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

Status
Not open for further replies.
It depends. I reported on a brutal rape and kidnapping case in southern NH.... The suspects house was searched for days but after all the evidence was collected I believe LE only remained on scene until they were absolutely done and the property was secure.

But when did they leave a police officer at the house until the trial?
 
THAT, to me, is the most interesting bit to come out of today. The rest is just procedural jockeying, in my opinion.

Chilling, very chilling.

I found the most interesting bit to be the attorney saying that Nate is innocent. That's a pretty bold statement to make considering the wild speculations about what went on in the container.
 
If he claims NK is innocent why didn't he enter that plea a week ago? He said at the time he entered no plea based on the little info he had......but if NK says he is innocent, why would defence not claim that?
 
If he claims NK is innocent why didn't he enter that plea a week ago? He said at the time he entered no plea based on the little info he had......but if NK says he is innocent, why would defence not claim that?

My guess would be that at the time of the first hearing the attorney had pretty much no information and this hearing was not the type of hearing to do a plea. Just a guess, though.
 
poirority, while you couldnt view it the defense argued that they were not asking the court to issue any other orders about unsealing evidence, that they were just using those reasons to explain why they need the scene preserved as is (that without any information he cant even say for sure what needs to be preserved, how could he possibly know?)

a couple more things were said but nothing too important, then the state asked to approach, young and defense counsel whispered to each other probably trying to strike some sort of deal, then the judge said ten minute recess.

defense walked away visibly laughing, hard to tell context, seemed sort of exasperated maybe.

Thanks, liljim for filling me in. :) So exasperating to lose the feed...
 
the defense did not claim the defendant was innocent, he said the defendant maintains his innocence. as is his right.
 
I know LE kept crime scene tape up for at least a year around Kortney's duplex after she disappeared. And, she rented it from someone apparently. No officer guarded it though, just the crime scene tape. This was in PA (IIRC) and not NH.
 
I found the most interesting bit to be the attorney saying that Nate is innocent. That's a pretty bold statement to make considering the wild speculations about what went on in the container.

I find that pretty par for the course. Right now, the client is in all likelihood saying he's innocent, and he has no info from the State that contradicts that.

If he claims NK is innocent why didn't he enter that plea a week ago? He said at the time he entered no plea based on the little info he had......but if NK says he is innocent, why would defence not claim that?

We don't know how much time he had to talk to NK before entering a plea, but usually for defense counsel (particularly appointed counsel), there's not much time. More to the point, he had no real documentation from the State about the case. Given what little info he had, the attorney went the safe, CYA route.
 
Sorry, my misunderstanding. I guess it is a world of difference in maintaining innocent and pleading it.
 
If he claims NK is innocent why didn't he enter that plea a week ago? He said at the time he entered no plea based on the little info he had......but if NK says he is innocent, why would defence not claim that?

A week ago (at arraignment) defense said he only had the one piece of paper stating the charge felony B kidnapping. Since then he's gotten the arrest affidavit (8 more pages.)

ETA: Oops, I see AnaTeresa has stepped up to explain it much more thoroughly. ;) (So thankful for legal experts in here.)
 
Conversely, in Alaska, the family of 4 who is missing, I think the owners of the duplex/apt. were given permission to clear out the space for rent again. I guess it is different in every case or state.

That said, no one has been arrested for kidnapping in either Kortne's case or the family of 4. So, I don't know.
 
If this were "cut and dry" like Castro and his captives with the "escape," we probably would not be discussing this, I'm sure. As far as I know, no one really knows but LE, AH and NK how AH got home. It certainly did not play out like Castro with her needing help to bust out of a door. And I am guessing there probably weren't elaborate locks and whatnot like Castro had in his house.
 
OSSIPEE, N.H. — Aug 6, 2014, 4:28 PM ET
By LYNNE TUOHY Associated Press
Associated Press

A judge on Wednesday put off ruling on whether to move evidence including the house of a man charged with kidnapping a 14-year-old girl who returned home after nine months.

[...]

Friedman argued that the state could renew its arguments to move Kibby's property in a few months, after defense lawyers received enough evidence to argue against it. "Right now this is just unfair; it's repugnant to due process," he said.

Young countered that investigators have permitted the defense lawyers to visit the property twice recently and have been given the 8-page arrest warrant affidavit.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/defense-state-spar-evidence-girls-kidnap-24855955
The judge said a ruling will come soon.
 
I'm very Curious as to the stamped letter Kibby had in his pocket. It was addressed to someone in Laconia, NH
 
Yes but surely in cases where the house is not a mobile home, they manage to do that successfully. Their argument seems to be that guarding the house 24/7 would be impracticable, and so that is why they need it moved. They are not arguing that they need to move it in order to search under it.

I understand the defense's worry. If they cut the mobile home in half in order to move it, then evidence could be lost or destroyed.


If his client is innocent there should not be any evidence, of any kind, involving him. So why is the defense atty. worried? No matter what evidence, att. will try to get it thrown out, although his "client/defendant" is "innocent". Makes sense huh?
 
If his client is innocent there should not be any evidence, of any kind, involving him. So why is the defense atty. worried? No matter what evidence, att. will try to get it thrown out, although his "client/defendant" is "innocent". Makes sense huh?

What? Because there might be exculpatory evidence in there that needs to be preserved.
 
I'm wondering what made them arrest him in the first place? The sketch? I would think police acted on more than that. As for him being strange according to some neighbours, and having a criminal history, those factors don't necessarily mean he kidnapped her......so what led to the arrest? I just cannot believe it was based solely on the sketch.
Having said that, regardless of where the trailer home is, if there is no forensic evidence, then there is no forensic evidence. So if her hair samples are not there or whatever else they are searching for, then does it matter where the trailer sits?
Then I keep thinking others are privy to info. I am not.......so must show patience and see it play out. It's all strange to an outsider of the legal world!
 
I'm wondering what made them arrest him in the first place? The sketch? I would think police acted on more than that. As for him being strange according to some neighbours, and having a criminal history, those factors don't necessarily mean he kidnapped her......so what led to the arrest? I just cannot believe it was based solely on the sketch.
Having said that, regardless of where the trailer home is, if there is no forensic evidence, then there is no forensic evidence. So if her hair samples are not there or whatever else they are searching for, then does it matter where the trailer sits?
Then I keep thinking others are privy to info. I am not.......so must show patience and see it play out. It's all strange to an outsider of the legal world!

I do not think that they were on to him until less than 48 hours before his arrest. This is actually exactly what Jane Young said in court at the arraignment, and I believe her. Keep in mind that Kibby walked into a police station on the day etch-a-sketch man was released and they actually gave him his guns back. At that point, I can only assume that the police did not have Kibby on their radar at all, or else they never would have given firearms to an "anti-government" guy they thought they might be arresting soon.

For some reason, LE was not suspicious of Kibby in the first 5 days or so after Abigail returned. I personally have some very serious questions as to the level of involvement this man has had in this case.
 
I wonder what it is that made them change their tune on him? Again.....must wait and see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
152
Guests online
911
Total visitors
1,063

Forum statistics

Threads
589,931
Messages
17,927,844
Members
228,004
Latest member
CarpSleuth
Back
Top