2010.06.21 Status Hearing

[Astraea]

Thanks to everyone for the notes on what happened today!

 

[kaRN]

He does not impress me at all. When is he planning on getting up to speed on this case? Because something happened prior to his coming on the case does not give him the excuse to say at this late stage that he doesn't know anything about it ( Kronk allegations).
He must not have read the prior LE interviews with CA's co workers, he insists that what they said then was not said.
What made CA excited was overhearing the conversation between KC and LA where she admitted Caylee had been kidnapped. Then she went to the phone and called 911- the terrible smell of death finally penetrated her brain and she realized what had really happened.

He doesn't impress me either ZsaZsa. He impresses me more than AL or LBK or JB do, but still.
Seems the defense has some cracks in their foundation. Happens when you built on quicksand. :crazy:

 

[faefrost]

I have listened three times to what Cheney Mason said after court today, and I still don't know what he said about TES and the searches on Suburban.
What does this mean?
Cheney Mason:
"The public has been made to believe that these people searched the exact area where the body was, or tried to and couldn't, the fact is they didn't try to and they didn't-they weren't there and it was impassable at the time. So there's a lot of people mistakin' things of what happened back in the summer of 2008 and what happened in the winter of 2008.

If we were able to establish a reasonable doubt as to when the body got put there, and it comes at a time when KC couldn't have done it then we know conclusively that somebody else had to do it. If we know that somebody else put the body there, it's a question of who, and how and when. So thats all we're pursuing. We don't know-I wasn't there-you weren't there, all I know is that the people who have searched the area, many of them have given different stories aabout the condition of the place. Some say its under water as an excuse of why they couldn't find the body. We have witness say it wasn't under water so that means it wasn't there............................."

But it was the defense who were the ones making the statements trying to make the public believe that that area had been searched by these volunteers? :banghead::banghead::banghead::waitasec:

I really think CM is trying to backpeddle on alot of JB and TM's more outrageous claims. The fact that they now have sworn depositions from their "star TES witnesses" stating conclusively that "no they were nowhere near the remains site, it was under water!" is probably forcing them to opt for a diferent tactic.

 

[kaRN]

Cheney was BS'ing but to me he was saying that they are still investigating the disposal of Caylee's remains since there are so many conflicting stories.

He was also asserting that there is uncertainty as to when Caylee went missing, with a strategy to shift the timeline.

These together can create reasonable doubt that SODDI if they can shift things to where KC was not able to dump the remains, etc.

The only option is to remove KC from the scene, like the smell in the car and dispute the timeline, etc.

Problem with shifting the timeline is it makes his client out to be an even bigger liar doesn't it? But now we know that he knows her entire story is a lie and can be re-written at any stage before discovery is due. He told us as much today.

 

[kaRN]

HE COULD NOT LOOK KATHI B IN THE EYE ! he told her why don't you just go to law school-lol. he seemed very anxiety laden-lol.

Her answer should have been...No thank you. I'm all about exposing, not suppressing the truth. I'll leave that to you.

 

[beach]

What is the delay in releasing the Defense Motion which was filed on Friday, to the public???
Mason said he took depositions on Thursday, June 17th which prompted him to file the Defense Motion (re: the 911 calls) on Friday, June 18th. WHERE IS that Motion? I want to read it!!!!!!!!!!

BTW...LDB made a comment about how employees statements made during depos had not changed? But later said something about them not understanding the questions as they were intended or something?

Awaiting the hearing on video for replay

*snipped*

But didn't she also make reference to the fact that the information provided by the employees at Thursdays depos had not changed from their previous statements?

I thought I heard her state that and was thinking of NTS statement in another thread wondering if the two had "changed their stories"....

She did say that. I am assuming she has a transcript. She definetly knows what was said though, from the proffer made in court today.

I thought about this last night...

Considering the timing - depos on June 17th and motion filed June 18th - I am thinking the way LDB knew the particulars of the depo is that Mason probably attached an exhibit of the pertinent portions of the depo supporting his argument to his motion, and the SA was copied on it. That is why LDB was able to make her proffer to the court. All I know for sure, is she KNOWS the pertinent portions of the depo that CM was referring to in his motion.

I still find it curious why we haven't SEEN the actual motion. You'd think the media would have a copy by now....:waitasec:

 

[ThinkTank]

*snipped*






I thought about this last night...

Considering the timing - depos on June 17th and motion filed June 18th - I am thinking the way LDB knew the particulars of the depo is that Mason probably attached an exhibit of the pertinent portions of the depo supporting his argument to his motion, and the SA was copied on it. That is why LDB was able to make her proffer to the court. All I know for sure, is she KNOWS the pertinent portions of the depo that CM was referring to in his motion.

I still find it curious why we haven't SEEN the actual motion. You'd think the media would have a copy by now....:waitasec:

Me too!!! WHY hasn't the media published that Motion yet?????
I PMed MM this morning and asked him if he could possibly get a copy of it......
I want to see exactly WHO did a deposition on Thursday .....

 

[ThinkTank]

I have listened three times to what Cheney Mason said after court today, and I still don't know what he said about TES and the searches on Suburban.
What does this mean?
Cheney Mason:
"The public has been made to believe that these people searched the exact area where the body was, or tried to and couldn't, the fact is they didn't try to and they didn't-they weren't there and it was impassable at the time. So there's a lot of people mistakin' things of what happened back in the summer of 2008 and what happened in the winter of 2008.

If we were able to establish a reasonable doubt as to when the body got put there, and it comes at a time when KC couldn't have done it then we know conclusively that somebody else had to do it. If we know that somebody else put the body there, it's a question of who, and how and when. So thats all we're pursuing. We don't know-I wasn't there-you weren't there, all I know is that the people who have searched the area, many of them have given different stories aabout the condition of the place. Some say its under water as an excuse of why they couldn't find the body. We have witness say it wasn't under water so that means it wasn't there............................."

I cannot interpret Mason's gobbeldy gook ... but I think it boils down to WHO the Defense adds to their Defense Witness List by August 31st. They can spout all the crappola they want to at the media outside of an official Hearing on the case .... but I am waiting to see the Defense put their "WITNESSES" where their mouth is.

It will be very interesting to see if the Defense adds their "searcher" witnesses, such as Laura B and if they try to use Joe J. as their witness. It will be interesting to see if the Defense ever adds Kronk's ex's, such as Crystal S. and her son Brandon, and/or Jill K..

We will know the direction the Defense is taking (somewhat) when we see the Defense Official Witness List. IMO

 

[beach]

Me too!!! WHY hasn't the media published that Motion yet?????
I PMed MM this morning and asked him if he could possibly get a copy of it......
I want to see exactly WHO did a deposition on Thursday .....

WE HAVE IT!!! Go check out TWA's thumbnails in the 911 page! :woohoo:

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Her answer should have been...No thank you. I'm all about exposing, not suppressing the truth. I'll leave that to you.

That would have been beautiful!

I also think he tried to side step the point I think Kathy was trying to make about the 911 call. That the first call, cindy mentions they have not found Caylee yet, but the second call is an excited utterance as it is obvious (to me anyway) that cindy has just heard of the "kidnapping" and thus the panicked nature of her call and voice. This is the moment when cindy had just learned that the "baby sitter" refuses to return Caylee and KC has been doing her own "investigation" and IMHO, this is when what george had said about it smelling like a dead body had been in the car (the words cindy repeats to co-workers) --- this is the moment cindy realizes the importance of those words and says them without thinking what they imply.
First call is a cindy who sounds like a mother who has been in counseling and knows she must stop enabling this daughter to fail. Second call sounds terrified. As far as the report of Caylee being in danger, the second call is really the first report of the immediate danger, IMHO.

 

[ThinkTank]

WE HAVE IT!!! Go check out TWA's thumbnails in the 911 page! :woohoo:

The World According posted a link to RH's site, which contains the Motion

http://www.richardhornsby.com/blog/...-Reply-to-State-Motion-to-Admit-911-Calls.pdf

DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO STATE'S RESPONSE RE: ADMISSIBILITY OF 911 CALLS

 

[tlcya]

RH has a really good analysis for us laymen on the 911 tapes issue along with a link to the motion in question. I found his explanation of "excited utterance" vs hearsay, non-hearsay and not hearsay really comprehensive and easy for even us non-lawyers to follow.

 

[countzero]

WE HAVE IT!!! Go check out TWA's thumbnails in the 911 page! :woohoo:

Am I missing a link here. The motion I saw on RHs site is only a copy, not the one filed with the court. it has no time stamp on it. I remember JB doing this another time and the actual motion filed was different than the "leaked" one he gave the media.

 

[tlcya]

Good point countzero, I remember that fiasco as well.

 

[beach]

Am I missing a link here. The motion I saw on RHs site is only a copy, not the one filed with the court. it has no time stamp on it. I remember JB doing this another time and the actual motion filed was different than the "leaked" one he gave the media.

You have a very good point. They could have faxed it in (allowed in Orange County, FL) or it could be they printed the draft if it was filed electronically and released it to the media. I know RH has some good WESH connections...

Either way, it would not contain a file-stamp we could "see".

I really don't know.

 

[countzero]

Well I thought I might be working on a minimum of brain cells this morning with the heat we are having here, lol. Anyhow, I also remember HHJP telling the attorneys he wanted a courtesy copy of motions prior to the media receiving the court filed copy so there were no surprises as HHJS had.

Apparently again JB and crew failed to remember HHJPs request.

 

[Kentjbkent]

*snipped*






I thought about this last night...

Considering the timing - depos on June 17th and motion filed June 18th - I am thinking the way LDB knew the particulars of the depo is that Mason probably attached an exhibit of the pertinent portions of the depo supporting his argument to his motion, and the SA was copied on it. That is why LDB was able to make her proffer to the court. All I know for sure, is she KNOWS the pertinent portions of the depo that CM was referring to in his motion.

I still find it curious why we haven't SEEN the actual motion. You'd think the media would have a copy by now....:waitasec:

Don't both sides have the opportunity to be present for depositions? Is it possible that a rep of the prosecutors office was present during these depositions, or am I confusing this with something else?

Thought this issue was brought up (on forum) during the talk of impending Dominic Casey deposition...that Baez had every right to be there unless the SA issued an investigative subpoena, which is what they did....so no go Baezo....?

 

[Kentjbkent]

Am I missing a link here. The motion I saw on RHs site is only a copy, not the one filed with the court. it has no time stamp on it. I remember JB doing this another time and the actual motion filed was different than the "leaked" one he gave the media.

So now I am wondering if this copy that is on RH site is the motion Cheney ORIGINALLY planned to file......but NOW that he has heard testimony given by those who were deposed ("uhoh...")....if maybe a "rework" or ummmm..."flip flop" amended copy is being worked on for filing....???

Will be interesting to compare both copies when the actual motion is filed....

 

[AZlawyer]

Don't both sides have the opportunity to be present for depositions? Is it possible that a rep of the prosecutors office was present during these depositions, or am I confusing this with something else?

Thought this issue was brought up (on forum) during the talk of impending Dominic Casey deposition...that Baez had every right to be there unless the SA issued an investigative subpoena, which is what they did....so no go Baezo....?

Yes, someone from the SA's office would have been there.

 

[beach]

Don't both sides have the opportunity to be present for depositions? Is it possible that a rep of the prosecutors office was present during these depositions, or am I confusing this with something else?

Thought this issue was brought up (on forum) during the talk of impending Dominic Casey deposition...that Baez had every right to be there unless the SA issued an investigative subpoena, which is what they did....so no go Baezo....?

Yes, and I am assuming LDB and/or JA attended.


oops...I was lagging. Saw AZ already answered.


eta: to clarify my earlier assertation that an exhibit might be attached - LDB said at the hearing that the Gentiva employees' testimony had not changed; CM obviously interpreted that differently and indicated it HAD changed. I was assuming that he attached the portion of the testimony that HE felt was relevant to his motion. Obviously not, at least from what we have SEEN. Which is not file-stamped.