Casey defense team files motion to dismiss case--Could KC walk!

[MADJGNLAW]

:waitasec:Hmm, I was just thinking. I wonder if the Anthony's have payed Casey a visit recently and that is why Baez filed that motion yesterday? Wouldn't it be something if they did visit her. :woohoo: I know he wants all future video/recordings to be destroyed which I don't think the judge will allow that for the safety of the Jail Personnel, Inmates, and Attorney's.

 

[Spangle]

ITA and if you go by their actions thusfar, you can assume they will do the same in a new local imo

That's just it. Because of their actions, all the markets areas are all ready contaminated with this case.

As someone pointed out, the Judge has all ready told the defense that it's way to early to be setting a place. It's still over a year away.

I"m sure the SA will point out what you said. Setting a place right now, will just cause that area to be more interested in the case. Making the whole 'moving' thing, pointless.

 

[RR0004]

Oh and I forgot one, the defense's BIG witness that should exonerate their client? Joy Ray? Are they kidding? That is the best one I have heard YET! They even dragged David Lohr into the whole sorry mess...can you believe it?

I didn't have a chance to read the motions last night...please don't tell me they used JW's name in all this? And we're expected to take this seriously? Oh, my!

 

[Mystic]

It's just unbelievable to me that the defense is saying they should have been given the rights to accompany LE on all investigations of found bodies... just in case it was Caylee??? Didn't they also infer to the trunk evidence as junk science and I'm not sure if it was JB or CA stating the cavadear were not properly trained. Sheesh, seems JB is finding SA and LE incompetant as they are 'not' finding evidence to prove his client is innocent.

 

[Friday]

I guess I'm the only one who finds a significant reason to cheer loudly over the part of the defense's motion highlighted in red...

"Without access to the crime scene before the state removed the remains and topsoil, Miss Anthony was unable to gather evidence regarding the precise arrangement of the remains and the surrounding landscape," attorneys José Baez and Andrea Lyon wrote in the motion. "Without this evidence, defense experts cannot effectively examine or challenge the conclusions made by state experts."

To me, that red portion means the defense has just inadvertently stated in advance that no matter what their own experts testify about, their experts can't possibly know enough to really challenge the conclusions of the state's experts?

 

[Numbers]

I guess I'm the only one who finds a significant reason to cheer loudly over the part of the defense's motion highlighted in red...

"Without access to the crime scene before the state removed the remains and topsoil, Miss Anthony was unable to gather evidence regarding the precise arrangement of the remains and the surrounding landscape," attorneys José Baez and Andrea Lyon wrote in the motion. "Without this evidence, defense experts cannot effectively examine or challenge the conclusions made by state experts."

To me, that red portion means the defense has just inadvertently stated in advance that no matter what their own experts testify about, their experts can't possibly know enough to really challenge the conclusions of the state's experts?

That's the song they were singing yesterday.

The theme song for the trial will be "You Done It Wrong (Junk Science)."

 

[milliac]

:waitasec:Hmm, I was just thinking. I wonder if the Anthony's have payed Casey a visit recently and that is why Baez filed that motion yesterday? Wouldn't it be something if they did visit her. :woohoo: I know he wants all future video/recordings to be destroyed which I don't think the judge will allow that for the safety of the Jail Personnel, Inmates, and Attorney's.

I was also thinking that may be the case, as well.

 

[doogiesgirl]

I did always think it was strange if the defense was not allowed to have an expert look at and photograph the remains site and evidence in situ and so on earlier on. Seemed like the state told them after all the evidence had been removed from the site and so on, after razing the place, that now the defense could have their experts onto the site, come in and photograph etc. What good would that do? Basically, the defense would be in the position of just having to take the state's experts' interpretation on the whole scene. I was surprised at the time, but I don't know how these things are usually done.

I mean no disrespect but when have you ever heard of or seen that the police let anyone who wasn't LE into/onto a crime scene until they have processed it. SOP since the beginning of time I would think. It's to protect the innocent as well as convict the guilty. MOO

 

[yeknomaras]

I just don't understand why the defense doesn't get it.

If Caylee's remains were found and THEN KC was charged, they wouldn't get to traipse around the crime scene. So why do they think they had some "right" to go and see it in their case? Defendants and their teams are not allowed to go into a crime scene!!!! period!!!!

 

[doogiesgirl]

I just read the first two pages of the thread and had to come here real quick to post a question....and a statement!

First, if the defense is granted a change of venue, will the State of Florida have to pay for this expense? Seriously...will the State pay for rooms at the Marriott, breakfast, lunch, dinner, transportation, etc for each witness? Can you just imagine the cost of that?

Secondly, why does the defense have the audacity to ask for a dismissal? Okay let's play "stupid" for just a second....the case gets dismissed, KC walks free......how long do you all think she will stay alive? Seriously? Any nut job out there is just waiting for the opportunity to do just that, don't ya think?

That was one of my thoughts too. KC should be afraid, be very afraid of walking out of jail into freedom. She is soo hated. Some nut would think it their duty to take justice into their own hands. JMHO

 

[Balthazar]

I didn't read their motion that way. Will you please quote the part to which you refer? I read their motion to indicate that processing the scene destroyed evidence and caused them to be unable to gather exonerating evidence. I don't recall reading anything about the state deliberately "tampering with evidence" and their being photographic proof of same, other than what I've described above, which I'm sure the state will freely admit. There is no nefarious interpretation of unknown "tampering" to be gleaned here, imo.

No problem:

"...All that remains are photographs in which investigators improvise a variety of hypothetical arrangements for the duct tape and the remains of Caylee Anthony."

Why would forensic investigators be doing any improvisation at all? The goal of a forensic investigation should be to simply record everything exactly as it was found and later theorize what may have happened based on observable, quantifiable and measurable evidence and norms taking into account the known facts regarding an event. Any improvisation whatsoever immediately creates serious questions of evidence tampering. It creates questions of how things were originally. How can it now be proven that nothing else was moved or staged? This throws the entire investigation of the body site into question. It's a very serious allegation and if proven, there is a big problem with this case.

 

[MsRyber]

That was one of my thoughts too. KC should be afraid, be very afraid of walking out of jail into freedom. She is soo hated. Some nut would think it their duty to take justice into their own hands. JMHO

Hey....who you callin' nuts??????

LOL!

:angel:

 

[OneLostGrl]

No problem:

"...All that remains are photographs in which investigators improvise a variety of hypothetical arrangements for the duct tape and the remains of Caylee Anthony."

Why would forensic investigators be doing any improvisation at all? The goal of a forensic investigation should be to simply record everything exactly as it was found and later theorize what may have happened based on observable, quantifiable and measurable evidence and norms taking into account the known facts regarding an event. Any improvisation whatsoever immediately creates serious questions of evidence tampering. It creates questions of how things were originally. How can it now be proven that nothing else was moved or staged? This throws the entire investigation of the body site into question. It's a very serious allegation and if proven, there is a big problem with this case.

Improvise- Theorize

I'm thinking the defense chose the word they did for just this reason- they knew some people would fall for their ever present mis-use of words.

 

[OneLostGrl]

Hey....who you callin' nuts??????

LOL!

:angel:

 

[cecybeans]

I downloaded the pdf of the Motion to Dismiss and converted to searchable text so I could find the word "tamper." The only accusation that came up in my search was on the memorandum, page 6 of the pdf, Summary of Argument first paragraph:

"Here, the State effectively destroyed exculpatory and impeaching evidence by
tampering with the victim's remains and excavating the location of their discovery before
the defense could have its experts observe the scene in situ."

Are there any other allegations of "tampering" by the state?

I don't know - tell me if I'm wrong, but this is just so LBK to me. So OJ and Phil S. So 90's for a defense tactic to be that LE investigating a crime scene is "tampering" with evidence.

Perhaps a Hollywood jury will respond to metaphorically spitting on forensic evidence and questioning its validity or chain of custody or contamination, but I just don't buy the fact that Floridians will go for that strategy one bit. At least I hope not.

 

[cecybeans]

Thanks but I tried that spelling too. There are several civil cases including two from 1935 regarding estate taxes but no criminal cases that I found. This is more of the way they do things up north not matching what we do here, at best. My personal opinion is it's more grasping at straws and trying to make new law. IIRC, they cited no cases on point regarding a crime scene intervention by defense counsel or a case finding the state improperly processed a crime scene by excavating remains.

Lin, I hope LDB hammers that into the jury, too. She's already made several references to LE working overtime on their hands and knees pulling tiny little bones out of the muck scattered over almost an acre.

The respect LE gave this child in recovering her remains (yes, GA, remains is the kindest word we can use when a toddler's dead body is left for months to the elements and to scavenging animals) totally eclipses anything the Anthony family ever did or say to show they cared for their granddaughter. Shame on them and shame on any juror who cannot see that fact immediately when presented this evidence.

That attitude is why Good Samaritan acts are so problematic - the people who actually try to help get blamed.

If someone had gotten to that lying jailbird instead of drawing this affair out for personal gain and fame, there would be no need to talk about crime scene particulars at all. It is NOT the fault of LE that they needed to be so thorough - and in fact it shows nothing but professionalism and personal dedication that they were.

(sorry - think I grabbed the wrong quote; hope you get my meaning anyway)

 

[nyvictoria]

No problem:

"...All that remains are photographs in which investigators improvise a variety of hypothetical arrangements for the duct tape and the remains of Caylee Anthony."

Why would forensic investigators be doing any improvisation at all? The goal of a forensic investigation should be to simply record everything exactly as it was found and later theorize what may have happened based on observable, quantifiable and measurable evidence and norms taking into account the known facts regarding an event. Any improvisation whatsoever immediately creates serious questions of evidence tampering. It creates questions of how things were originally. How can it now be proven that nothing else was moved or staged? This throws the entire investigation of the body site into question. It's a very serious allegation and if proven, there is a big problem with this case.

I would bet the ranch (if I had one) the initial LE responders to the scene photographed everything exactly as it was and in its place.

I wouldn't put any stock in anything the defense claims to have transpired. It's their job to tear apart the State's case and this is one of their feeble attempts at doing just that.

 

[believe09]

Yes you are right.

The problem I see with this decision is that the defense attorneys are going to say that LE requested and were granted a search warrant for the Anthony house almost immediately after the remains were found. So, logically, the defense will hold, it had already been concluded by LE and by a judge that the remains were those of Caylee Anthony. Otherwise, there would be no probable cause for issuing a search warrant for the Anthony home in conjunction with the discovery of the remains. I'm sure this issue will be brought up by the defense. I've been expecting this since their emergency request for access to the site.

I don't know that I agree to be honest. Of course the chance that the child was someone other than Caylee was a lightning strike, BUT the body had to be idenitified as such for the defense to start arguing for access. The warrant for the search of the Anthony home had occurred in the past and occurred again-there was nothing contained within the dump site that would have made a legal identification swift other then dental records which did not exist for a live Caylee or fingerprints which did not exist because the remains were skeletonized. As someone else pointed out who get's access to a potential crime scene except LE??

 

[Searchfortruth]

This reminds me of the 'ole ask for something really big (that you know you aren't going to get) and then stick the smaller request in with it (the thing you really want...change of venue) in hopes that the no to the first request will lead to a yes to the second...does that make sense ?

 

[snowbun]

I would bet the ranch (if I had one) the initial LE responders to the scene photographed everything exactly as it was and in its place.

I wouldn't put any stock in anything the defense claims to have transpired. It's their job to tear apart the State's case and this is one of their feeble attempts at doing just that.

ITA. In my humble opinion, the defense has taken a few things out of context so they could say, "See here, look what the state did."

Looks to me like they have also formed their opinions or "interpretations" in a similar manner - so out of the full context.