Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Constitutional Law Blogs -> Chris King's 1st Amendment Page

Constitutional Law

: Chris King's 1st Amendment Page

KingCast says "Go ahead and file your Motion, Kelly."

By Christopher King

And I will smack it down on the ground like yesterday's hard cheese. Piper v. United States DOJ, 294 F. Supp. 2d 16 (2003)

Exemption 7(C), 5 U.S.C.S. § 552(b)(7)(C), did not shield from disclosure a photograph of a smudged fingerprint that had been enhanced by the FBI and a related memorandum, because tampering with evidence fell within the public interest covered by FOIA.

As Bruce would say, "You want some more?" Well I'm like Toyota, who could ask for anything more:

[*25] Plaintiff seeks a photograph of [**20] a smudged fingerprint that was lifted off of a shopping bag found in the kidnapper's car; the prosecution alleged it was defendant Larson's fingerprint. (Pl.'s Opp'n Mem. at 7.) Defense experts testified at trial that the photo exhibit of the shopping bag fingerprint introduced into evidence had been enhanced, probably by pencil, to create sufficient fingerprint identification points to show a match with defendant Larson's fingerprint. (Pl.'s Opp'n Mem. at 7.) Conversely, the FBI states, under an apparent cloud of contradiction, that a responsive document could not be located, (Keeley Decl. at 10), yet withheld under Exemption 7 (C) are documents 205-06 that describe a latent fingerprint photograph on a piece of brown paper recovered from an automobile. (Ex. I, Docs. 205-06.) Whether this contradiction is blunder or subterfuge, the Court will not inquire at this time. The Court orders the FBI to release document 206.

Read this post to see how she tries to hide the fingerprint evidence that may indeed show that Gregory W. Floyd loaded Liko's gun himself after he shot and potentially murdered Liko Kenney.

Bonus Round:

Defendant "Where's the Beef?" Ayotte also won't answer these simple questions also contemplated by the pending Interrogatory/RFP and this RSA 91-A request. Pay attention to the dates of the interviews of two eyeball witnesses in the "Investigative" files KingCast posted online. Right there in the first 4-5 pages you see written statements of Susan Thompson and Rebecca Bell, both appear to be dated 12 May 2007 and they were interviewed on 12 May 2007 Kelly's Official Report says she was wrote a statement on 11 May but there's no proof of that as it is not dated and the only date given is on the drawings of 12 May. Okay. The killings occurred on 11 May 2007 and the two of them were eyeball witnesses.

Why the delay? As a former AAG I'll tell you right now you don't wait to interview an eyeball witness to a homicide; if for no other reason they could have a heart attack and die before the next day. I'm pretty sure I already know "the why," and Judge Vaughn will find it quite interesting I'm certain. And it's the same reason they don't want to answer the Interrogatories and RSA 91-A Request.

Double Bonus:

There's no audio for Chet Thompson. You remember Chet, he called 911 for Pete's sake. And he's the one with the redacted statement who was furious about how McKay handled the situation. He was an eyeball witness to part of this tragedy. His name was not on the order sheet nor was it offered after I filed the ethics complaint.

You want war Kelly you've got it.

You think this case was already dirty, stick around. Go ahead Kelly, file your Motion.BEEP BEEP.

Full post as published by Chris King's 1st Amendment Page on February 05, 2008 (boomark / email).