I thought it was worth looking closer at the exchange that took place this past Monday in court between Baez and Ashton concerning the defense team’s claim that they have not received all Discovery. We are at a slight disadvantage on analyzing this claim since, as far as this writer is aware of, we have never seen the full text of Linda Kenney-Baden’s March 17, 2009 request for Discovery submitted to the FBI Quantico Laboratory. The only portions of this request we know of are the partial snippets contained within the response from the FBI, as included in the September 29, 2009 Discovery release (pages 5 through 10 of the pdf). If a reader knows of the public existence of the full request letter by Baden, a link will be greatly appreciated.
So, working off only partial knowledge of the request from Baden, let’s attempt to discern what was not provided to the defense team by the FBI.
Item 5. “All internal audits and reports for the last 5 years.”
Response:
The relevant audit reports spanning the last five years will be made available for review by the defense or its experts at the FBI Academy, Quantico, virginia with advance notice.
Item 7. “All DNA Laboratory reports for all testing that has…”
In the response to this request, which appears to have had 12 sub-requests lettered a through l, the following requests are omitted in the FBI response:
g and h (nature of these sub-requests are unknown)
And the following denial is given for request k “‘Unexpected Results file’ or any and all errors…”
Had any such errors occurred in this case, documentation would be contained within the raw data and case file material provided for response 7(a). Information regarding the last five years is not for documentation relating to the present case or for documentation regarding underlying scientific data, it is beyond the scope of discovery.
Item 12. “Any and all reports, whether internal or external…”
Response:
Inasmuch as this request is not for documentation relating to the present case or for documentation regarding underlying scientific data it is beyond the scope of discovery.
Item 15. “All peer review performed on any expert or …”
Response:
This request is not complete. Information regarding peer reviews can be found in the material provided for response 14, 7(3), and 7(i).
Item 16. “Any and all ethics disclosure forms filed by any…”
Response:
Inasmuch as this request is not for documentaiton relating to the present case or for documentation regarding underlying scientific data, it is beyond the scope of discovery.
Item 18. “Any and all microscope slides and trace evidence…”
Response:
Any information regarding notes, correspondence, pictures, files, conversations, and reports would be included in the case files provided for response 7(a).
Any specimens in this case will be returned to the contributor.
Item 19. “Fingerprints:”
This request seems to have several sub-requests, as indicated in the response.
Response:
Enclosed is a copy of file material generated by the FBI Laboratory relating the Latent Print Unit examination. This material includes bench notes, computer printouts, chain of custody documents, and all other specific information regarding the case. A CD Rom is also included with this material containing Latent Print Operations Procedures.
(a-e) The FBI did not receive Latent Lifts in this case.
Item 20. “Any and all standards adopted by the FBI…”
Response:
These standards are not part of the FBI protocols. The Trace evidence examiners make these determinations by utilizing their training, experience and ongoing studies.
Okay, looking at the above responses in which it appears there is either an outright rejection of the request, or a partial response, or even one that the defense might not be completely satisfied with, I find it very hard to believe (but for this team not exactly impossible!) that the defense team would be hammering the snot out of the prosecutor’s office to try to get information that clearly they wouldn’t possess for items 5, 12, 15, 16, and 20. These are clearly internal documents for the FBI laboratory, and there is no reason for any one (in the their right mind) to think the prosecutor’s office would have these documents. So I do not believe the contention lies in these items. If it does, then the defense is blatantly wading in the delay pool…nude and grossly drunken…in broad daylight…with lampshades on their heads.
(Like I said, I’m not saying that’s impossible, just highly unlikely. After all, at least 2 of these lawyers have to go back to real jobs that require reputations.)
So what is left are items 7, 18, 19 and a closing statement in the FBI response of “Additional discovery documents will be provided as they become available.” Since we have no idea what parts g and h of the item 7 request are, we can’t really speak to those. But they are clearly not referenced. I think it is safe to assume that Linda Kenney-Baden knows her alphabet, so I’m assuming those were, indeed, stuck some place in between f and i. The rejection on part k of item 7, again, goes back to the FBI and falls within the above listed items that make no sense to be brought to the prosecutor’s office.
For item 18 we see the statement “Any specimens in this case will be returned to the contributor.“ I don’t believe for a moment that the FBI has absconded with actual evidence and is holding it hostage from either the prosecutor’s office or the defense team, dependent on which submitted the actual physical evidence. And if the defense is saying they have not gotten evidence back from the FBI lab that they submitted (which I’m doubtful they would in the first place), well – how is Mr. Ashton supposed to fix that problem? Again, it doesn’t make sense. This defense complaint is obviously NOT about physical evidence.
And then there is Item 19…Fingerprints. As we’ve discussed in previous threads, the FBI clearly states they received no latent prints in this case. Now, that was at the time of the response. That doesn’t mean they haven’t received them since, but at the time of this FBI response (dated August 14, 2009), they had received NO latent prints from the state (or anyone else for that matter). This is detailed in the released discovery. The latents that were found by OCSO (and not sent to the FBI) were on items at the Anthony home – CD’s, movie jackets, air mattress and pump, etc. If this information has not been shared with the defense it is solely the prosecutor’s office who has not provided the information, and this can’t possibly be the issue Ashton addressed in his comments in court because there is no need to get FBI lawyers involved in evidence they never had!
BUT, Item 19 is another multi-subset request as indicated in the response from the FBI, and we have no knowledge of what those various subsets requested, or whether all of them were responded to by the FBI. The FBI response states that ALL information from the Latent Print Unit work is included in the response and on a CD Rom. If there have been no subsequent findings by the FBI lab in this area, then THERE ARE NO LATENT PRINTS. But as pointed out in a previous article, there are several items (including Henkel brand duct tape pieces evidence items #Q66 and #Q104 – WHICH ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT PIECES OF EVIDENCE) that are not specifically addressed in the released discovery from Quantico concerning examination for latent prints. That would lead one to believe that it falls under the last statement of the response “Additional discovery documents will be provided as they become available.”
So here is my question. We know there is a definite lag time between the defense and the prosecution obtaining information and it subsequently being released. As an example of this lag, please note we are reviewing a response from the FBI to the defense dated August 14 that was not released to the public until September 29. Has there been further test results released to the defense and state concerning Q66 and Q104 which have not been made public yet, and for which there has been a subsequent request from the defense beyond what they have been provided concerning those items of evidence?
In light of the fact we don’t know the complete text of Baden’s request to the FBI (in particular do we know all the sub-requests of Items 7 and 19?), it appears the issue the defense is complaining about lies either in subsets g and h of Item 7, or in discovery we have not seen yet but they have subsequent to the September 29 release.
Valhall.
Related posts:
- Caylee Anthony case: Prosecution files motion to compel discovery
- Caylee Anthony case: More discovery to be released today
- Caylee Anthony case: Timeline and Discovery updated 02/02/11
- Caylee Anthony case: Timeline and Discovery updated 11/06/10
- Timeline and Discovery updated 05/28/10 – PLEASE NOTE NEW URL
Click here to join the discussion
