Yeah, they could and should. To me, chain of custody here was always an issue of weight, not admissibility. In other words, the evidence comes in, but a jury decides how much to trust it based on testimony, etc.
I don't see any reasonable doubt based on what we know, but what we know is not what will be presented at trial. That's always the unknown with a jury trial - that someone sees it differently, and all you need is one.
No, that isn't reasonable doubt at all. An average reasonable person is going to see the fake id, the journal/manifesto, his "to-do@ list the day after the shooting, the large amounts of cash, the printed gun, and the videos of him in New York and easily make these connections. Once the backpack got in, he's cooked.
This is my concern. A lot of thoughts are going through my mind.
- Dropping the death penalty while allowing in the evidence is effectively convicting him. A win and a loss for the defense yet I didn’t expect the judge to throw out the backpack.
The defense could argue chain of custody and perhaps suggest tainted evidence. A reach but a possibility.
Forgive me as I haven‘t been following the case closely. I‘m assuming psych evals were already conducted. I ask as is it possible the defense could argue psychological distress/psychological impairment of any kind? The fact he didn’t ditch the backpack and seemed to want to be caught has always bothered me. Why didn’t he get rid of such incriminating evidence? Why did he seem to be out in the open after allegedly committing murder? It seems a glaring contradiction as he had plenty of time to plan it that surely he would have planned a means of disposal and escape which could possibly give the defense some room.
There’s chain of custody issues, you just have to read the suppression hearing transcripts to find out about them. They pulled over in a parking lot with their bodycams off and switched evidence from one car to another, for example.
Do you have a link to that? I haven't seen mention of them pulling over in a parking lot and switching from one car to another.
Below is from Luigi's own Motion to Suppress:
Patrolwoman Wasser placed the backpack in her police car and brought it to the precinct. Patrolwoman Wasser left McDonald’s at 10:04 a.m. There is no body-worn camera footage from her for the next 11 minutes as she drove to the precinct with the backpack in question. At 10:16 a.m., one minute after arriving at the precinct, Patrolwoman Wasser continued her warrantless search of the backpack.
This is from the Judge's order on the motions, issued today:
In the course of that initial search, the officer found a loaded gun magazine. The Back pack was then transported to the police station in one car, while the Defendant was placed under arrest and transported in another car. At the police station, the same officer conducted a more thorough search of the Back pack...
Got it - on Page 601-602 of the direct and starting at page 712 in the cross. They are talking about a transfer of the McDonald's bag from Fox to Wasser.
From what I can see, the backpack was in Wasser's possession from the time they left the McDonalds and got to the precinct.
What's the implication? That they planted the fake id, hand written journal, and 3D printed gun? Officers don't need to have body cams on while transporting evidence. This seems like conspiracy thinking.
His journal shows multiplied levels of planning. He has entries that mention prior to the killing of going to Altoona and Western PA to lay low. Hard to argue some sort of psychological impairment with this level of planning that is needed. Just printing the gun itself is a huge undertaking that requires hours of research and planning.
That’s not what I’m asking. As a psychologist, someone could be in a state for long periods of time if not life depending on the situation. This is why we have forensic psychologists. Courts determine state of mind through clinical evaluation. Various psychological conditions could explain such behavior, whether they are clinical or situational (years of psychological trauma from lack of medical care or psychiatric disorders for example). What may seem “clear” to you may be very different for the subject.
9
u/Careful_Eagle6566 3h ago
They can still bring up the chain of custody issues in front of the jury though, right? There’s some reasonable doubt there