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

[cecybeans]

Improvise means:

1 : to compose, recite, play, or sing extemporaneously
2 : to make, invent, or arrange offhand
3 : to make or fabricate out of what is conveniently on hand

A scientific theory is an accurate, predictive description. What many laymen don't understand is that a scientific theory is proveable fact, not an educated guess as to what might be true.

In science, the word theoretical refers to an idea that has not been proven to be a theory. LKB could have used theoretical to describe the same thing, but it wouldn't matter. Rearranging items in a crimescene investigation is not adhering to scientific method. It is completely unacceptable to ANY scientist. And it should be unacceptable to the general public as well because it is a very serious breach of ethics.

If the defense can prove this actually happened - there will be serious consequences.

I respectfully disagree; I think that is an anachronistic definition. Many theories are educated guesses and hotly debated amongst their professional proponents.

I assume you are leaving out string theory and various other in physics, astrophysics, medicine (particularly neurophysiology) etc. Even the "soft" social sciences like sociology, pyschology anthropology, history have conflicting theories. In some fields, it is more political (or based on the inertia of academic grant-making) than actual.

There is so much new debate in many of the supposed "hard" sciences about what is really accurately "predictive". I think the more real scientists know about the universe and biology the less they accept the fact that scientific theory is less "proveable" and more "probable".

For our purposes, all we need to deal with is "reasonable".

 

[cecybeans]

I still don't see a good argument for COV. JB fought a gag order, which could have helped make that case early on. But he and his team - as have GA and CA - have had too much fun being media opportunists (and under the aegis of "CMA" gone yachting, boating, eating at the Ritz, etc.) for anyone to buy the fact that any other city in FL would be any more objective than the people of Orlando. This case has been given not only nationwide but worldwide coverage, and much of it is due to the fact that the defense and their cronies were constantly using court cameras and media interviews to publicize themselves and this case and to influence possible jurors. Pffft! is what I'd say to COV if I was Judge Strickland, and blow a raspberry toward the defense table.

 

[The World According]

Lyons literally claimed on the courthouse steps in a press conference that she was new to the case, but certain that "Florida law does not allow them to ask for the death penalty in this case". She said she would be filing, "Many, many" motions regarding this, and now she and her law students have gotten several of them prepared. I remember right about that time Baden and Baez went on national TV morning shows and said things to the effect that this should not be a death penalty case because it is not a case of a serial murderer. They never actually research the law in their state before making claims like that, because that is not the thresh-hold, whatsoever. The judge shows an amazing amount of patience with them when they argue things in front of him that are not based on law, and they never ever seem to prove up what they are arguing. I was so hoping that once the professor got on the case things would be handled more professionally, but it is clear all that they do is to play to potential jurors. Do you think so? This is O/T but my thoughts keep going to Jesse, I hope he is preparing to defend himself. The defense lets little bits slip out that they are planning to name someone else (rather than Zanny the Nanny) to offer up reasonable doubt, and I think they have a bullseye on that kid's forehead.

 

[Balthazar]

I respectfully disagree; I think that is an anachronistic definition. Many theories are educated guesses and hotly debated amongst their professional proponents.

I assume you are leaving out string theory and various other in physics, astrophysics, medicine (particularly neurophysiology) etc. Even the "soft" social sciences like sociology, pyschology anthropology, history have conflicting theories. In some fields, it is more political (or based on the inertia of academic grant-making) than actual.

There is so much new debate in many of the supposed "hard" sciences about what is really accurately "predictive". I think the more real scientists know about the universe and biology the less they accept the fact that scientific theory is less "proveable" and more "probable".

For our purposes, all we need to deal with is "reasonable".

I agree there are many different definitions of the word theory, depending on what field you are speaking of. I believe that was why LKB was careful NOT to use the word "theoretical" in describing what was being done to Caylee's remains in this sentence:

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

She was writing about a situation that was an absolute fact which is how Caylee's remains were found. I dont' think anyone here would believe that the remains were moving around on their own for the photographer. Right?

 

[MissJames]

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 think we will continue to agree to disagree about the defense and Prosecution,Princess.I have seen nothing from the defense that gives me any confidence in their ability to speak the truth.I remember LKB from the PS trial.She made a huge error in judgement using her husband as an expert witness and had a major problem with her other expert witness,Henry Lee.
Also,IIRC ,it was the judge who allowed LE and the prosecution to procede with their investigation where the remains were found,unimpeded by defense experts ,until their investigation was done.Basically the defense is calling Judge Strickland out,too.
I have seen professionalism,proper motions,tons of evidnce turned over to the defense from the prosecution..The Prosecution has kept quiet while the defense and KC's family continue the circus circuit.
I have great faith in the job LE and the Prosecution team has done,so far.I find the defense a bit of a joke.And it's hard to overlook so many Bar complaints,as well.

 

[The World According]

It seems shocking the way it was reported in the headlines, but actually this is very, very common, normally shot down immediately, just a box that gets checked off on the defense lawyers checklist. No worries. None!

 

[JBean]

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.

IMO, they record the scene as is and then and only then do they improvise or theorize what may or may not have happened. Was it physically possible? If this was here could it affect that over there? the only way to determine what theories are reasonable and what theories are unreasonable is to test them which includes improvisation.
By virtue of the fact that the quote you sited said:
>>"...All that remains are photographs in which investigators improvise a variety of hypothetical arrangements for the duct tape and the remains of Caylee Anthony."<< implies there are indeed pictures of the crime scene as it was and improvisation of theories and ideas came after that data was recorded undisturbed.

Just as you have somewhat stated in your post,theory is generally based on empirical data and gathered facts to test a hypothesis. As a matter of fact it is the very core of the scientific method. Gather the facts, record them, hypothesize, and test your theory.

 

[Valhall]

My apologies if this has been posted. I got tired of tracking backwards trying to find the link - maybe I'm overlooking it. But where can this statement about "photographs of improvisations" be found? I would like to read the full context.

Thank you!

 

[JBean]

My apologies if this has been posted. I got tired of tracking backwards trying to find the link - maybe I'm overlooking it. But where can this statement about "photographs of improvisations" be found? I would like to read the full context.

Thank you!

Oh gosh I meant to post this too Valhall..thank you. I forgot to put it in my post.

 

[JBean]

It seems shocking the way it was reported in the headlines, but actually this is very, very common, normally shot down immediately, just a box that gets checked off on the defense lawyers checklist. No worries. None!

Totally agree.

 

[lin]

I still don't see that as "tampering" with the evidence as alleged in your post. The only "tampering" alleged by the defense that I saw was the actual processing of the crime scene, as I responded to that post.

To give the passage you quoted some context:

"The only evidence to suggest a homicide is the placement of the duct tape
discovered with the remains. Police investigators photographed the duct tape and the remains before dismantling them. However, these photographs show various views of, and possibly various interpretations of the actual placement of the duct tape. The State seeks the death penalty. And yet they destroyed the defense's ability to examine the arrangement of the duct tape, the remains. and the only evidence that might remotely suggest a homicide. All that remains are photographs in which investigators improvise a variety of hypothetical arrangements for the duct tape and the remains of Caylee
Anthony."

(emphasis added)

1. That the defense alleges it doesn't make it so. To my reading, they have repeatedly made allegations they claimed to support but not only failed to show but actually contradicted their allegations with their "proof" of same.

2. Even the defense states the thorough photographing of the remains "possibly" show "various interpretations." They don't specify which "investigators" are 'improvising' or how any 'improvisation' is occurring other than the preceding statement complaining of 'various views' and possible various interpretations. There is nothing here to show that any specific tampering was alleged in photographing the duct taped remains from various angles to give a full account for the record.

I still am not seeing the allegation that the state deliberately tampered with anything other than processing the crime scene. I stand by my previous response that other than processing the scene I don't think any nefarious tampering with evidence can be gleaned from the defense's allegations in this motion.

My apologies if this has been posted. I got tired of tracking backwards trying to find the link - maybe I'm overlooking it. But where can this statement about "photographs of improvisations" be found? I would like to read the full context.

Thank you!

I agree with you; context is everything. I took away a totally different meaning, above, when looking at the phrase quoted in context. For fuller context, the paragraph starts on page 11 of the pdf Motion to Dismiss found here, last paragraph on that page. It's also numbered as page 6 of the attached memorandum.

 

[lin]

No worries I can splain it Lucy. Boy you do not have to tell me about posting ideas as fact, i spend a good part of my time here asking for back up.
Opinions get carried as fact and I spend a lot of time sorting that out.

We have 2 different situations…

1.If documentation or a link is requested for information presented as fact and the poster refuses, do not keep asking over and over and over. If you ask once or twice for links to information presented as fact and it is not provided. alert the post and we will look into it and talk to the poster.
We have had posters post information continually as fact when it was not, so it is really important that those posts are brought to our attention by way of an alert. If it continues there will most likely be a vacation involved..but that;'s why we need to know about it if it is done on an ongoing basis. Sometimes it is a misunderstanding and sometimes it is malicious.

Sometimes a poster may have you on ignore.

2.If you ask a general question about why someone feels the way they do and they choose not to answer, that is their choice and there is nothing to be done about it.

So to recap, if it is a general question that they do not choose to answer, that is their choice and there is no need to badger them over and over to answer the question.

If it is opinion posted as fact and a link is not provided and you ask for one, once maybe twice, then just report it and move on and do NOT respond.

This all just leads to arguments and hostility. Just treat each other like you might when you have a guest over for coffee and you are having discussion. Politely and with some respect. if you don't have any respect, just ignore and don't invite them over for coffee LOL.

Oh Ricky.... this should be a sticky!! Thanks muchly.

 

[lin]

I respectfully disagree; I think that is an anachronistic definition. Many theories are educated guesses and hotly debated amongst their professional proponents.

I assume you are leaving out string theory and various other in physics, astrophysics, medicine (particularly neurophysiology) etc. Even the "soft" social sciences like sociology, pyschology anthropology, history have conflicting theories. In some fields, it is more political (or based on the inertia of academic grant-making) than actual.

There is so much new debate in many of the supposed "hard" sciences about what is really accurately "predictive". I think the more real scientists know about the universe and biology the less they accept the fact that scientific theory is less "proveable" and more "probable".

For our purposes, all we need to deal with is "reasonable".

Very well said. Thanks; it deserved repeating.

 

[Brini]

Well, initially the clothes got a little better when LKB got into town - those Ann Taylor looking twinsets and the eggplant v-neck were okay. But she was obviously still self-absorbed with her constant hand-fiddling and hair touching and garment twisting. The times I didn't see LKB - I noticed she was wearing that too-tight blouse and was back to hair games.

I'm sure AL (like every other attorney worth their salt) has had interns on all the forums measuring public response to her appearance. With all of the motions the defense has filed - and the fact that KC is required to be in court for many of them has given the defense a whole variety of outfits and behaviors to try out on public opinion.

I agree that AL has had an effect - KC's behavior was much more serious and subdued the last time we saw her. Her jacket, though plain and ill-fitting, at least wasn't a display of her supposed physical assets. I'm sure AL - who may not be known for her own fashion-forward sense, will be monitoring the situation closely and, perhaps with help from her interns, by trial time, we'll see the final EXTREME makeover of KC.

It will be interesting to see the jury compare the "before and after" images. I sure hope that peeing in the parking lot shot gets into some photo montage. I don't care if she's wearing a wimple then, it just won't fly.

Puking into he toilet, with that caption, "I'm never gonna live this down."

 

[Valhall]

Thanks, lin. I actually found it and was just coming back to comment when I read your post.

I'm sorry, but I can't be as cordial as you about this. To lift that statement from that context is at best disingenuous. I'm not sure why this statement would be left out...

"Police investigators photographed the duct tape and the remains before dismantling them."

That's about as clear as it can get. The defense has photographs of the remains and duct tape AS IT WAS DISCOVERED. If LE also supplied photographs of various positions they believe the duct tape could have been in - photographs that were taken after the remains and duct tape were removed from the site - BULLY FOR THEM...that means they gave the defense more than they actually needed to. Because in the defense's words "SPECULATING A THEORY IS NOT DISCOVERY!"

Just a full bunch of bull-hockey.

 

[whiteangora]

Seems to me that there are an awful lot of assumptions being made, not only by the defense but by the interpretations of their motions.

 

[doogiesgirl]

Well it took me forever to find this but I knew I heard the judge tell this to JB:

http://www.wftv.com/video/18292385/index.html


This is an emergency motions hearing that took place on Dec 16th, 2008. JB is complaining that LE keeps telling him they will be done the next day but as we all know they kept finding more bones, which meant that they could not finish up until they had gone over that area with a fine tooth comb, and JB wants the judge to order that his experts be allowed into/onto the active crime scene. At about the 23:25 mark Judge SS basically tells JB he can't help him as if LE does not do an exhaustive job that JB will come back and say LE's investigation of the remains area was completely shoddy and incompetent. Judge SS also tells JB that taking his experts to the area probably only spurred LE on to continue in earnest. Judge tells JB that he can't assist him in interfering into LE's investigation of a murder! And that LE is entitled to be there until they do all they need to do no matter how long that takes. He tells JB that is LE's obligation and he will not interfere with that.

God Bless you Judge SS!
Anyway thought you all might relish this.



Also must add.....does JB have MPD or something? He has kept KC from visiting her family for how long and now he wants his client to visit with family but doesn't want it taped. Yeah, let's do that for this murdering mother--sounds fair to me. NOT. Does he have screws loose or something?
And he and his clients family are the ones doing interviews. He is the lawyer who fought the gag order. Wow.....just wow. I am wondering if KC is beginning to lose it in jail-----JB told KC what she wanted to hear, but I bet AL isn't. Is reality finally sinking in to KC's warped mind? Maybe JB's initial Svengali like control over her has maxed out.

Just My Humble Opinions of course.

 

[Spangle]

No worries I can splain it Lucy. Boy you do not have to tell me about posting ideas as fact, i spend a good part of my time here asking for back up.
Opinions get carried as fact and I spend a lot of time sorting that out.

We have 2 different situations…

1.If documentation or a link is requested for information presented as fact and the poster refuses, do not keep asking over and over and over. If you ask once or twice for links to information presented as fact and it is not provided. alert the post and we will look into it and talk to the poster.
We have had posters post information continually as fact when it was not, so it is really important that those posts are brought to our attention by way of an alert. If it continues there will most likely be a vacation involved..but that;'s why we need to know about it if it is done on an ongoing basis. Sometimes it is a misunderstanding and sometimes it is malicious.

Sometimes a poster may have you on ignore.

2.If you ask a general question about why someone feels the way they do and they choose not to answer, that is their choice and there is nothing to be done about it.

So to recap, if it is a general question that they do not choose to answer, that is their choice and there is no need to badger them over and over to answer the question.

If it is opinion posted as fact and a link is not provided and you ask for one, once maybe twice, then just report it and move on and do NOT respond.

This all just leads to arguments and hostility. Just treat each other like you might when you have a guest over for coffee and you are having discussion. Politely and with some respect. if you don't have any respect, just ignore and don't invite them over for coffee LOL.

THANKS!
Next time you guys have to respond to this issue, can you post THIS response. Or something like it. It explains much better. I was going to go into detail as to why. But I think if you think about it, you might understand alot of what I was going to say.

 

[Leila]

Lyons literally claimed on the courthouse steps in a press conference that she was new to the case, but certain that "Florida law does not allow them to ask for the death penalty in this case". She said she would be filing, "Many, many" motions regarding this, and now she and her law students have gotten several of them prepared. I remember right about that time Baden and Baez went on national TV morning shows and said things to the effect that this should not be a death penalty case because it is not a case of a serial murderer. They never actually research the law in their state before making claims like that, because that is not the thresh-hold, whatsoever. The judge shows an amazing amount of patience with them when they argue things in front of him that are not based on law, and they never ever seem to prove up what they are arguing. I was so hoping that once the professor got on the case things would be handled more professionally, but it is clear all that they do is to play to potential jurors. Do you think so? This is O/T but my thoughts keep going to Jesse, I hope he is preparing to defend himself. The defense lets little bits slip out that they are planning to name someone else (rather than Zanny the Nanny) to offer up reasonable doubt, and I think they have a bullseye on that kid's forehead.

I agree that Jesse is a target and has been ever since Cindy told Yuri that she thought Zanny was either Jesse or Amy. Cindy has continued to make disparaging comments about JG, saying she was suspicious of him.

I'm confident that LE has thoroughly investigated JG and has cleared him, as well as the other friends and acquaintances that the defense might point the finger at.

LE has to investigate everyone - family, friends, and even acquaintances who only knew Casey in passing. We don't know the extent of LE's investigations, but I'm sure they were extensive. If the defense tries to target anyone else, other than Casey, I'm sure the prosecution will be able to refute any accusations with factual evidence.

The defense is looking for a defense for their client, and it looks like they don't have one. So far all they've done is to attack the integrity of the LE investigation, and have claimed somebody else did it, and neither one of those is going to fly.

 

[RR0004]

She did, but she also said Caylee had a similar dress to the Disney dress. None of this is going to get her off. Just like all the other evidence from the car, and the bones that they wanted to do their own testing on, until LE is finished with it they don't get it. Blankets don't determine identity, DNA does. If they had found her skeletonized remains intact in the clothes George claimed to have seen her in on the 16th they would still have to test them. When DNA is available for testing, that is how they do it. If not they try with dental records. The items surrounding her (especially in a place where so much trash is dumped, look how much had nothing to do with the case) may provide clues, but that doesn't mean that they def belong to her. I know the blanket was hers, but before a positive scientific id, the blanket is no basis for identification.

Just more circumstantial evidence, perhaps, tying her to the crime? Did we ever hear whether or not they were able to match lot numbers?