before little Sandra was interred? Just a thought
Bump. The right to a fair trial is the backbone of our legal system.
...
...Hundreds of cases in Texas and Alabama, right now, are being reviewed because of someone authorities are calling an incompetent medical examiner, Corinne Stern, MD, whose botching of autopsies and determining COD has evidently led to false convictions, near-convictions, and likely to freed perps.
I do recall also a number of other incompetent M.E.s/coroners who have damaged getting justice for victims, by missing things (such as in the case of 2nd wife's death of Peterson not recognized as a homicide), or who got innocent people into trouble by misinterpreting things drastically, ...
...
(my bolding)
Thank you. As I stated before, the state and their experts are not infallible.
The right to a fair trial supersedes public sentiment and outrage.
I wonder how Behar would feel if this was his 8 year old daughter and he had just laid her to rest? Do these defense attorneys EVER think about the victims and their families when doing these things?
A defense lawyer has a professional responsibility to be a zealous advocate on behalf of their client. Anything less would be a disservice to the accused, our legal system and our society as a whole. How he "feels" must not interfere with his professional responsibility and/or his level of performance.
paperwing
04-18-2009, 05:07 AM
Well said, QNA - our legal process all to often makes zero sense at best, is just insane at worst. Like or agree with it or not, we're far better of having it available to represent the guilty, the innocent and everyone in between. It's certainly not perfect but we've sort of determined pretty substantially that torches and pitchforks are not a more sensible method (which arguably would be much worse, as I've said elsewhere). Thanks for the post.
butterfly1978
04-18-2009, 05:26 AM
I really hate to even be writing this, but think about it for a second. If someone else was involved with MH, maybe the defence is wanting to see if they can recover something the state missed, I mean we want justice for Sandra, and if more than just MH is involved, we should want all perps responsible. Not saying this is the motive for the latest request, but its very possable, remeber MH's face when the charge of rape was read???? go back and look at the video, she was like OMG....
I will state I do beleive she was involoved but I dont think she acted alone.
Thinaire
04-18-2009, 05:29 AM
A defense lawyer has a professional responsibility to be a zealous advocate on behalf of their client. Anything less would be a disservice to the accused, our legal system and our society as a whole. How he "feels" must not interfere with his professional responsibility and/or his level of performance.
Being a zealous advocate does not equal stepping beyond the limits of what is civilly and morally resonsible to "win" in court.
Thinaire
04-18-2009, 05:32 AM
I shouldn't try and explain another posters feelings...but I "get" what KK was posting here. I seriously doubt this was intended as anything other than something we all do from time to time when frustrated by a horror of a case...vent.
paperwing
04-18-2009, 05:33 AM
butterfly1978 - I thought that MH reacted most the word "rape", too.. But I haven't seen anything that suggests that she didn't act alone. Am I missing something?
I really hate to even be writing this, but think about it for a second. If someone else was involved with MH, maybe the defence is wanting to see if they can recover something the state missed, I mean we want justice for Sandra, and if more than just MH is involved, we should want all perps responsible. Not saying this is the motive for the latest request, but its very possable, remeber MH's face when the charge of rape was read???? go back and look at the video, she was like OMG....
I will state I do beleive she was involoved but I dont think she acted alone.
(my bolding)
This is the most plausible scenario.
paperwing
04-18-2009, 06:33 AM
QNA: but why do you think it's most plausible? Because it's undocumented/unprecedented for her to have not acted alone? I'm not saying you're wrong (obviously, I have no idea what the truth is) but what makes you lean towards that scenario? I haven't seen or read anything that points me in that direction so I'm curious...
Being a zealous advocate does not equal stepping beyond the limits of what is civilly and morally resonsible to "win" in court.
There is a lot of gray area as to what and where these "limits" are.
paperwing
04-18-2009, 06:38 AM
QNA and Thinaire - both of you could not be more right... another testament to the complexities of law.
butterfly1978 - I thought that MH reacted most the word "rape", too.. But I haven't seen anything that suggests that she didn't act alone. Am I missing something?
Historical statistics.
paperwing
04-18-2009, 07:19 AM
Historical statistics.
which are guidelines (generally accurate) but they aren't absolute. There are outliers and this may be one.
If there was evidence or strong documentation leaning towards other suspects, so be it. So far, we have none. Historical statistics can be wrong, especially if our dependence on them seems based on social/moral presumptions (which are sometimes infused with a cultural bias and therefore largely unquestioned). That just doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me.
I'm amazed by some of the assumptions that have been foisted on this case - few of which are based on fact, even if categorized statistically, but still most of which are based on subjective assumption (my own included).
But you seem to have a healthy objectivity, and I guess it makes sense that you would stand on the side of strong statistics, but don't you think that the possibility of this being an outlier is possible unless proven otherwise?
Why should we assume anything that contradicts the available evidence?
...
...Historical statistics can be wrong...
...but don't you think that the possibility of this being an outlier is possible unless proven otherwise?
Why should we assume anything that contradicts the available evidence?
Anything is possible.... although some things are more probable. Huckaby could well have acted alone but this is unlikely. As far as the available evidence is concerned the key word is "available". Not all the evidence has been made available yet so it would be premature to reach any concrete conclusions at this point.
paperwing
04-18-2009, 08:30 AM
very well said, QNA - we're all playing with speculation at this point....
MCDRAW
04-18-2009, 11:57 AM
Searching - do we really know that Behar has ignored available evidence? The problem is - if a defense is allowed A, B or C, they're not going to accept not getting A, B or C... whether it seems deserved or not. Denying them such seems to lead to an even less favorable outcome.
Believe me - I could not be any less sympathetic for the defense than I am. If shown a photo of my daughter, many people would say she was a twin or sister of Sandra. They look that much alike. I'm startled every time I see Sandra's picture in the news... I think it makes me harder on the state for that reason, maybe... I want this done right.
Law and legal procedures are convoluted - and often irrational. The only thing that really seems to matter is that both sides have equal footing on all terms.
I think the biggest mistake may be in proceeding with the burial so rapidly. That goes against everything I feel emotionally, as a parent or otherwise, but I'm puzzled that given the fact that the primary judge is not available, given that the defense was not formally assigned and given that the likelihood of the defense arguing on anything - I think the family was ill-advised because it would have been far less painful if this had been argued before the final placement rather than after.
I don't see that they buried her rapidly. We always bury our loved ones within a few days of death. While a funeral is for memorializing a loved one it is also (to me) a last public display of your grief. I'm always glad when it's over so I can get on with grieving privately.
SeriouslySearching
04-18-2009, 12:57 PM
Off Topic: I like the fact we are a state who takes seriously the issue of protecting ourselves and our loved ones. With the "Make My Day" Law and the "Stand Your Ground" Law in place...it puts justice within reach to prevent becoming victims of brutal crimes.
We are a society in trouble with the crime rates, a lousy legal system, and the inability to control either. This is a first line of a defense to protect ourselves and our families who are failed by the police whose hands are legally tied and the lawyers, judges, and juries who won't or can't keep the evil off the streets.
Boomer Sooner.
On Topic: This wouldn't have helped Sandra or those victims like her who prey upon our children. They are the most frightening of all perps, imo. They are the ones who pretend to be your friends, are your family members, or who are in positions of authority over our children. The reality is there is little we can do to protect our society against people like this if they really want to do harm.
SeriouslySearching
04-18-2009, 01:16 PM
The right to a fair trial is the backbone of our legal system.It has gotten to the point where you can't simply tell the truth in court anymore. I heard a talking head mention that a "guilty" plea isn't advised for any defendant in any court until later. Fair?
The backbone of our legal system has gone so far to the crooked side that an extraction of the spinal column wouldn't straighten it out. The very lawyers making or lobbying for the laws to protect the perps instead of the victims are the ones who are also making the money off the backs of the perps AND their victims (which of course is only my opinion).
I'm am going off topic to the previous posts in this thread, but I wanted to add some thoughts that I had about the defense's request for the disenterment of Sandra so that a second autopsy could be scheduled.
I can't address what is standard procedure for that jurisdiction of CA because I have no knowledge as to what is standard. I can't address why this should be done, or why it shouldn't be done...because again, I have no training or knowledge in legal affairs.
I didn't join WS because I can argue legalities. I do read carefully the posts of those that post here that are knowledgable in those matters.
I am here at WS because I came to the determination to join after reading the Forum Information & Esoterica and that WS is a victim advocating website.
So after sharing all that, here are my thoughts, it may be or may not be correct in disentering Sandra...but I see it as salt in a wound that will never heal for her family.
It's an affront and I can't imagine the additional pain that this must be causing them at this time. In fact, it makes me nauseous to even contemplate how Sandra's family must be feeling after this latest development after watching them grieve and mourn yesterday at Sandra's memorial. Seeing Sandra's Mother looking physically and emotionally exhausted, seeing Sandra's sisters pain so clearly in their faces...So no I don't agree with removing Sandra from her final resting place...and those are the reasons why.
I'm just a middle aged Mom and am only here to share my opinions and support for the victims who have threads on WS.
God bless Sandra's family, they are going to need it now more than ever.
I am going to throw my two cents in thi heavily debated topic. Agree or disagree I do not care.
The Cantu family wants justice done for Sandra right now. I firmly think they know that Sandra's sprit left the her body the last time to took her last breath.If a second autopsy will help to convict the prep or prepss I think Sandra body needs to be exhumed As all the body was is the shell that held Sandra's spirit inside.If this helps the DA or the defense more to bring to justice the person or people which I think this was a solo act to justice. Let the defense do the second one.What I think they will find is a Solo prep.
I am going to throw my two cents in thi heavily debated topic. Agree or disagree I do not care.
The Cantu family wants justice done for Sandra right now. I firmly think they know that Sandra's sprit left the her body the last time to took her last breath.If a second autopsy will help to convict the prep or prepss I think Sandra body needs to be exhumed As all the body was is the shell that held Sandra's spirit inside.If this helps the DA or the defense more to bring to justice the person or people which I think this was a solo act to justice. Let the defense do the second one.What I think they will find is a Solo prep.
JDB although it is clear from our posts that we have different views on whether or not Sandra should have a second autopsy. I want you to know that the logical way you put your opinion, gives me some comfort when I think of Sandra's family and their pain right now. Thank you.
JDB although it is clear from our posts that we have different views on whether or not Sandra should have a second autopsy. I want you to know that the logical way you put your opinion, gives me some comfort when I think of Sandra's family and their pain right now. Thank you.
Kat yes we might diffre with veiws here. But I can nan tell all you want is JUSTICEE for Sandra as well as I do.IMHO if there are more then one Prep (which I doubt) I want JusticeNo if and ors about it. I can see Sandra skipping along on the streets of gold with Conner and Caylee.With Laci leading hem
Animal04216
04-18-2009, 04:20 PM
Knock it off with the witch hunt and torch references. This is a forum and we can agree to disagree without the nastiness. The posters here have a right to their opinion on this case and on punishment, on both sides, however noone has the right to chastise another on the thread. This is not a court of law and we can speculate as much as we want to here.
MCDRAW
04-18-2009, 05:13 PM
(my bolding)
This is the most plausible scenario.
It may be the most plausible but I don't care if she didn't participate alone. She participated so she deserves to be punished. If there are others, I feel certain they will be arrested and punished also. But right now, the evidence that we have seen points to MH and to MH alone.
snapdragon
04-18-2009, 05:24 PM
As to the "why" the defense requests this. They justify their request in the exhumation request as wanted their pathologist to examine the body due to the special circumstances nature of rape w/ foreign object. The defense's pathologst is going to want to take the stand and bring reasonable doubt into play with regard to the rape, and perhaps cause/time of death.
The good news is that child killers do not get very much sympathy from juries. If they keep the venue in the Central Valley, which tends toward the conservative, they will not have a chance. Move it to San Francisco tho, and all bets are off.
archenemy toenail
04-18-2009, 05:58 PM
Personally, I feel that in order for the truth to brought to light, victims have to be willing to revictimize themselves, either spiritually, like a rape victim having to repeat their testimony over and over again to people who are trying to tear it apart, or physically, like Sandra's body being submitted for another autopsy, in order for all the evidence to be discovered.
Also, in order to convict criminals based on evidence and not the wild emotional need to punish someone when the unimaginable happens, both the defense and the prosecution need to be able to conduct their own investigation. Someone earlier in the thread posted an account of an incompetent medical examiner. It happens. Prosecutors and LE are human; they're not immune to bias and corruption. To ensure that criminals are convicted on the correct charges, evidence, i.e. the body, needs to be looked at from both sides.
SeriouslySearching
04-18-2009, 06:10 PM
Personally, I feel that in order for the truth to brought to light, victims have to be willing to revictimize themselves, either spiritually, like a rape victim having to repeat their testimony over and over again to people who are trying to tear it apart, or physically, like Sandra's body being submitted for another autopsy, in order for all the evidence to be discovered.
Also, in order to convict criminals based on evidence and not the wild emotional need to punish someone when the unimaginable happens, both the defense and the prosecution need to be able to conduct their own investigation. Someone earlier in the thread posted an account of an incompetent medical examiner. It happens. Prosecutors and LE are human; they're not immune to bias and corruption. To ensure that criminals are convicted on the correct charges, evidence, i.e. the body, needs to be looked at from both sides.No one is saying the defense should not look at the evidence. They will have access to everything once the ME is finished and both sides will have the evidence then. It is not neccessary to include 2nd and 3rd autopsies to cancel each other out from the onset, imo.
If anything comes up which would warrant a second look...then after they get the final reports they should request it. I realize they say decomp will be a problem...but the fact is...decomp is already a problem. The body has already been altered by decomp and findings from earlier are all they both have to rely on anyway.
panthera
04-18-2009, 06:13 PM
It's been my understanding that an independent forensic pathologist was brought in to do Sandra's autopsy. He most certainly has photographed and taken tissue samples from her remains. He is also awaiting toxicology results before determining a COD. After completion of his examination, Sandra's remains were released to her family. They chose to bury her, maybe even putting some of her favorite things in her coffin with her ~ as many people do when they're saying their final good-byes.
Now ~ here's my question. What IF Sandra's family had chosen to cremate her? What would the defense be able to do about it? Wouldn't they have to rely on the ME's findings and possibly have their own pathologist review and do additional tests on remaining tissue samples?
Let Sandra rest in peace and let her family try to heal. MOO
LaLaw2000
04-18-2009, 07:25 PM
I wonder how Behar would feel if this was his 8 year old daughter and he had just laid her to rest? Do these defense attorneys EVER think about the victims and their families when doing these things?
:clap::clap::clap:
Thinaire
04-18-2009, 07:58 PM
It has gotten to the point where you can't simply tell the truth in court anymore. I heard a talking head mention that a "guilty" plea isn't advised for any defendant in any court until later. Fair?
The backbone of our legal system has gone so far to the crooked side that an extraction of the spinal column wouldn't straighten it out. The very lawyers making or lobbying for the laws to protect the perps instead of the victims are the ones who are also making the money off the backs of the perps AND their victims (which of course is only my opinion).
:blowkiss: Can we get a triple THANKS button? Thanks SS for always finding the words I lack at 4 a.m..
Thinaire
04-18-2009, 08:08 PM
There is a lot of gray area as to what and where these "limits" are.
You simply cannot take the humanity out of a case like this...gray areas are what make us human or monsters. This is not a case about a car or an appliance where all human emotions can be left out in the pursuit if a verdict.
A civil society has to define those areas and insist they be upheld in the courts we pay to protect us.
Let the court examine the evidence taken before demanding that that child be disturbed. The thought of it IS offensive, and thank God it still exacts that kind of response in our society. The defendants rights? I think of the families rights & suffering first.
Just my opinion, but defense attornies are given far too much leeway and go beyond the boundaries of even black and white law to WIN in court.
Thinaire
04-18-2009, 08:12 PM
As to the "why" the defense requests this. They justify their request in the exhumation request as wanted their pathologist to examine the body due to the special circumstances nature of rape w/ foreign object. The defense's pathologst is going to want to take the stand and bring reasonable doubt into play with regard to the rape, and perhaps cause/time of death.
The good news is that child killers do not get very much sympathy from juries. If they keep the venue in the Central Valley, which tends toward the conservative, they will not have a chance. Move it to San Francisco tho, and all bets are off.
Sometimes the "why" is simply to horrify the victims family so much that they back off and accept or ask for a lesser plea for the perp just to end it. A well worn tactic...:mad:
oceanblueeyes
04-18-2009, 08:18 PM
Personally, I feel that in order for the truth to brought to light, victims have to be willing to revictimize themselves, either spiritually, like a rape victim having to repeat their testimony over and over again to people who are trying to tear it apart, or physically, like Sandra's body being submitted for another autopsy, in order for all the evidence to be discovered.
Also, in order to convict criminals based on evidence and not the wild emotional need to punish someone when the unimaginable happens, both the defense and the prosecution need to be able to conduct their own investigation. Someone earlier in the thread posted an account of an incompetent medical examiner. It happens. Prosecutors and LE are human; they're not immune to bias and corruption. To ensure that criminals are convicted on the correct charges, evidence, i.e. the body, needs to be looked at from both sides.
Do we know that this is the case with this ME? Just because some may be swayed by either side they represent doesn't mean the vast majority are but are ethical and do their job as it should be done. How do we know that defense expert is not a hired gun who mostly testifies for the defense and has her own biases?
I think it is a little too early to be thinking that this ME is one of the corrupt ones unless we know that he has showed biases in past cases and corruption in the past.
Imo, there is no need to exhume Sandra's body and I cant think of one case where the loved one was exhumed unless the family of the deceased victim was in agreement with the exhumation. There is no way in hades that the Cantu/Chavez families will agree to this. They are the custodians of Sandra and what happens to her imo. She was released to them for burial and that has come to pass.
imo
No one is saying the defense should not look at the evidence. They will have access to everything once the ME is finished and both sides will have the evidence then. It is not neccessary to include 2nd and 3rd autopsies to cancel each other out from the onset, imo.
If anything comes up which would warrant a second look...then after they get the final reports they should request it. I realize they say decomp will be a problem...but the fact is...decomp is already a problem. The body has already been altered by decomp and findings from earlier are all they both have to rely on anyway.
Disagree. If the defense's expert, Dr. Terri Haddix thinks information could still be ascertained from the body then I think her 10+ years of experience in this field holds more weight.
oceanblueeyes
04-19-2009, 09:51 AM
Disagree. If the defense's expert, Dr. Terri Haddix thinks information could still be ascertained from the body then I think her 10+ years of experience in this field holds more weight.
I think the defense is on nothing more than a fishing expedition.
I have not heard Haddix say she thinks SHE can ascertain more information from the body than the ME did.
If he is going to hire her as his hired gun he knows he is going to need an expert to try and refute the ME autopsy report.
Imo, this is not about proving she didn't murder her.....it is all about trying to refute that Sandra was raped with a foreign object because he knows if the jury believes THAT then Huckaby will most likely get death if it becomes a death penalty case.
I do not believe he nor his 10 year in the field experienced expert will be successful.
For all we know the foreign object may have contributed to her death.
imo
adnoid
04-19-2009, 10:39 AM
Historical statistics.
Anything is possible.... although some things are more probable. Huckaby could well have acted alone but this is unlikely. As far as the available evidence is concerned the key word is "available". Not all the evidence has been made available yet so it would be premature to reach any concrete conclusions at this point.
Statistics show that women are less likely to commit sexual offenses, true. But statistics also show that most people that are arrested and charged with a crime are eventually convicted, so since MH has been arrested and charged it would be safe to assume she will be convicted looking at just the statistics.
But to look at it this way is working backward logically. Individual cases are decided on the actual evidence and argument provided to the triers of fact. Each case is unique, and once adjudicated add to the body of statistical information available to us. The fact that women seldom act alone (if that is, indeed, the case which I am not conceding here) that has no bearing on whether or not THIS woman acted alone. This case in no longer a hypothetical. The results will be determined by the evidence, not past patterns of other defendants in other cases.
It may be the most plausible but I don't care if she didn't participate alone. She participated so she deserves to be punished. If there are others, I feel certain they will be arrested and punished also. But right now, the evidence that we have seen points to MH and to MH alone.
Agreed, but the evidence may indicate she played a lesser role in the crime then everyone thinks and if the death is found to be accidental then her sentence may not warrant the death penalty or even life.
I believe we have only scratched the surface of what really happened and who else may have been involved.
Statistics show that women are less likely to commit sexual offenses, true. But statistics also show that most people that are arrested and charged with a crime are eventually convicted, so since MH has been arrested and charged it would be safe to assume she will be convicted looking at just the statistics.
But to look at it this way is working backward logically. Individual cases are decided on the actual evidence and argument provided to the triers of fact. Each case is unique, and once adjudicated add to the body of statistical information available to us. The fact that women seldom act alone (if that is, indeed, the case which I am not conceding here) that has no bearing on whether or not THIS woman acted alone. This case in no longer a hypothetical. The results will be determined by the evidence, not past patterns of other defendants in other cases.
A very good logical point. Statistics do point to a conviction since she has been charged but it remains to be seen if THIS person charged will be convicted and to what degree. No doubt the evidence, both known and unknown, and the thoroughness of the investigation will be the deciding factor.
As I've stated all along, I don't think she is alone in all of this and as new things come to light and more of the existing evidence is revealed I think we will all be quite surprised at the revelations.
oceanblueeyes
04-19-2009, 11:26 AM
Agreed, but the evidence may indicate she played a lesser role in the crime then everyone thinks and if the death is found to be accidental then her sentence may not warrant the death penalty or even life.
I believe we have only scratched the surface of what really happened and who else may have been involved.
How can an act be deemed an accident when it was done when the perpetrator was in the commission of committing another felony...such as kidnapping? Melissa Huckaby had no legal rights to remove Sandra from her residential area and transport her to the church.
There have been people who died from a heart attack while a bank was being robbed and the perps were also tried for murder for that death since it happened in the commission of another felony. Then add on the rape, molestation and lewd and lascivious acts and she is cooked imo.
Of course imo, this was no accident. The DA has charged her with the counts they believe they can prove BARD. I think she and she alone did these dastardly crimes. Scratching the surface and uncovering what makes this particular woman tick is indeed like uncovering a cesspool.
imoo
MCDRAW
04-19-2009, 11:36 AM
Agreed, but the evidence may indicate she played a lesser role in the crime then everyone thinks and if the death is found to be accidental then her sentence may not warrant the death penalty or even life.
I believe we have only scratched the surface of what really happened and who else may have been involved.
If she did play a lesser role in the crime then I believe she would be singing like a canary. I believe MH may think Sandra's death was an accident. Maybe she didn't mean to kill her. She just meant to kidnap and rape Sandra. It would still be kidnap, rape, and murder. In my opinion, You can not kidnap, rape and torture someone especially a young child and then when they die claim it was all an accident. MH may not get the death penalty but I believe she won't get anything less than LWOP.
passionflower
04-19-2009, 11:42 AM
One autopsy should be enough. They should of been at that one.........
Leave the baby alone..........R.I.P. Sandra
I think the defense is on nothing more than a fishing expedition.
I have not heard Haddix say she thinks SHE can ascertain more information from the body than the ME did.
If he is going to hire her as his hired gun he knows he is going to need an expert to try and refute the ME autopsy report.
Imo, this is not about proving she didn't murder her.....it is all about trying to refute that Sandra was raped with a foreign object because he knows if the jury believes THAT then Huckaby will most likely get death if it becomes a death penalty case.
I do not believe he nor his 10 year in the field experienced expert will be successful.
For all we know the foreign object may have contributed to her death.
imo
I disagree. I think the defense is doing what it needs to to refute the evidence presented by the prosecution to the best of their abilities in the best interest of their client. It is their professional obligation to do so.
It's not a question of "if" they plan to hire Dr. Haddix, they already have. Obviously the defense feels there is a possibility that something can be ascertained from a second autopsy to refute the evidence against their client, otherwise they wouldn't go through the trouble. Since Dr. Haddix is now their expert I'm sure she is advising them as to what they can expect to find and whether or not it is even worth the trouble. Her expertise in these matters far outweigh any speculation on whether or not a select few deem it as a "fishing expedition". The prosecution is doing their job, so to must the defense be allowed to do theirs.
As far as what they are trying to prove or not prove, that is for them to decide. If the defense feels they have enough evidence to disprove murder they will certainly go forward with it. Disproving the rape charges may be only one facet of what they are trying to disprove. We don't know. If Melissa is saying she did not rape SC then the defense will do everything they can to prove this. This is all standard procedure.
What's more important than a simple conviction is for the truth to be ascertained. A person shouldn't have to pay for a crime he or she did not commit and certainly not for charges that may be "trumped" up to make it stick.
Soon all will be revealed.
MCDRAW
04-19-2009, 12:23 PM
I disagree. I think the defense is doing what it needs to to refute the evidence presented by the prosecution to the best of their abilities in the best interest of their client. It is their professional obligation to do so.
It's not a question of "if" they plan to hire Dr. Haddix, they already have. Obviously the defense feels there is a possibility that something can be ascertained from a second autopsy to refute the evidence against their client, otherwise they wouldn't go through the trouble. Since Dr. Haddix is now their expert I'm sure she is advising them as to what they can expect to find and whether or not it is even worth the trouble. Her expertise in these matters far outweigh any speculation on whether or not a select few deem it as a "fishing expedition". The prosecution is doing their job, so to must the defense be allowed to do theirs.
As far as what they are trying to prove or not prove, that is for them to decide. If the defense feels they have enough evidence to disprove murder they will certainly go forward with it. Disproving the rape charges may be only one facet of what they are trying to disprove. We don't know. If Melissa is saying she did not rape SC then the defense will do everything they can to prove this. This is all standard procedure.
What's more important than a simple conviction is for the truth to be ascertained. A person shouldn't have to pay for a crime he or she did not commit and certainly not for charges that may be "trumped" up to make it stick.
Soon all will be revealed.
Bolded by me:
Do you seriously think that she is being railroaded with trumped up charges? If so, why wouldn't they have just charged one of the sex offenders living there? That would have been easier to believe.
How can an act be deemed an accident when it was done when the perpetrator was in the commission of committing another felony...such as kidnapping? Melissa Huckaby had no legal rights to remove Sandra from her residential area and transport her to the church.
There have been people who died from a heart attack while a bank was being robbed and the perps were also tried for murder for that death since it happened in the commission of another felony. Then add on the rape, molestation and lewd and lascivious acts and she is cooked imo.
Of course imo, this was no accident. The DA has charged her with the counts they believe they can prove BARD. I think she and she alone did these dastardly crimes. Scratching the surface and uncovering what makes this particular woman tick is indeed like uncovering a cesspool.
imoo
We don't know if the kidnapping charge is warranted as we don't know where death occurred. If death occurred at Melissa's home and it was an accident then transporting the body to the church does not construe kidnapping. LE believes death occurred at the church but we have yet to see what evidence they have to support this claim. It also cannot be ascertained whether or not SC was confined in any way prior to death which would also negate any kidnapping charges.
We don't even know if the rape was posthumous or postmortem. Again this has bearing on whether or not death occurred during the act of a felony. Again this could have a direct impact on an accidental death or one that was premeditated or caused in the act of a felony. Needless to say the differences have a tremendous effect on conviction and sentencing. We just don't know enough to reach any definite conclusions yet. Speculative ones yes, definite ones no.
LE believed they had enough evidence and charged her. How reliable, concrete and irrefutable it is has yet to be seen. I believe SC's death may very well have been an accident with with everything else being part of the cover up. It's been my gut since she was arrested. Like everyone else, I too must wait to find out the truth.
SeriouslySearching
04-19-2009, 12:39 PM
Disagree. If the defense's expert, Dr. Terri Haddix thinks information could still be ascertained from the body then I think her 10+ years of experience in this field holds more weight.You are welcome to disagree, but it was stated in their request for the exhumation that decomp was an immediate problem which would only deteriorate further with time. I guess the expert and I agree on this issue.
The best evidence will come from the ME who had access to the body first before more decomp took place. It is not a theory. It is a fact.
MCDRAW
04-19-2009, 12:47 PM
We don't know if the kidnapping charge is warranted as we don't know where death occurred. If death occurred at Melissa's home and it was an accident then transporting the body to the church does not construe kidnapping. LE believes death occurred at the church but we have yet to see what evidence they have to support this claim. It also cannot be ascertained whether or not SC was confined in any way prior to death which would also negate any kidnapping charges.
We don't even know if the rape was posthumous or postmortem. Again this has bearing on whether or not death occurred during the act of a felony. Again this could have a direct impact on an accidental death or one that was premeditated or caused in the act of a felony. Needless to say the differences have a tremendous effect on conviction and sentencing. We just don't know enough to reach any definite conclusions yet. Speculative ones yes, definite ones no.
LE believed they had enough evidence and charged her. How reliable, concrete and irrefutable it is has yet to be seen. I believe SC's death may very well have been an accident with with everything else being part of the cover up. It's been my gut since she was arrested. Like everyone else, I too must wait to find out the truth.
If an accident, why not call 911. It seems like a lot of work just to cover up an accident.
MCDRAW
04-19-2009, 12:56 PM
We don't know if the kidnapping charge is warranted as we don't know where death occurred. If death occurred at Melissa's home and it was an accident then transporting the body to the church does not construe kidnapping. LE believes death occurred at the church but we have yet to see what evidence they have to support this claim. It also cannot be ascertained whether or not SC was confined in any way prior to death which would also negate any kidnapping charges.
We don't even know if the rape was posthumous or postmortem. Again this has bearing on whether or not death occurred during the act of a felony. Again this could have a direct impact on an accidental death or one that was premeditated or caused in the act of a felony. Needless to say the differences have a tremendous effect on conviction and sentencing. We just don't know enough to reach any definite conclusions yet. Speculative ones yes, definite ones no.
LE believed they had enough evidence and charged her. How reliable, concrete and irrefutable it is has yet to be seen. I believe SC's death may very well have been an accident with with everything else being part of the cover up. It's been my gut since she was arrested. Like everyone else, I too must wait to find out the truth.
Bolded by me:
This seems to be a huge deal with you. In my opinion, I don't care when she was raped. She was. That's all that matters to me. She was raped and the evidence at this time is pointing to Melissa. I don't care if she raped her to cover up an accident. It's still sick and she needs to be puinshed for a very long time. IMO
adnoid
04-19-2009, 01:04 PM
We don't know if the kidnapping charge is warranted as we don't know where death occurred. If death occurred at Melissa's home and it was an accident then transporting the body to the church does not construe kidnapping...
Under California law the victim does not have to be transported a defined distance while alive to qualify for kidnapping, all that has to happen is the victim is kept from leaving freely and moved. Ref. California Penal Code 207-210. (http://law.justia.com/california/codes/pen/207-210.html) Huckabee has been charged under 207(a): (bold mine)
207. (a) Every person who forcibly, or by any other means of
instilling fear, steals or takes, or holds, detains, or arrests any
person in this state, and carries the person into another country,
state, or county, or into another part of the same county, is guilty
of kidnapping.
For instance, the street that runs in front of MH's house and a room inside her house would be different parts of the same county. Would this be enough distance to constitute kidnapping? Well, assuming this goes before a judge and jury that is what they will have to decide based on the facts of this case and this case alone.
Bolded by me:
Do you seriously think that she is being railroaded with trumped up charges? If so, why wouldn't they have just charged one of the sex offenders living there? That would have been easier to believe.
No not railroaded but it is very common for LE to tack on extra charges in case the initial charge is somehow disproved, weakened or if the evidence is not rock solid. They may in fact have irrefutable evidence for all charges or they may not, I just don't know. It's harder to break three pencils together than just one...
Of course this is all just theory, I'm just as anxious as you are to learn the whole truth.
Here is an interesting ABC video report on Melissa Huckaby and the subject of Woman Killers which aired on April 14th. In it is an interview with a Dr. Michael Welner from the NYU School of Medicine that reveals a more objective approach to the issues. You may have already seen it but if not you might find it interesting. I posted the link in another thread but here it is again: "Woman Who Kill" (http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7331296)
Personally, I feel that in order for the truth to brought to light, victims have to be willing to revictimize themselves, either spiritually, like a rape victim having to repeat their testimony over and over again to people who are trying to tear it apart, or physically, like Sandra's body being submitted for another autopsy, in order for all the evidence to be discovered.
Also, in order to convict criminals based on evidence and not the wild emotional need to punish someone when the unimaginable happens, both the defense and the prosecution need to be able to conduct their own investigation. Someone earlier in the thread posted an account of an incompetent medical examiner. It happens. Prosecutors and LE are human; they're not immune to bias and corruption. To ensure that criminals are convicted on the correct charges, evidence, i.e. the body, needs to be looked at from both sides.
Amen. I couldn't agree more.
MCDRAW
04-19-2009, 01:15 PM
No not railroaded but it is very common for LE to tack on extra charges in case the initial charge is somehow disproved, weakened or if the evidence is not rock solid. They may in fact have irrefutable evidence for all charges or they may not, I just don't know. It's harder to break three pencils together than just one...
Of course this is all just theory, I'm just as anxious as you are to learn the whole truth.
Here is an interesting ABC video report on Melissa Huckaby and the subject of Woman Killers which aired on April 14th. In it is an interview with a Dr. Michael Welner from the NYU School of Medicine that reveals a more objective approach to the issues. You may have already seen it but if not you might find it interesting. I posted the link in another thread but here it is again: "Woman Who Kill" (http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7331296)
You are correct police often tack on extra charges. I don't believe they would have charged MH with rape with a foreign object if they didn't have the evidence to prove it. I don't believe that they would put Sandra's family through that. IMO
Under California law the victim does not have to be transported a defined distance while alive to qualify for kidnapping, all that has to happen is the victim is kept from leaving freely and moved. Ref. California Penal Code 207-210. (http://law.justia.com/california/codes/pen/207-210.html) Huckabee has been charged under 207(a): (bold mine)
For instance, the street that runs in front of MH's house and a room inside her house would be different parts of the same county. Would this be enough distance to constitute kidnapping? Well, assuming this goes before a judge and jury that is what they will have to decide based on the facts of this case and this case alone.
Yes yes I am aware of this which is why I mentioned the fact that Sandra may not have been transported and/or detained at all before her death. The kidnapping charges may be speculative and hinging on the fact that LE believes death occurred at the church -which would mean of course that she was brought there while alive.
You are correct police often tack on extra charges. I don't believe they would have charged MH with rape with a foreign object if they didn't have the evidence to prove it. I don't believe that they would put Sandra's family through that. IMO
They (LE) are under a tremendous amount of pressure from the community to not only find the person(s) responsible but also to make the charges stick. Under this kind of pressure they may be throwing everything including the kitchen sink at her in the hope that something lands. Not saying this is what they're doing but it is plausible.
nursebeeme
04-19-2009, 01:27 PM
We don't know if the kidnapping charge is warranted as we don't know where death occurred. If death occurred at Melissa's home and it was an accident then transporting the body to the church does not construe kidnapping. LE believes death occurred at the church but we have yet to see what evidence they have to support this claim. It also cannot be ascertained whether or not SC was confined in any way prior to death which would also negate any kidnapping charges.
We don't even know if the rape was posthumous or postmortem. Again this has bearing on whether or not death occurred during the act of a felony. Again this could have a direct impact on an accidental death or one that was premeditated or caused in the act of a felony. Needless to say the differences have a tremendous effect on conviction and sentencing. We just don't know enough to reach any definite conclusions yet. Speculative ones yes, definite ones no.
LE believed they had enough evidence and charged her. How reliable, concrete and irrefutable it is has yet to be seen. I believe SC's death may very well have been an accident with with everything else being part of the cover up. It's been my gut since she was arrested. Like everyone else, I too must wait to find out the truth.LE knows the location of the death... :waitasec:hmmm I bet that is why they have charged her with kidnapping?
tiredofthis
04-19-2009, 01:31 PM
Yes yes I am aware of this which is why I mentioned the fact that Sandra may not have been transported and/or detained at all before her death. The kidnapping charges may be speculative and hinging on the fact that LE believes death occurred at the church -which would mean of course that she was brought there while alive.
Yes, but at some point I'm sure Sandra wanted to leave and was prevented from doing so.
SeriouslySearching
04-19-2009, 01:31 PM
There will be no argument if the rape occurred before or after death. The evidence will be very clear. Rape by Instrumentation (foreign object) would produce inflammation if the rape occurred before death and none would be present after death. There are other obvious factors which can determine this, too. It won't be in question in court, imo.
MCDRAW
04-19-2009, 01:31 PM
They (LE) are under a tremendous amount of pressure from the community to not only find the person(s) responsible but also to make the charges stick. Under this kind of pressure they may be throwing everything including the kitchen sink at her in the hope that something lands. Not saying this is what they're doing but it is plausible.
If that is what they are doing it would have been more plausible to go after one of the sex offenders living there. IMO
LE knows the location of the death... :waitasec:hmmm I bet that is why they have charged her with kidnapping?
They think they do... we will have to wait to see how strong their evidence is on this.
Yes, but at some point I'm sure Sandra wanted to leave and was prevented from doing so.
Speculative at best. She may have been content were she was right up until the moment of death.
There will be no argument if the rape occurred before or after death. The evidence will be very clear. Rape by Instrumentation (foreign object) would produce inflammation if the rape occurred before death and none would be present after death. There are other obvious factors which can determine this, too. It won't be in question in court, imo.
It may be if the second autopsy is granted and new revelations are found.
If that is what they are doing it would have been more plausible to go after one of the sex offenders living there. IMO
Melissa may have been more convenient.
MCDRAW
04-19-2009, 01:46 PM
Mellisa may have been more convenient.
Really? More convenient than a sex offender being charged with a rape and murder of a child. A sunday school teacher and Mother of a small daughter was more convienent that a sex offender? Do you really believe that?
nursebeeme
04-19-2009, 01:46 PM
They think they do... we will have to wait to see how strong their evidence is on this.
of COURSE we will.
Winnow
04-19-2009, 01:48 PM
Speculative at best. She may have been content were she was right up until the moment of death.
Yes. Quite possibly - especially if drugs were involved (as the rumors of a previous drugging and which the police are not outright denying).
I, for one, am awaiting the toxicology results. I expect it to yield something of significance. JMO
nursebeeme
04-19-2009, 01:49 PM
Melissa may have been more convenient.
The investigators themselves, when first confronted with the evidence that pointed to Huckaby, were inclined to look for another suspect.
"When investigators were first looking at this they went 'Huh, no way... Who did she work with?'" Sheneman said. "We got that info and said 'there's no way, that doesn't happen.'"
"After this case, I'll never say never again," Sheneman said, adding that police remain confident that Huckaby acted alone.
http://www.tracypress.com/pages/full_story?page_label=home&id=2345986-Public+skeptical+that+woman+killed-+raped+girl&article-Public%20skeptical%20that%20woman%20killed-%20raped%20girl%20=&widget=push&instance=home_news_bullets&open=&
oceanblueeyes
04-19-2009, 01:54 PM
You are correct police often tack on extra charges. I don't believe they would have charged MH with rape with a foreign object if they didn't have the evidence to prove it. I don't believe that they would put Sandra's family through that. IMO
I think they relatively knew pretty early on about the genital trauma Sandra suffered and they would have to let the family know this because they would never want it known through a media leak and them be unaware of it. I think when Sandra's family found out what had happened to her they demanded that Melissa Huckaby also be punished for those crimes too. If Sandra was my child, I certainly would.
Every illegal act she did should be listed in the charge. I don't see this as desperation on their part but having to face what the evidence showed them. It was showing these results and she is the only one involved in these crimes.
Why should she get a pass and not be tried for those things that were done to Sandra? She shouldn't and I am thankful they added them and if convicted will pay for all of her crimes not just the taking of Sandra's life. If this perp had been a male they wouldn't have hesitated for a NY minute to add these charges.
There should be no gender biases in this case.
imo
tiredofthis
04-19-2009, 01:54 PM
There will be no argument if the rape occurred before or after death. The evidence will be very clear. Rape by Instrumentation (foreign object) would produce inflammation if the rape occurred before death and none would be present after death. There are other obvious factors which can determine this, too. It won't be in question in court, imo.
Yes, I hate to even think about it, but if the rape occurred before death, there would be possible tearing and blood. (It makes me sick to write this.)
SeriouslySearching
04-19-2009, 02:06 PM
What QNA would like us to believe is Sandra went with Melissa willingly, Melissa "accidently" caused Sandra's death prior to her feeling threatened or held against her will, Melissa decided to cover up the "accident" by then raping and molesting her dead body to point to a male perp, stuffing her in the suitcase, and dumping her in the irrigation pond. She then decided to make up the stories she told LE and the media to further cover the "accident".
What is left out here is the evidence the rape happened while Sandra was still alive which changes the entire scenario. The rape before death would conclude Sandra was held against her will and a kidnapping did occur.
SeriouslySearching
04-19-2009, 02:20 PM
Yes. Quite possibly - especially if drugs were involved (as the rumors of a previous drugging and which the police are not outright denying).
I, for one, am awaiting the toxicology results. I expect it to yield something of significance. JMOBeing drugged is not the same as "being content". If she was drugged, it is further proof Sandra was held against her will.
While I do think it is possible she was drugged, I am not sure. The rape and murder took place supposedly within a very short time following her disappearance (possibly within the first hour). It would take time to drug her beforehand, imo.
Winnow
04-19-2009, 04:04 PM
Being drugged is not the same as "being content". If she was drugged, it is further proof Sandra was held against her will.
While I do think it is possible she was drugged, I am not sure. The rape and murder took place supposedly within a very short time following her disappearance (possibly within the first hour). It would take time to drug her beforehand, imo.
SS, I really respect your postings, and so do not wish to appear disagreeable.
I find it VERY interesting to go back and watch this video: Woman Questioned in Tracy Kidnapping Speaks.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/us_world/Man-Reported-at-Pond-Where-Tracy-Girl-Was-Found--.html
(It is the second video posted on the left side of the page.)
Sheeesh! MH all but confessed to the where and how of it all. MH gives up the suitcase, the note (which she has now admitted to writing) = location of body, and brings up the issue of a child being drugged.
According to posts here on our boards, this park visit/drugging episode took place 2 years ago (not "2 months ago") and there was questions raised as to whether it was SC that was found "passed out" and to have had "narcotics" in her system.
In another posting, I saw the drug described as a "benzo".
If you have taken even benadryl to sleep, you will know that it can make you very drowsy within 20 minutes. I still believe that what we have is an unintentional drug overdose as the actual COD -- which would certainly explain MH's statement that "it was an accident".
We have really run off in the direction of a violent rape as the COD and I am just not so sure.... MOO
The first statement that TPD made was that there was "no obvious signs of trauma".
tiredofthis
04-19-2009, 04:16 PM
Speculative at best. She may have been content were she was right up until the moment of death.
Really it is All speculative. We don't know what happened in Sandra's last moments so we are left to speculate. We do know she was raped with a foreign object, killed and stuffed into a suitcase.
tiredofthis
04-19-2009, 04:18 PM
Being drugged is not the same as "being content". If she was drugged, it is further proof Sandra was held against her will.
While I do think it is possible she was drugged, I am not sure. The rape and murder took place supposedly within a very short time following her disappearance (possibly within the first hour). It would take time to drug her beforehand, imo.
I was going to post the same thing, but you said it so well.
Drugging someone is a form of detaining them because it takes away their
ability to think and make choices for themselves.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
0