Sandra Cantu #3 4/15/09 -4/27/09

[MunkeyMunk]

Now there are three different reports as to how/where that 7 yr old was found.   

She was in a park for about four hours before being returned to her home.
She was found in a field.
She was found on a park bench.

Wonder which is the REAL story?  Can't be all three. 

 

Not only, what is the real story, but I may have missed it, who found the child? Pieces of the puzzle is missing in this incident. I wonder if Melissa took this child before to the park? And another thing, I thought that Sandra was the only child to play with Melissa's child?

In MH interview on the phone she said she had taken this girl to the park 3 times that week. hmmmm

[Blink34]

Now there are three different reports as to how/where that 7 yr old was found.   

She was in a park for about four hours before being returned to her home.
She was found in a field.
She was found on a park bench.

Wonder which is the REAL story?  Can't be all three. 

 

4. I heard she was found behind an out building in the MHP..

[k9ohana]

Why did the judge step down? thoughts anyone?
I can not believe that when this other child was drugged, that someone was not questioned in this...the child would be old enough to tell what happened to her and who took her to the park...this is not making sense that the police did not follow up on this.....huge, huge mistake...If the police would have even questioned MH about this, the neighbors would have gotten wind of it perhaps and would have told their children to stay away from this woman? and then perhaps, Sandra's family would not have allowed her to be in this woman's company....things could have been different ....if only.....

I read some where last week that this judge had been a prosecution witness in a capital murder case some time ago. I will look for the story.

[k9ohana]

Judge May Not Hear Huckaby's Arraignment
Public Defender Asks For Independent Autopsy

POSTED: 3:58 pm PDT April 17, 2009


SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, Calif. -- A judge who was scheduled to hear Melissa Huckaby's arraignment may be replaced or taken off the case.

Judge Terrence Van Oss, the judge who was scheduled to hear an arraignment for Huckaby on April 24, could have a conflict of interest because he was the witness for the prosecution in a capital murder case in which Tom Testa, a San Joaquin County deputy district attorney, was the prosecutor.

On April 24, Van Oss was scheduled to hear a possible motion for an independent autopsy and also a continued arraignment for Huckaby.

The attorney for the 28-year-old woman charged with kidnapping, raping and murdering 8-year-old Sandra Cantu wants her body disinterred to conduct his own autopsy.

The girl's remains were found last week in a suitcase pulled from an irrigation pond near her Tracy home.

Huckaby's public defender, Sam Behar, has asked a judge to allow an independent pathologist to examine Cantu's body.

Behar said he is requesting a second autopsy because the rape allegation against his client is based on the coroner's finding that Sandra had suffered genital trauma.

He called the autopsy "crucial and material" to his client's defense and asked the court to move quickly, saying Cantu's body was deteriorating.

A judge has yet to rule on the request.

[no rose colored glasses]

Now there are three different reports as to how/where that 7 yr old was found.   

She was in a park for about four hours before being returned to her home.
She was found in a field.
She was found on a park bench.

Wonder which is the REAL story?  Can't be all three. 

 

Not only, what is the real story, but I may have missed it, who found the child? Pieces of the puzzle is missing in this incident. I wonder if Melissa took this child before to the park? And another thing, I thought that Sandra was the only child to play with Melissa's child?

In MH interview on the phone she said she had taken this girl to the park 3 times that week. hmmmm

Thanks 

[no rose colored glasses]

Now there are three different reports as to how/where that 7 yr old was found.   

She was in a park for about four hours before being returned to her home.
She was found in a field.
She was found on a park bench.

Wonder which is the REAL story?  Can't be all three. 

 

4. I heard she was found behind an out building in the MHP..

Thanks, do you know who found her?

[Serenity7]

Now there are three different reports as to how/where that 7 yr old was found.   

She was in a park for about four hours before being returned to her home.
She was found in a field.
She was found on a park bench.

Wonder which is the REAL story?  Can't be all three. 

 

Which is why people will begin to question if ANY of them are true. Or they'll make up their own theory. My made up theory is that we are dealing with a murderess, but not a sexual predator. As has already been pointed out, if MH had this other girl for several hours, and was committing sexual assault on her (at the church, at the park, wherever)....there should have been evidence of it when the mother took the child to the hospital later that night. Rope burns. Bruising. Scratches. Something. And I'm fairly certain that she would have been arrested for it if any evidence of this existed. But apparently there wasn't, and she wasn't arrested. And as to how the benzodiazepines showed up in a test...I'd want to know more about what else might cause it to appear. If eating a bran muffin with poppy seeds will do it, for example. Or pizza topping. Or a childs cough medicine.
Being at the park could have been simply a case of MH taking her own daughter to the park and this child asking to go along. However unlikely that seems...

Most of the stories I've heard about sexual predators has them assaulting dozens if not hundreds of children. (I'm thinking of some of the Catholic priest stories that came out a few years back.) So, by now, there ought to be quite a few more accusations against MH than the two we have so far seen from other people in both that community and others....IF SHE WAS COMMITTING SEXUAL ASSAULTS.

I'm very seriously beginning to wonder what the prosecution is basing their evidence for sexual assault on. If Sandra had been found in the church 3 hours after she disappeared, in a perfect state of preservation, then a medical examiners findings should have been pretty reliable. After 10 days in the water, I'm wondering just what evidence would still remain of a sexual assault. The areas of the body that would be examined, I would think, would be precisely the areas most subject to degradation from decomposition.

Looking up Dr. Terri Haddix, it sounds like she's got tons of experience in forensic investigation. I'd think she would be an excellent choice.

[JessStar]

Now there are three different reports as to how/where that 7 yr old was found.   

She was in a park for about four hours before being returned to her home.
She was found in a field.
She was found on a park bench.

Wonder which is the REAL story?  Can't be all three. 

 

Which is why people will begin to question if ANY of them are true. Or they'll make up their own theory. My made up theory is that we are dealing with a murderess, but not a sexual predator. As has already been pointed out, if MH had this other girl for several hours, and was committing sexual assault on her (at the church, at the park, wherever)....there should have been evidence of it when the mother took the child to the hospital later that night. Rope burns. Bruising. Scratches. Something. And I'm fairly certain that she would have been arrested for it if any evidence of this existed. But apparently there wasn't, and she wasn't arrested. And as to how the benzodiazepines showed up in a test...I'd want to know more about what else might cause it to appear. If eating a bran muffin with poppy seeds will do it, for example. Or pizza topping. Or a childs cough medicine.
Being at the park could have been simply a case of MH taking her own daughter to the park and this child asking to go along. However unlikely that seems...

Most of the stories I've heard about sexual predators has them assaulting dozens if not hundreds of children. (I'm thinking of some of the Catholic priest stories that came out a few years back.) So, by now, there ought to be quite a few more accusations against MH than the two we have so far seen from other people in both that community and others....IF SHE WAS COMMITTING SEXUAL ASSAULTS.

I'm very seriously beginning to wonder what the prosecution is basing their evidence for sexual assault on. If Sandra had been found in the church 3 hours after she disappeared, in a perfect state of preservation, then a medical examiners findings should have been pretty reliable. After 10 days in the water, I'm wondering just what evidence would still remain of a sexual assault. The areas of the body that would be examined, I would think, would be precisely the areas most subject to degradation from decomposition.

Looking up Dr. Terri Haddix, it sounds like she's got tons of experience in forensic investigation. I'd think she would be an excellent choice.

Serenity7, I certainly don't profess to be a forensic expert.  However, I have dealt with these issues before.  There is a tremendous difference between skin lesions/abrasions/etc. caused by normal decomposition and those caused by trauma. 

On the poppy seeds issue, you'd have to consume a ton of poppy seeds for a narcotic effect to be even detectable.  The story of people testing positive for narcotics during random drug tests after eating a poppyseed bagel, for example, are false.  It can't happen. Also, Benzos aren't present in childrens cold remedies, or ANY OTC medication.  They are a scheduled drug that requires a prescription.

I want to be clear here.  I don't have a problem with the defense having an opportunity to conduct a medical exam IF IT'S WARRANTED!  That's what the judge will have to decide.  Right now, I haven't seen anything that warrants it.  But I'm not the judge, and I don't know what all the evidence shows.  However, making a conclusory allegation that it's material to the case, without saying WHY, is what my sticking point is.  Give a reason why you need to do a second exam before you disturb this child's body.  It's what the law requires.  There are 2 reasons I can come up with as to why the defense is not being candid about WHY they want to do a second exam.  The first is that MH told them something specific, and they want to go look for it.  The second is that they're posturing in an effort to get a quick plea deal.

To answer a question you posed in your earlier post, the ME looked for signs of sexual assault because in crimes like this, sexual assault is expected.  The ME would have been remiss to NOT look.  It's protocol.

[klaasend]

NEW BLINK POST:

http://blinkoncrime.com/2009/04/21/sandra-cantu-murder-huckaby-drugged-child-in-january/

Sandra Cantu Murder: Huckaby Drugged Child in January

[no rose colored glasses]

NEW BLINK POST:

http://blinkoncrime.com/2009/04/21/sandra-cantu-murder-huckaby-drugged-child-in-january/

Sandra Cantu Murder: Huckaby Drugged Child in January

Thank-you. I don't know quite how to ask this, but if there was no signs of abuse, why would drugs be necessary? Could there have been pictures taken of this child? I'm really confused by the LE in this case. Is there a park around there where Melissa took the child, or is the park further away from the mobile home park? Did Melissa bring the child and put her behind an outbuilding, or did the child wander behind the outbuilding passed out? 

[Serenity7]

[quote ]
Serenity7, I certainly don't profess to be a forensic expert.  However, I have dealt with these issues before.  There is a tremendous difference between skin lesions/abrasions/etc. caused by normal decomposition and those caused by trauma. 

On the poppy seeds issue, you'd have to consume a ton of poppy seeds for a narcotic effect to be even detectable.  The story of people testing positive for narcotics during random drug tests after eating a poppyseed bagel, for example, are false.  It can't happen. Also, Benzos aren't present in childrens cold remedies, or ANY OTC medication.  They are a scheduled drug that requires a prescription.

I want to be clear here.  I don't have a problem with the defense having an opportunity to conduct a medical exam IF IT'S WARRANTED!  That's what the judge will have to decide.  Right now, I haven't seen anything that warrants it.  But I'm not the judge, and I don't know what all the evidence shows.  However, making a conclusory allegation that it's material to the case, without saying WHY, is what my sticking point is.  Give a reason why you need to do a second exam before you disturb this child's body.  It's what the law requires.  There are 2 reasons I can come up with as to why the defense is not being candid about WHY they want to do a second exam.  The first is that MH told them something specific, and they want to go look for it.  The second is that they're posturing in an effort to get a quick plea deal.

To answer a question you posed in your earlier post, the ME looked for signs of sexual assault because in crimes like this, sexual assault is expected.  The ME would have been remiss to NOT look.  It's protocol.

[/quote]

It's warranted. If a woman is facing execution for crimes she may have committed, then going back and double checking to make sure someone didn't make a mistake is warranted. An expert in forensic examination should be brought in.

Of course the ME looked for evidence of sexual assault. He would be remiss not to look. But what is there to look AT? A pile of bones? A perfectly preserved body? It's almost certainly somewhere between these two extremes. But she had to have decomposed in some form or fashion. The extent of this before the ME got a chance to examine her is important. Having her examined again, before any further decomposition occurs, is also important. And not just to the defense's case in my opinion but the prosecution's too.

The defense has stated they consider the charge of sexual assault to be important to their case. They're right. That's reason enough. Either it DID, or it DID NOT happen. If you want to determine if it did or didn't, then you bring in an expert to look. This works well for the prosecution too. Because the LAST THING you want to do as the prosecution is to allege, "she was sexually assaulted" and then have the defense come in and say, "Well...based on these ME's photos...compared to these OTHER children who were left in water after this boating accident..."..and find them to have identical markings not related to sexual assault. That could cause some massive doubt about the prosecution's ENTIRE case and the police investigation if the charges you bring aren't supported. So having a second forensic exam...if the charge of sexual assault is warranted...could very well end up bolstering the prosecutions charges. So why isn't the prosecution supporting this idea? Who knows? But one charge that could be leveled is that they know the "genital trauma" described is not sexually related...otherwise why not let, or even encourage, a second examination?

As to there being differences between skin abrasions from decomposition and sexual trauma...fine. Show it. Get a forensic expert to examine it and then testify. But "genital trauma" is such a catch all phrase that it could mean anything. Until the ME testifies, and provides evidence to support his conclusions, we'd can't draw our own conclusions. (Or at least we'd be foolish too...but I am foolish....*grin*)

As to the child who was taken to the park and showed up with benzos in her system at the hospital...nothing was done about it. There apparently ARE some substances that can cause false positives and their ARE some substances used by dentists and others, which can apparently linger in the body up to 250 hours afterward and still register. See, I was watching Mythbusters one night...and they had this Bigfoot trying to get a government job...and they decided to eat these poppy seed bagels to see if it would cause a false positive. Semi-mystical forest dwelling wildmen aside, the test showed that a relatively small amount of poppy seeds ingested produced a false positive. This issue has been proven several times. http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/poppyseed.asp

Do I BELIEVE that this child had a false positive test? No I don't. I think MH probably slipped her something. But my BELIEF ought not be enough to have a woman sent to prison and potentially killed.

If she is to be believed, MH took this child three times to this park. And the child returned alive and apparently unmolested those three times. But soon enough I expect someone to make the comment, "She took that child to the park three times...and that child never turned up dead or sexually assaulted...that's suspicious!"  Maybe it is..but it's a nice defense argument to point out that children were around MH at other times and were NOT either killed or assaulted.

However, making a conclusory allegation that it's material to the case, without saying WHY, is what my sticking point is.

But neither you nor any client of yours is facing the death penalty...at least I assume. And history would suggest that stating a medical examine is central to someone's case has some pretttttttttttttttttttyyyy good track records of being a correct statement.  The medical examine is going to be extraordinarily important. For both the prosecution and the defense. But probably not for the reasons we are arguing about. The important issue is going to be "how did she die", and not so much "what was done to her before she died". In my opinion. Because I think the "genital trauma" observations are going to be shot down pretty quick. I mean, we haven't heard the medical examiners statement on what he meant by "genital trauma" yet...because he hasn't testified to it. So how can we even know what that means? Obviously the prosecution took it as evidence enough to warrant a charge of sexual molestation. But that might not hold up. It certainly isn't being backed up by 500 people showing up with pictures of their children at the hospital with sexual assault injuries after going to Sunday school.

[Serenity7]

NEW BLINK POST:

http://blinkoncrime.com/2009/04/21/sandra-cantu-murder-huckaby-drugged-child-in-january/

Sandra Cantu Murder: Huckaby Drugged Child in January

Thank-you. I don't know quite how to ask this, but if there was no signs of abuse, why would drugs be necessary? Could there have been pictures taken of this child? I'm really confused by the LE in this case. Is there a park around there where Melissa took the child, or is the park further away from the mobile home park? Did Melissa bring the child and put her behind an outbuilding, or did the child wander behind the outbuilding passed out? 

At a guess, I'd say MH intended to murder the girl she took to the park. Drugging up the child and then arranging an "accident" would be very easy. If anyone even noticed that it was she who had brought the child there, she could always claim "Oh, she's friends with my daughter and she begged us to come...*boo hoo hoo*...we've come here before and nothing ever happened. This is  soo horrible! *boo hoo hoo*"

Does this park have a small pond? A lot of them do. Pretty sick idea, but suppose she was going to toss the kid in the pond? Cops show up....accidental death by drowning. Or a fall off the jungle gym. Or whatever. And in a fairly straight forward appearing case like pulling a child from a pond, I'm not even sure tests for toxicity would even be done. (A lot of these tests are fairly expensive, and it comes out of the county budgets.)

Just because I don't think the woman is a sexual predator doesn't mean I don't think she's got some serious, serious "issues" going on.

[Anna]

Serenity7, I certainly don't profess to be a forensic expert.  However, I have dealt with these issues before.  There is a tremendous difference between skin lesions/abrasions/etc. caused by normal decomposition and those caused by trauma. 

On the poppy seeds issue, you'd have to consume a ton of poppy seeds for a narcotic effect to be even detectable.  The story of people testing positive for narcotics during random drug tests after eating a poppyseed bagel, for example, are false.  It can't happen. Also, Benzos aren't present in childrens cold remedies, or ANY OTC medication.  They are a scheduled drug that requires a prescription.

I want to be clear here.  I don't have a problem with the defense having an opportunity to conduct a medical exam IF IT'S WARRANTED!  That's what the judge will have to decide.  Right now, I haven't seen anything that warrants it.  But I'm not the judge, and I don't know what all the evidence shows.  However, making a conclusory allegation that it's material to the case, without saying WHY, is what my sticking point is.  Give a reason why you need to do a second exam before you disturb this child's body.  It's what the law requires.  There are 2 reasons I can come up with as to why the defense is not being candid about WHY they want to do a second exam.  The first is that MH told them something specific, and they want to go look for it.  The second is that they're posturing in an effort to get a quick plea deal.

To answer a question you posed in your earlier post, the ME looked for signs of sexual assault because in crimes like this, sexual assault is expected.  The ME would have been remiss to NOT look.  It's protocol.

ITA, JessStar,

And if the Defense can come up with a legit reason, I do believe they will be allowed a re-exam because this is a capital offense case.  A person's life potentially hangs in the balance, MH.

We don't have a clue as to the amount of decomp that would take place inside a suitcase underwater under these exact circumstances.  I would tend to think it greatly slowed by lack of contact with the elements and insects, etc.

But pathologists and especially ME are trained to know the difference in normal decomp and trauma.

This case is so strange and off the charts statistically that I can understand LE proceeding with such caution.

And once the gag orders are in place, bet we have to wait for the trial to find out anything factual.  Of course in the meanwhile speculations will run wild but that's all they are, speculations.

[JessStar]

Serenity7, I certainly don't profess to be a forensic expert.  However, I have dealt with these issues before.  There is a tremendous difference between skin lesions/abrasions/etc. caused by normal decomposition and those caused by trauma. 

On the poppy seeds issue, you'd have to consume a ton of poppy seeds for a narcotic effect to be even detectable.  The story of people testing positive for narcotics during random drug tests after eating a poppyseed bagel, for example, are false.  It can't happen. Also, Benzos aren't present in childrens cold remedies, or ANY OTC medication.  They are a scheduled drug that requires a prescription.

I want to be clear here.  I don't have a problem with the defense having an opportunity to conduct a medical exam IF IT'S WARRANTED!  That's what the judge will have to decide.  Right now, I haven't seen anything that warrants it.  But I'm not the judge, and I don't know what all the evidence shows.  However, making a conclusory allegation that it's material to the case, without saying WHY, is what my sticking point is.  Give a reason why you need to do a second exam before you disturb this child's body.  It's what the law requires.  There are 2 reasons I can come up with as to why the defense is not being candid about WHY they want to do a second exam.  The first is that MH told them something specific, and they want to go look for it.  The second is that they're posturing in an effort to get a quick plea deal.

To answer a question you posed in your earlier post, the ME looked for signs of sexual assault because in crimes like this, sexual assault is expected.  The ME would have been remiss to NOT look.  It's protocol.

ITA, JessStar,

And if the Defense can come up with a legit reason, I do believe they will be allowed a re-exam because this is a capital offense case.  A person's life potentially hangs in the balance, MH.

We don't have a clue as to the amount of decomp that would take place inside a suitcase underwater under these exact circumstances.  I would tend to think it greatly slowed by lack of contact with the elements and insects, etc.

But pathologists and especially ME are trained to know the difference in normal decomp and trauma.

This case is so strange and off the charts statistically that I can understand LE proceeding with such caution.

And once the gag orders are in place, bet we have to wait for the trial to find out anything factual.  Of course in the meanwhile speculations will run wild but that's all they are, speculations.

I agree with you Anna 100%.  If the defense can come up with a legitimate reason, they should be allowed to do it.  But they have to pass the "legitimacy" test first. 

Oh, and I suppose I should mention, the discussion about poppies causing a false positive is neither here nor there.  To the extent it is POSSIBLE to test a false positive, the false positive would be the presence of opiates.  Benzos aren't in the opiate family.

[Anna]

Not going to be a popular stance but I for one can understand LE not doing a better job on the other child, the one who turned up drugged.  Had there been a male involved, I am pretty sure they would have been all over it but with a female, well, while it is not right and they should have done more, but this is so rare, I can understand why they didn't pursue MH more at the time.

I am not saying what they did was right because it wasn't.  And it's not good to always go completely by the statistics but it is what I think would happen just about anywhere in this country. 

Perhaps this will be the case to change all that.  I certainly hope in the future LE will not be so quick to dismiss the concept of female sexual predators but I can still see how and why they made this potentially fatal mistake. 

I do regret that they did.  But know in my heart, I would not have just assumed a young female SS teacher to be a predator myself.

Now I would at the least consider it.  Hindsight.  But before this case, I think I would have wrongly done just what LE did and assume the drugs came from within the home or elsewhere.  I have always depended far too much on stats I guess.

[Anna]

A murder case gets a far more thorough toxicology screen than an employment drug screening, etc.  The most sophisticated of equipment is used and it can pinpoint exact chemical compounds with great precision.

This is far from just a routine drug screening as lives are in the balance.  It's not a yes/no answer but distinct pattern for what is present.  I don't think they will make any mistake in that regard.  These tests have come a very long way and continue to advance all the time.  They are a far cry from the less advanced ones still used for employment purposes and small time athletic events.

JMO

[k9ohana]

New 10 just said that the family of the girl who tested positive for muscle relaxers back on Jan 17th decided not to press charges because of the little girls mothers drug problems. The family was afraid the girl may be taken from her mother if they pursued it.

[FishstickKitty]

You guys are very wishy washy.

I have a question. Was the ME done BEFORE MH was arrested?

Do they think they need to look for new stuff now that she has talked a bit?

This is an important case and  anyone suggesting I'm glib or would make a bad parent aside, I say if a 2nd look is required, they need to hurry up and do it. I'd hate to 1. have an innocent person go to jail or 2. Have a guilty person get off a technicality.

[no rose colored glasses]

New 10 just said that the family of the girl who tested positive for muscle relaxers back on Jan 17th decided not to press charges because of the little girls mothers drug problems. The family was afraid the girl may be taken from her mother if they pursued it.

Thank-you, what a shame.

[klaasend]

You guys are very wishy washy.

I have a question. Was the ME done BEFORE MH was arrested?

Do they think they need to look for new stuff now that she has talked a bit?

This is an important case and  anyone suggesting I'm glib or would make a bad parent aside, I say if a 2nd look is required, they need to hurry up and do it. I'd hate to 1. have an innocent person go to jail or 2. Have a guilty person get off a technicality.

FishStickKitty - you have about 10 posts compared to my 50,000+ in this forum and I say your post above is very rude to the members here.  Please refrain from posting if you can't say something helpful.  The posts I've seen of yours seem very cold and do more harm than good.