Surprises and Bombshells at trial yet unknown?

The rug they took from the back patio. Haven't heard the results yet on that. Could be some interviews with people that have since stepped forward.

Faefrost, I am thinking that those texts would still be available SOMEHOW.

I wonder though why LE went through the trouble gathering all the phones and extracting the info from each phone individually when they could have gone directly to the Telecom source?

Thanks for asking this question Seebra it is something i have wondered too. I hope we do not know everything that LE has. I am looking forward to everyones answers.

Wisteria said:

Faefrost, I am thinking that those texts would still be available SOMEHOW.

I wonder though why LE went through the trouble gathering all the phones and extracting the info from each phone individually when they could have gone directly to the Telecom source?

Click to expand...

I am not 100% positive, but I seem to recall that since 9/11 there are requirements that the telco carriers in some way archive and preserve individual user data from their servers, such as e-mail, IM, etc.

Sundance said:

1. I hope we get the text messages between KC and Tony from June 15th when they texted from around 7:30 PM up until 3 AM the next day, but we may not get them; they may not have them, I dunno.

2. The text messages from KC and Cindy I think are gone - I know when Cindy gave them her phone it didn't have many text messages at all on it. I remember thinking at the time that she had deleted most of everything from her phone before she gave it to LE to extract the info.

3. And KC's phone was cut off, so texts to and from her phone are gone (according to Lee, except I don't have a link) except for what was captured on other people's phones and the few that were on her phone when LE got it.

4. I would also like to see the texts between KC and Andy F - there was a lot of contact between them after the end of June.​

Sundance

Click to expand...

You can delete all the texts you want, but LE can get them. They are like internet emails. They are really NEVER gone.

Jolynna said:

Things I am anticipating that have not yet been released are:

1. The interview with Tony about conversations he had with
Casey on June 15-16.

2. The text messages between Casey and Cindy from June 16 until July 15.

3. More details from Cindy about June 15. She initially said that Casey had told her that she and Caylee would be going to Tampa to work. It sounds to me as if Cindy as well as George had been told in advance that Casey was making plans to be gone with Caylee before the afternoon of June 16.
​

Click to expand...

I've been waiting on those texts too....Especially from 3rd July.But since they havent been released yet, I dont think we'll know the content until trial.
I think I'll cry if we learn that they were deleted and unable to be retrieved. :cry:

kageykaren said:

As this case has been unfolding it has appeared to me that KC left many clues into her journey of becomming an acting out sociopathic murderer. One of the things that has been glossed over(may mean nothing) a bit was the music she was listening to over the past year. I feel her song choices were a way for her to express what she may have been thinking at the time she was considering putting Caylee as an after thought. I would love to put her stated songs from myspace into an archive to be studied like the house plans. Many adolescents and young adults use music to express themselves when they are unable to find the words to describe their emotions. I think we will be shocked after an overview of her music as to just how transparent KC actually was.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Definitely worth looking into.

Do you have a list of what was on her MySpace page back then?

We've been through all this in detail on other threads, but the short version is:

The State cannot just decide to hold something back.

The State cannot use any evidence at trial that has not been disclosed to the defense before trial. So there is no chance they are planning to hold back important things until trial.

Everything that gets disclosed to the defense before trial will also be disclosed to the public unless the media is not asking for the right things or the court orders otherwise. Example of something the media might not have asked for: If Cindy turned over the JC Penney receipts to Baez, and Baez turned them over to LE, and the media only asked for things that LE turned over to Baez rather than the other way around, the receipts would not be turned over to the media.

If the court orders something not to be released to the public, we will see that order on the docket.

If the State doesn't have something--for example, the FBI has prepared a report but hasn't yet turned it over to the State--then the State can't disclose it. But it might exist at the FBI offices. HOWEVER, if it is useful info the State will certainly WANT to get it from the FBI and turn it over to the defense because otherwise (see above) the State won't be able to use it at trial.

Although the State can normally hold onto information that is part of an active investigation, it CANNOT do this if the information also falls within one of the required categories of disclosure to the defense. The required categories of disclosure are extremely broad.

There are reasons that we might not have seen certain evidence, but NOT because the State is "saving it for trial." One example is Tony's first statement to LE. If LE did not record the statement or write up a report describing the statement, but simply kept "raw notes," they would have nothing to disclose. However, LE could not stop Baez from taking Tony's deposition and finding out the same information (assuming Baez could manage to ask the right questions).

Thank you kindly, AZlawyer. Very concise and very easily understood. That cleared up some of my questions.Your knowledge (and that of all the others), regarding legal issues, is appreciated.

:clap::clap::clap:

Thanks for the explanation. I have a couple of questions, hopefully you won't mind answering.

AZlawyer said:

Everything that gets disclosed to the defense before trial will also be disclosed to the public unless the media is not asking for the right things or the court orders otherwise. Example of something the media might not have asked for: If Cindy turned over the JC Penney receipts to Baez, and Baez turned them over to LE, and the media only asked for things that LE turned over to Baez rather than the other way around, the receipts would not be turned over to the media.

Click to expand...

So the media has to request something specifically? They can't just go to the clerk of the court and ask for all of the discovery documents released as of xx/xx/xxxx? They have to ask for copies of each individual "item"? Your example is of items turned over to the State by the defense, but that isn't reflected on the docket. Why do you think that we haven't seen those receipts?

AZlawyer said:

Although the State can normally hold onto information that is part of an active investigation, it CANNOT do this if the information also falls within one of the required categories of disclosure to the defense. The required categories of disclosure are extremely broad.

Click to expand...

Do you happen to know where I might read more about this? I didn't see anything like this when I was reading about the Sunshine laws.

AZlawyer said:

There are reasons that we might not have seen certain evidence, but NOT because the State is "saving it for trial." One example is Tony's first statement to LE. If LE did not record the statement or write up a report describing the statement, but simply kept "raw notes," they would have nothing to disclose. However, LE could not stop Baez from taking Tony's deposition and finding out the same information (assuming Baez could manage to ask the right questions).

Click to expand...

But, Baez could ask for their raw notes if they still existed, right? Just like he asked for their handwritten calendar? Also, using the example of Tony's first interview with LE, if they hadn't recorded it or created a report of it, the only way to use that information at trial is to a) have him testify, or b) have the interviewing officer testify, right? Looking at another key player here: Annie. What are your thoughts on not seeing her interview(s) yet? Do you think it's like the scenario above? The one interview we have seen of hers was taken by subpoena with her lawyer present, and was recorded. That tells me that other interviews, if any, were likely obtained in the same manner, correct? If so, why haven't we seen reports of those yet?

Ok, sorry for the thousand questions here, and thanks in advance for taking the time to respond

sarah7855 said:

Thanks for the explanation. I have a couple of questions, hopefully you won't mind answering.

Click to expand...

I'll try

sarah7855 said:

So the media has to request something specifically? They can't just go to the clerk of the court and ask for all of the discovery documents released as of xx/xx/xxxx? They have to ask for copies of each individual "item"? Your example is of items turned over to the State by the defense, but that isn't reflected on the docket. Why do you think that we haven't seen those receipts?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how the process works whereby the media requests and receives copies of the documents. I would love to see their requests, but I can't find anywhere where they are posted. I know they don't have to ask for individual items--I just wonder if they have asked each time for "all documents released in response to defense request for production #--," for example, and thereby missed anything received FROM Baez or anything the State may have that falls within the Sunshine Law categories but does not fall within the required disclosure categories or within any of Baez's specific requests for production.

sarah7855 said:

Do you happen to know where I might read more about this? I didn't see anything like this when I was reading about the Sunshine laws.

Click to expand...

I think this part of your question was about the "active investigation" exception not applying to items that fall within the required disclosure categories. That is Fla. Statute s 119.011(3)(c)(5). There are also multiple court opinions that discuss this aspect of the law--see the Florida Government-in-the-Sunshine Manual, section 1.d. on this page:

http://www.myflsunshine.com/sun.nsf/sunmanual/1BB05D142D8E4724852566F3006C7A1A

sarah7855 said:

But, Baez could ask for their raw notes if they still existed, right? Just like he asked for their handwritten calendar? Also, using the example of Tony's first interview with LE, if they hadn't recorded it or created a report of it, the only way to use that information at trial is to a) have him testify, or b) have the interviewing officer testify, right? Looking at another key player here: Annie. What are your thoughts on not seeing her interview(s) yet? Do you think it's like the scenario above? The one interview we have seen of hers was taken by subpoena with her lawyer present, and was recorded. That tells me that other interviews, if any, were likely obtained in the same manner, correct? If so, why haven't we seen reports of those yet?

Click to expand...

No, LE's raw notes are not discoverable. The handwritten calendar was the one filled in by Tony and the other "friends," I believe. It was not LE's working notes.

My guess is that LE pre-interviewed Tony and Annie (and probably others) without recording them, then recorded the parts they wanted preserved. The non-recorded information may be things that LE wanted to investigate further without tipping off Team Casey. If they recorded it, they would have to hand it over in discovery. However, once they completed their investigation on any of that information, if they found anything useful, they would WANT to get it documented and disclosed to the defense so that they could use it at trial. In addition, if Baez developed a brain and deposed the witnesses, LE couldn't stop him from finding out the same information.

sarah7855 said:

Ok, sorry for the thousand questions here, and thanks in advance for taking the time to respond

Click to expand...

No problem. I hope this was helpful for you.

we need another doc dump! LOL

I have yet, in any case I have followed, seen any new 'bombshells' revealed during the trial. That only happens in the movies.

faefrost said:

I am not 100% positive, but I seem to recall that since 9/11 there are requirements that the telco carriers in some way archive and preserve individual user data from their servers, such as e-mail, IM, etc.

Click to expand...

Just thought I'd chime in here. I once contacted the cell phone company to ask whether or not I could get the text messages from my own cell number - because I was getting harassing texts and there were so many of them my phone couldn't hold them all in memory. They told me that they have them but cannot release them to the account holder but they are kept indefinitely and would be released to LE if I filed charges and if LE subpoenaed them. So my guess is that LE found it easier to extract everyone's information that they could and then issued subpoenas for the ones they wanted to see that they could not get or got only partial information. I'm pretty sure they've seen all the ones they wanted to by now.

HELP -
Sundance mentions text mssg between Casey & ANDY F. in an earlier post. I don't recall anyone named Andy. Who is this? Could someone fill me in here???

Caylee's father.

Quiche said:

Caylee's father.

Click to expand...

I wonder if we will ever find this out. It's not 100% pertinent to the case . . . but I think it's important. Why such a secret? Overbearing Mom CA would have had to know who fathered her grandchild, don't ya think? You think she just took a "it was so-and-so, he died in a car accident" and closed the book on that chapter? If Caylee's father really died in a car accident, Caylee would have been entitled to SS benefits and I'm sure that the A's would have pushed for those benefits and I doubt that KC would refuse to go after money that was rightfully hers to take care of Caylee (or buy booze, new clothes, make-up, Subway). But SS would want to do DNA testing before giving benefits. So, I'm guessing, Caylee's father is not dead. It may be that KC does not know who the father is . . . because of her promiscuity or that there really is a big secret around who the father is. I think Caylee looks like JP Chatt more than any of KC's other guy friends but why would he have denied fatherhood and even if he did, why wouldn't KC go after him for child support if he was the father? That doesn't really make any sense either. Maybe KC was raped when she was passed out and out of embarrassment, conveniently used someone who did die in a car accident to be Caylee's father?

I'm not gonna rush my spring and summer just to get to the trial, but I am bummed that we have to wait until October now.

Do you ever think we'll see the headlines "TotMom Tells Truth About Everything Caylee"? It's not impossible but very improbable. It would restore my faith in mankind a tad though . . . as KC has really rocked some of the faith that I hold on to dearly.

Have a nice day everyone! TGIF!

AZlawyer said:

No problem. I hope this was helpful for you.

Click to expand...

It was, thank you!

Chilly Willy said:

I have yet, in any case I have followed, seen any new 'bombshells' revealed during the trial. That only happens in the movies.

Click to expand...

Ok, but now that gets us back at square one. The topic of this thread is "Surprises and bombshells at trial yet unknown"...if this case is going to be tried on just what has been released, she's going to walk on the murder charge.

What gives? how was the State able to indict her on those charges, alledging premeditation on what we've seen? doesn't make sense.



by the way, Chilly, I just re-read my post, and I was in no way insinuating that you were off topic...hope it didn't come off like that

:blowkiss:

travelgal said:

HELP -
Sundance mentions text mssg between Casey & ANDY F. in an earlier post. I don't recall anyone named Andy. Who is this? Could someone fill me in here???

Click to expand...

Quiche said:

Caylee's father.

Click to expand...

I saw these two posts and my morning brain instantly thought, he's Caylee's father?? lol!