2009.05.05~ Casey Anthony Defense Team Deposition Of Tammy Uncer

[impatientredhead]

Yes. Last week I tried futilely to explain the problem I was having with it too. To me, the information gleaned from HIS OWN DEPOS is as bad or worse for his client as the non-audio videotape which the public has yet to see (and may never see).

But I think he was/is trying to get some big issues on appeal using some cooked-up violations of Casey's constitutional rights. Problem is, he's the only one at this rate putting forth information regarding the video and the "audio" (via depos) if the State is not using the video at trial. Note: No one from the media showed up to argue the defense's response to the motion because they were not noticed.

At this point (if the State does not put the video into evidence and if the media fails to get it released), he's the one polluting the jury pool to turn around and later claim the jury pool to be polluted. My opinion.

He is trying to build the foundation of a misconduct argument. That Casey is treated differently than other prisoners, that her privacy has been violated, that the sheriff's office used a medical setting where there is an expectation of privacy (ie Casey was unaware she was under surveillance that could be used against her), that they tried to bypass his access to her, and that their own staff found this treatment to be cruel. Their own staff has already established that this protocol was unusual.

He can't defend her based on her actions, the forensics, or witness testimony. He is going to try to build a case for his clients inablity to receive a fair trial. That is worth more than the description of the tape being out there. I don't think he cares if the tape is viewed, that is not the crux of this. The treatment of his client is. The way the investigation was conducted.

My opinion early on based on the tapes description was they had no value from an evidence point of view. They call a for speculation and interpretation. Version 1- it is an indication of guilt and an admission of guilt. Version 2- a mother's who child was kidnapped is informed that a small child's body was found near her home and reacts to the news that her worst fears are indeed true and the kidnappers have killed her daughter. There is no value to a jury there. MOO

Note- I think she is guilty and that JB is an idiot. I am not suggesting this will pan out for them.

 

[impatientredhead]

i've tried both links and i can't get to the depos either

I saved my copy if anyone wants them emailed.

 

[mitzi]

I'm confused. Baez is trying to get the release of a tape, that has no audio, blocked yet he has no problem having two peoples description of the events, including what was said, released. Does anyone else see the problem with this?

I wonder on LKB and Baez's next media interview, and the interviewer asks them, "But Jose, YOU released your depos of the jail employees! YOU leaked it!" At that point, will Baez finally softly mention the Florida Sunshine Laws? sarcasm intended

 

[Kathy1964]

I'm confused. Baez is trying to get the release of a tape, that has no audio, blocked yet he has no problem having two peoples description of the events, including what was said, released. Does anyone else see the problem with this?

And that is why I think this all has to do with something that happened after Baez arrived. Otherwise, you are right, it makes no sense.
Of course, there isn't much of anything in this case that makes sense to me !!!
Between the lies and omissions, and add the incompetence, I am in a constant state of confusion. Here is a client charged with murder, a million important witnesses to depose, mountains of evidence to examine, and here he is spending many hours on this video tape,deposing witnesses(and he still plans ANOTHER HOUR with Lt. Unser), court motions for supression of tape, and on and on. I certainly don't get it. At this pace, it will be 20 years before this goes to trial. Maybe THATS the plan??

 

[Lovejac]

So, Tammy U. thinks that what was done to casey was mean.......hhrump, and she talks to her about football.

I, myself want to know which inmates said something to casey so she turned on her radio and what exactly they said to her.

 

[TakeNote]

I don't like that they told anyone Casey asked for and received a sedative. Now, if Casey asked Uncer herself or said, "God, I need a sedative..." that would be one thing to tell everything Casey said.

But...to recollect that Casey asked the doctor for a "sedative" and received one from the doctor would seem a violation of her medical rights to me.

if i recall...sorry i dont have a link....but...JB is the one when all this first went down...said on Tv that casey asked for a sedative when told about the body being found.......i will try and find that...but its hard when i dont save them...and the link is no longer working...but i will see....and if im wrong i will delete my thoughts...lol...:crazy:

ok found this.....i thought JB said it first....but here in this interview JB confirms that KC asked for a sedative.....i would think if it was so privaite....he would not had said anything...but that's JB for ya

http://www.wftv.com/video/18259469/index.html
JB confirms that the jail said KC requested a sedative when asked by a reporter

 

[impatientredhead]

if i recall...sorry i dont have a link....but...JB is the one when all this first went down...said on Tv that casey asked for a sedative when told about the body being found.......i will try and find that...but its hard when i dont save them...and the link is no longer working...but i will see....and if im wrong i will delete my thoughts...lol...:crazy:

ok found this.....i thought JB said it first....but here in this interview JB confirms that KC asked for a sedative.....i would think if it was so privaite....he would not had said anything...but that's JB for ya

http://www.wftv.com/video/18259469/index.html
JB confirms that the jail said KC requested a sedative when asked by a reporter

I think the point he is trying to make is that information about this incident including the sedative was released by someone at the jail. It was reported on the 11th that a source inside the jail said she reacted the way she did and requested a sedative. Baez visited her that day as we know but he made his "Casey is struggling" speech on the 12th. He responds to a question about the sedative and confirms it occured.

I am not defending his arguement just clarifying that he was not the original source of this info making it to the public. I cannot believe how much time and money is being spent on this issue. It seems to be totally irrelevant to me.

She had an emotional response, the state says it is a sign of guilt, defense says it is a grieving mother who fears her child is dead and uses it to counter the reports that Casey is cold and unemotional. I just don't see this case hinging on this piece of "evidence".

 

[Theonly1]

I read what you're saying, Impatient, and I agree with you.

However, in the depos the defense breaks it down into fine points with questions that essentially say [paraphrased], "Even though people/jail officials/etc. ask you (jail official) about Casey's medical issues (whether she requested and received a sedative) don't you know better about what you can and can't reveal about another person's medical situation?"

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If Casey's medical situation (asking for a sedative and receiving a sedative) was so damn sensitive and not something to be released then if it the media had gotten word of it and questioned Baez he should have kept his client's confidence even at that stage. Seriously.

Obviously, at that stage he must not have thought it was a constitutional right's violation or he would not have confirmed it to the media. He probably went home and thought about it or another attorney pointed it out to him that it was a possible violation of her rights...but by that time he'd already done his li'l presser.

 

[nephers]

I'm confused. Baez is trying to get the release of a tape, that has no audio, blocked yet he has no problem having two peoples description of the events, including what was said, released. Does anyone else see the problem with this?

I hate to qoute my self but I wanted to add....

Didn't JB throw a fit when the SA accidently released their interview with TU?

I really don't understand where he is going with this.

The only thing I can think is that he either forgot that any motions filed with the court would be released or he thought there was something in the depos that made it look like TU and BR gave conflicting statements to their previous depos. I'm just not seeing that. All I am seeing is LB and JB asked different questions and kinda trapped TU into answering certain ways. (ex: when asked if the treatment was "cruel" TU says no, then asked to define cruel, etc. and pretty much in a backwards sort of way got her to give the answer they wanted.)

 

[Theonly1]

I hate to qoute my self but I wanted to add....

Didn't JB throw a fit when the SA accidently released their interview with TU?

I really don't understand where he is going with this.

The only thing I can think is that he either forgot that any motions filed with the court would be released or he thought there was something in the depos that made it look like TU and BR gave conflicting statements to their previous depos. I'm just not seeing that. All I am seeing is LB and JB asked different questions and kinda trapped TU into answering certain ways. (ex: when asked if the treatment was "cruel" TU says no, then asked to define cruel, etc. and pretty much in a backwards sort of way got her to give the answer they wanted.)

I'm sure the statutory definitions of "cruel" and "unusual" are not as subjective as they'd like them to be either. :crazy:

 

[impatientredhead]

I read what you're saying, Impatient, and I agree with you.

However, in the depos the defense breaks it down into fine points with questions that essentially say [paraphrased], "Even though people/jail officials/etc. ask you (jail official) about Casey's medical issues (whether she requested and received a sedative) don't you know better about what you can and can't reveal about another person's medical situation?"

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If Casey's medical situation (asking for a sedative and receiving a sedative) was so damn sensitive and not something to be released then if it the media had gotten word of it and questioned Baez he should have kept his client's confidence even at that stage. Seriously.

Obviously, at that stage he must not have thought it was a constitutional right's violation or he would not have confirmed it to the media. He probably went home and thought about it or another attorney pointed it out to him that it was a possible violation of her rights...but by that time he'd already done his li'l presser.

Let me start by saying they could put her entire medical history on a billboard and I would not care. Protecting each and every right Casey is entitled to is really not high on my priority list. I know I should feel that everyone should have their rights protected but I think you lose certain privileges, like privacy, when you are incarcerated.

That being said I do not think JB confirming the sedative is an if it is good for the goose it is good for the gander situation. If I have a medical condition and I choose to speak about it publicly or designate someone to do so on behalf that is my pergotive. In doing so it does not alleviate my medical professionals, their staff, or my insurance carriers duty to not divulge anything regarding my medical records, condition, or prognosis.

Of course this is such a minor issue in the grand scale of things that I do not care whether she was in the medical facility or in the waiting room and what ramifications that may or may not have had. What difference does it make to the case? None. My info was released by a local pharmacy handing out the wrong prescriptions to the wrong people. I called to let them know I had someone elses meds and their personal information, a clear violation of record handling. What did it result in, nothing.

She should hope that this situation is the cruelest handling by corrections that she receives. Prison is going to be a real dose of reality.

 

[faefrost]

Is it legal for the sheriff's office to call the jail and ask them to do this - to put an inmate in an uncomfortable circumstance and note her reactions and report back? Notice I said uncomfortable and not mean or cruel. I don't think it was mean or cruel, but is it legal?

Quite legal. They did not taunt her, they brought her past a common room television, which was publicly broadcasting a news story. They were not playing a tape, they were simply observing her reactions to public information. And yes this was deliberate. And yes it may be viewed as a little mean. But that is a far distance from cruel and unusual or a civil rights violation.

 

[Theonly1]

Exactly, Fae. It is kind of like when Police sometimes stage an interview room with crime scene photos in order to rattle a witness during an interview. Is it cruel? Maybe but I doubt it it illegal.

Mind you, Casey was "in custody" and already charged for her crime and under the care of an attorney. Baez is arguing that she was waiting to see him (or he was waiting to see her or both). It's not like the jail officials were asking her questions about her obvious physical reactions like, "Hey Casey, do you think it's Caylee?" "Who do you think did it?" "Have you ever been to that location? Didn't you play there as a child?"

Only her body did the testifying...

 

[impatientredhead]

Exactly, Fae. It is kind of like when Police sometimes stage an interview room with crime scene photos in order to rattle a witness during an interview. Is it cruel? Maybe but I doubt it it illegal.

Mind you, Casey was "in custody" and already charged for her crime and under the care of an attorney. Baez is arguing that she was waiting to see him (or he was waiting to see her or both). It's not like the jail officials were asking her questions about her obvious physical reactions like, "Hey Casey, do you think it's Caylee?" "Who do you think did it?" "Have you ever been to that location? Didn't you play there as a child?"

Only her body did the testifying...

It is not illegal.

She is entitled to food, shelter, hygiene access, access to her lawyer and the courts, medical care, religious expression, visitors (this can be revoked as punishment), and of course to not be physically or sexually assualted.

No one said jail wasn't going to be stressful or unpleasant. That is kind of the point isn't? JB saying it took him 20 extra minutes to see his client is not going equate to preventing counsel. It is a jail, the staff has certain priorities like safety, you may have to wait while they deal with a situation.

 

[njustice]

How is it "cruel" to simply obvserve someone's reaction to the Television News being on? There are two possible scenarios to this (I'm trying to be objective).

1. KC is completely innocent, convinced her daughter is alive (truly, not just a fabrication to cover up her guilt).

2. She knows her daughter is dead, and she is responsible for it.

For scenario 1, first of all, if it were your daughter, wouldn't you want to know the truth? I certainly would. Sitting there in jail with little outside contact to the world I'd be going crazy wondering what is going on. Second, KC does not mention ONCE that she thinks it might be Caylee, that she doesn't want to see what is on television. She doesn't ask them to turn it off or tell them she can't bear to watch TV for fear it might BE Caylee. So how is this cruel? She was not forced against her will to view anything. I could really only go for the cruel factor if she actually said she couldn't bear to think it was her daughter or if she actually asked LE not to watch or to be taken back to her cell. Instead? She asks for her lawyer. Sorry, not buyin' it.

For scenario 2, if she cruelly killed her own daughter, how is it cruel to confront her with the truth - that her daughter's remains had been found? Why shouldn't LE be allowed to observe her reactions to a body they hadn't even identified as Caylee yet? Unfortunately, you can't (or at least shouldn't) be convicted based on your physical demeanor and reactions to a crime, but certainly LE should be able to observe this to use to their advantage. I think we were all looking for KC to break, so we could finally reason with her.

Either way, I can't see this as cruel, or even mean. They didn't do it in an attempt to bring her physical or emotional harm because they didn't like her or they were "out to get her." They want the freaking truth!

 

[Jolynna]

Aren't there signs all over the jail saying your every word and action is being videotaped and can be used against you?

Isn't that why most jails have specific rooms where attorneys meet with their clients?

 

[Seebra]

Page 47 appears to be missing.

First thing I noticed as far as something strange. Very strange.

 

[Meemom]

And that is why I think this all has to do with something that happened after Baez arrived. Otherwise, you are right, it makes no sense.
Of course, there isn't much of anything in this case that makes sense to me !!!
Between the lies and omissions, and add the incompetence, I am in a constant state of confusion. Here is a client charged with murder, a million important witnesses to depose, mountains of evidence to examine, and here he is spending many hours on this video tape,deposing witnesses(and he still plans ANOTHER HOUR with Lt. Unser), court motions for supression of tape, and on and on. I certainly don't get it. At this pace, it will be 20 years before this goes to trial. Maybe THATS the plan??

bolded by me

ITA - IIRC, they mentioned this tape is about an hour long, and includes part of when JB arrived and spoke with her, no audio- just observation. I think JB is scared to death of what may be on the end of the tape, with him and KC and what will happen if that's made public. Found it especially interesting how Judge S postponed decision to give media a chance to file for release of it. Maybe cos Judge S knows what's there and part of it is why he filed a bar complaint on JB? Otherwise, it's all smoke and mirrors, just useless posturing on the part of the defense and a huge waste of time and money... JMO

 

[Seebra]

bolded by me

ITA - IIRC, they mentioned this tape is about an hour long, and includes part of when JB arrived and spoke with her, no audio- just observation. I think JB is scared to death of what may be on the end of the tape, with him and KC and what will happen if that's made public. Found it especially interesting how Judge S postponed decision to give media a chance to file for release of it. Maybe cos Judge S knows what's there and part of it is why he filed a bar complaint on JB? Otherwise, it's all smoke and mirrors, just useless posturing on the part of the defense and a huge waste of time and money... JMO

Wasting time and money is so true.

They should be working on defense for their client, not wasting time filing motions that mean nothing and have no substance behind them, so that they get new hearings and more new hearings to discuss and finalize other hearings.

"This is a waste. A HUGE WASTE."

 

[Devon]

Wasting time and money is so true.

They should be working on defense for their client, not wasting time filing motions that mean nothing and have no substance behind them, so that they get new hearings and more new hearings to discuss and finalize other hearings.

"This is a waste. A HUGE WASTE."

Popular opinion seems to be that JB is making a fuss about nothing/ wasting time and money on a pointless exercise/wouldn't know a legitimate breach of KC's rights if it hit him in the face etc, and these perceptions may or may not be accurate, but what about LKB and TM? They are both very experienced and successful attorneys by all accounts and yet they too seem to think that the issue of the jail tape is worth their personal appearance in court and their time and effort in arguing the relevant motion/taking the depositions.

IMO, either they have both lost the plot entirely or there is some substance to JB's concerns on this issue. I understand that many think these 2 attorneys (and the rest) must be in this for future professional and/or financial gain, but would an established attorney really be willing to make an *advertiser censored** of himself by supporting/assisting foolish and meritless courses of action in the hope of maybe benefiting in the future?