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

[PoirotryInMotion]

I may have missed something, but… is this the first time the prosecution has alleged that NK committed crimes on his property? (That's not what he is currently charged with.)

I'm not sure, but wouldn't his keeping her confined there constitute the "criminal act" on his property (at the very least) that he's been charged with? That's the kidnapping charge (and felony B implies--at least at this point--no 'bodily harm' crimes, yet).

 

[bessie]

Can't say I recall an entire mobile home being taken away. I do remember this scene in Samantha Koenig's murder case when Israel Keyes' entire shed was hauled off.

http://www.adn.com/node/1436586

Seems like in Aliahna Lemmon's murder the mobile home was removed by LE as evidence. I'll have to check that out. The difference is that those both were homicide cases.

 

[tlcya]

Wow, I don't remember that and I followed Ariana. I wish I had that good a memory!

 

[bessie]

Plumadore's trailer towed away at officials' request
Updated: Friday, 30 Dec 2011, 8:13 PM EST

FORT WAYNE (WANE) - The mobile home Michael Plumadore was living in when he allegedly killed Aliahna Lemmon last week was moved Friday.

The trailer originally was home to Lemmon's grandfather, who died in early December. The Allen County Chief Deputy Prosecutor says the mobile home was moved by the county's request, to preserve evidence.

www-wishtv.com/dpp/news/india...icials-request

---

<bbm>

The media link no longer works, but here's the link to the post where the above first was posted on WS.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?159025-The-Trailer-Park&p=7482744#post7482744


@tlcya: (Just don't ask me what I ate for lunch yesterday. :facepalm

 

[Fireweed]

http://www.conwaydailysun.com/newsx/local-news/115621-abby-s-alleged-kidnapper-was-under-the-community-s-nose

So the police gave Kibby's guns back to him on the same day that the sketch was released. I do not think that Kibby was on their radar at all until very shortly before his arrest. I also do not think that the sketch was a ruse in order to keep Kibby complacent.

 

[EmmaRose]

I have to agree with what ticya mentioned that perhaps kibby is trying to block removal of the trailer and container because he knows that when it is broken down, something could be discovered.

Must be burning him, since he isn't a big fan of law enforcement, it seems, MOO, from what I've read. I see Kibby trying to get his way via his public defender and in his head he is going to "win this". I can't help remembering the retired cop who was very familiar with NK and his prior escapades-- saying that Kibby had something like tunnel vision and could only see things one way: his way. Since most of Nate's charges in the past have been reduced or dropped, he may feel he can talk his way out of this one too and expects to go home soon and wants his trailer and container on his property for his arrival...

 

[Fireweed]

I have to agree with what ticya mentioned that perhaps kibby is trying to block removal of the trailer and container because he knows that when it is broken down, something could be discovered.

Must be burning him, since he isn't a big fan of law enforcement, it seems, MOO, from what I've read. I see Kibby trying to get his way via his public defender and in his head he is going to "win this". I can't help remembering the retired cop who was very familiar with NK and his prior escapades-- saying that Kibby had something like tunnel vision and could only see things one way: his way. Since most of Nate's charges in the past have been reduced or dropped, he may feel he can talk his way out of this one too and expects to go home soon and wants his trailer and container on his property for his arrival...

Well, if those in charge of his entire judicial process are not careful, then the whole thing will just get reversed on appeal anyway.

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

Well, if those in charge of his entire judicial process are not careful, then the whole thing will just get reversed on appeal anyway.

That was my thought. I'd think they'd want to ensure defense had no cause for complaint about the integrity of the evidence. And besides, wouldn't it be far simpler to station a guard at the site than to chop this all up and cart if off somewhere (and also guard it there)?

 

[Rivernh]

That was my thought. I'd think they'd want to ensure defense had no cause for complaint about the integrity of the evidence. And besides, wouldn't it be far simpler to station a guard at the site than to chop this all up and cart if off somewhere (and also guard it there)?

I would think that they could secure it with fencing and alarms around the perimeter. That couldn't cost more than moving it. Or just guard it until such a time that the defense is allowed to inspect it? I can appreciate the defense attorney wanting a chance to see it and inspect it as it stands on the property.

 

[white rabbit]

here we go folks...tomorrow we might learn more...might...

http://www.necn.com/news/new-england/Abigail-Hernandez-Suspect-to-Appear-in-Court-270068421.html

Nathaniel Kibby, accused of kidnapping 15-year-old Abigail Hernandez last October, is due to appear in court Wednesday.

Lawyers for Kibby asked for an expedited hearing on the preservation of evidence.

They argue that the evidence in question is necessary for them to prepare their argument and understand the scope of the charges.

 

[Fireweed]

Removing someone's entire home for a crime that carries a max of seven years seems excessive to me. And I know that I will be told that "he is going to be charged with more crimes," but right now, he has only been charged with one crime. What if his bail-reduction hearing tomorrow is a success and he gets out on bail? Well then where he is supposed to go? I mean, I know that they likely have a lot more stuff on this guy, but let's just pretend for a moment that the criminal justice system is functioning the way it should. In theory, this man could be free until his trial by 10 am tomorrow, and what, his house is gone indefinitely? How long can LE even search someone's house? Apparently they can just take it away and search it for as long as they like.

And I am in no way defending this guy, but assuming he is the monster he has been charged with being, then surely it is in the state's best interest to make sure he will not be getting out on appeal in two years.

 

[Not Without Peril]

The motion about the trailer confuses me. Yes, he owns them, but he does not own the land. He is going to be busy for a while and not likely to be out on bail needing to live there even if LE would allow it and they were done with the scene. That specific motion seems like it is more Kibby's concern and not about his defense but about people touching and taking HIS stuff and moving HIS stuff. I wonder if it is just part of his nature for that to be his big concern right now or if he fears something specific.

I would not defend Kibby. But if I did, I would file such a motion.

In the best case scenario for the defense, nothing is found. In the worst case scenario, something, that helps the prosecutor's case, is found. The motion, if granted, would work to prevent a fishing expedition.

 

[Fireweed]

I would not defend Kibby. But if I did, I would file such a motion.

In the best case scenario for the defense, nothing is found. In the worst case scenario, something, that helps the prosecutor's case, is found. The motion, if granted, would work to prevent a fishing expedition.

If I were his defense attorney, I would file every single motion I possibly could. I would get as many adverse rulings as I could. I would do everything in my power to preserve every unconstitutional ruling for appeal that I could. If this defense attorney is smart that is exactly what he will do. If he has noticed the same pattern in this case that I have, then I would say he would be foolish not to go out there and ask for every single thing he can since he knows that it will be denied.

I got my popcorn popped.

 

[newguy123]

It said they were hoping to have phone and text records preserved. Wondering does this mean they have found her phone? If not, what records would they have that needed preserving, that LE has not already checked out?

 

[Fireweed]

It said they were hoping to have phone and text records preserved. Wondering does this mean they have found her phone? If not, what records would they have that needed preserving, that LE has not already checked out?

I was told by a couple of people here that they would not need her physical phone for any of that. I guess now I am assuming that they are talking about Kibby's phone maybe?

 

[newguy123]

That's what I thought I read somewhere....they didn't need the physical phone of hers to see who was called or texted or that they could actually see the texts. Not sure if that is true. For arguments sake if it is true that they texted, wouldn't it show up on her records? They wouldn't need his to know that......I guess we will know soon enough.
The whole thing confuses me.....they want to ensure evidence is preserved? Are they afraid it would be destroyed or "lost" somehow otherwise? I must be more naïve than I realize!

 

[SStarr33]

It said they were hoping to have phone and text records preserved. Wondering does this mean they have found her phone? If not, what records would they have that needed preserving, that LE has not already checked out?

I think that the actual texts are only available from certain carriers, so you would need the actual phone to see them. Also, google deletes records after a certain amount of time, so maybe they want to put them on notice.

 

[SStarr33]

This is from 2011:

All of the mobile phone companies keep records about voice calls and text messages received and sent for a year or longer. Verizon stores the contents of every text message for three to five days. (The others don't keep the text.)

http://www.infoworld.com/t/internet...ies-keep-your-records-longer-you-think-175466

 

[newguy123]

Thanks.....I guess I'll have to be patient and see what unfolds.

 

[Not Without Peril]

[W]hat records would [the prosecutor] have that needed preserving, that LE has not already checked out?

A defendant has a due process right to inspect potentially exculpatory evidence. The prosecutor, therefore, must preserve potentially exculpatory evidence so that the defendant may inspect it. Therefore, your question should be as follows: "what records would [the prosecutor] have that needed preserving, that [Kibby] has not already checked out?"