MS - Jessica Chambers, 19, found burned near her car, Panola County, 6 Dec 2014 - #7

[Ms Pragmatic]

http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/evidencecollectionmanual_MT.pdf

Proper handling link

 

[cady]

Where do you get that the car was exposed to other people? Was someone seen climbing onto the tow truck in the few minutes the driver was there? Just because something is possible doesn't mean it happened. The car was on a tow truck.

JMO

A jury must be unanimous about beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. A Defense attorney will have a field day with the chain of custody issue. An acquittal would be another tragedy if the real perp(s) are actually arrested and face trial. JMO

 

[MyBelle]

The driver leaving the tow truck opens up the possibility of tampering. Reasonable doubt.

The evidence must be beyond a reasonable doubt. Merely raising something as a possibility still requires evidence to back it up. Any forensic examiner of the vehicle will be able to testify as to whether the car was tampered with AFTER the fire took place.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

A jury must be unanimous about beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. A Defense attorney will have a field day with the chain of custody issue. An acquittal would be another tragedy if the real perp(s) are actually arrested and face trial. JMO

There has to be a chain of custody issue before the defense can have a field day with it. I've yet to see anyone link any media article that even implies LE has botched this investigation.

 

[Concerned Mama]

The driver leaving the tow truck opens up the possibility of tampering. Reasonable doubt.

Maybe I'm just too tired after a full day of work, but what, exactly, would be tampered with that would give reasonable doubt? Surely they took thorough crime scene photos of the car, inside and out. I'm not sure how you could tamper with a burn pattern, or introduce residue of a burned accelerant over the entire car. If any fingerprints were to be collected, I'd think they would have done that at the scene, before they moved the vehicle and took a crowbar to the trunk.

I'm not trying to be snarky. Really. I just don't know what could be tampered with that would give reasonable doubt.

 

[MyBelle]

http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/evidencecollectionmanual_MT.pdf

Proper handling link

No mention of vehicle transport anywhere in your link.

 

[MyBelle]

Ask a law enforcement officer for a link. There are universal rules for handling evidence. For instance, picking up a suspected murder weapon. I am not LE, but I know if I found a discarded weapon, I wouldn't pick it up. Common sense.

If you're going to accuse LE of violating rules of evidence in the way they handled the car, I think it would be helpful if you would post a link to the rules that you are accusing them of violating.

 

[Ms Pragmatic]

There IS, however, a mention of limiting contact to evidence. Anyhow, it isn't worth arguing about. Champion admitted it shouldn't have happened. And it shouldn't have.

 

[MyBelle]

There IS, however, a mention of limiting contact to evidence. Anyhow, it isn't worth arguing about. Champion admitted it shouldn't have happened. And it shouldn't have.

When and where did Champion admit "it" shouldn't have happened? I've never seen him ever address LE's handling of evidence. I have a difficult time believing any prosecutor is going to call a news conference and publicly admit evidence was mishandled. That's why I've been asking for a link. Thanks.

 

[cady]

There has to be a chain of custody issue before the defense can have a field day with it. I've yet to see anyone link any media article that even implies LE has botched this investigation.

In the event of a trial I can almost guarantee you that the chain of custody issue will be opened up in court by the defense. Let's just hope that there WILL be a trial. JMO

 

[FelicityLemon]

Maybe I'm just too tired after a full day of work, but what, exactly, would be tampered with that would give reasonable doubt? Surely they took thorough crime scene photos of the car, inside and out. I'm not sure how you could tamper with a burn pattern, or introduce residue of a burned accelerant over the entire car. If any fingerprints were to be collected, I'd think they would have done that at the scene, before they moved the vehicle and took a crowbar to the trunk.

I'm not trying to be snarky. Really. I just don't know what could be tampered with that would give reasonable doubt.

You don't sound snarky I understand what you're saying regarding the reality and practicality of what could be tampered with for this specific piece of evidence (eh, my sentence structure lacks) but given what sometimes happens in court "Your honor, if one piece of evidence wasn't handled per protocol, how can we believe that the rest of the evidence was procedurally correct?" Yeah, having brain-fahts at the moment, but I hope what I mean is understood. Sometimes, all it takes is a single piece of something that people can grab onto and the whole shebang is out the window in the jury's minds. I could mention some cases here, but why risk opening that can of worms?

 

[FelicityLemon]

The evidence must be beyond a reasonable doubt. Merely raising something as a possibility still requires evidence to back it up. Any forensic examiner of the vehicle will be able to testify as to whether the car was tampered with AFTER the fire took place.

JMO

OJ Simpson

 

[PeterThomasFan]

Jujube I am also worried.
i originally posted this back on thread #5.

Crime scene transfer of evidence protocol is standard operating procedure for 'most' juristrictions. That chain of command evidence will probably be challenged in the courtroom.
<snipped>
As I said in an earlier post-the tow truck leaving the crime scene and willynilly stopping at the M&M will likely resurface at trial. If he is called to testify~I guarantee you it will be a gift to the defense. Just the innuendo of breeches in protocol and 'potentially tainted' crime scene evidence could 'poison the well'.
That's what the defense does they capitalize on perceived sloppiness to adherence & compliance in LE procedures.
But,to all who hold another opinion I declare :truce: Since we are all entitled to our own opinions on this topic.
:moo:

You need 100% for a conviction. Why give a defense any room for question? Totally idiotic IMO to stop anywhere on the way back to the impound lot with a key piece of evidence. Not much room for debating it either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MyBelle]

In the event of a trial I can almost guarantee you that the chain of custody issue will be opened up in court by the defense. Let's just hope that there WILL be a trial. JMO

A chain of custody issue can only be opened in court if the Judge allows it to be opened. Even if it is opened, the forensic experts will quickly shut it down. Kinda difficult to tamper with something already covered in soot and fire department chemicals. The defense should be more worried about the death penalty.


JMO

 

[MyBelle]

OJ Simpson

OJ's case didn't involved a car fire or a victim burned to death.

 

[jujube]

You guarantee? Posting a link is all I can do to support my opinion that there must be proof the evidence was tampered with. I think none us can guarantee what will happen at trial.

That there was no tampering with the item while it was in custody.


http://ovc.ncjrs.gov/sartkit/develop/issues-coc.html

Unless the defense attorney bought his degree out of a bubblegum machine, I can assure you the chain of evidence problems will be presented. It's possible that this will give a juror reasonable doubt.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-to-suppress-evidence.html
Chain of Custody Errors: The &#8220;chain of custody&#8221; refers to the documentation and proper care of evidence, from its seizure by police to its presentation at trial. If the chain of custody is broken, the evidence may lack credibility and could be deemed inadmissible.

MOO

 

[tlcya]

Say john doe is arrested and charged with the arson/murder.

Say those charges stem from his prints and or touch DNA or a fiber specific to that individual's shirt being on some specific area of the car.

Attorney will try to insert reasonable doubt by suggesting that John Doe had had the opportunity to touch or have his shirt come into contact with the vehicle after the fire, say while it was outside the M&M on the back of a tow truck while driver was inside getting a drink or smokes or whatever. JMO All an attorney is looking for is to implant doubt, even farfetched doubt, in enough areas of the evidence so that all those little improbable doubts will build up to one big reasonable one.

 

[Ms Pragmatic]

OJ Simpson

I was just going to say that. You beat me to it.

 

[cady]

OJ's case didn't involved a car fire or a victim burned to death.

Enough, already. Are you an attorney? I am not. Agree to disagree. JMO

 

[Vedder]

Not to mention, anything brought into evidence that was picked up at the unsecured scene in the days following the fire - defense could claim it was planted. And to echo Cady, yes, let's hope there will be a trial.