GUILTY HI - Carly Joann 'Charli' Scott, 27, pregnant, Makawao, 9 Feb 2014 - #3

[puakenikeni]

Excerpts from his interview with Mileka Dudley for Hawaii News Now about his interaction with the police, full article here: http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/...yfriend-of-missing-pregnant-maui-woman-speaks

"the next morning. I sent her a text that said, 'Thank you' but I figured she was working, that's why she didn't get back to me right away and it wasn't until the cops showed up at my house at 5:30 in the morning the next day that I realized something was wrong."
Mileka: "And so when the cops arrived, what did they tell you?"
Steven: "They said, they told me that her parents had filed a missing person's report and gave them my name and they came to my address just to follow the lead."
Mileka: "Have they officially questioned you? Sometimes they make people take a lie detector test."
Steven: "I volunteered for all of that. I went down there as soon as I could. I let them interrogate me. I let them polygraph me. I did everything."
....

Mileka: "So what do police tell you?"
Steven: "They've just been questioning me. They haven't really told me anything." "I mean, it's undeniable that I'm probably the prime suspect, so they're not going to tell me any details."
Mileka: "Was the dog Nala with Charli when she came to pick you up?"
Steven: "Yeah."
Mileka: "So does it make sense to you how Nala was found?"
Steven: "No."
Mileka: "But Nala was still in the car with Charli when you guys left Keanae?"
Steven: "Yep.""
_____________
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/...cops_didnt_state_his_rights.html?id=300360941
Defense motion states according to Star Advertiser article:
"After her mother reported her missing at about 11 p.m. the next day, a police officer went "uninvited and unannounced" to Capobianco's residence in Haiku at about 6 a.m. Feb. 11, 2014, "and commanded an interview," according to the defense motion.
"This interview elicited potentially incriminating evidence against the defendant," the motion says.
No Miranda warnings were given to Capobianco, who "felt compelled to participate in the interview," according to the motion.

The defense is also seeking to suppress a statement Capobianco made to a police detective who called Capobianco the afternoon of Feb. 11, 2014, and asked him to go to the Wailuku Police Station for a second interview. ..
The motion says the detective was persistent, and Capobianco believed that "he had no choice" in agreeing to meet with the detective at the police station at 8:30 a.m. the next day. The detective knew but didn't tell Capobianco that Scott's dog had been found in the Nahiku area, according to the motion, and didn't inform Capobianco of his right to remain silent and not incriminate himself."

See the full articles for more info.

​

 

[puakenikeni]

Here is a currently working cached link for the Maui News article, which has more information about attempts to reach Charli's phone during that time and how they got the Honomanu location:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ke+up+defense+request&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&&ct=clnk

"In reporting Scott missing, her mother told police it was unusual that family members had not heard from Scott, who normally contacted them several times a day. A recent check on a phone "app" indicated that Scott's last location was in the area of Honomanu Bay near Keanae, her mother told police.
She also told police that if Scott were avoiding her and other family members, "it was likely because she was seeing" Capobianco, the father of her unborn child, according to the motion."
- See more at: http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&&ct=clnk#sthash.s8baAn8M.dpuf

I thought the phone app had supposedly been removed, but this says it was used successfully to get her last location. So they didn't get it from the phone provider.

 

[RunDaSurf]

Thanks Mileka Lincoln for that interview that just keeps giving!

Mileka: "And so when the cops arrived, what did they tell you?"
Steven: "They said, they told me that her parents had filed a missing person's report and gave them my name and they came to my address just to follow the lead."
Mileka: "Have they officially questioned you? Sometimes they make people take a lie detector test."
Steven: "I volunteered for all of that. I went down there as soon as I could. I let them interrogate me. I let them polygraph me. I did everything."​

 

[Loio]

Why would police read him his rights if he wasn't arrested or he wasn't in custody? Or was he? As a person of interest, he volunteered the information about his ex girlfriend.

Did Steven Capobianco get a ride (in police custudy) when he went to the Wailuku police station? I hope to God MPD wasn't that eager.

 

[Loio]

His defense attorney is certainly doing his job. From Wikipedia, read the last sentence regarding Miranda Warnings/Rights:

"The Miranda warning is part of a preventive criminal procedure rule that law enforcement are required to administer to protect an individual who is in custody and subject to direct questioning or its functional equivalent from a violation of his or her Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that the admission of an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect not informed of these rights violates the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, through the incorporation of these rights into state law.[Note 1] Thus, if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements as evidence against him or her in a criminal trial.[1]"
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

I'm on a mobile device that doesn't allow me to link, feel free to add the link. Thanks!

 

[heartgoesout]

The law always protects the defendant not the victim. Really irks me.
So he said something incriminating but you can't use it. Really?! Nor can you use anything that was discovered because of that statement. What did he say? and what evidence was discovered because of it? Too many surprises with the law.

 

[puakenikeni]

Why would police read him his rights if he wasn't arrested or he wasn't in custody? Or was he? As a person of interest, he volunteered the information about his ex girlfriend.

Did Steven Capobianco get a ride (in police custudy) when he went to the Wailuku police station? I hope to God MPD wasn't that eager.

if you read the part I quoted in post #21, it states he was asked by phone to go to the Wailuku station, on his own. He was not taken there. He was not held in custody. The motion (if the article presents it accurately) seems to be arguing that the officers were so insistent that SC did not feel he had a choice on going or on answering their questions. This seems thin to me. He was not being held.

Re them not telling him Nala had been found, the police are allowed to use deception when interviewing a suspect, even outright lies. I don't know what their parameters are with a "person of interest."

I wonder if his statement to ML could be used against him because he clearly says he volunteered to talk to the police and he "let them" question him and polygraph him. First he spun it as voluntary cooperation and now he spins it as coercive tactics equivalent to custody.

I'm thinking the truth is simple enough. He was guilty and he knew he would be even more suspect if he refused to talk. He thought he could be clever enough to talk to them without giving anything up beyond the story he had concocted. He failed. He knew perfectly well that statements can be used against him. The guy is a petty criminal already with a drug bust.

 

[heartgoesout]

The problem is the law is the law.
...and laws as written have loop holes like this that allow the guilty to go free.

 

[Loio]

if you read the part I quoted in post #21, it states he was asked by phone to go to the Wailuku station, on his own. He was not taken there.

Nope I didn't read it. He should have been read his rights if they thought he could provide any crucial information. Emotions aside, the defense atty is doing his damnedest to get his client out of jail. I hope the prosecution has enough to convict without the evidence he is fighting to suppress. Must be pretty damning like cell phone records which would show his various locations that night.

 

[puakenikeni]

Nope I didn't read it. He should have been read his rights if they thought he could provide any crucial information. Emotions aside, the defense atty is doing his damnedest to get his client out of jail.

I looked at a variety of good legal sites tonight such as findlaw, nolo, Miranda Rights sites, and the Hawai'i Revised Statutes that deal with this area. They all seem in agreement that Miranda rights apply to "custodial" interrogation, meaning he is not free to leave. (And there some exceptions where reading the rights is not necessary, like emergencies.) Normally this means interrogation after being arrested; that is when the police are supposed to Mirandize.

The motion does not seem likely to succeed unless they told him he could not leave. His attorney is arguing that SC felt obligated to go to the station, as if that means he was not free, but he did not have to go. He drove himself. He could have walked out of the station. He says the police were persistent and pushy, but there was good reason for that. The police were worried about pregnant Charli's safety at that time. I'm sure they did pressure him to help pinpoint where she might be, because time was of the essence due to her condition and possibly being injured or exposed to the elements.

Remember there was no evidence of a crime on Tue and Wed. when they questioned him. Her car had not been found. Her clothes and effects were not found. Nala was found but there was no evidence of trauma or anything wrong with the dog. SC had information they needed because he was last to see her. The next day he gave a press interview saying he volunteered for "all of that" and that he was "not walking around in handcuffs." He was clear and pretty much bragging that he wasn't in custody.

Miranda rights flow from the 5th Amendment right not to self-incriminate when on trial. The Miranda case established the right to be informed that you can't be made to self-incriminate when you have been arrested and a trial is reasonably in the future. Until the moment of arrest, there is no expectation of a future trial, no 5th amendment protection needed. People are allowed to self-incriminate, even to confess, but cannot be FORCED to do so. If he has the right to walk away, and they are not physically threatening him or hurting him during questioning, answers are voluntary. He did not need to be Mirandized. MOO

FINDLAW
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/miranda-warnings-and-police-questioning.html

MIRANDA RIGHTS SITE
http://www.mirandarights.org/custodialinterrogation.html

HAWAII ATTORNEY ARTICLE
http://petersonlawhawaii.com/can-your-refuse-to-talk-to-the-cops-yes/
"When the Police Ask You to Come to the Station for Questioning
If you’re not actually in police custody, you’re under no legal obligation to answer their questions. The police must actually take you into their custody before they’re required to read you your Miranda rights. If you consent to police questioning and volunteer information, prosecutors can use anything you say against you later on."

I agree the defense attorney is doing his job. Good, less basis for an appeal later, with competent counsel.

 

[puakenikeni]

Must be pretty damning like cell phone records which would show his various locations that night.

If the evidence is something the police can show they would have found anyway, without a statement, they can still use it, even if the statement is ruled inadmissible. Phone record examination would be SOP, so it can't be that. The family had managed to get the Honomanu phone ping from Charli's app, so that search didn't come from SC's statement. It could be as simple as him telling an inconsistent narrative about the "trip to Hana to fix his truck" that in light of other facts would show he lied to the police.

 

[heartgoesout]

^ Do the police need to tell him all the above and make it clear that he is not under arrest and is free to leave at any point, that he is under no obligation to answer any questions?

 

[puakenikeni]

^ Do the police need to tell him all the above and make it clear that he is not under arrest and is free to leave at any point, that he is under no obligation to answer any questions?

I am not aware of any law requiring police to say one is not under arrest. Getting arrested is hard to miss, because then you get booked. If a person asks if they are free to leave, of course the police need to say yes and confirm they are not about to arrest.

Even though Miranda warnings are shown on TV as something the police say when putting on the cuffs, and that's a good time to get it out of the way, Miranda only needs to be advised prior to interrogation while under arrest. It is not required for arresting anyone and the perp could be in the back of the police car and spill his guts as long as he was not doing it as part of police questioning.

As part of Miranda there is the right to counsel before answering questions, and if you don't have one and can't afford one, one will be provided. They don't offer the use of a free attorney to people who are not under arrest and being asked for information.

The police are allowed to suspect anyone and not say they suspect, up to the point where the suspicion turns into probable cause for an arrest. I think the idea that the police are required to hold our hands and tell us we might not want to incriminate ourselves when they ask us stuff has been exaggerated. It's up to us to have some common sense about what we say in a situation like that.

 

[puakenikeni]

So from this motion, we now know that SC was asked by phone to come to the Wailuku station on Tuesday the 11th, but he said he could not because he had to help the family search after he got off work. He told them Wed. morning was the earliest because he had to help the family and look for Charli.

He disliked or even hated her family and he knew Charli was dead, so none of that was a real motivation for him. Yes it was good for him to show a public face of concern, but that didn't last long with him and seemed not to be too important to him.

He could even have used the police request as an excuse to get out of spending that time with her family where they could ask him questions and observe him. But he did not seek for that out.

I am thinking now that he was well aware he could be arrested when he went in. He already had a troubled history with the law. So that meant he only had Tuesday afternoon and evening that he could count on to do anything he had not finished on Sunday and Monday. And maybe there was something important left undone that caused him to put the police off until next day in spite of their insistence.

 

[Niner]

Trial been delayedhttp://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/28833085/trial-delayed-for-man-charged-with-murder-of-pregnant-woman

Just in case someone else doesn't see the NEW court date hearing, not the start of trial, per article:

Capobianco's trial had been scheduled to start April 27. But the defendant has agreed to delay trial until after a May 14 court hearing on the motion.

The 25-year-old has been charged with second-degree murder in Scott's death and third-degree arson of her vehicle.


So, no first-degree murder charge?

I shall mark my calendar!

 

[puakenikeni]

Thanks, posting the date is important!

SC's court date for the burglary is still set for April 27th, checked yesterday, Apo his attorney there too. Will be annoying but not shocking if that gets continued -- although it's been a year and it's a burglary charge, one would think they could get on with it.

First degree murder is not possible for Charli's murder under Hawai'i's murder statutes, which IIRC changed to eliminate premeditation as an element after the death penalty was abolished because a capital sentence was the big difference between the two. If they prevail on the enhanced charges, the sentence will be essentially the same as it would be for first degree, life in prison.

the Scotts are working hard on the feticide legislation to cover future homicides of mother and fetus. Killing multiple people is first degree, so if that becomes law and the fetus is recognized as a person ...

 

[La Louve]

So from this motion, we now know that SC was asked by phone to come to the Wailuku station on Tuesday the 11th, but he said he could not because he had to help the family search after he got off work. He told them Wed. morning was the earliest because he had to help the family and look for Charli.

He disliked or even hated her family and he knew Charli was dead, so none of that was a real motivation for him. Yes it was good for him to show a public face of concern, but that didn't last long with him and seemed not to be too important to him.

He could even have used the police request as an excuse to get out of spending that time with her family where they could ask him questions and observe him. But he did not seek for that out.

I am thinking now that he was well aware he could be arrested when he went in. He already had a troubled history with the law. So that meant he only had Tuesday afternoon and evening that he could count on to do anything he had not finished on Sunday and Monday. And maybe there was something important left undone that caused him to put the police off until next day in spite of their insistence.

BBM Agree and I think he also chose to spend that time "searching" so he could polish his story for the police the next morning

 

[heartgoesout]

I can't even begin to imagine how someone plays through their head excuses and a story to cover up a murder.

 

[puakenikeni]

I can't even begin to imagine how someone plays through their head excuses and a story to cover up a murder.

Yes, that's a dark place for the imagination to go for non-sociopaths. OTOH, watch and read enough news stories, murder mysteries and crime dramas and there's some sort of knowledge base most of us have about what the traps are for the guilty.

SC did not polish his story very well at all. He changed details as he told it, which works against him. When I first heard this story and knew nothing about this ex-boyfriend other than the interview he gave Mileka L, I thought he might be innocent simply because he made so many mistakes, like talking about her in the past tense, admitting he didn't want a child, calling the baby to be an "it," saying Charli had "a mouth on her" that could anger people, not being 100% clear where he last saw her headlights, talking about the truck being stuck and also being broken down, admitting he was the prime suspect and it is understandable that people would point to him, and most of all not acting like someone who is desperately worried about Charli.

I was thinking, gee, if you planned to kill her or even if it was heat of the moment, would you give a press interview without being careful what you say?
That doubt about him didn't last when more details emerged, but I still don't know what to make of his carelessness.
I remember reading something from BS (I think) saying that he was so sure that lack of a body was his ticket to get away with it. I wondered if he had said something about that. Maybe he believed that it didn't matter how he acted as long as they had no witness and no body.

This is why I don't think he would plant the jawbone as a taunt.

 

[puakenikeni]

With all our discussion, I'm not sure we have an answer for this that takes in all the facts we know:

Why were her clothes and blanket in an easy to find pile near the road? Why were gloves, and empty rolls of packing tape or duct tape with them?
Black jeans and a jacket too?
Why was her jawbone there with blood on the ground, and fingernails, and her shoes found in the police search too?

We discussed the idea that she was killed and maybe held in or around Haiku, and that Hana Highway was a distraction.
But we know her phone and her dog were out there that night. He could have done that as part of an organized premeditated plan, but his actions and interviews don't seem to support super organization. For example, if he was really setting this up, he should have called her when he got home, not sent a text in the morning. He should have worked out the broken down truck scenario better to be more plausible. He shouldn't have taken real crime evidence out there with blood on it, bone, fingernails. He shouldn't have taken her remains of any part of them anywhere near the area mentioned in his fake story.

The alternative is the obvious that she indeed was killed at or her body came to rest there near Paraquat's, and most of her remains were moved, buried, put in ocean. Don't see how the finishing part could have happened Sunday night. There would not be a detached "bone." That takes at least some time. And at least one of those items of clothing or the blanket stayed in contact with her long enough for maggots to appear. That does not happen in two hours.

I think that the risk of transporting her dead body on Hana Highway was too much, either from Honomanu to Haikku or to Honomanu from Haiku. Neither of their vehicles had a trunk.

I'm thinking she would not have gone out Hana Highway at his request, so he did something to restrain her and took her out there. I have seen that the family wants the police to charge him with false imprisonment. Maybe they know something to support that. If so, that would make it easy to drop Nala off first and get the dog out of the picture so it would not bark when he went to the site he had planned.

Then he buried her in a shallow grave? Then he went back Monday or Tuesday or both. The family was searching the area already; that would have made it very sketchy to do anything by day. If he went down the road alone during the Tuesday search, was he checking to make sure all was undisturbed? He knew at that point that this family was going to search every bit of the area, with the help of volunteers, so his makeshift grave was not going to hold out, if he ever thought it would? So he went back and at that point he would have removed her clothes and put them to the side to do whatever he was doing (gruesome). Maybe he meant to take them away. Maybe he was startled by someone coming down the road and just had to take off. Fisherman and hunters frequent the area and move around in the pre-dawn, for example.

Does anyone have an idea at what point and for what the gloves and duct tape were used? The tape makes me think of wrapping her up in something, but I'm not clear why.
Also there is some conversation in the motion details that indicates the black jeans were SC's size, but nothing about these jeans or jacket having blood or other signs of a crime on them.

The prosecution will need to present a good plausible theory of the scenario in order to overcome the lack of a body in this case, or I don't see how they can prove beyond reasonable doubt.