Written by Clarke Kent
Puzzle Piece #2
During the three depositions Plaintiff DK would answer questions concerning the meth lab episode with a blanket statement that it was turned over to the VBPD. Not once could she produce evidence that she was being stalked, etc, etc. She had no evidence and her rationale was she turned it over to police.
As defendants we needed information to bolster our case and prove that J4S was not involved with sending people to harass her. With that said, it was decided to look at what she was reporting to VBPD and to that end we subpoenaed her records at the police department. What we found out was unexpected and a huge surprise to defendants and attorney. It appears that our request was quashed with the reason being #1 “The information requested by counsel is part of the investigation file for an active homicide investigation being conducted by the VBPD’s Cold Case Unit related to the 2005 death of Mary Rachel Carson” it continues with #2 “Pursuant to Rule 4:1(b) of the Supreme Court of Virginia and the criminal investigative files privilege; the requested investigative files and their contents are privileged and not subject to mandatory release. See In re: Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of State Police, 1978 Va. LEXIS; 41 VA. Cir. 571; Decker v. Watson, 54 VA. Cir. 493 (2001); and Harrington v. Roessler, 2014 Va. Vir. LEXIS 106 (Case law is attached collectively to this motion as Exhibit A.).”
“#3. Because the criminal investigation of this matter is still pending and part of an active and ongoing investigation, the City invokes such privilege pending resolution of the criminal investigation and any subsequent criminal proceedings that may take place in order not to interfere with any ongoing investigation or eventual prosecution of the matter. ”
“WHEREFORE, the City requests that this Court grant its Motion to Quash. If the Court makes requisite findings and other disclosure of some or all of the items sought, the City in the alternate requests a protective order regarding secondary dissemination, the specific provisions of which the City asks leave to propose.”
My opinion as your opinion and thinking is requested and important in putting the sub information in the puzzle piece (2) entitled Quashed Subpoena.
Why would a request in an entirely different criminal charge of the meth lab and Shellie’s murder, all be captured in the Carson murder file. The Carson file after 14+ years of investigation must be huge. The question is does this in any way infer that it was a dual investigation and Plaintiff’s involvement is linked to a murder investigation. My opinion is that this quashing of the Subpoena indicates a link to the Carson case.
Your thinking and comments are solicited.