Defense files motion to have 911 calls, party pix tossed

[JSR]

All today's motions have got me thinking about how in this case there is a history of distracting motions being hurriedly filed by the defense just before a devastating doc dump. Should we infer that Wednesday's doc dump is going to be very, very interesting?

Exactly what I was thinking. Is it Wednesday yet. Remember now that tomorrow's doc dump is all about DNA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[hroark2112]

Even if, and it's IMO a highly unlikely if, they exclude CA's statement about it smelling like a dead body in the car, there's still the tape of GA's interview with YM where he says "You never forget that smell once you've smelled it!" Not that GA's nose is calibrated, but as a former law enforcement officer who has smelled the odor of human decomposition before, I'm positive that statement will be allowed.

Of course, the issue of "31 days" will be easy to prove, with or without CA's call, and the photos of the tattoo are already in evidence. Personally, I think they're just grasping at straws hoping for something to get them a reversal on appeal, and IMO they're challenging the wrong evidence. I'm no lawyer, but I can't see it being productive to go after evidence that can be proven through other means.

The pre-disappearance photos are meaningless to the prosecution, and if the judge issues an order to not allow any pre-disappearance photos into evidence, the defense is cutting off their own nose. One would think they would WANT pre-disappearance photos allowed into evidence, showing the doting Mother of the Year!

Just my .03 here. I've been wrong before

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Even if, and it's IMO a highly unlikely if, they exclude CA's statement about it smelling like a dead body in the car, there's still the tape of GA's interview with YM where he says "You never forget that smell once you've smelled it!" Not that GA's nose is calibrated, but as a former law enforcement officer who has smelled the odor of human decomposition before, I'm positive that statement will be allowed.

Of course, the issue of "31 days" will be easy to prove, with or without CA's call, and the photos of the tattoo are already in evidence. Personally, I think they're just grasping at straws hoping for something to get them a reversal on appeal, and IMO they're challenging the wrong evidence. I'm no lawyer, but I can't see it being productive to go after evidence that can be proven through other means.

The pre-disappearance photos are meaningless to the prosecution, and if the judge issues an order to not allow any pre-disappearance photos into evidence, the defense is cutting off their own nose. One would think they would WANT pre-disappearance photos allowed into evidence, showing the doting Mother of the Year!

Just my .03 here. I've been wrong before

I wonder if pre dissapearance photos being excluded also mean the defense couldn't show stupid baby pics of casey to show how sweet and innocent casey was?

 

[Melly53]

Even if, and it's IMO a highly unlikely if, they exclude CA's statement about it smelling like a dead body in the car, there's still the tape of GA's interview with YM where he says "You never forget that smell once you've smelled it!" Not that GA's nose is calibrated, but as a former law enforcement officer who has smelled the odor of human decomposition before, I'm positive that statement will be allowed.

Of course, the issue of "31 days" will be easy to prove, with or without CA's call, and the photos of the tattoo are already in evidence. Personally, I think they're just grasping at straws hoping for something to get them a reversal on appeal, and IMO they're challenging the wrong evidence. I'm no lawyer, but I can't see it being productive to go after evidence that can be proven through other means.

The pre-disappearance photos are meaningless to the prosecution, and if the judge issues an order to not allow any pre-disappearance photos into evidence, the defense is cutting off their own nose. One would think they would WANT pre-disappearance photos allowed into evidence, showing the doting Mother of the Year!

Just my .03 here. I've been wrong before

I wondered the same thing. Surely Baez will want to use the pre-June photos of Casey and Caylee together to show what a "good mother" she supposedly was. uke:Yet how can the good pics be allowed if the party pics from the same time periods aren't. Isn't that prejudicial too?

I am not a lawyer but I don't think he has a snowballs chance in he$$ of getting the post June 15 pictures thrown out. The jury is going to want to know exactly what Casey was doing every moment of the 31 days that her daughter was missing when she was supposedly searching for her. When the jury gets those details, through witness testimony or whatever, then her partying ways are going to come out. IMO There is no way that her behavior can be hidden, pictures or no pictures.

The one thing I am curious about is wanting certain investigators statements suppressed. Is there any kind of legal precedence for something like that?? I mean the investigators work for the state and it is their job to gather the evidence both good and bad.

Like others have said, the defense is in deep do-do because they have nothing to work with in Casey's defense so they are just grasping at straws. I think they are going to need a whole lot of help to succeed in that area and I just don't see that happening. IMO it seems like Baez is wanting lady justice to not only be blind but unbelievable stupid as well.

 

[The World According]

HLN discussing this case right now.

THE PARTY GIRL PHOTOS

Attorney Jean Cesaraes is opining the photos when Caylee was missing will come in, at least some of them. The state was never going to even try to admit all of them and likely not the ones that are not close in time.

Attorney Mark Iglarsh opined that we should be glad to see the defense doing this. The more bases they cover, the less likely she can have the case later tossed out claiming ineffective counsel.

THE 911 TAPE

Caller: Her being a nurse, her husband being a copy CA knew what a dead body smells like, that tape should stay.
Host: Cindy tried to back up off of this and say she meant it smelled like rotting pizza.

Jean : Excited utterance


Mark: You don't have to be a father to feel..anyone with decency can hear it in her voice. It is coming in, it was an exited utterance, spontaneously made while she was immediately under the impression Caylee had been kidnapped.
This case does not hinge on the 911 call. We have the smell in the car from George in his LE interview, being a former cop ..he knows the difference between a dead body smell and rotting pizza. The state may not even use the 911 call in their case in chief and save it for impeachment or their rebuttal.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Mark also states that this call came right after CA had gotten the info from KC........he feels it should be legally admitted. That the information came from KC and would be considered credible.

 

[Searchfortruth]

I guess there will be a hearing on this matter ?

 

[Searchfortruth]

What about the pics of Casey shopping at Target, passing bad checks after Caylee went missing, with no Caylee in sight ? Casey's shopping cart contains no items for a toddler. Does the defense think this should be thrown out as well ? What about all of Casey's excuses to her friends about Caylee being with the nanny at the beach, at Disney World, etc...What about the fact that there are no outcry witnesses, Casey told noone that Caylee was missing. They must know that this is a joke and a waste of time for the court.

 

[LambChop]

Now if JB decides to use the "ugly coping" defense would SA be allowed to bring in the pre June pictures to show there was no difference in her behavior???

 

[The World According]

Now if JB decides to use the "ugly coping" defense would SA be allowed to bring in the pre June pictures to show there was no difference in her behavior???

That's a good one! I am still cracking up about Cecy saying Ugly Coping should be the name of a new drink!! [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KzNX0t5J20[/ame]

 

[Dear Prudence]

Even Jose's buddy Geraldo thinks Cindy's 911 statement regarding the car smelling like a dead body is an "excited utterance" and therefore deserves more credibility than Cindy's later statements. IMO, it will be allowed as evidence. Here is Geraldo's show about it on July 26, 2008 (even this early on Cindy was very transparent in her efforts at a cover-up for KC.) 6:20 mark for "excited utterance" discussion. http://www.youtube.com/user/bigjuicykungfu#p/u/259/1vLhUaYCetk

 

[butterfly1978]

I posted this on the other thread but am posting it here as well as it is about the 911 call. Just wondering why we have two threads for the same topic?

Did anyone else read on page 10 where it says
"In addition Casey Anothony's statement regarding how her daughter was taken 31 days ago by the nanny and that she had been looking for her using her own resources are also in narrative form, making them neither spontaneous or reliable." Then it goes on to say "the statements made by Cindy AND Casey are in narrative form, recalling events that have past and not the fact that anything is happening at the moment. BOTH Cindy and Casey answer questions when asked by the 911 operator, that there was time to reflect and therefore the statements are not admissible under an excited utterance hearsay objection."
After rereading this tonight what the defense is doing is , they are wanting the statement made by Casey herself about "the nanny" not admissible, that way they can lay the path for the SODDI defense, because they know there is no NFG, and they know that Casey herself said that was who had Caylee. The defense knows they can't try and say someone else did it when Casey herself stated on the 911 call that Zanny had her, and they can not defend that statement, so they want it to go away, so that they can say Kronk or someone else is responsible.

 

[Cat13067]

It is my humble opinion, that one of the most damning statements made by Cindy (a lay person):blushing: was telling Ryan (Casey's BF in Jacksonville) that her beloved "Mother of the Year" was in-fact, a SOCIOPATH and that he, Ryan, should have nothing further to do with her. Now that, my friends, is damning, layman or not!!! (Advice from Mother to BFF)

Also, what Cindy said to Amy in that car ride to go get KC, probably pretty damning stuff there as well.

I'm thanking you CA....keep talking. Now you will have to explain every word
you say when you take the stand.

 

[Dear Prudence]

I posted this on the other thread but am posting it here as well as it is about the 911 call. Just wondering why we have two threads for the same topic?

Did anyone else read on page 10 where it says
"In addition Casey Anothony's statement regarding how her daughter was taken 31 days ago by the nanny and that she had been looking for her using her own resources are also in narrative form, making them neither spontaneous or reliable." Then it goes on to say "the statements made by Cindy AND Casey are in narrative form, recalling events that have past and not the fact that anything is happening at the moment. BOTH Cindy and Casey answer questions when asked by the 911 operator, that there was time to reflect and therefore the statements are not admissible under an excited utterance hearsay objection."
After rereading this tonight what the defense is doing is , they are wanting the statement made by Casey herself about "the nanny" not admissible, that way they can lay the path for the SODDI defense, because they know there is no NFG, and they know that Casey herself said that was who had Caylee. The defense knows they can't try and say someone else did it when Casey herself stated on the 911 call that Zanny had her, and they can not defend that statement, so they want it to go away, so that they can say Kronk or someone else is responsible.

There is no way, in my opinion, the defense will be able to completely eliminate all references to Casey's story about the nanny, Zenaida. Casey's own written statement to LE has got to be admissable, doesn't it? Here's a link to Casey's statement, in her own writing, swearing it is the truth written voluntarily under no duress: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1473802/Statement---Casey-Anthony-Written-2008-0715

 

[butterfly1978]

There is no way, in my opinion, the defense will be able to completely eliminate all references to Casey's story about the nanny, Zenaida. Casey's own written statement to LE has got to be admissable, doesn't it? Here's a link to Casey's statement, in her own writing, swearing it is the truth written voluntarily under no duress: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1473802/Statement---Casey-Anthony-Written-2008-0715

I agree but I promise you they are going to try it. They are going to try and get that statement thrown out, and All statements referring to ZFG they are going to say is hearsay, and I betcha they will try and make those people who mention ZFG out to be liars themselves by showing where they all have spun stories.
I never said they were smart, I just think thats what they are going to do.

 

[okiedokietoo]

I posted this on the other thread but am posting it here as well as it is about the 911 call. Just wondering why we have two threads for the same topic?

Did anyone else read on page 10 where it says
"In addition Casey Anothony's statement regarding how her daughter was taken 31 days ago by the nanny and that she had been looking for her using her own resources are also in narrative form, making them neither spontaneous or reliable." Then it goes on to say "the statements made by Cindy AND Casey are in narrative form, recalling events that have past and not the fact that anything is happening at the moment. BOTH Cindy and Casey answer questions when asked by the 911 operator, that there was time to reflect and therefore the statements are not admissible under an excited utterance hearsay objection."
After rereading this tonight what the defense is doing is , they are wanting the statement made by Casey herself about "the nanny" not admissible, that way they can lay the path for the SODDI defense, because they know there is no NFG, and they know that Casey herself said that was who had Caylee. The defense knows they can't try and say someone else did it when Casey herself stated on the 911 call that Zanny had her, and they can not defend that statement, so they want it to go away, so that they can say Kronk or someone else is responsible.

If the ZFG (taken 31 days ago by the nanny) comments get thrown out, how would that effect the Defamation case?

 

[butterfly1978]

If the ZFG (taken 31 days ago by the nanny) comments get thrown out, how would that effect the Defamation case?

I don't know but these motions are for the murder case not the civil case so I think they would have to file a seperate motion in the civil case..... BUTTTT these statements will not get thrown out I just stated thats what I think they are trying to do.

 

[KenoshaKid]

I wonder if pre dissapearance photos being excluded also mean the defense couldn't show stupid baby pics of casey to show how sweet and innocent casey was?

Well, my response to those pictures was "Oh, gee, I wonder if Caylee will look like her mom at that age" - NOT!! Because she is DEAD NOW!

 

[TotallyObsessed]

What more proof of guilt is needed when KC's defense team is trying to throw out the carefully concocted lie about ZFG - the ENTIRE LIE - in order to bring in a new lie as a defense? Liar, liar = GUILTY AS SIN.

 

[truckengirl]

What more proof of guilt is needed when KC's defense team is trying to throw out the carefully concocted lie about ZFG - the ENTIRE LIE - in order to bring in a new lie as a defense? Liar, liar = GUILTY AS SIN.

EXACTLY! Also, if he is going to say that ZFG took Caylee was never KCs story then why when they went to court on the civil case did he not say then, "KC never said that a ZFG took Caylee" instead their comments were, "this is not the ZFG that took Caylee". There is no way in my opinion that JB is going to get the ZFG story to go away. Keep dreaming JB.