The defense for Casey Anthony filed a motion late Thursday afternoon, February 10, 2011 in which Jose Baez accused law enforcement of intentionally destroying exculpatory evidence which would prove no dead body was ever in the trunk of the defendant’s Pontiac Sunbird. The words of Mr. Baez may be found at the following link.
“While law enforcement took great measures to attempt to preserve the carpet liner, they intentionally destroyed any evidence that could rebut their assertions. Crime scene investigators have testified that the garbage was taken out of the container and was “aired out” and placed in a “dry room”. This was so items would eventually dry and the smell can dissipate. The items would eventually be stored in a cardboard box that remains unsealed today. The only logical explanation for these actions was to preclude Miss Anthony or her defense from demonstrating to the jury that the smell in the trunk of the vehicle came from the garbage and not a decomposing body.”
“While law enforcement took great measures to attempt to preserve the carpet liner” – Mr. Baez changes his characterization of the actions of law enforcement with regards to “the carpet liner”. Previously within the document, Mr. Baez stated “law enforcement cut a piece of the trunk liner and placed it in a tin can and sealed the smell”, a limited action which does not seem to meet the “great measures” standard now imposed by Mr. Baez.
“attempt to preserve the carpet liner” – This phrase indicates the “great measures” taken by law enforcement were unsuccessful. This is not true as Mr. Baez points out in a previous passage. Not only did law enforcement “preserve the carpet liner”, they were also able to preserve the smell which is the subject of this motion. In fact, not only did they preserve the smell, Mr. Baez fears the smell was intensified by their preservation methods and argues concentrating the smell is unfair to his client by referencing the words of a prosecution expert witness. Mr. Baez repeatedly references throughout the document “a carpet sample preserved in a tin can”. There is no doubt law enforcement preserved a carpet sample and it exists today.
“they intentionally destroyed any evidence that could rebut their assertions” – This is a strong statement. “They” seems to reference “law enforcement”, meaning law enforcement “destroyed”. What did they destroy? “Any evidence”, which indicates “they destroyed” more than a single bag of garbage, leading to a conclusion additional motions will follow addressing other “destroyed” “evidence”. “Intentionally” means law enforcement knowingly and with forethought “destroyed” exculpatory evidence in violation of laws and morals.
“that could rebut their assertions” – This phrase limits the broad, but sensitive, “any evidence” to only “evidence” which “could rebut”. “That” distances Mr. Baez from the “evidence” which “could rebut”. The distancing indicates if Mr. Baez truly believes law enforcement destroyed evidence, he is not as sure it was exculpatory evidence.
“Crime scene investigators have testified that the garbage was taken out of the container and was “aired out” and placed in a “dry room”.” – This is the method law enforcement utilized as they “intentionally destroyed any evidence that could rebut”. The “evidence” was destroyed by airing out the garbage in a dry room. Destruction typically takes a more violent and action-filled form, such as physical mutilation, fire, or explosion. Rarely does airing out or placement in a dry room result in an intentional destruction of physical evidence. The quotes around “aired out” and “dry room” indicate Mr. Baez is presumably quoting one of the “crime scene investigators”, but we cannot be sure as he provides no reference information.
“This was so items would eventually dry and the smell can dissipate.” – Mr. Baez assigns motivations to the law enforcement personnel who placed the garbage in a dry room. How does Mr. Baez know this was the reason for their actions? Assuming the reasons were as Mr. Baez claims, how does this tie back to an intentional effort to destroy? If the issue were truly “the smell” and allowing it to “dissipate”, why does the order in which Mr. Baez list his concerns begin with “eventually dry”? The word “eventually” does not correlate with the an active effort to destroy as claimed by Mr. Baez. If the crime lab technicians had allowed the garbage to remain wet for the past two plus years in an effort to preserve the smell, would not the physical evidence have rotted away by now? Didn’t law enforcement preserve the evidence by drying it out rather than allowing it to mold?
“The items would eventually be stored in a cardboard box that remains unsealed today.” – This sentence is Mr. Baez’s admission no evidence was destroyed as it “remains unsealed today” in “a cardboard box”. The evidence still exists, it is still viewable, it can still be examined by taking the lid off the cardboard box. “Eventually” “stored” is not exactly the hallmark of destruction of evidence.
“The only logical explanation for these actions was” – Mr. Baez discards all possible explanations for the preservation of evidence displayed by the airing out, drying, and storing of the garbage for the “only logical explanation”. However, this is not the current “only logical explanation” as it “was”. This is an explanation which made “logical” sense in the past, but not at the time this motion was written.
“to preclude Miss Anthony or her defense from demonstrating to the jury that the smell in the trunk of the vehicle came from the garbage and not a decomposing body” – This was the “logical explanation”, but Mr. Baez informs the court through the use of the word “was” this is no longer a “logical explanation”. A far more logical explanation would be without the preservation efforts of law enforcement, no portion of the garbage would still exist as wet, moldy, rotting garbage would not be viable as evidence for long.
We have learned Mr. Baez wants the court to believe law enforcement intentionally destroyed evidence, but the best proof he can offer is a cardboard box full of evidence which remains preserved after two plus years of investigation and testing.
Bull Stopper Stops Bull 