2009.04.13 Unreleased Evidence: What Are You Waiting to See?

[Numbers]

I'm still scratching my head over Mallory's depo, though. Isn't she an Anthony devotee? Why would she anything against them if she's so fond of them? Unless she's been playing them this whole time and told everything she knew behind their backs? I have never wanted to see a depo so bad in MY LIFE!

Sadly, I think it's full of "I don't know" and "I wasn't there" and "Nobody told me." Bet it's more fizzle than bang.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Sadly, I think it's full of "I don't know" and "I wasn't there" and "Nobody told me." Bet it's more fizzle than bang.

We can always hope that she said something of value without realizing it. . . Well, that's my hope, anyway.

 

[Aedrys]

Sadly, I think it's full of "I don't know" and "I wasn't there" and "Nobody told me." Bet it's more fizzle than bang.

That could be true, but then why hasn't it been released if there's nothing of value in it? Or maybe it hasn't been released because it's not going to be used? I can't remember if there's a rule about that or not. It just intrigues me that we've seen all the depos for Lee, George, and Cindy, but not Mallory's.

 

[Numbers]

That could be true, but then why hasn't it been released if there's nothing of value in it? Or maybe it hasn't been released because it's not going to be used? I can't remember if there's a rule about that or not. It just intrigues me that we've seen all the depos for Lee, George, and Cindy, but not Mallory's.

I ~believe~ that if there's nothing of importance and nobody orders a transcript, there's nothing to release.

That doesn't make me right, it's just what I believe until I'm corrected.

 

[Aedrys]

I ~believe~ that if there's nothing of importance and nobody orders a transcript, there's nothing to release.

That doesn't make me right, it's just what I believe until I'm corrected.

Yes, I do think that's the rule. I remember it being discussed here, but I'm no lawyer. So it is possible that we haven't seen it because there's nothing there to see. AZlawyer, is this right?

 

[ThinkTank]

That could be true, but then why hasn't it been released if there's nothing of value in it? Or maybe it hasn't been released because it's not going to be used? I can't remember if there's a rule about that or not. It just intrigues me that we've seen all the depos for Lee, George, and Cindy, but not Mallory's.

Dominic C is also a State Witness, like Mallory.
This is what was said in the Dec 11, 2009 Hearing by Judge S., LDB, and Dominic's attorney Tennis, regarding the transcript of Dominic's deposition being made public, or not.

RAW HEARING: Part 1
http://www.wftv.com/video/21930588/index.html

Dec 11, 2009 Hearing - anniv Caylee found

(Dominic's attorney) Ms Tennis first - motion to strike & protective Order

Tennis
(4:44) Once the deposition is filed with the court, it is public record which is the other reason why Mr. Casey does not want to be involved in any part of the system that will lead to his exploitation, frankly.......

Tennis
(9:07)
the other difference is that a transcript of a deposition MUST be filed in open
court and obviously, even if you decided to .....I've never seen one that
wasn't

Burdick
(9:15) It's not ....I don't have to file it

Judge
(9:18) no, I mean, they generally are ... I don't get one every time though ...

Tennis
(9:22)
unless the Court entered an Order sealing it, I believe that it would be filed

Judge
(9:27) plenty of times it is not, I guess it's just if it's going to be used, it's filed, but there are plenty of times that it is not. Having said that, Ms Drane Burdick anything else from you.

Judge
(13:15) ..... go ahead and issue the investigative subpoena and go at it that way. If you want to utilize the time that you set aside previously, that's fine with me. [Dec. 16, 2009]

Baez
(14:57) ... we would just make it a moot issue and list him
as a witness and then they can go ahead and take their deposition

Judge well, that's where we stand, because under 2704, I can't
overrule a Statute, it's their investigative power and they have the authority
to do that. If you choose to work something out, that's fine with the court.
I'm not exactly sure about what it is your're seeking and you don't have
to tell me at this point. You've just said it's not during his tenure with Mr. Baez.
So, having said that, for our purposes here today, the court would
basically tell you to go ahead and utilize your subpoena power under that
statute, and if you can all agree on a deposition and it's content, you don't
need to seek leave of the court, just notify me about what's happened.

(15:56)Tennis
Will do

 

[RainyGirl]

I still firmly believe that the sworn testimony of "so-called" P.I. Dom Casey is going to play a mighty big role in a jury trial (IF a jury trial goes forth.....but that's another issue). I'm willing to wager big that Dom Casey has information on Baez, Casey, Cindy, Lee and George enough to put the whole bunch of 'em in Tummy-Trouble-ICU for decades! :furious:

Jmo...

 

[AZlawyer]

Yes, I do think that's the rule. I remember it being discussed here, but I'm no lawyer. So it is possible that we haven't seen it because there's nothing there to see. AZlawyer, is this right?

If no one orders a transcript of a depo, there is nothing to release.

 

[LancelotLink]

The mystery CA interview with LE, the missing one from doc dump past.

 

[Solace]

I still firmly believe that the sworn testimony of "so-called" P.I. Dom Casey is going to play a mighty big role in a jury trial (IF a jury trial goes forth.....but that's another issue). I'm willing to wager big that Dom Casey has information on Baez, Casey, Cindy, Lee and George enough to put the whole bunch of 'em in Tummy-Trouble-ICU for decades! :furious:

Jmo...

Enlighten us.

 

[countzero]

The mystery CA interview with LE, the missing one from doc dump past.

Yeppers, we have been waiting on this since Aug 10. Part 1 and Part 3 have been released. Part 2 is what JB received from the SAO in a dump and it has not been released by the SAO to the public .... why oh why does this particular interview have JB jumpy and all.

 

[LancelotLink]

Yeppers, we have been waiting on this since Aug 10. Part 1 and Part 3 have been released. Part 2 is what JB received from the SAO in a dump and it has not been released by the SAO to the public .... why oh why does this particular interview have JB jumpy and all.

Zip it, Rosebud! :doh:

 

[countzero]

Zip it, Rosebud! :doh:

All I care about is that interview better be in written form because I really cannot endure listening to CA's vocal cords flap more lies to LE. And those lies must be some doozies, more so than the ones already released if JB's briefs are in a wad or two (pun intended :dance over this specific interview with LE taken back in July 08.

 

[LancelotLink]

All I care about is that interview better be in written form because I really cannot endure listening to CA's vocal cords flap more lies to LE. And those lies must be some doozies, more so than the ones already released if JB's briefs are in a wad or two (pun intended :dance over this specific interview with LE taken back in July 08.

And on the other side of that coin, i wish the state depo GA did was on video somewhere, or audio. Reading thru his rainman act and backpeddling over the gas cans, I know that would have to be one hilarious video!!

 

[countzero]

See my post 811. I am still waiting for part 2 - LE interview with CA, taken back in July 08, that was released by the SAO to JB back in late July 10.

 

[sumbunny]

See my post 811. I am still waiting for part 2 - LE interview with CA, taken back in July 08, that was released by the SAO to JB back in late July 10.

If it was released by the SAO is it possible for muzikman to ask for a copy?

Not sure how that works exactly.

Also, since the prosecution ordered a investigative subpoena with DC, and no information was released about this investigation. That means, they don't plan on using him for the trial?

If the defense does not get a copy, then it won't make it into trial?

Can the SA still call DC to testify without releasing the investigation report, is what i'm trying to say..~L~

 

[nums24]

I just saw this on Twitter, it appears that we will get 1000 new pages of discovery before the end of the month, reporter is claiming that the defense is offering evidence that Caylee's remains were moved:

http://twitter.com/#!/adamlongo

This is what MuzikMan saw at the clerk's office:

2011.01.03 Notice of Provision of Supplemental Discovery

CD-R - Discovery Documents Pages 23590 - 24938
CD-R - Interviews & Transcriptions 12/6/10
CD-R - Paper from Laura Buchanan at Depo #2
CD-R - Yuri Melich RE: Laura Buchanan Investigation OCSO # 10-86155

 

[Reagan]

I still want to see LA's FBI interview, but I'm wondering if one even exists.

Does anyone know if he even talked with them? I can't imagine the FBI, who did a thorough investigation, not talking to lee.

IIRC, when Scott Bolin was explaining to cindy about the questionnaire he wanted her to fill out regarding KC, I could have sworn that he said that george and lee were in the hallway filling out the test, too. I would listen to it again, but I'd like to keep my lunch down.

I just don't see the FBI asking him to fill out a questionnaire and then not question him any further. Does anyone know if he did or did not talk with FBI?

TIA

 

[gamom]

Maybe I am missing something, but I don't NEED any additional evidence. I don't see why the defense is trying to spend so much time on this "the body was moved" or "autopsy was not done correctly" etc. claims. Lets just say the body was moved....or the autopsy was done incorrectly. WHO CARES??? 3 year olds don't just die of natural causes and if for some reason Caylee did just pass away by accident...wouldn't her mother be at the very least LOOKING for her or know she was missing? I can see if she was reported missing, but she wasn't. The fact is:

1. She was last seen in her mothers care.
2. Her mother was out shopping/partying never even telling friends she was missing. (documented on photo and store cameras)
3. She was NEVER reported missing by her mother
4. The only reason the investigation started was because CA had to pull a mission impossible and hide out in the bushes in front of Tony's house and pull KC out kicking and screaming. After many threats...FINALLY KC mentioned that she had not seen Caylee.

It seems like the Zanny the Nanny defense is not going to be used...so until the defense can explain these things..I can't see how a juror would need to see anymore evidence. :waitasec:

 

[2goldfish]

Maybe I am missing something, but I don't NEED any additional evidence. I don't see why the defense is trying to spend so much time on this "the body was moved" or "autopsy was not done correctly" etc. claims. Lets just say the body was moved....or the autopsy was done incorrectly. WHO CARES??? 3 year olds don't just die of natural causes and if for some reason Caylee did just pass away by accident...wouldn't her mother be at the very least LOOKING for her or know she was missing? I can see if she was reported missing, but she wasn't. The fact is:

1. She was last seen in her mothers care.
2. Her mother was out shopping/partying never even telling friends she was missing. (documented on photo and store cameras)
3. She was NEVER reported missing by her mother
4. The only reason the investigation started was because CA had to pull a mission impossible and hide out in the bushes in front of Tony's house and pull KC out kicking and screaming. After many threats...FINALLY KC mentioned that she had not seen Caylee.

It seems like the Zanny the Nanny defense is not going to be used...so until the defense can explain these things..I can't see how a juror would need to see anymore evidence. :waitasec:

because they cannot possibly defend her, they're doing their best to muddy the water and create some doubt, any doubt, that might have a snowball's chance in hell of seeing her walk like OJ did due to the State making mistakes. because if they could prove one major mistake, it makes it harder to trust there were no others.

I think this is an unusual case because the facts of the case not even counting forensics is so very damning to ICA. I dont know of a single other case I've ever read about where there was almost no reasonable doubts at all before the state even made their case.

(this is why they're going to have a merry chase finding an objective jury IMO because any facts of the case whatsoever are so bad for ICA)