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

[Serenity7]

And before someone asks me what possible defense I think MH could ever offer, I'd suggest, if I was her attorney, that she go with the "I'm lazy" defense.

Under this defense strategy, Melissa Huckaby would admit to drugging children. In fact she'd report that it had been going on for months. Have her admit to drugging every child that ever came to play with her kid. When asked why...she could then say, "They would get so rambunctious...so I'd cut a 1/5 of a valium off the tablet and give to them. I was doing this with my own child too. But after a time 1/5 wasn't working as well...so I bumped it up to 1/2..and then a full tablet...."

And then have her claim that on the day Sandra came over Sandra somehow received a larger dose accidentally. Perhaps Sandra drink both her own Valium laced drink and her daughters drink--overdosing her. This would then explain why she had drugged the other child back in January. Because she was taking the child to the park and she just didn't feel like chasing the kid around. So she would dope them up to keep them docile and easy to manage. And before this concept gets shot down by the posters on this board...let me tell you that I've actually worked in the mental health field and the giving of a shot of alcohol, or an anti-depressant that has been not been prescribed for a child, or a muscle relaxant by irresponsible parents...in order to keep their children from "acting out" is by NO MEANS uncommon. I suppose you could say the same thing is done legally for cases of ADHD and some other disorders.

Now, by admitting this, MH would be admitting to a felony. Giving a controlled substance to a child is a felony. When another person dies as a result of a felony committed by you, you can be charged with felony murder. Even if you didn't INTEND for the person to die. HOWEVER....this would, very likely, remove the idea of deliberate murder...if NO OTHER EXAMPLES OF EVIL BEHAVIOR were found in Melissa Huckaby's history.

This would then make her claims of the death as being "an accident", the basis for her defense.

Then when questioned about kidnapping the child back in January. "I never did that. I asked her mother for permission 3 days before. She just doesn't remember me asking. She's forgetful." Deny it in other words.

When asked why she hid Sandra's body: "Because I knew I had done something wrong. I didn't MEAN for her to die, but I knew no one would believe me...so I just knew I had to get rid of her and I hid her body."

Then............at this point........whether there was rape or not becomes a HUGE issue. If there was rape...the "I'm lazy" defense gets shot to the hot place. If there wasn't rape, it doesn't take away from what was already done illegally by Melissa Huckaby, but it could be something that trips up the prosecution if they spend day after day discussing this...only to have it shot down by the defense if there is no other supporting evidence, or if other expert witness refute the medical examiners claims.

This could make the prosecution and the medical examiners offices look inept. Not dissimilar to what happened with the OJ Simpson trial...murder trial I mean.

She's not walking. She's gonna serve time. But is she gonna serve the time for cold blooded first degree murder with rape, or is she going to serve the time for a  second degree murder without intent?

The difference in time she could serve might be anywhere from "Death", "Life in Prison"...to "15 years and out in 9 with good behavior."

Personally, I think there was no rape. I think she just despised the kids coming around and deliberately sought out ways to kill them. Personal opinion. Before seeing the evidence, or lack thereof, NONE of us can know. We can speculate. We can pontificate. We can judge. We can absolve. We can do alll this...but until the trial is done we won't KNOW what is there to be seen. And then society will have judged and our opinions won't matter.

[cookie]

Ruling on a prosecutor’s motion, San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Linda L. Lofthus said the potentially inflammatory reports could jeopardize the case for both Huckaby and prosecutors. Lofthus cited the intense media interest while making the ruling.

Why on earth would you think they would show autopsy photos?  I really don't understand your way of thinking. 

It's actually been done before. I don't know what California's law is, but there has been some...I lack the knowledge of what the law might be called in that State, but Federally it is called the "Freedom of Information Act"... laws used in other cases and reporters have used these "Give us bloodhouds access" laws in order to force the state into revealing these kinds of photos. Then they get printed or published or posted on the internet.

And the Judge no doubt thought that placing photos of a girl with, perhaps, xxxxxxxx so that she can be stuffed into a suitcase, or the images of xxxxxx body onto the autopsy table just MIGHT infuriate people so much that no matter what defense was offered the jury would be unwilling to even explore the possibilities...because they would be so offended by what had been done to the body.

From the prosecutions side, the judge probably doesn't want to have to show image after image of the aforementioned body being FURTHER mutilated through the actions of the medical examiner during the--highly necessary--examination. Some people still just have a gut reaction to seeing a person cut up, the skull cap removed etc...even if it is as a necessary part of the autopsy procedure. So in order to keep undue criticism from falling on the whole autopsy process, the judge might want the reports seals.

And finally...I think the judge is nicely human enough to not want the Cantu family to have to look at images of their daughter spalshed across the internet for the next 20 years.

But people seem determined to view this as the judge having made some comment about the evidence of the case. And I don't buy that. I think it's just the judge's very rational acknowledgment of the fact that dead bodies look ugly, and some of them, uglier than most, and that showing that to people in the jury pool is NOT going to make for rational legal decision making when it comes time for the selected jury to hear the case. Assuming it goes to trial.
EDIT ~ GRAPHIC DETAIL NOT NECESSARY TO MAKE YOUR POINT

I, for one could do without this kind of description of a little girl who has been murdered....thanks...jmo

[Deenie]

 

[cece]

cookie, I agree.

[4getUnot]

Ruling on a prosecutor’s motion, San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Linda L. Lofthus said the potentially inflammatory reports could jeopardize the case for both Huckaby and prosecutors. Lofthus cited the intense media interest while making the ruling.

Why on earth would you think they would show autopsy photos?  I really don't understand your way of thinking. 

It's actually been done before. I don't know what California's law is, but there has been some...I lack the knowledge of what the law might be called in that State, but Federally it is called the "Freedom of Information Act"... laws used in other cases and reporters have used these "Give us bloodhouds access" laws in order to force the state into revealing these kinds of photos. Then they get printed or published or posted on the internet.

And the Judge no doubt thought that placing photos of a girl with, perhaps, XXXXXso that she can be stuffed into a suitcase, or the images of XXXXXX body onto the autopsy table just MIGHT infuriate people so much that no matter what defense was offered the jury would be unwilling to even explore the possibilities...because they would be so offended by what had been done to the body.

From the prosecutions side, the judge probably doesn't want to have to show image after image of the aforementioned body being FURTHER mutilated through the actions of the medical examiner during the--highly necessary--examination. Some people still just have a gut reaction to seeing a person cut up, the skull cap removed etc...even if it is as a necessary part of the autopsy procedure. So in order to keep undue criticism from falling on the whole autopsy process, the judge might want the reports seals.

And finally...I think the judge is nicely human enough to not want the Cantu family to have to look at images of their daughter spalshed across the internet for the next 20 years.

But people seem determined to view this as the judge having made some comment about the evidence of the case. And I don't buy that. I think it's just the judge's very rational acknowledgment of the fact that dead bodies look ugly, and some of them, uglier than most, and that showing that to people in the jury pool is NOT going to make for rational legal decision making when it comes time for the selected jury to hear the case. Assuming it goes to trial.
EDIT` GRAPHIC DETAIL NOT NECESSARY TO MAKE YOUR POINT

I, for one could do without this kind of description of a little girl who has been murdered....thanks...jmo

me too...

[cece]

Exactly!

[Serenity7]

Ruling on a prosecutor’s motion, San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Linda L. Lofthus said the potentially inflammatory reports could jeopardize the case for both Huckaby and prosecutors. Lofthus cited the intense media interest while making the ruling.

Why on earth would you think they would show autopsy photos?  I really don't understand your way of thinking. 

It's actually been done before. I don't know what California's law is, but there has been some...I lack the knowledge of what the law might be called in that State, but Federally it is called the "Freedom of Information Act"... laws used in other cases and reporters have used these "Give us bloodhouds access" laws in order to force the state into revealing these kinds of photos. Then they get printed or published or posted on the internet.

And the Judge no doubt thought that placing photos of a girl with, perhaps,xxxxxxxso that she can be stuffed into a suitcase, or the images of xxxxxx body onto the autopsy table just MIGHT infuriate people so much that no matter what defense was offered the jury would be unwilling to even explore the possibilities...because they would be so offended by what had been done to the body.

From the prosecutions side, the judge probably doesn't want to have to show image after image of the aforementioned body being FURTHER mutilated through the actions of the medical examiner during the--highly necessary--examination. Some people still just have a gut reaction to seeing a person cut up, the skull cap removed etc...even if it is as a necessary part of the autopsy procedure. So in order to keep undue criticism from falling on the whole autopsy process, the judge might want the reports seals.

And finally...I think the judge is nicely human enough to not want the Cantu family to have to look at images of their daughter spalshed across the internet for the next 20 years.

But people seem determined to view this as the judge having made some comment about the evidence of the case. And I don't buy that. I think it's just the judge's very rational acknowledgment of the fact that dead bodies look ugly, and some of them, uglier than most, and that showing that to people in the jury pool is NOT going to make for rational legal decision making when it comes time for the selected jury to hear the case. Assuming it goes to trial.
EDIT GRAPHIC DETAIL NOT NECESSARY TO MAKE YOUR POINT

I, for one could do without this kind of description of a little girl who has been murdered....thanks...jmo

And the ignoring of realities because they are "too graphic" is what allows these kinds of things to continue. Everyone on this board has suggested that the police should have arrested MH back in January....but...BECAUSE THEY IGNORED THE REALITIES and did NOT investigate...a murder occurred.

How I am to  "sweeten" or "spin" the image of a girl murdered and brutally dumped is, I think, not possible.

NO ONE IS SAYING TO IGNORE REALITIES, AND NO ONE HERE IS TRYING TO SWEETEN OR SPIN.  WE ARE HERE IN THE INTEREST OF A MURDERED LITTLE GIRL.  YOUR GRAPHIC DETAIL IS NOT NECESSARY.  IT IS NOT UP TO YOU TO DECIDE HOW WE SHOULD BE EDUCATED OR INFORMED.

[Deenie]

oh my ......... 
I gotta run to the store ..
got some other things to post

I know that we all have our fair say here but Damn that was a lot Serenity ..
just saying ... ( I won't say no more) .........

Justice For Sandra

[Serenity7]

However, y'all have proven the Judge's point if the mere DESCRIPTION is enough to upset you...imagine the reaction in the jury pool if this was shown on 60 Minutes.

[MuffyBee]

STOP QUOTING THE POST IF IT IS TOO GRAPHIC.  I AM IN THE PROCESS OF EDITING IT, AND I HAVE TO EDIT EVERY QUOTE. 

[cece]

oh my ......... 
I gotta run to the store ..
got some other things to post

I know that we all have our fair say here but Damn that was a lot Serenity ..
just saying ... ( I won't say no more) .........

Justice For Sandra

Thank you for all the great links you provide. 

Amen, Justice for Sandra.

[GramaMonkey]

Thanks Blink

Thanks for passing that info on Blink!!!!  Did Tim have any prior convictions???  Or would he be a 'newbie' to the FBI / LE.

[cece]

STOP QUOTING THE POST IF IT IS TOO GRAPHIC.  I AM IN THE PROCESS OF EDITING IT, AND I HAVE TO EDIT EVERY QUOTE. 

Thank you MuffyBee.  I chose not to quote it, as I did not want to repeat it over & over.

[MuffyBee]

STOP QUOTING THE POST IF IT IS TOO GRAPHIC.  I AM IN THE PROCESS OF EDITING IT, AND I HAVE TO EDIT EVERY QUOTE. 

Thank you MuffyBee.  I chose not to quote it, as I did not want to repeat it over & over.

Thank you cece.  You have a lot of good, common sense. 

[MuffyBee]

However, y'all have proven the Judge's point if the mere DESCRIPTION is enough to upset you...imagine the reaction in the jury pool if this was shown on 60 Minutes.

Are you familiar with Alfred Hitchcock's work?  Sometimes what isn't shown and what you don't see can be scarier then what you can see and are shown.  JMHO

[4getUnot]

STOP QUOTING THE POST IF IT IS TOO GRAPHIC.  I AM IN THE PROCESS OF EDITING IT, AND I HAVE TO EDIT EVERY QUOTE. 

My apologies, didn't realize what I was doing.  Please forgive my stupidity.

[Wyks]

Quote from Serenity
"And before this concept gets shot down by the posters on this board...let me tell you that I've actually worked in the mental health field and the giving of a shot of alcohol, or an anti-depressant that has been not been prescribed for a child, or a muscle relaxant by irresponsible parents...in order to keep their children from "acting out" is by NO MEANS uncommon. I suppose you could say the same thing is done legally for cases of ADHD and some other disorders."

You suppose wrongly, IMO.  That would not be "done legally" for any child with any kind of disorder.  Please educate yourself re ADHD before making such an outlandish statement about it.  Thanx.
 

[no rose colored glasses]

I don't know about my Monkeys but seeing all these photo's and stories " cases" on Clergy who abuse ... makes me Naush.............. 

I never realized how prevalent this was before... seems to be endless accounts.
The one thing I did notice on the site that allows you to go by State or Name...Many of the "Accused" are either Dead or where abouts Unknown...
That and I noticed to that there is a lot of Nuns on that site .. I was looking in the State of Oregon and ... man their are a lot of Nuns .. gone a rye .. 

When I went to Catholic school a hundred years ago, the nuns would slap us around, but nothing like molesting, at least I don't think so  Wow

[klaasend]

Ruling on a prosecutor’s motion, San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Linda L. Lofthus said the potentially inflammatory reports could jeopardize the case for both Huckaby and prosecutors. Lofthus cited the intense media interest while making the ruling.

Still a gag order and quite a bit of evidence not released to the defense under discovery either. Back to waiting.

Why on earth would you think they would show autopsy photos?  I really don't understand your way of thinking. 

Perhaps I misunderstood your observation. When I was referred to "a bit of evidence not released to the defense under discovery", I did NOT mean autopsy photos released to the public.

If instead you are asking me if I agree that autopsy photos should be provided to the defense. Then I'll state emphatically "yes", I think it is highly necessary that photos of the autopsy be provided to the defense.

Serenity - I meant PUBLIC as that was what you implied.   I am asking you to please NOT be so graphic in your posts. 

[no rose colored glasses]

Hi Monkeys and Welcome to all the new Monkeys!!!!

I've been try to catch up all afternoon and there is so much info, it is overwhelming. 

I wanted to post a picture of one of the US Marshalls Top 15 but I don't know how so I'm putting the link here.  He really does look alot like Lane Lawless IMO, and I wanted to see if anyone else would agree.


http://www.usmarshals.gov/investigations/most_wanted/creamer/creamer.htm

To me there is a striking resemblance and this guy has eluded the authorities since 1997.

He does