Anthonys want autopsy results sealed AND ALL Autopsy Updates

[OneLostGrl]

It also satsifies the law in Florida which is why I support it's release.

A very bright person here at WS once said (like the last page back) "Don't like it? change the laws"! or something close to that! LOL

 

[lin]

Taking emotion out of this motion, your left with, following the laws of the land as it stands. If there is a mental health issue that may arise for the A's if the results are released then counsel should have that mental health therapist on standby, for we have seen how GA responds to the word "remains" For gA, "it is what it is" as difficult as it may be for you to accept Caylee's physical body became that and you can't hide from that fact. Follow the law until it changes and proceed on with discovery is my left brain, logical vote. Right brain says to many mixed up emotions that don't need to be voiced.

I don't see a mental health excuse being valid here, although they may try it. If that were successful, the next motion would be to release the prisoner because GA/CA will make a suicide attempt and/or LA will hold his breath until his face turns blue. kwim?

Their only hope, imho, is for JAB to file a motion for a gag order and sealing of the records, if they don't want things released. Despite the prior order on same, he would have a good shot at getting it because the prosecutor is unlikely to oppose and it could become an issue for appeal if he doesn't get it. This, of course, is greatly mitigated by the late hour and the wealth of info already released.

 

[NocturnalLady]

On a brighter note, KC will be in jail until the trial, which is looking more and more distant every day!

I'd rather get it over with and have her go to prison and gen pop personally. She can't order up shrimp cocktail in prison. IKWYM though.

 

[JSR]

I hope this blows up in BC's face as badly as JAB's filings explode in his. I just don't see how the grandparents have any standing to intervene in a criminal matter. Without having read it, it appears thusfar to be a frivolous motion based almost entirely on a pity play which has no place in a court of law.

They have standing to intervene. Their arguments just can't trump FL law.

 

[Wisteria]

My vote is "yes" the judge will release it. There is no legal reason not to, BC did not even quote case law in his motion. If judges decide not to release all things that cause grief to the families of victims, then there should be no sunshine law at all. Murders cause grief. Exploring and investigating them brings up pain. It is sad, but the SA is not the person who caused this grief. They are merely seeking justice and complying with the law.

I guess we could just forget about it and move on. After all, that's what KC tried to do...

 

[MidAtlanticNative]

..and it's like this with EVERY criminal case!! It's not as if there are made up rules and laws custom fit for the Anthony's! Her defense team can do the same as everyone else's!

You're right. Consider the fact that in every criminal case where death's involved, there is a family experiencing anguish, sadness, grief, etc. (Un)fortunately there are laws in place that apply unilaterally, regardless of circumstance. With the filing of this motion, the Anthonys are showing blatant disrespect to other similarly situated families.

 

[ZubenElSchemali]

Perhaps you are forgetting that EACH OF THOSE PAGES NEED TO BE SCANNED before converting into a digital format such as a cd or dvd. Please also take into account that if JB requests certain documents or records which the SA does not have possession the SA is NOT required to pay fees in order to get them. Please also take into account if scanned or manually copied by some other third party entity the cost may not only be .33 per page. Based off the documents released already someone had to stand and manually scan these documents and if they were in notebooks then they would have to be placed on the glass. Litigation costs DO not come cheap.

As far as the financial matters go regarding the discovery process we are all making pure speculation since we don't know of any agreements that have been made between the parties. Again, although the burden of proof is on the SA they are not obligated to pay for and do the job of the defense team.

Most of it is already in digital format. Even their notes are put into the computer. "...pure speculation since we don't know of any agreements that have been made between the parties." Are you saying that the state and defense negotiate and there isn't a set proceedure for releasing and obtaining discovery? I have to ask, how is providing the defense with the states evidence doing the defense's job for them? You can't know what to defend yourself against until you know what their claims are against you.

 

[coco puff]

The case financial show nothing but copies so any filing fees for their motions must go into a different place. I don't see enough repeats for this to be where each media outlet pays. But I've sent an email to WFTV asking about this.

Let's see, roughly 6000 pages so far? That would be about .33 per page, if they actually get it in paper form. Considering how easy it is to burn a cd I think it is highway robbery if they are charging the defence this amount. Now I heard back from both the Sentinel and WFTV that the last doc dumps were nothing but repeats, not worth their time or web space. That's a lot of waste, IMO.

imagine how much less waste there would be if she just told the truth.

 

[FORDANIEL]

If that is the case then why am I still reading here, as recently as today, Nancy Grace's favorite myth, that the forensic report says there was a death band on the hair found in the trunk? It seems the less clear and detailed the evidence realeased is, the more time that goes on, the greater the myths become.

I do not believe that this is a NG myth???!!!! I believe that the forensic evidence showed this to be a fact.:banghead:

 

[JSR]

But isn't this wrong? Can they git away with this? Just seems kinda "in a backward sort of way" or shady---poot---something. Does KC have 2 separate defense teams? If JB tells BC something juicy and BC decides to do the "right" thing with this juicy stuff---he can do so, because BC isn't gettin paid by JB/KC. What would keep him from turning on the A's? He can't talk about what he has spoken with the A's but he sure could with info straight from JB. Have I gotten off track here?

They can legally share information. IMO, JB is using the lure of such information to keep the Anthony's in his good graces. JB doesn't want the Anthonys to let LE know the vital and damaging information regarding the events surrounding Caylee's murder. It behooves JB to keep the Anthonys wanting more and on "Casey's" side, it keeps them quiet. If it "appeared" to the Anthonys that they were being kept on the "outside" or to be thrown under the bus by JB they would be more likely to talk. I'm very sure JB is manipulating the Anthonys as much as the Anthonys are trying to manipulate everyone else.

IMO, it's a dangerous line JB is traveling in sharing information with counsel who is not hired to represent Casey. The atty-client privilege is not protected if JB shares anything with BC.

 

[What'sThatClue]

Think you will email a request for Caylee's?

I think the FL laws are different because of Dale E. the NASCAR driver right?

I'm not sure I'll e-mail a request for Caylee's report because it will most likely be available in it's entirety on media websites.

Yes, the laws regarding photos changed because of the Nascar case.

 

[FORDANIEL]

:couch:I voted other, reason being that I think about how Caylee would feel. I could care less how the Anthony's feel. The results will come out at trial anyway. I for one like to see the new discovery, but feel there should be limits. Caylee was an infant and I feel anything that has to do with her autopsy should be private, not because the Anthony's want it that..for Caylee. Now, if it is released I will read it because I to want to know how this little angel died just to know the facts. :truce:

Caylee was not an infant,but a toddler--- able to speak and tell-IMO that was the beginning of her demise!!!

 

[lin]

The case financial show nothing but copies so any filing fees for their motions must go into a different place. I don't see enough repeats for this to be where each media outlet pays. But I've sent an email to WFTV asking about this.

Let's see, roughly 6000 pages so far? That would be about .33 per page, if they actually get it in paper form. Considering how easy it is to burn a cd I think it is highway robbery if they are charging the defence this amount. Now I heard back from both the Sentinel and WFTV that the last doc dumps were nothing but repeats, not worth their time or web space. That's a lot of waste, IMO.

Well, at my local clerk's office, it's $1 per page. Period. To have the documents certified is an extra $1 per page. Even though your post presented this info as a fact, rather than a theory or guess, as I responded, it sounded highly improbable to me so I xxxxx and was told they charge $1 per page, period. I wasn't able to speak with anyone in the criminal department to confirm what those charges were actually for because they were closed for the day by the time I called. But, at $1 per page, as I suspected, there wasn't nearly enough collected to account for all the discovery that has been released.

 

[lin]

Could be for all these silly motions JB has filed?

There's not likely to be any filing fees in this case. I was thinking more like extra records requests, service of subpoenas or something along those lines but AE was right about one thing, the charges by and large appear to be for "copies." Most of the list is under $10 per transaction though, so it would seem more like they wanted a certified copy of something to pass along to someone or to file with a motion or something, if any of these charges were actually paid by the defense. I don't recall any discovery releases of only 1 or 2 pages, do you?

 

[What'sThatClue]

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...y_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0119/Sec07.htm

(4) The custodian of public records shall furnish a copy or a certified copy of the record upon payment of the fee prescribed by law. If a fee is not prescribed by law, the following fees are authorized:

(a)1. Up to 15 cents per one-sided copy for duplicated copies of not more than 14 inches by 81/2 inches;

2. No more than an additional 5 cents for each two-sided copy; and

3. For all other copies, the actual cost of duplication of the public record.

(b) The charge for copies of county maps or aerial photographs supplied by county constitutional officers may also include a reasonable charge for the labor and overhead associated with their duplication.

(c) An agency may charge up to $1 per copy for a certified copy of a public record.

(d) If the nature or volume of public records requested to be inspected or copied pursuant to this subsection is such as to require extensive use of information technology resources or extensive clerical or supervisory assistance by personnel of the agency involved, or both, the agency may charge, in addition to the actual cost of duplication, a special service charge, which shall be reasonable and shall be based on the cost incurred for such extensive use of information technology resources or the labor cost of the personnel providing the service that is actually incurred by the agency or attributable to the agency for the clerical and supervisory assistance required, or both.

(e)1. Where provision of another room or place is necessary to photograph public records, the expense of providing the same shall be paid by the person desiring to photograph the public records.

 

[Daylight/1257]

This is good news! The autopsy report is obviously not favorable to the defense and...

the anguish to the Anthony's is that donations to their "fund", their very favorite charity could be seriously damaged. They are counting on the trial being delayed, delayed, delayed and those dollars to keep rolling in. They know it is going to be public at trial and want all the time they can get to play martyrs.

 

[lin]

Ok, just for a moment, imagine that this precious child was your grandchild and that your daughter was NOT a suspect. Would you want these details released to the media before trial? I mean, you know they will have to be released during trial, but wouldn't you think it could at least wait until then? Take KC out of the picture and even take the A's out of the picture, and try to imagine being the grandparent of a murdered 2 year old and ask yourself whether you might want to see this information wait until trial to be released.

IMHO, the grandparents have every right to ask the court to prevent the release to the media at this time. However, I do not have enough understanding of the FL Sunshine laws to know whether the judge could or should grant such a request. I'm just saying that I see nothing wrong with them making the request and can picture making the same request if it was a child in my family.

Yes, I will admit that I want to read those results and will do so if they are released tomorrow. But really, what good will it do Caylee for me or you (or anyone else in the public) to get that information before trial? How would it help convict KC? And for that matter, how would not releasing them help her defense? Can't we - just this once - agree that this request may have nothing to do with KC? Why must everything the A's say or do be taken as a step towards helping KC get off even when there is no way that it will?

If they didn't want such things released, they shouldn't have opposed the gag order, period. You can't eat your media spotlight and have sealed the pages you don't think will be favorable.

 

[FORDANIEL]

Ok, just for a moment, imagine that this precious child was your grandchild and that your daughter was NOT a suspect. Would you want these details released to the media before trial? I mean, you know they will have to be released during trial, but wouldn't you think it could at least wait until then? Take KC out of the picture and even take the A's out of the picture, and try to imagine being the grandparent of a murdered 2 year old and ask yourself whether you might want to see this information wait until trial to be released.

IMHO, the grandparents have every right to ask the court to prevent the release to the media at this time. However, I do not have enough understanding of the FL Sunshine laws to know whether the judge could or should grant such a request. I'm just saying that I see nothing wrong with them making the request and can picture making the same request if it was a child in my family.

Yes, I will admit that I want to read those results and will do so if they are released tomorrow. But really, what good will it do Caylee for me or you (or anyone else in the public) to get that information before trial? How would it help convict KC? And for that matter, how would not releasing them help her defense? Can't we - just this once - agree that this request may have nothing to do with KC? Why must everything the A's say or do be taken as a step towards helping KC get off even when there is no way that it will?

Yes IF this were my grandchild,and it were not my daughter that was accused I would definately want this info out there in the hopes that some info would be forthcoming about the accused.The grief and anguish would have come much sooner than now,AND EVEN IF MY DAUGHTER WAS the person accused I would want this info out there----if I even remotely thought she was innocent. These people should be searching for truth-not blocking the law.:sick:

 

[lin]

Ok, just for a moment, imagine that this precious child was your grandchild and that your daughter was NOT a suspect. Would you want these details released to the media before trial? I mean, you know they will have to be released during trial, but wouldn't you think it could at least wait until then? Take KC out of the picture and even take the A's out of the picture, and try to imagine being the grandparent of a murdered 2 year old and ask yourself whether you might want to see this information wait until trial to be released.

IMHO, the grandparents have every right to ask the court to prevent the release to the media at this time. However, I do not have enough understanding of the FL Sunshine laws to know whether the judge could or should grant such a request. I'm just saying that I see nothing wrong with them making the request and can picture making the same request if it was a child in my family.

Yes, I will admit that I want to read those results and will do so if they are released tomorrow. But really, what good will it do Caylee for me or you (or anyone else in the public) to get that information before trial? How would it help convict KC? And for that matter, how would not releasing them help her defense? Can't we - just this once - agree that this request may have nothing to do with KC? Why must everything the A's say or do be taken as a step towards helping KC get off even when there is no way that it will?

PS: As many others have posted, there is no logic behind the delay, other than to prevent the public of knowing more about what KC did prior to trial. Seems like the time to go through this bit of "anguish" is now, rather than at trial when I'm sure there will be a lot of other "anguish" to ugly cope with.

Taking KC out of the picture, in fact, looking at other cases in which the A's are not involved, the report would be released as a matter of course. I don't think they deserve (MORE) special treatment, do you?

 

[JSR]

Most of it is already in digital format. Even their notes are put into the computer. "...pure speculation since we don't know of any agreements that have been made between the parties." Are you saying that the state and defense negotiate and there isn't a set proceedure for releasing and obtaining discovery? I have to ask, how is providing the defense with the states evidence doing the defense's job for them? You can't know what to defend yourself against until you know what their claims are against you.

It is nothing but pure speculation. Just because something might be typed in a computer does not mean that it's set for digital format. There is no way of knowing what abilities LE has in converting such reports.

The only set procedure regarding discovery is that you must disclose (if in your possession), at a party's request, information that relates to the litigation at hand. Many many many many times parties have agreements about discovery, when it's released, how it's released, and terms regarding payment (if applicable). And in regards to the SA doing the defenses job for them. I recall a hearing in which JB requested documents regarding the dog handlers as well as the dogs. This information was NOT in the possession of the SA. JB wanted the SA to pay for and obtain such records. That is NOT the SA's job or responsibility. If there are third party entities in which JB wishes to receive information or records then he is to go directly to those entities and not expect the SA to pay for and obtain them for him. JB was trying to avoid having to do the actual work himself and pay the fee that would be required to copy such materials.

And you were correct in one aspect, and that is that the defense has the right to information the SA has been collecting in regards to the charges made against Casey. No one is saying otherwise, it's just not the SA's job to collect and pay for information not in its possession.