Britney Spears: Not Out of the Legal Woods Yet
Here's an update on the Britney Spears-Kevin Federline legal drama. The emergency court hearing that was supposed to take today, requested by K-Fed to discuss custody of their two children, was canceled.
The reason, according to various media and tabloid reports, is that Spears is back in rehab. She has reportedly checked back into Promises rehabilitation center (which she had fled earlier in the day).
Earlier this week, Spears was photographed sporting a shaved head. Here's some food for thought from a tipster:
So Britney Spears shaved her head. People think it's because she's crazy. But some have speculated it is because her ex-husband threatened to subpoena hair samples from her. And hair samples can show drug use going back years. Like backdated blood samples.Is this comparable to obstruction of justice? Is it like shredding documents when you're afraid you might be under investigation, or those documents might be subpoened? Is it a form of spoliation of evidence?
Thoughts?
Britney in rehab for 3rd time in a week [Reuters]
Britney Back in Rehab [TMZ.com]
Federline Court Appearance Canceled [Associated Press]
(15) Comments
she wouldn't have left the cuttings in a very public place if she were trying to destroy evidence. smart enough to attempt but too dumb to do it in her bathroom at home in private? i don't think so.
Not necessarily 4:52. If the hair clippings are left on the floor of a random hair place doesn't that break the chain of evidence?
Not necessarily 4:52. If the hair clippings are left on the floor of a random hair place doesn't that break the chain of evidence?
Agree that it was dumb to leave the cuttings but maybe she was dumb, e.g., assuming they would be swept away etc.
I thought the cuttings were being auctioned off. A third party subpoeana for the minimum necessary to test? Anyone know the law on third party subpeonas that require destruction of unique property. I assume that it is possible -- just have to make a stronger showing of need.
Re: Chain of custody, you can test the hair's mitochondrial DNA vs. Ms. Spears' to establish that it was hers.
That and the whole thing appears to have been filmed.
I"d wonder what else she shaved, if those pics of her and Paris a couple months ago left anything to the imagination...
Obstruction of justice? Trouble with the law? So far as I know, there are no criminal sanctions for PAST drug use discovered after the fact. Hair evidence of drug abuse could, however, pose a problem in a custody fight...
Britney Spears is actually fiendishly clever with her recent antics. If you'll indulge me:
Britney realizes that the past few years have completely undone her career.
She also realizes that she needs to, and could, resurrect her career.
However, she doesn't think she could do so while being a mother to two children. It just requires too much time and energy to resurrect a career so far gone.
She also realizes, if she gave the kids to K-Fed - in effect abandoning them - the public reaction would prevent any kind of comeback. No one, and especially not her typical audience, could accept a woman who abandoned her children for her career.
The solution? Voila:
Make yourself appear so unstable that a court takes your children from you and gives K-Fed sole custody.
Disappear for a year or two; paint yourself the tragic victim of hollywood's excess, where a niave and talented girl was robbed of her innocence.
Then come back with avengence, unencumbered with familial responsibilities.
Well, there you have it folks. Brilliant!
"No one, and especially not her typical audience, could accept a woman who abandoned her children for her career."
Sexist, but true.
yeah but what if her attorney told her to shave her head to get rid of the hair samples? then he'd get in trouble.
there's only one way to know. see if she shaved the rest of her body...
Why would she need to go through all of this to foist the responsibility of raising her children on someone else? That's what her nannies are for!
Does California have a rule similar to FRCP 35? I.e. Federline would have to show "good cause" to obtain an order for a physical/medical examination of Britney.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe in an obstruction of justice case (e.g. shredding documents), it's not a defense to say that the documents you shredded had not yet been specifically requested by the government at the time of shredding. If they fall within the general scope or subject matter of the investigation, your shredding them would still be obstruction of justice.
If that's the case, then it would be interesting to see how far we could stretch the analogy. Do all divorce courts make an inquiry into whether the parties used or use drugs? Probably not but since we're dealing with a celebrity...
Who cares about the hair sample. K-Fed's lawyer can have Britney take the stand and ask about eh drug use. She can either take the 5th (thereby giving a negative inference) or deny it on the stand (to which K-fed can exploit). If you really want to prove it, get a hair sample off of her pubes.
Is there conclusive DNA evidence that she's her kids' mother?