What A Dump!

Beyond The Forest of Legal Documents

We’re fighting clutter here; no easy feat.

A week out from opening statements is as good a time as any for another document dump.  

These have been laying around a while and we’ve done our level best to mine them for nuggets, never quite knowing for certain where a headline may turn up.   Xylene anyone?

There is purpose to these filings no doubt: to lay the groundwork for appeal, to send the opposition on wild goose chases and throw some head fakes.  And for the defense, maybe to rack up some billable hours?  If so, these guys are going for the record.

Just yesterday, notice of three more government filings hit the Superior Court database:

05/07/2010 Notice of Filing: Attorney: MACHEN, Mr RONALD
05/05/2010 Notice of Filing: Attorney: MACHEN, Mr RONALD
05/05/2010 Notice of Filing: Attorney: MACHEN, Mr RONALD

In addition to coverage of Monday’s upcoming motions hearing, we’ll try and pull these latest docs.  What’s a little more paper scattered around the house?

After the jump, the dump; the filings and an extra bonus: the wmrw Tea Time Movie Matinee.

The accumulation from the last week or so.  There may be some dupes but in the interest of a thorough dump, we’re posting whatever is laying around:

Motion and Order – Leave DW, VZ Grand Jury   2Apr2010

Govt Discovery – Restraints  05Apr2010

Def In Limine Exclude Knife-Fiber Expert 09Apr2010

Govt Omnibus Oppo to Def in limine Motions  16 Apr2010

Cozen letter – MPD Notes  19Apr2010

Def Reply support in limine – Sex Assault  19Apr2010

Def Jt Res to Govt notice to use Statements  23Apr2010

Govt Oppo D Jt in limine Experiment Evid Testimony 23Apr2010

Grimm letter to Govt – Restraint  30Apr2010

Def Reply Support D Jt Motion Experts, Exclude Spaulding 3May2010

Def Jt Resp to G’s Omni Oppo-D Experts, D Frye Oppo 3May2010

And speaking of dumps, over to Art Fern, our host for today’s Tea Time Movie:

10 comments for “What A Dump!

  1. Clio
    05/08/2010 at 1:43 PM

    George (a history professor) and Martha, Joe and Victor, … codependents in search of spreading their cruelty and misery to others close by! An apt choice, Editors. At least, in Albee’s play and the subsequent film, George and Martha’s guests escaped with their lives, if not their dignity.

    “What a Dump!” was, of course, one of Bette Davis’ most memorable lines, although it could be considered “inflammatory” if applied to the love lives of at least two of the three defendants. Thanks, Editors, for your continued restraint.

    To what new statements is Mr. Grimm referring to in his “private and confidential” letter to Glenn, Patrick, and Rachel provided above? I had thought “private and confidential” letters were just that: unless that motif is all part of Bernie’s method acting.

  2. Lindsay Bluth
    05/08/2010 at 4:57 PM

    This is going to be DC’s OJ.

    The cops and prosecutors shot themselves in the foot with their own shoddy work. This was a slam dunk. If they had used proper procedures and common sense (and a little bit of “keep it simple stupid”) this wouldn’t be turning into the nightmare prosecution they’ve let it become.

    Now they are being out-gamed by attorneys who just keep more filing more paperwork on every move they make.

    The smartest thing they’ve done is to not file murder charges yet. Leave it to when they hire somebody smart in the prosecutor’s office.

    • Clio
      05/08/2010 at 8:41 PM

      Luckily, however, Lynn is no Lance Ito, and Detective Wagner is not Mark Fuhrman. And, our Editors are better than Dominick Dunne and Geraldo Rivera combined. Finally, jury nullification will not be an option for the citizens finally assembled. The only wild card, though, is Spag and his (unique among the lawyers on both sides) ability to spin the trouple’s world for conventional jurors to “understand.” Let’s hope Needham runs out of cash and soon!

  3. CC Biggs
    05/08/2010 at 5:15 PM

    If the defendants are not convicted of obstruction/tampering, there will be no murder trial. If a jury is not willing to convict them of these lesser charges, then a jury will not convict them of murder. To put it another way, if these guys committed murder, then they certainly also committed obstruction/tampering. If a jury says otherwise, then the jury is also implicitly saying that they didn’t commit the murder. A busy prosecutor’s office will not then go forward with a murder case.

  4. Bea
    05/08/2010 at 6:19 PM

    I think that the defense has a lot of razzle dazzle but, in the end, the facts are just too much to ignore. The jury won’t understand WHY there hasn’t been a murder trial, but my guess is that they’ll understand that these three (or one, or two) may have been involved with THAT as well. Unless the wheels come off during trial, and assuming the witnesses testify in keeping with what they originally said, I predict a conviction of all three on these charges.

    There is still time for Victor to turn government’s witness and have murder charges be brought against the guilty party/parties, but I doubt it will happen. I hope Connolly has beaten him up over this – and that he will again when the prosecution’s case is complete.

    Agree with all that if there is no conviction, there won’t be murder charges brought (unless somebody talks). It’s strange, but I think these charges were brought in large part to shake the tree and have the innocent (or innocent-ish) defendant(s) be truthful in exchange for immunity. Oh well . . .

    • Robert
      05/10/2010 at 6:49 PM

      BEA
      As a general rule, I don’t make predictions and this case is no exception. However I agree with you (as usual:) about the possiblity that the real objective of this obstruction and tampering trial was to scare somebody into truth telling.

      I am also losing hope that Victor will crack anytime soon. I share the consensus that no conviction in this case will mean no follow up murder case absent a confession or some new evidence.

  5. John Grisham
    05/08/2010 at 6:21 PM

    Victor: “We got what?”
    Joe: “Guests.”
    Victor: “We’ve got what … milk?”
    Joe: “No, we got guests coming over.”

    • Nora
      05/10/2010 at 7:44 AM

      Yes – in his interview Dylan tells the detectives that, on waking, he assumed the rumpus outside his door was Joe and Victor fighting. What kind of tension and anger was building in that household? No matter how many times I read these entries, I’m still amazed at what Joe was doing. Why was a man of his age and position stoking such resentment, playing his two “loved ones” against each other, slinging barbs at everyone close to him? If the murder was unplanned, Joe really didn’t anticipate some kind of violence resulting from all this? Or was the buttoned-down attorney addicted to “playing w/ fire” to make himself feel more real? The clip is very well chosen.

      If the prosecutors can use all three defendents’ interviews in trial they can make mincemeat of the idea that Robert’s visit was a perfectly normal affair. Will these statements be allowed in?

  6. MotherOfInvention
    05/08/2010 at 11:51 PM

    Have you already had Rosemary’s Baby as a Sunday movie? So mehow the whole waking-up-in-the-midst-a-sex-ritual-after-having-been-drugged things seems…resonant.

  7. Robert
    05/09/2010 at 8:16 PM

    CRAIG
    Sorry to get off point, but what time does the trial begin tomorrow, what time do you recommend we be there and could you remind me of the address? You can send this all to my private EM.

    Thanks.

Comments are closed.