Bugging devices?

[Woe.be.gone]

Taps must be what the FBI or LE uses when they are trying to uncover evil happenings. Drug rings and other crimes. In other words not after the fact type crimes but I really don't know.

Remember "party lines?" Andy of Mayberry and the phone operater who listened to every phone call within the town. Can you even imagine that today? Just a funny thought.

 

[chris1990]

Official Docs thread, Post 178 dtd. 8/7/09

Go to All Casey Anthony Discovery Documents which links to OrlandoSentinnel. Then click on August 7, 2009.

On page 8 of Supplemental Report MBL 08V 230 (1/28/09) it states the following:

On August 21, 2008 ... Pen Register and Trap and Trace Device on several subject telephones. ....were ordered SEALED and kept by OCSO ..... the Pen Registers determined no information of evidentiary value. See Exhibit K.

All the way down to page 302 is the doc that says who the Pen Registers were ordered for and they were: Anthony home, CA cell, GA cell, LA cell, DG/JG cell and AL. They were ordered August 21, 2008. This page is on paper headed (upsidedown on bottom of page) "Sex Crime Child Abuse" P.01.

in reference to the bold statement: i did not read the document yet, but could it be that the pen registers were to find evidence of the nanny ZG? and it means there was no evidence of any calls to a nanny.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

To answer the atty/client priv question about tapping, LE/FBI would have to disconnect as soon as they hear JB or whatever atty on the line. Also, they cannot listen/record convos with anyone talking about anything not related to the investigation.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

To answer the atty/client priv question about tapping, LE/FBI would have to disconnect as soon as they hear JB or whatever atty on the line. Also, they cannot listen/record convos with anyone talking about anything not related to the investigation.

Well, this sure does seem morally correct but I can't understand how anyone would know what a conversation was about until after they heard it. Quite a dilemma, no? Or even after an unrelated conversation starts how long do you give them to chew the fat ~ 30 seconds for neighborhood gossip, 45 seconds for personal problems ~ before you're allowed to listen in again? :waitasec:

 

[Woe.be.gone]

To answer the atty/client priv question about tapping, LE/FBI would have to disconnect as soon as they hear JB or whatever atty on the line. Also, they cannot listen/record convos with anyone talking about anything not related to the investigation.

How the heck would they know that? Do you mean release? I can't imagine the tap knows when to tap and when not to tap. LE must hear everything, no? You mean there really is a real person sitting there in real time on the line?

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Well, this sure does seem morally correct but I can't understand how anyone would know what a conversation was about until after they heard it. Quite a dilemma, no? Or even after an unrelated conversation starts how long do you give them to chew the fat ~ 30 seconds for neighborhood gossip, 45 seconds for personal problems ~ before you're allowed to listen in again? :waitasec:

As you can tell by my post, I was trying to figure out the same thing. If there's a tap it must get all the conversations - but they can't be used. I would think the Lawyer would never use a phone to convey any info other than I'll be there at 2:00 or can you come to my office, etc.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

As you can tell by my post, I was trying to figure out the same thing. If there's a tap it must get all the conversations - but they can't be used. I would think the Lawyer would never use a phone to convey any info other than I'll be there at 2:00 or can you come to my office, etc.

ITA. The guidelines are unworkable as presented. There must be something more.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

If LE is listening in real time, they have to stop for those convos. They can check back in, but if the convo is still the same, they have to stop again. If they are listening to pre-recorded convos, they must erase anything not directly related to the investigation.

How do I know? Well, let's just say my family background has made me familiar with this sort of thing :whistle:

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

If LE is listening in real time, they have to stop for those convos. They can check back in, but if the convo is still the same, they have to stop again. If they are listening to pre-recorded convos, they must erase anything not directly related to the investigation.

How do I know? Well, let's just say my family background has made me familiar with this sort of thing :whistle:

YellowSubmarine, I'm not questioning you. It's the guidelines that I find illogical. And, seems to me, that if anyone even tried to stay within the boundaries of them the entire effort of the taping (or tapping) would be ineffective. How, pray tell, could someone determine if a conversation is either pertinent or not without listening to it? If you do listen and decide it isn't pertinent, then you've already broken the first rule. If you skip portions, under the assumption that it's a private conversation and not related to the investigation, then you may miss exactly what you're looking for ~ rendering all the man-hours dedicated to the the effort ineffective. The whole thing makes no sense at all. There must be much, much more to it.

 

[Manny]

Isn't there a scanner station that can pick up cell phone conversations? I remember hearing phone conversations on a scanner long long time ago.

 

[Themis]

Yellow Submarine is right and it does work out. At some point, we have to trust that prosecution and LE will follow a judge's orders. They try to. That's good enough. If they miss the target conversation, then they might find something later. Anyway, that would be a phone tap, not a pen register or trap and trace.

 

[Themis]

Isn't there a scanner station that can pick up cell phone conversations? I remember hearing phone conversations on a scanner long long time ago.

Shush, Manny. You're showing your age! :blowkiss: Actually, you are right, that technology did exist. (Not saying when.)

 

[Themis]

Good point, MissJames!

It got me thinking though. How do they handle it when they are listening in on someone and they do speak to an attorney? Certainly this situation has occurred before.

The attorney client privilege is only good if the attorney has been careful to keep the conversation private. This covers the attorney's staff, etc. But, if anyone else is present or there is no expectation of privacy (as in cell phone useage) then there goes the claim of attorney-client privilege.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Yellow Submarine is right and it does work out. At some point, we have to trust that prosecution and LE will follow a judge's orders. They try to. That's good enough. If they miss the target conversation, then they might find something later.

Thank you, Themis (love your hat!). Now, then, I can understand why, as Woe.be.gone noted:

On page 8 of Supplemental Report MBL 08V 230 (1/28/09) it states the following:

On August 21, 2008 ... Pen Register and Trap and Trace Device on several subject telephones. ....were ordered SEALED and kept by OCSO ..... the Pen Registers determined no information of evidentiary value. See Exhibit K.

 

[Themis]

Thank you, Themis (love your hat!). <snipped>

Lin gave me the hat just today!

She even put my name on it. :blowkiss: Lin!

 

[magic-cat]

Funny you should mention that. Yesterday I listened to the conversation from the visit GA made to the jail on August 3, 2008. KC told GA, "I want to be home and be stuck in the house so nobody can talk to me." (around 16 min. mark pt. 1 Jail visit released 12/4/08)


I'm thinking "That didn't happen." "You're so full of it." etc, etc. Then GA begins explaining to KC that the situation they're in is worse than loosing a dog or a cat - the ultimate bad thing.:waitasec: Oh really? GA felt he needed to explain that to KC. Weird.

Dear Lord that is so CRAZY! Like she is so utterly dense that she does not get that this is more serious than losing a pet? Utterly beyond comprehension and going strong into the twilight zone...the insanity marches on.

Thanks Tuffy. Saved me a step. Now back to those pay as you go phones. Could the A's have gotten around all the traps and traces by using those? Surely LE is aware of that type of thing.

Yes they could have.

Did I read somewhere that JB gave all the As that kind of phone, or did I imagine that? I know there was some statement about being careful, there might be bugs.

I recall somewhere we were told that there were disposable phones handed out to the entire family by JB and company...maybe Hoover? or D. Casey? revealed that info? I cannot recall whom but I do recall hearing it...

 

[mom2chloe]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned as I have not read the entire thread but I wanted to mention that in the case of baby Sabrina A, who turned up missing from her parents home in the middle of the night in 1997 in the Tampa area, that once FBI was called in, they obtained a wiretap and listening devices in the home. Since the FBI was called in early on in this case, I am optimistic that they may have been able to secure listening devices in the A home. We will not know what the FBI has/knows until trial time most likely. I for one am keeping my fingers crossed that the Feds have much more than we can imagine and IIRC, the Feds are immune to the sunshine laws. JMO

 

[YellowSubmarine]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned as I have not read the entire thread but I wanted to mention that in the case of baby Sabrina A, who turned up missing from her parents home in the middle of the night in 1997 in the Tampa area, that once FBI was called in, they obtained a wiretap and listening devices in the home. Since the FBI was called in early on in this case, I am optimistic that they may have been able to secure listening devices in the A home. We will not know what the FBI has/knows until trial time most likely. I for one am keeping my fingers crossed that the Feds have much more than we can imagine and IIRC, the Feds are immune to the sunshine laws. JMO

That's right, I do remember that! And, IIRC, they acquired some pretty incriminating statements. I think it's a guarantee the house was bugged. Wasn't one of the PI's seen through the window checking for bugging devices? I'm just hoping one of the A's let something slip before they realized Big Brother was listening . . . .

 

[mitzi]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned as I have not read the entire thread but I wanted to mention that in the case of baby Sabrina A, who turned up missing from her parents home in the middle of the night in 1997 in the Tampa area, that once FBI was called in, they obtained a wiretap and listening devices in the home. Since the FBI was called in early on in this case, I am optimistic that they may have been able to secure listening devices in the A home. We will not know what the FBI has/knows until trial time most likely. I for one am keeping my fingers crossed that the Feds have much more than we can imagine and IIRC, the Feds are immune to the sunshine laws. JMO

Excellent thought there, mom2chloe! I keep forgetting about the FBI's involvement and the fact that they may be the ones with all the incriminating evidence! Thanks for refreshing my mind! :blowkiss:

 

[abel]

Excellent thought there, mom2chloe! I keep forgetting about the FBI's involvement and the fact that they may be the ones with all the incriminating evidence! Thanks for refreshing my mind! :blowkiss:

BBM
Is there a thread on this? Seems like a good topic for a thread. FBI evidence and the Sunshine Laws. And how the FBI and the Sheriff's Office work together as far as sharing evidence and presenting evidence at trial etc. Guess I should do a search.