2009.04.02~ Casey Anthony Defense Team Deposition Of Billy Richardson

[MAMABEAR]

I'm lost too! I think that WAS their primary issue we've heard about, but it seemed like much of the focus of the depo was on whether anyone was around and giving her medical treatment or observation for the 30-45 minutes she was there. I'm worried they're going to play that up, especially when there was wording that the medical staff "ran" away when he was bringing KC around.

I'm just not liking where she was trying to lead Richardson....

Me 2.

 

[ecs5298]

I love it.

LKB "Did they (medical staff) come back into the waiting room to attend to her tearing?"

So she is trying to say that because medical staff did not immediately return to take care of possible hyperventilation, nausea and CRYING, that they were denying KC medical attention? LKB thinks that not handing someone a kleenex is denying medical attention???

I was about to say, as a medical professional, that I wasn't quite sure what the proper treatment for crying was. I'll see that it's added to the paramedic curriculum.

Holy Mother of Peanut Butter! When is Team Baez going to learn that they can't have their cake and eat it too.

 

[MAMABEAR]

OK-----If KC was in there 30-45 mins---and the TV was on the news. I'm sure---locally---it would be on constantly---did she sit there most of that time watching and finally decide how she should act? Did she "react" on first sight and the rest of the time they were trying to console her? I wanna know.

 

[MAMABEAR]

I'm Sorry Beans------they said later that there were tear.:blowkiss:

 

[amethyst221]

I don't know what Judge S will rule, but he will have had time to read these depositions before they reconvene to consider the defense motions. TM might want to crank it back a level or two about the heinous, cruel and inhumane stuff going on. I know he got short-circuited by events and didn't give his whole argument, but I didn't hear the part about how his client asked to go where she could get some good info. But then I know I can tend to focus on the trivial stuff.

 

[faefrost]

Apparently at some point the prison Psychiatrist did ask if she wished to talk or required counceling. She refused and said she wanted to wait for her lawyer. I see no denial of medical services. She was obviously not in any medical distress, just emotional.

Now it may be brushing very very slightly against HiPPA, in that psych assistance was extended and refused. But that fact did not become public knowlege until the patient willingly broke the HiPPA privacy via her lawyers and this deposition.

I am not seeing anything damning on the part of the jail here. Yes they performed some observations for LE. While unusual, and a bit distaseful I don't see anything rights violating.

In fact this very deposition seems as damning to KC as the tape itself would be. the Seargent comes across as a very reasonable and fair man. Someone who is taking neither KC nor LE's side (in fact he seems a little peeved with LE for dragging him into all of this), and he gives a very detailed description of KC's interest in and reaction to the news reports on Dec 11, 2008. And he is able to completely contrast this with her normal mental state in the jail. I am not seeing what makes the defense think putting this out in the public venue as sworn testimony is a good idea?

 

[RR0004]

What I am getting a big kick out of is the fact that this depo appears to be videoconferenced (as LKB notices that Richardson is writing something but cannot see clearly what it is) and that while Linda Drane Burdick and JB appear to be present, it is LKB who is clearly conducting the interview.

There has been a lot of mention made that LKB was only brought on to refute the forensics in the case. How embarrassing it must be to JB to have to sit in a room with the SA and listen to a videoconference (which are not inexpensive) in which his out-of-town forensic specialist attorney is deposing an officer in the jail regarding a matter involving the simple release of a videotape because clearly he appears to be unable or unwilling to conduct such an interview himself.

Maybe this is not what is actually going on, but if I'm getting a big kick out of it, I can imagine what Kathi B must be thinking. "What law school did YOU attend, Mr. Baez?"

I got the feeling it was just a phone conference on Richards' end 'cause he said he would have liked to see her face. (tee hee, it's the truth!)

 

[MAMABEAR]

I don't know what Judge S will rule, but he will have had time to read these depositions before they reconvene to consider the defense motions. TM might want to crank it back a level or two about the heinous, cruel and inhumane stuff going on. I know he got short-circuited by events and didn't give his whole argument, but I didn't hear the part about how his client asked to go where she could get some good info. But then I know I can tend to focus on the trivial stuff.

HLN on now and they are acting like KC was really wronged. They aren't telling the other side. Poor lil KC. :yuck:

 

[debbie0604]

IMO Richardson gave such a detailed description of what went on and even ad libbed and paraphrased using such words as "media circus", and describing how everybody "ran" when she entered the waiting room... which made it look even worse for LE's involvement with this case. I'm sure he was not happy over being involved with this deposition and this case, however, KC is being investigated for child murder. What transpired was totally appropriate IMO... the fact that she was listening to the news on her "transistor radio" in her cell and wanted to know what was going on leads me to believe that she was already aware of the media. LE leading an investigation on her has every right to know everything about her, including what medications she asks for in jail, so I don't see any HIPAA violation. JMO

 

[Theonly1]

The only thing I want to know is who told the media that Casey requested a sedative (though she addressed the whole room, according to one depo) and RECEIVED the sedative (logically from a doctor). I thought this information was floating around before the depos were released (was it from Baez himself via press conference)?

Not that this possible violation (even if it is one) would justify setting Casey FREE. (Chortle)

 

[Chezhire]

I don't know what Judge S will rule, but he will have had time to read these depositions before they reconvene to consider the defense motions. TM might want to crank it back a level or two about the heinous, cruel and inhumane stuff going on. I know he got short-circuited by events and didn't give his whole argument, but I didn't hear the part about how his client asked to go where she could get some good info. But then I know I can tend to focus on the trivial stuff.

Purple-ya made me laugh! :biglaugh:

 

[ecs5298]

The only thing I want to know is who told the media that Casey requested a sedative (though she addressed the whole room, according to one depo) and RECEIVED the sedative (logically from a doctor). I thought this information was floating around before the depos were released (was it from Baez himself via press conference)?

Not that this possible violation (even if it is one) would justify setting Casey FREE. (Chortle)

Baez was the one that announced that KC received a sedative during his presser outside the jail.

Hmmmm.....did he violate her privacy? Seems to me he did.

 

[Chezhire]

SNIPPED: "...I am not seeing anything damning on the part of the jail here. Yes they performed some observations for LE. While unusual, and a bit distaseful I don't see anything rights violating.

In fact this very deposition seems as damning to KC as the tape itself would be. the Seargent comes across as a very reasonable and fair man. Someone who is taking neither KC nor LE's side (in fact he seems a little peeved with LE for dragging him into all of this), and he gives a very detailed description of KC's interest in and reaction to the news reports on Dec 11, 2008. And he is able to completely contrast this with her normal mental state in the jail. I am not seeing what makes the defense think putting this out in the public venue as sworn testimony is a good idea?"

I agree with you, faefrost. It's pretty typical, too, re: the attitude of jail personnel. They have a job to do, and they do it. They don't usually bother to/want to learn enough information to form opinions upon the accused's guilt or innocence, as that would make their job that much harder to do.

I would like to hear/see Sgt. Richardson though - seeing and hearing testimony is always better than reading a silent transcript!

 

[Chezhire]

Baez was the one that announced that KC received a sedative during his presser outside the jail.

Hmmmm.....did he violate her privacy? Seems to me he did.

He sure did. We discussed this back on the thread I mentioned earlier here, too. Cannot argue a rights violation when one is the vehicle for letting the proverbial cat out of the bag!

 

[ecs5298]

He sure did. We discussed this back on the thread I mentioned earlier here, too. Cannot argue a rights violation when one is the vehicle for letting the proverbial cat out of the bag!

You gotta remember who we're talking about here.....he'll probably try!

Also, just wanted to say thanks for all your great posts, Chezhire! I really enjoy reading them!

 

[eddeva]

i'm sorry to interrupt but are there any medical staff on this thread?
it's vital that i find someone to attend to my tearing immediately

 

[cecybeans]

i'm sorry to interrupt but are there any medical staff on this thread?
it's vital that i find someone to attend to my tearing immediately

:Banane23::Banane23::Banane23:

 

[butwhatif?]

Just as I always suspected: Casey was taken to the general waiting area of the clinic, whereupon the medical personnel all "ran" back to their offices, that they "had the foresight to see this was coming and got out of the way," according to Dep. Richardson.

No medical treatment, no medical personnel even present, ergo no HIPAA violations.

If the SA wants to use this videotape(NO audio, therefore Richardson's testimony would be critical re: what Casey said,) it will be able to do so.
Defense will not be able to put together a winning motion to quash it. Heck, Casey even said to Richardson, when he advised her they were going to the medical facility "[g]ood, because there's something going on and I want to know about it." So she'd been listening to the radio and WANTED to go watch the news on the TV in the clinic.

But tammys depo tells a different story:
That she was taken to view the tv, and that the medical staff were waiting for her to observe her behaviour, and offer assistance if it was needed.
If they are observing her behaviour, even at a distance, in order to assess her psychological state, which would be included in her medical notes, does it then violate hippa?

It concerns me that the depos tell two different stories.

 

[MAMABEAR]

But tammys depo tells a different story:
That she was taken to view the tv, and that the medical staff were waiting for her to observe her behaviour, and offer assistance if it was needed.
If they are observing her behaviour, even at a distance, in order to assess her psychological state, which would be included in her medical notes, does it then violate hippa?

It concerns me that the depos tell two different stories.

The difference is probably one being a woman and noticing something a little more than a man would.

 

[butwhatif?]

He sure did. We discussed this back on the thread I mentioned earlier here, too. Cannot argue a rights violation when one is the vehicle for letting the proverbial cat out of the bag!

But isnt it determined by what the defendant agrees to have released publicly by their atty? So if kc says it cool to tell them i took a sedative, but I dont want anything else discussed...then he hasnt violated her right to privacy, he is just speaking on her behalf.(and happens to make it look like she was very traumatized by the news. stategic? absolutely imo )

Isnt an atty sharing information approved by the defendant a little different to a deliberate set up by prison personel, with two conflicting stories that are 'accidently' released, and attempting to release a video that was orchestrated to assess her reaction and psychological state to the news of a childs remains found?

The wouldnt release the notes that were made by mental health that day, so why should they release the video that the notes are based on?


I'm basing this on my own logic, and need you to help me understand from a legal point of view.

TIA