Spoliation Motion Sept 22, 2009 Includes Response

[lin]

POLL ADDED - Note the poll has a 'write in' option and you can select more than one option. (I hope)

I doubt everyone has had a chance to weigh in on this topic and hope the moderators will bring over the first and last posts from the old thread to start this one off properly. TIA

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4171023&postcount=1"]First post[/ame]

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4180166&postcount=447"]Last post[/ame]


Hope I got them all -- great sleuthing done on old thread:


Motion To Dismiss Due To Spoliation of Evidence


[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4173388&postcount=272"]Spoliation definition[/ame]


[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4173494&postcount=278"]Case citations regarding "spoliation" as a civil case issue; not criminal (thusfar in FL courts)[/ame]


[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4173837&postcount=291"]Links to discussion and hearing wherein defense first complained regarding access to crime scene during processing[/ame]


[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4178928&postcount=438"]Post with link and specific descriptions of hearing when defense first demanded crime scene access[/ame]


WFTV article containing this quote:

"But Strickland quickly shot down that argument, ruling the defense team has no right to interfere with detectives as they process the crime scene."


[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4174275&postcount=319"]Post claims there are no criminal cases in Florida citing 'spoliation of evidence.' Poster says they checked legal service.[/ame]


[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4178299&postcount=421"]Admin EXCELLENT explanation of how to ask for documentation/links to back up posts[/ame]


WFTV article with Bill Shaeffer slamming defense motion


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9huu9hOYmtA"]YouTube - Casey Anthony's Attorneys Want Case Dismissed[/ame]



UPDATED TO ADD RESPONSE TO MOTION 9-23-2009

Couldn't wait for media to put this up, went and got it myself (along with a couple other things, heh). Thought it was worthy of a thread of it's own for discussion.

I'm pasting the pages here to make it easier for WS'rs; you cannot see them unless you are logged in (and have at least 50 posts, for you newbies)

I will also post the PDF for download shortly, for those that want a better copy.

Page 1:

Page 2:

Page 3:

Page 4:

Page 5:

Link to download Ashton's response:

http://www.filedropper.com/092209saspoliationresponse
Enjoy!

 

[lin]

BTW -- for those that didn't get to the first thread yet, everyone that weighed in opined there is NO chance this motion will be granted. Also, a brief summary of the motion is the defense is complaining that because they weren't allowed at the crime scene while it was being processed (like the court already ruled against allowing) resulted in LE processing the scene (as in thorough normal procedure) and also <gasp> excavating the remains (giving this poor baby the respect her family won't) which resulted in destruction of the scene and leaving the defense unable to gather exonerating evidence. (Well that and the fact there was no exonerating evidence.) It's kind of a repeat of the hearing wherein they demanded access as the OSCO was crawling through the muck and mire, swatting mosquitos, dealing with snakes and whatever else was there.

 

[cecybeans]

Lin, thanks for giving this another chance. It almost begs for a poll (although there could be a lot of multiple choice answers)...

I also just wanted to add OT to JBean's great parameters for quoting, etc. that we should all remember that, due to circumstances beyond our control sometimes - some posters end up being "drive-by" types who post and then have to leave the forum for awhile to put out other fires. I am certainly one very guilty of that. I am always popping in and out - not only due to my WS-ADD, but to the darned outside world! I apologize if I have left anyone hanging, forgotten to retrieve information or left a question anyone asked unanswered, and have appreciated the patience I've seen here for that.

 

[lin]

Lin, thanks for giving this another chance. It almost begs for a poll (although there could be a lot of multiple choice answers)...

I also just wanted to add OT to JBean's great parameters for quoting, etc. that we should all remember that, due to circumstances beyond our control sometimes - some posters end up being "drive-by" types who post and then have to leave the forum for awhile to put out other fires. I am certainly one very guilty of that. I am always popping in and out - not only due to my WS-ADD, but to the darned outside world! I apologize if I have left anyone hanging, forgotten to retrieve information or left a question anyone asked unanswered, and have appreciated the patience I've seen here for that.

Thanks! You know, the idea of a poll occurred to me but wasn't sure how to phrase. Any ideas?

Also, no worries; I am very confident you follow those instructions as a matter of course.

 

[cecybeans]

Thanks! You know, the idea of a poll occurred to me but wasn't sure how to phrase. Any ideas?

Also, no worries; I am very confident you follow those instructions as a matter of course. Not replying within minutes as opposed to ignoring requests for documentation are very different things, imo.

Well, you could go about it two ways, I imagine - either a yes, no, maybe scenario on if you think the motions collectively would fly is one.

Another way to set it up is to ask which of the items, if any, listed in the motions, would have any real bearing on the decision.

 

[JBean]

Lin, thanks for giving this another chance. It almost begs for a poll (although there could be a lot of multiple choice answers)...

I also just wanted to add OT to JBean's great parameters for quoting, etc. that we should all remember that, due to circumstances beyond our control sometimes - some posters end up being "drive-by" types who post and then have to leave the forum for awhile to put out other fires. I am certainly one very guilty of that. I am always popping in and out - not only due to my WS-ADD, but to the darned outside world! I apologize if I have left anyone hanging, forgotten to retrieve information or left a question anyone asked unanswered, and have appreciated the patience I've seen here for that.

I think since we have so many members that post regularly and typically get answers in real time, we often forget that this is a message board. that means we post messages and in reality there is no real expectation of getting answers from a specific poster on our questions. We have just spoiled each other. So, if you are unable to respond to a question it just is not a bad thing. It is life on a board. Those of you that do not get answers to your questions, don't ask over and over. you may be on ignore, the poster may not want to respond or maybe a poster does not feel comfortable or inclined to expand on their position.

In the event it is about information posted as fact with nothing to back it up, please ask for a link. If they do not respond, they may not have a link, they may not be back on the board or they may be looking for a link. No need to ask the same question over and over. if you see someone else has already asked for the link, then that should suffice. If information is carried as fact and it has not been backed up, then by all means contact me or contact TRicia. We will be happy to look into and see what's up. Beyond asking for a link or refuting the information with links of your own, don't beat it into the ground, just ask us for help.

This post and my previous one are not directed at any one poster or poster(s), this is an ongoing issue in this and other forums.

 

[Spangle]

Thanks For clearing that up JB. And I think most of us realize that life does happen. Folks do pop in and out. But when a poster is still posting, then you pretty much know that they are just ignoring the issue. It is then it becomes a problem. And it seems that you guys have come up with an excellent way to handle it.

It also helps with Trolling types. Who are making statements to start problems. Then just set back and watch the fall out.

 

[Brini]

BTW -- for those that didn't get to the first thread yet, everyone that weighed in opined there is NO chance this motion will be granted. Also, a brief summary of the motion is the defense is complaining that because they weren't allowed at the crime scene while it was being processed (like the court already ruled against allowing) resulted in LE processing the scene (as in thorough normal procedure) and also <gasp> excavating the remains (giving this poor baby the respect her family won't) which resulted in destruction of the scene and leaving the defense unable to gather exonerating evidence. (Well that and the fact there was no exonerating evidence.) It's kind of a repeat of the hearing wherein they demanded access as the OSCO was crawling through the muck and mire, swatting mosquitos, dealing with snakes and whatever else was there.

Poisonous snakes, disease carrying mosquitos, defense lawyers.....:waitasec:

 

[JBean]

Thanks For clearing that up JB. And I think most of us realize that life does happen. Folks do pop in and out. But when a poster is still posting, then you pretty much know that they are just ignoring the issue. It is then it becomes a problem. And it seems that you guys have come up with an excellent way to handle it.

It also helps with Trolling types. Who are making statements to start problems. Then just set back and watch the fall out.

Now just to clarify, a poster has every right to ignore any question regarding their opinion. There is no obligation to answer questions put to them Some are not comfortable defendig their position and that is totally fine. The exception is when someone posts something as fact and cannot back it up with a source. in that case, ask for a link, if a link is not provided then ignore and report. I am talking about blatant misrepresentation.
We had a poster here that used to post the most outrageous "facts" and then sign off. None of the "facts" were linked or otherwise supported. This poster consistently ignored reasonable requests to support these outrageous "facts".
That's a problem and they don't post here anymore.
Just ignore and report.
Again, none of this is directed at any single poster on this thread or any other thread. It is an ongoing issue.
This is not to be confused with someone's interpretation of a fact that can be subject for discussion, because that is an opinion. Good example would be the tape placement and function. We know the facts regarding the tape, but there are different interpretations of those facts and that is totally fine to state your opinion and then not subject yourself to scrutiny if you are not so inclined.
I can post:
"I don't think the tape was meant to kill her."
and I am under no obligation to explain or defend that because it is just my opinion and that may be all i want to say on that. If posters keep badgering for an explanation, that is not cool.

 

[lin]

Well, you could go about it two ways, I imagine - either a yes, no, maybe scenario on if you think the motions collectively would fly is one.

Another way to set it up is to ask which of the items, if any, listed in the motions, would have any real bearing on the decision.

Specifics woman, I need specifics! lol

Seriously, if we should have a poll with this thread, let's discuss what we think the options should be as the team we are; that way we're sure to get a much better result. TIA

 

[lin]

Thanks For clearing that up JB. And I think most of us realize that life does happen. Folks do pop in and out. But when a poster is still posting, then you pretty much know that they are just ignoring the issue. It is then it becomes a problem. And it seems that you guys have come up with an excellent way to handle it.

It also helps with Trolling types. Who are making statements to start problems. Then just set back and watch the fall out.

Hey, we can all make a wrong turn; use info with the best of intentions only to find out it's invalid. The problem that I find, what bugs me, is when someone repeatedly posts something; is repeatedly corrected; and refuses to provide or ignores requests for documentation. JBean cleared it up in the last thread, however, that is not something we should let slide --- we should notifiy the moderators so that we keep things on a factual basis as much as possible. At least that's my understanding of JBean's post.

 

[lin]

Now just to clarify, a poster has every right to ignore any question regarding their opinion. There is no obligation to answer questions put to them Some are not comfortable defendig their position and that is totally fine. The exception is when someone posts something as fact and cannot back it up with a source. in that case, ask for a link, if a link is not provided then ignore and report. I am talking about blatant misrepresentation.
We had a poster here that used to post the most outrageous "facts" and then sign off. None of the "facts" were linked or otherwise supported. This poster consistently ignored reasonable requests to support these outrageous "facts".
That's a problem and they don't post here anymore.
Just ignore and report.
Again, none of this is directed at any single poster on this thread or any other thread. It is an ongoing issue.
This is not to be confused with someone's interpretation of a fact that can be subject for discussion, because that is an opinion. Good example would be the tape placement and function. We know the facts regarding the tape, but there are different interpretations of those facts and that is totally fine to state your opinion and then not subject yourself to scrutiny if you are not so inclined.
I can post:
"I don't think the tape was meant to kill her."
and I am under no obligation to explain or defend that because it is just my opinion and that may be all i want to say on that. If posters keep badgering for an explanation, that is not cool.

Oh the tangled web we weave when all we're trying to do is set some simple guidelines, huh? Just want to make sure I understand -- claiming 'opinion' isn't an absolute reason to not report, correct? Like if I keep insisting 'imo Caylee disappeared in 2007' others should correct the date, providing whatever documentation they can to me and if I keep repeating this, though couched as my opinion, it should be reported to the moderators so it isn't carried forward as fact by someone else, correct?

 

[cecybeans]

Specifics woman, I need specifics! lol

Seriously, if we should have a poll with this thread, let's discuss what we think the options should be as the team we are; that way we're sure to get a much better result. TIA

LOL - sorry! I was in drive-by mode today. I'm one of those who just automatically opens a WS window the first chance I get and keeps it open all day so I can sneak in and read when I can. People probably see I'm signed in and think I'm avoiding them or eating bon bons.

Maybe the simple version of a poll would be better - posting the "spoliation" motion link, if that was the main topic, and seeing if people vote yes, no or maybe on whether or not it will hold - or have any effect on the case. Folks could feel free to elaborate on why. Hey, I have NO freaking idea how to put up a poll here so I shoulda just kept my fingers quiet!

 

[lin]

LOL - sorry! I was in drive-by mode today. I'm one of those who just automatically opens a WS window the first chance I get and keeps it open all day so I can sneak in and read when I can. People probably see I'm signed in and think I'm avoiding them or eating bon bons.

Maybe the simple version of a poll would be better - posting the "spoliation" motion link, if that was the main topic, and seeing if people vote yes, no or maybe on whether or not it will hold - or have any effect on the case. Folks could feel free to elaborate on why. Hey, I have NO freaking idea how to put up a poll here so I shoulda just kept my fingers quiet!

Ok, I think I covered it and included a 'write-in' option for the ideas of others.

ETA: You may choose more than one option!

 

[momtective]

Love the poll Lin...I voted 2,3 & 6. But in the back of my mind I worry that Team KC just might pull a rabbit out of a hat in one of these crazy motions.

 

[lin]

Love the poll Lin...I voted 2,3 & 6. But in the back of my mind I worry that Team KC just might pull a rabbit out of a hat in one of these crazy motions.

First they have to find a rabbit... then they have to catch it... then they have to get it into the hat in order to be able to pull it out. I'm not seeing any indication they even know what a rabbit is; or even a hat for that matter!

 

[HRCODEPINK]

:laugh::floorlaugh:

First they have to find a rabbit... then they have to catch it... then they have to get it into the hat in order to be able to pull it out. I'm not seeing any indication they even know what a rabbit is; or even a hat for that matter!

I too love the 2,3 and 6 option!

 

[Brini]

first they have to find a rabbit... Then they have to catch it... Then they have to get it into the hat in order to be able to pull it out. I'm not seeing any indication they even know what a rabbit is; or even a hat for that matter!

potd!

 

[kaRN]

I haven't had a chance to read the last thread so this has probably been mentioned but if KC gets her charges dismissed because her lawyers and their experts didn't get to physically examine every aspect of the crime scene, while the investigators did...wouldn't almost every murderer in jail today be eligible to have their sentences reversed??
Geragos didn't get to examine the crime scene or remains.I can't think of a single defense team that has.

 

[Muzikman]

Love the poll Lin! Especially the "Are you smarter than a fifth grader" option.

Had to vote for 2/3/6.