Defense Witness List

[beach]

RBM.

And do you think Ashton would be all warm and fuzzy and sympathetic about this when the one deposition is scheduled for tomorrow?

haha! I don't think JA would feel "warm and fuzzy" toward Baez if he came in bearing hot cocoa, a cashmere scarf and a 6' teddy bear.

However, JA is a professional and if the defense produced something .... and he could tell they were making a genuine effort... then, yes, I can see him agreeing to give them another 18-24 hours to comply with the rest before he called HHJP.

Like I said earlier, I am ONLY guessing here. I know these sort of things do happen behind the scenes, so to speak. So that is where that is coming from. I just cannot fathom that they plan on totally disregarding Judge Perry's order.

 

[Soju]

Perhaps the turquoise crayon for Dr Kobilinsky rolled off Baez's desk, so he can't be included anymore.

:behind:

:floorlaugh:

oh, man. I just choked on my pepsi when I read this, and now I have the hiccups. Thanks, numbers!

 

[beach]

I do not know if this is permissable ... but wonder if JB asked the Clerk's office not to file the Notice of his Expert witness info until tomorrow?

The other thing could be that Ashton thought the depositions were being done on Wednesday ... so Judge Perry said the info must be filed by JB on Tuesday noon.

But, the deposition of Dr. Fairgrieve is actually on Thursday at 9:00am via Skype.
So, maybe JB was allowed until Wednesday at noon to file the Expert info on both Fairgrieve and Dr. Bock. Dr. Bock's depo is Tuesday Dec 21st.

BBM
Re. bold: That is not allowed in jurisdictions where I have worked and I know that the Orange County clerk's office accepts faxed filings, so if he wanted it filed tomorrow morning (and I can't imagine why :waitasec then he could just fax it in.

The Order stated by noon on Tuesday, Dec. 14. I seriously doubt HHJP changed that...even verbally. When JA was proffering the date of Dr. Fairgrieve's depo IIRC, he said, "next week...I believe Wednesday...or maybe Thursday." Considering HHJP's mood, I don't think he cared a flip if it was Wed. OR Thur. when he made his order.

 

[Numbers]

haha! I don't think JA would feel "warm and fuzzy" toward Baez if he came in bearing hot cocoa, a cashmere scarf and a 6' teddy bear.

However, JA is a professional and if the defense produced something .... and he could tell they were making a genuine effort... then, yes, I can see him agreeing to give them another 18-24 hours to comply with the rest before he called HHJP.

Like I said earlier, I am ONLY guessing here. I know these sort of things do happen behind the scenes, so to speak. So that is where that is coming from. I just cannot fathom that they plan on totally disregarding Judge Perry's order.

ITA. But I can fathom that Baez totally missed the sense of urgency in the ruling.

 

[Jomo]

Court Docket updates (as of 10:30 AM)

12/15/2010 Response
to State's Motion for Clarification of Expert Witnesses

12/15/2010 Response
to State's Motion for Clarification of Expert Witnesses (Part 2)

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Court Docket updates (as of 10:30 AM)

12/15/2010 Response
to State's Motion for Clarification of Expert Witnesses

12/15/2010 Response
to State's Motion for Clarification of Expert Witnesses (Part 2)

My first thought is, I want to read these NOW!

My second thought is, aren't you supposed to file a respone to a motion prior to the hearing (in this case, the one on December 10).


Perry ruled in favor of the State and now, a day AFTER information about Fairgrieve and Bock was to be submitted, he decides to respond?

What am I getting wrong here? I'm so confused!:waitasec:

Ask and ye shall receive!

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/SKMBT_C45210121512020.pdf

 

[nums24]

First on cfnews13.com - New documents reveal Casey Anthony's defense strategy

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/new...uments-reveal-Casey-Anthonys-defense-strategy

Read Defense Response: http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/SKMBT_C45210121512020.pdf

The documents filed indicate, "He [Dr. Spitz] conducted a second autopsy on the decedent and found no signs of trauma and could not find a cause of death."

Defense expert Barry Logan, according to the defense filing would, "disagree with the methodology employed by the Oak Ridge Laboratory in their 'forensic report'."

 

[sumbunny]

After reading the newly filed defense expert witness list, it seems many of his experts are waiting on what the prosecution experts will testify to.
Is it just me?
http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/SKMBT_C45210121512020.pdf

Also, it seems he has some experts that seem to have the same expertise.

 

[ThinkTank]

First on cfnews13.com - New documents reveal Casey Anthony's defense strategy

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/new...uments-reveal-Casey-Anthonys-defense-strategy

Read Defense Response: http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/SKMBT_C45210121512020.pdf

Has the State's Motion for Clarification of Expert Witnesses been posted anywhere?

And has "Part 2" of the Defense' Response been posted?

12/15/2010 Response
to State's Motion for Clarification of Expert Witnesses

12/15/2010 Response
to State's Motion for Clarification of Expert Witnesses (Part 2)

 

[sumbunny]

Has the State's Motion for Clarification of Expert Witnesses been posted anywhere?

And has "Part 2" of the Defense' Response been posted?

12/15/2010 Response
to State's Motion for Clarification of Expert Witnesses

12/15/2010 Response
to State's Motion for Clarification of Expert Witnesses (Part 2)

5 pages on the link i posted above

Not sure about part 2

 

[ThinkTank]

My first thought is, I want to read these NOW!

My second thought is, aren't you supposed to file a respone to a motion prior to the hearing (in this case, the one on December 10).


Perry ruled in favor of the State and now, a day AFTER information about Fairgrieve and Bock was to be submitted, he decides to respond?

What am I getting wrong here? I'm so confused!:waitasec:

Ask and ye shall receive!

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/SKMBT_C45210121512020.pdf

JB certified that he sent this info by FAX to the State Attorney on Dec 14th (the day it was due, by noon), but did not file this with the Clerk until Wednesday, Dec 15th at 10:05AM. So, in my mind, he sorta met the obligation that the Judge gave him, to give the info to the State by noon on Tuesday. But, the Judge did say it was to be in the form of a "filed pleading" -- by noon on Tuesday.

I would like to see the State's original Motion for clarification of Expert Witnesses, which the Defense responded to, in 2 parts. I would like to see "Part 2" of the Defense Response.

 

[ThinkTank]

Originally Posted by ThinkTank

Has the State's Motion for Clarification of Expert Witnesses been posted anywhere?

And has "Part 2" of the Defense' Response been posted?

12/15/2010 Response
to State's Motion for Clarification of Expert Witnesses

12/15/2010 Response
to State's Motion for Clarification of Expert Witnesses (Part 2)

5 pages on the link i posted above

Not sure about part 2

Aren't the 5 pages the Defense Response?
I would like to read the STATE's Original Motion.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

JB certified that he sent this info by FAX to the State Attorney on Dec 14th (the day it was due, by noon), but did not file this with the Clerk until Wednesday, Dec 15th at 10:05AM. So, in my mind, he sorta met the obligation that the Judge gave him, to give the info to the State by noon on Tuesday. But, the Judge did say it was to be in the form of a "filed pleading" -- by noon on Tuesday.

I would like to see the State's original Motion for clarification of Expert Witnesses, which the Defense responded to, in 2 parts. I would like to see "Part 2" of the Defense Response.

I have a feeling that Part 2 contains the exhibits mentioned in the reply.

 

[nums24]

Has the State's Motion for Clarification of Expert Witnesses been posted anywhere?

And has "Part 2" of the Defense' Response been posted?

12/15/2010 Response
to State's Motion for Clarification of Expert Witnesses

12/15/2010 Response
to State's Motion for Clarification of Expert Witnesses (Part 2)

Sorry, I have not seen it yet. Maybe MuzikMan will get it today?

 

[zoey]

JB certified that he sent this info by FAX to the State Attorney on Dec 14th (the day it was due, by noon), but did not file this with the Clerk until Wednesday, Dec 15th at 10:05AM. So, in my mind, he sorta met the obligation that the Judge gave him, to give the info to the State by noon on Tuesday. But, the Judge did say it was to be in the form of a "filed pleading" -- by noon on Tuesday.

I would like to see the State's original Motion for clarification of Expert Witnesses, which the Defense responded to, in 2 parts. I would like to see "Part 2" of the Defense Response.

thats the problem I see...JB always does things "sorta" or "kinda"----:banghead:

 

[ThinkTank]

Originally Posted by ThinkTank

Has the State's Motion for Clarification of Expert Witnesses been posted anywhere?

And has "Part 2" of the Defense' Response been posted?

12/15/2010 Response
to State's Motion for Clarification of Expert Witnesses

12/15/2010 Response
to State's Motion for Clarification of Expert Witnesses (Part 2)

Aren't the 5 pages the Defense Response?
I would like to read the STATE's Original Motion.

OK, I think I get it now ... the State's Original Motion for Clarification was filed previously - the Defense just did not use the exact same TITLE in their Response(s).
The State's Motion was TITLED "Motion for Clarification/to Compel Compliance With Order for Additional Discovery - With Attachments."
The Defense Response was TITLED "RESPONSE TO STATE'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES".

12/01/2010 Motion
for Clarification/to Compel Compliance With Order for Additional Discovery - With Attachments

12/03/2010 Order
Addressing Motions to Compel Additional Discovery and Other Discovery Matters


12/09/2010 Order
Addressing Motions to Compel Additional Discovery and Other Discovery Matters


12/10/2010 Court Minutes
on State's Motion for Clarification to Compel Compliance with Order for Additional Discovery

12/13/2010 Order Granting
State's Motion for Clarification / to Compel Compliance with Order for Additional Discovery

Hopefully MuzikMan will post "Part 2" of the Defense Response - unless it is the Exhibits mentioned in Part 1 of the Response.

 

[watergirl]

Originally Posted by ThinkTank

Has the State's Motion for Clarification of Expert Witnesses been posted anywhere?

And has "Part 2" of the Defense' Response been posted?

12/15/2010 Response
to State's Motion for Clarification of Expert Witnesses

12/15/2010 Response
to State's Motion for Clarification of Expert Witnesses (Part 2)



Aren't the 5 pages the Defense Response?
I would like to read the STATE's Original Motion.

do you mean the one with the emails attached?

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5886360&postcount=146"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - List of Motions **List Only No Discussion**[/ame]

 

[beach]

My first thought is, I want to read these NOW!

My second thought is, aren't you supposed to file a respone to a motion prior to the hearing (in this case, the one on December 10).


Perry ruled in favor of the State and now, a day AFTER information about Fairgrieve and Bock was to be submitted, he decides to respond?

What am I getting wrong here? I'm so confused!:waitasec:

Ask and ye shall receive!

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/SKMBT_C45210121512020.pdf

CarolinaMoon, I'm not sure I would have titled it a "Response" to the SA's motion because as you say, it was filed after the hearing and after HHJP entered his order granting the SA's motion. Whatever they want to call it is okay with me as long as they filed the response and complied with the Judge's order, which is basically all this is.

 

[AZlawyer]

So...if a defense expert has reviewed the reports of the State's expert and his opinion is that he'll let you know IF the State's expert says anything false at trial, but that "hasn't happened yet"...doesn't that mean that the defense expert agrees with the report of the State's expert?

 

[cyberborg]

First on cfnews13.com - New documents reveal Casey Anthony's defense strategy

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/new...uments-reveal-Casey-Anthonys-defense-strategy

Read Defense Response: http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/SKMBT_C45210121512020.pdf

It is very interesting that in the case of Dr. Michael Freeman, the one IIRC that JA was confused about that JB provides no information at all really, unlike the other expert listings.

He is listed last and still listed as testifying in the area of forensic epidemiology.

Hmmmm? What is the Defense up to? They know enough to complete this filing to the same level of detail as the rest of the experts listed so ... want to play this one close to their chest and ... delay, delay, delay to minimize SA reaction / response.