Defense wants prosecutor Jeff Ashton held in contempt

[RR0004]

Good point! I just read the back ... where Ashton writes "... just as now, there was no doubt in my mind that Casey had killed this beautiful little girl." I find it interesting that he can still boldly accuse her of murder even though she was found not guilty.

He still firmly believes in the case. IMHO, he is a person who is committed to the truth..."not guilty" does not mean "innocent". We know that...and I imagine that he does, too.

 

[chefmom]

Question:

Regarding the sealed documents Mason is complaining Jeff Ashton used - since Mr. Ashton actually conducted these depositions - isn't it a pretty fair assumption to think Jeff remembers them extremely well, probably made notes during the depositions and wouldn't need the sealed documents to make comments about them in his book?

Answer - Yes! :innocent:

ITA! Also, I can't help but feel that the publisher, Harper Collins, I believe, would have a host of attorneys on their payroll who would have looked into the legalities of these statements before publishing and releasing the book. Seeing as how KC was found NG, I'm sure they would have covered their bases. JMO

 

[chefmom]

Yes it is safe to say that .Anyone that doesen't like the ugly pictures of a baby killer on JA's book cover can do what I did ... Put duct tape across the pictures ... across her mouth and nose ... If only ................

Omg! Very original! Love it!

:floorlaugh:

 

[Nore]

Omg! Very original! Love it!

:floorlaugh:

------------------------

I think Mason is chewing about this to keep fca in the limelight. He didnt think far enough to realize he'd help sell Ashtons book. :floorlaugh:
I bought one also.......:great:

 

[otto]

------------------------

I think Mason is chewing about this to keep fca in the limelight. He didnt think far enough to realize he'd help sell Ashtons book. :floorlaugh:
I bought one also.......:great:

According to Mason, he hadn't read the book at the time that he filed the complaint (unless I misunderstood). If that's the case, he is in no position to evaluate whether the content was based on memory and notes or transcripts. As to whether Ashton is profiting from his book, obviously a profit is being made from the book (thanks to Mason for boosting sales). Unless there is a specific stiuplation that retired prosecutors cannot write books about their previous work, based on their notes and recollections, I don't see a problem.

I wonder what Ashton was alluding to when he said to wait for the big news in the New Year. I do hope it's something that puts Baez in his place.

 

[rossva]

Mason is basing his filing the motion on the fact the Orlando Sentinel petioned to have the files unsealed, claiming Ashton has revealed what was sealed in his book. And apparently, per Mason's motion, there was a not for profit stipulation that Ashton has violated. BBM

<snipped>

"In the latest motion, Mason acknowledged that he hasn't read Ashton's book, but references a motion filed by the Orlando Sentinel earlier this week, in which the news organization seeks to unseal those two key depositions.

"Mr. Ashton's violation of this Court's Order has now been used as a justification for a request to unseal materials that this Court has determined fits the legal criteria for nondisclosure," Mason's motion said.

"This Court issued a clear directive ('sealed means sealed'). Mr. Ashton has now violated this Order twice; once based on the flawed justification that somehow revealing 'substantive information' from the depositions was not a violation of the Order. The second violation was strictly for profit. Moreover, the continued dissemination of Mr. Ashton's book is an ongoing violation of this Court's Order."

<snipped>

Sentinel attorney Rachel Fugate argues in the motion that Ashton "authored a book in which he discussed the substance of the sealed depositions, which came from his memory and his notes."

"At this point in the proceedings, there is no basis to continue the sealing of these depositions," Fugate argues. "Any sealing order must be narrowly tailored to accomplish its purpose. A sealing order is no longer necessary to protect Ms. Anthony's fair trial rights."

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com..._danziger-and-weitz-casey-anthony-depositions

According to Mason, he hadn't read the book at the time that he filed the complaint (unless I misunderstood). If that's the case, he is in no position to evaluate whether the content was based on memory and notes or transcripts. As to whether Ashton is profiting from his book, obviously a profit is being made from the book (thanks to Mason for boosting sales). Unless there is a specific stiuplation that retired prosecutors cannot write books about their previous work, based on their notes and recollections, I don't see a problem.

I wonder what Ashton was alluding to when he said to wait for the big news in the New Year. I do hope it's something that puts Baez in his place.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

I don't know of any law that prohibits a RETIRED prosecutor to write a book about any aspect of his career. If there were one, we never would have had many fascinating books. Think "Helter Skelter" by Vincent Bugliosi!

I also believe Jeff has other books to write. I'd love to read more about the case where he was the first to use DNA evidence in a US trial. Back then, DNA testing was nowhere where it is today and he got a conviction on it. When challenged, it held up under more refined testing.

Mason's motion, IMO, is to keep as many of Casey's secrets as possible to put in his book, if he ever gets a publisher or decides to self-publish.

OT, but Judge Munyon has affirmed Casey's right to take the 5th while her appeal is underway. How can the defense shop her "story" where she will answer all questionIs? LOL! Easy answer, there's no law about lying to the media!

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I must say, from the other rulings in this case, as well as the civl case (now)....it seems very likely that JA will be held in contempt. JB will skate by on the dormant contempt charges....Casey will not have to answer any of the questions in her civil case.... skittles fly out of unicorns' butts....and Florida seems to love child killers.

 

[suzihawk]

I must say, from the other rulings in this case, as well as the civl case (now)....it seems very likely that JA will be held in contempt. JB will skate by on the dormant contempt charges....Casey will not have to answer any of the questions in her civil case.... skittles fly out of unicorns' butts....and Florida seems to love child killers.

I so want to say, "never gonna happen" in reply to your post. But I said that about the possibility of OCA ever being acquited. So... who knows? She's obviously been considered some sort of special citizen not to be held accountable for any wrongdoing whatsoever.

 

[LambChop]

Mason is basing his filing the motion on the fact the Orlando Sentinel petioned to have the files unsealed, claiming Ashton has revealed what was sealed in his book. And apparently, per Mason's motion, there was a not for profit stipulation that Ashton has violated. BBM

<snipped>

"In the latest motion, Mason acknowledged that he hasn't read Ashton's book, but references a motion filed by the Orlando Sentinel earlier this week, in which the news organization seeks to unseal those two key depositions.

"Mr. Ashton's violation of this Court's Order has now been used as a justification for a request to unseal materials that this Court has determined fits the legal criteria for nondisclosure," Mason's motion said.

"This Court issued a clear directive ('sealed means sealed'). Mr. Ashton has now violated this Order twice; once based on the flawed justification that somehow revealing 'substantive information' from the depositions was not a violation of the Order. The second violation was strictly for profit. Moreover, the continued dissemination of Mr. Ashton's book is an ongoing violation of this Court's Order."

<snipped>

Sentinel attorney Rachel Fugate argues in the motion that Ashton "authored a book in which he discussed the substance of the sealed depositions, which came from his memory and his notes."

"At this point in the proceedings, there is no basis to continue the sealing of these depositions," Fugate argues. "Any sealing order must be narrowly tailored to accomplish its purpose. A sealing order is no longer necessary to protect Ms. Anthony's fair trial rights."

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com..._danziger-and-weitz-casey-anthony-depositions

The judge may have sealed the deposition because the doctor rendered an opinion not necessarily because of what KC claims to have happened. I would think the judge would have made it clear why he was sealing the depo. To tell them they could use their notes but to not tell them they were limited to revealing certain information only would seem unlikely. Why bother to seal the deposition if RA could have written about anything that was in that deposition. So could it have been the doctor's opinion that she was lying and that is why the judge wanted it to be sealed since one of the charges against her was lying to LE???? It was sealed before her trial and now she has an appeal so the judge may be keeping it sealed for that very reason. jmo

 

[LambChop]

He still firmly believes in the case. IMHO, he is a person who is committed to the truth..."not guilty" does not mean "innocent". We know that...and I imagine that he does, too.

Actually wasn't the verdict "not guilty" but we can't figure out why. They felt she is guilty of something just not sure how to charge her. So wasn't that the job of the State who's evidence they just did not want to believe. Much easier for them to convict her of lying, admit they know she lied but after waiting 3 years KC has suddenly had a eureka moment and told the truth (but not the whole truth). No wonder this jury was messed up. jmo

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I must say, from the other rulings in this case, as well as the civl case (now)....it seems very likely that JA will be held in contempt. JB will skate by on the dormant contempt charges....Casey will not have to answer any of the questions in her civil case.... skittles fly out of unicorns' butts....and Florida seems to love child killers.

LOL, gotta watch out for those Florida unicorns. (Heads up!)

 

[bayouland]

The judge may have sealed the deposition because the doctor rendered an opinion not necessarily because of what KC claims to have happened. I would think the judge would have made it clear why he was sealing the depo. To tell them they could use their notes but to not tell them they were limited to revealing certain information only would seem unlikely. Why bother to seal the deposition if RA could have written about anything that was in that deposition. So could it have been the doctor's opinion that she was lying and that is why the judge wanted it to be sealed since one of the charges against her was lying to LE???? It was sealed before her trial and now she has an appeal so the judge may be keeping it sealed for that very reason. jmo

Didn't the prosecution and defense agree to seal the depo's because they were too sensational?

I think I read that somewhere. Will look for the source.

 

[bayouland]

Didn't the prosecution and defense agree to seal the depo's because they were too sensational?

I think I read that somewhere. Will look for the source.

UPDATE:

Yes, it is in Ashton's book (chapter 18). Both sides agreed to seal the depositions because the allegations were so sensational. Perry agreed to seal the records at the request of both sides.

 

[LambChop]

UPDATE:

Yes, it is in Ashton's book (chapter 18). Both sides agreed to seal the depositions because the allegations were so sensational. Perry agreed to seal the records at the request of both sides.

I would not say that what JA revealed was "sensational" just another version of what KC believed "might" have happened. Not much different than what JB said in opening statements except KC (having no proof) just expressed an opinion that her father might have killed Caylee. We would have expected her to say as much.......so what really is in that report that both sides agreed not to reveal at trial because it was too sensational. There has to be something more that CM just does not want it unsealed and disclosed. If JA has already revealed this information than why fight having the reports unsealed?????? If the cat is out of the bag what difference would it make to not release those reports???

Anyone care to venture a guess???? jmo

 

[LambChop]

LOL, gotta watch out for those Florida unicorns. (Heads up!)

Oh brother, I knew there was a reason I didn't like Skittles. lol

 

[Aedrys]

I would not say that what JA revealed was "sensational" just another version of what KC believed "might" have happened. Not much different than what JB said in opening statements except KC (having no proof) just expressed an opinion that her father might have killed Caylee. We would have expected her to say as much.......so what really is in that report that both sides agreed not to reveal at trial because it was too sensational. There has to be something more that CM just does not want it unsealed and disclosed. If JA has already revealed this information than why fight having the reports unsealed?????? If the cat is out of the bag what difference would it make to not release those reports???

Anyone care to venture a guess???? jmo

This baffles me too. There must be something more in those depositions that the defense team doesn't want to get out, or this is just petty bullcarp because the defense and Casey are so immature about everything. I mean, what Ashton talked about was basically what was said at trial, only modified just a bit. I don't think anyone who read the book was surprised by what Ashton talked about from his notes of the depositions - the information really wasn't anything new. I don't understand how the defense can be upset about that. There must be something else there we don't know about that they are afraid of getting out if those depositions are unsealed, or maybe Casey threw a gigantic fit because Ashton dared to talk about those depositions, so the defense had to do something to make her stop texting them about it every two seconds, LOL. This is such a LAME motion to me.

Or maybe Mason is just mad that Ashton talked about those depositions before Mason could. It could be as petty as that, unfortunately. Maybe Mason was going to talk about those depositions in his book and make that a selling point and he's mad that Ashton blew that out of the water by talking about it first. I'm sure if Ashton got permisison to talk about it, Mason could retire himself and get permission to do the same thing.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

LOL, gotta watch out for those Florida unicorns. (Heads up!)

Thank you. I just did a big guffaw here at my desk. I needed that. Woke this morning on the wrong side of the bed and Anthonyland was getting to me.... :floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[Well Done 99]

I would not say that what JA revealed was "sensational" just another version of what KC believed "might" have happened. Not much different than what JB said in opening statements except KC (having no proof) just expressed an opinion that her father might have killed Caylee. We would have expected her to say as much.......so what really is in that report that both sides agreed not to reveal at trial because it was too sensational. There has to be something more that CM just does not want it unsealed and disclosed. If JA has already revealed this information than why fight having the reports unsealed?????? If the cat is out of the bag what difference would it make to not release those reports???

Anyone care to venture a guess???? jmo

I can't help thinking there's something in there related to paternity.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

I can't help thinking there's something in there related to paternity.

Or admissions that nothing in JB's opening fairytale was remotely true. Did I just call JB a fairy? :floorlaugh: