22 Boxes of Evidence!!!!

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[112885]

112885 Posts in 8614 Topics by 4618 Members
Latest Member: garrymoore

[Farm]

Yeah, it's especially hilarious when you hear one of them moan "You can't consider Misskelly's statements - they weren't presented at the E/B trial!"

[mikespadre]

you have to chalk that up to lack of knowledge about the case and how everything came into play

[Farm]

Well, as any supporter will tell you, you can only consider evidence that wasn't presented at trial when it favors the convicts.

This is because even though they have been found guilty - they are still presumed innocent.

And of course when this starts sounding rational, you can stop smashing your forehead with that brick.

[taylorjaysmommy]

The evidence room here ,has an evidence 'technician'.  It's not even an officer, but I believe a criminology student. 

[sheer]

I don't expect anything new to be turned up that could put a different slant on this case, and I doubt that some members of the group, that have been providing us with these documents recently, do either.

We all use Callahans, so I can't see why there is negativity about this latest visit to the evidence room. Personally, I feel that we are fortunate to have someone who is willing to share these things with nons and supporters.

Just my 2 pennies. 


sheer

[Farm]

Oh, I agree.

I didn't mean to discourage those who are gathering it - good on them.

I just think it's silly for people to believe there are things there that the parade of Defense attorneys haven't seen.

Again, Mallet and Scheck spent MONTHS photographing the stuff.

[Kimbo]

I don't expect anything new to be turned up that could put a different slant on this case, and I doubt that some members of the group, that have been providing us with these documents recently, do either.

We all use Callahans, so I can't see why there is negativity about this latest visit to the evidence room. Personally, I feel that we are fortunate to have someone who is willing to share these things with nons and supporters.

Just my 2 pennies.

Four pennies here, well said Sheer.

I'm sure no-one is looking, or reasonably expects, a smoking gun. Cataloguing of the evidence is a great project, and we're lucky to have people here who take the extensive time and effort to do it.

Kimbo

[DogIsYourName]

I don't think the police would have the bottle neck. Stidham found the bottle neck after he DEMANDED Jessie tell him something only he knew that would prove he was telling the truth about his statements. Jessie did and Stidham found the bottle.

Hi Scott,

Stidham was not alone when he found the bottle neck.  He searched under the overpass with one of the prosecutors.

Even if he had been alone, he was ethically bound to notify the WMPD about it.  Just because your own client directs you to evidence, it does not mean you can hide it.  Whether the WMPD actually collected the bottle neck or not, I have never heard.  Stidham might know what happened to it.

-dog

[Miranda]

They would have been shown in Discovery Dog.

The majority was most likely irrelevant.

None the less ALL should have been shown / made available surely?

[Fwarm]

They would have been shown in Discovery Dog.

The majority was most likely irrelevant.

None the less ALL should have been shown / made available surely?

What part did you not understand? Do you know what discovery is?




This wasn't about Kitty and others visiting the site my part in this thread was in regards to Todd and his perfectly acceptable statement. The implication that no one has been through the evidencce is rather silly.

Hi Scott,

Stidham was not alone when he found the bottle neck.  He searched under the overpass with one of the prosecutors.

This was post Miskelley trial. I doubt it was surrendered as evidence since he was already sentenced. Could have been I suppose.

[Miranda]

They would have been shown in Discovery Dog.

The majority was most likely irrelevant.

None the less ALL should have been shown / made available surely?

What part did you not understand? Do you know what discovery is?

When the Prosecution has to make available all the evidence they have against the defendant in order for the defence to prepare the case prior to going to trial?  But I am quite prepared to learn something new again!  A reciprocal thing I believe?

It is also very interesting to learn that the way the 'evidence' has been stored is not exactly optimum for finding things easily!  Whilst I accept that folks will have 'gone through' it all more than once - anything else being 'silly' - if it is badly filed / sorted it is far more onerous a task than it might have been.  Just maybe these extra boxes have come to light since this lot of work has started?

Good on Kitty Solo Tweety et al for their endeavours!

This wasn't about Kitty and others visiting the site my part in this thread was in regards to Todd and his perfectly acceptable statement. The implication that no one has been through the evidence is rather silly.

[Fwarm]

They would have been shown in Discovery Dog.

The majority was most likely irrelevant.

None the less ALL should have been shown / made available surely?

What part did you not understand? Do you know what discovery is?

When the Prosecution has to make available all the evidence they have against the defendant in order for the defence to prepare the case prior to going to trial?  But I am quite prepared to learn something new again!  A reciprocal thing I believe?

None the less ALL should have been shown

Then you answered your own question. It was all shown.

[Miranda]

They would have been shown in Discovery Dog.

The majority was most likely irrelevant.

None the less ALL should have been shown / made available surely?

Then you answered your own question. It was all shown.

It does not follow and so it ain't necessarily so - and is starting to look as though maybe some stuff was not.  Was it not claimed, for starters, that no record of DE's polygraph had been kept  Just the report there of??  And has not the actual print-out now been found?

I agree that everything should have been made available on discovery but I seem to have a dim memory of hearing / reading that the stuff was sent through in pretty chaotic / shambolic way which made things pretty heavy going for the public defenders back in '93/94.  It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that maybe something got missed somewhere along the line.

Only time will tell.

Miranda

[Fwarm]

Yawn.



Really the only answer I have for you.

[chitown_alex]

Looking at the boxes of evidence may be compelling, but it's highly unlikely you will find anything the attorneys haven't seen.  Unless of course, you plan to draw your own conclusions, which will likely be highly rebuttable.