Is the Prosecution brokering a deal with D. Casey?

[Searchfortruth]

IIRC, JS said that the state could file an investigative subpoena, but if JB wanted to be able to attend, he could simply put DC on the witness list. JS said at the hearing that the date could remain the same and LDB could file for an investigative subpoena; keep the date change the name.

However, we later heard the state was the one that cancelled his depo on Dec. 16. As far as I know, we don't know why. Whether it was to accommodate JB because he put DC on the witness list and wants to be there, or because the state is in negotiations with his attorney is up for grabs. I'd think LDB doesn't necessarily need to probe into any privileged info from JB and DC; it would be enough to simply verify that his psychic story is bogus and whomever he was speaking with on the phone was someone of interest. She can uncover just as much by eliminating scenarios as she can by being able to ask questions covered by confidentiality. If he tries to b.s. on this one, they can nail him for perjury, oui? This is where it all comes together, imo. I'll bet it has to do with what he told LE off the record.

BBM. This is what I was thinking, the sealed portion of his deposition with the state contains all they need.

I wonder if the state will want to expose everyone, during trial, that knew where the remains were. If family members knew, and I think some did, will the state question Dominic on this, during trial, and then the family members themselves ? It could get very interesting.

I wonder, since Jose seems to be linked directly into this, if he is becoming less of a lead attorney with time in this case, for this reason ? It wouldn't look very good for the main connection (to the remains site) to be Casey- Jose- Dominic, in front of the jury, when Jose is Casey's right hand man at trial. I don't know though, can the defense even bring Jose's name into it in front of the jury ?

 

[RR0004]

Something is just wrong here. Smells a little funky to me. I still maintain that imho a deal has been sought but just not publicized....but frankly I cannot understand the need for being all secret about it IF a deal has been made. What would be the strategy there in not putting out the message that a deal is "maybe" out there? Also, I have not one littlebitty proof of anything.

I remember my impression of what was unfolding in court...surprised would be the best way to describe it. I couldn't understand why the DA seemed so "accepting" to wait on this.

 

[noonie]

Get your popcorn and blanket ready for take off people! Count down to Zero! Yes

 

[steadychick]

I am not in disagreement with you, because of one thing in particular-The break in the recorded session of LE's interview with DC.

He may have told them something very important there, something that he has been avoiding since. Maybe something that would make him look like a turncoat to the A's and JB...but at the same time, having spoken this something to LE, they were able to make him feel comforted in the notion that they (LE) would look out for DC in the end. He felt relieved in their presence to tell them this story off the record.

He could have told them nothing and asked for an attorney during that break, but I don't think so....BC was there and seemed to want this information himself, and DC was poised to tell them the whole story, but was dragging his feet-LE asked if he would prefer it off the record, IIRC, and so they turned off the recorder.

So I am thinking he shared something that day, and like GA and his statements, it actually allies him with LE and the SA at the end of the day.

Your mention of BC being there brought something to mind. On more than one occasion he has said something to the effect that the A's don't know what happened, that they just want the truth, but that things are going to get more difficult for them and more upsetting. I can't remember the exact statement, but to me he was insinuating that the truth was coming out, and would be very difficult for them to accept -- like he knew already what was coming. Could it be that he "knows" because he was there when DC was questioned?

 

[Novice Seeker]

Did they cancel it because they had to issue a subpoena for investigative inquiry, rather than do the 'voluntary' deposition?

IIRC, part of the last hearing was to address this issue. The SA stated(my own summary) if need be they could and would subpoena DC on grounds of an investigative inquiry if forced to but that would prohibit Baez from being present under the law. In fairness the SA would prefer DC's voluntary deposition so that the defense could be present. A very short time after the hearing was concluded, the SA's office filed a motion to force DC to appear for an investigative inquiry b/c DC's attorney made it quite clear during the hearing that he would not sit for a deposition.

One for the SA..:woohoo::woohoo:

Novice Seeker

 

[LolaMoon08]

Your mention of BC being there brought something to mind. On more than one occasion he has said something to the effect that the A's don't know what happened, that they just want the truth, but that things are going to get more difficult for them and more upsetting. I can't remember the exact statement, but to me he was insinuating that the truth was coming out, and would be very difficult for them to accept -- like he knew already what was coming. Could it be that he "knows" because he was there when DC was questioned?

Is BC entitled to be at any questioning of DC because he was "working" for the Anthony's or did Dominic want him there? I ask this because I don't feel BC has a right to know if Dominic is working out some kind of deal with the SA. That should be DC's lawyers job and it should be between them and the SA.

I think the Anthony's know the truth but they will never, IMO, accept the truth because the truth is that their daughter murdered their granddaughter. They don't even think the remains that they had cremated are Caylee's. They think everyone from LE to the FBI to the ME are framing Casey. Which just boggles my mind.

I think BC knows the truth about what information DC has... not because he was in that room when DC was being interviewed but because he is George and Cindy's lawyer and has been witness to the many conversations and Emails (forwarded to him, as seen in the doc dump) that involved all five of them (Cindy, George, Lee, DC and BC... and more than likely JB).

If the SA is willing to offer DC a deal, I don't think that Cindy, George or BC would know about it until after it was officially done and the same goes for them releasing that information to us.

I really hope this is what is going on behind the scenes and I would love to be a fly on the wall in Cindy's house when she gets the news if this in fact what is going on. She is going to be irate.

Because we all know she flat out lied about not knowing that DC went out into the woods off of Suburban Drive until after Caylee's remains were found and the SA can prove it with or without DC because Lee admitted that his mom told him that DC went out there to search the woods before December 11th, 2008.

Did she lie because she thought by admitting to knowing would make her look guilty of knowing Caylee was out there... or did she lie because she sent him out there because she KNEW Caylee was out there? Hopefully we will find out.

 

[Novice Seeker]

Correct me if I'm wrong but IIRC when DC gave that interview with LE BC was with him b/c until that interview DC was under the delusion that HIS testimony would be above the law. After DC ran out of the jug of KC kool-aid Cindy had given him DC realized rut row and pulled out the yellow pages.

Something IMO is interesting is the seating arrangement every time there's a court hearing. DC always sits behind the prosecution and George,Cindy and BC sit behind Baez and stare straight ahead. During the last hearing DC at one point gets up and leaves and it appeared there was no verbal or visual acknowledgment. Has anyone else picked up on this????


Novice Seeker

 

[logicalgirl]

I have to go back in the threads - but I seem to remember RH stating the worst thing JB could do is add DCasey to his witness list because it would open up a huge can or many cans of worms if he was brought in as a defense witness. The state could then ask him at trial any questions about anything they want to - but as an investigative witness, the information would be limited to specific information only. Or am I having one of Casey's' "psychotic breaks"?
Can someone help me here? I've understood that the information DCasey would give the state under the investigative information would be information they can use to investigate, but is not information that can be directly introduced into the trial specifically and he wouldn't be a witness. For example he wouldn't be testifying about his relationship with Cindy. Anyone? I also think you may be right about a deal. DCasey has been hyper-twitchy for months.

 

[hroark2112]

I thought JB was still trying to spell "witness list" and couldn't be bothered to put one together beyond the prosecution's list. I haven't seen a new one from him yet, and the last one was meaningless.

 

[The World According]

When I watched the hearing what I took away from it was

The State asked Baez in advance of the hearing, if indeed he wanted to add Dom to their witness list, he answered that had not been decided.. I take that as a no.

Dom's lawyer argued that since he is not on the witness list the traditional subpoena would not work, and agreed that of course the State has the right to issue an investigative subpoena. The judge instructed the state to do so and he said go ahead and make use of the time you already have scheduled.

Again, the State reminded the court and Baez that this would make it a matter between Dom and the State and no Baez, period. Quickly the judge concurred.

Baez got confused and said if you are inclined to rule that we cannot be there I would object , of course I want to be there... I could make this all moot by adding him to my witness list ( no kidding Baez)

The judge respectfully explained he already had ruled and that since the state would not be inquiring about the period of time he claims to have employed Dom, it was basically irrelevant to him if the State wanted to depose him in this manner.

They ( Dom's lawyer, Miss Tennis, the State and the Judge were all very clear it seemed, the following week at the already scheduled time, Dom and Miss Tennis would come for a an investigative subpoenaed deposition, per the judge's order at this hearing.

Beaz left still confused it seemed, he may have even told one of the reporters that he was going to add Dom to the witness list, then mama bear or the other lawyers schooled him that they do not wish to release the witness list just yet.

Rut row
Because this type of depo by an investigative subpoena, is not going to be released to the public as the other type would have been , I believe it did happen on the time prearranged, according to the judge's order.

I am not a lawyer, this is my opinion. You have to listen carefully to that part of the hearing, it is hard because it so distracting watching Baez roll his eyes and make faces, etc. LOL! [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls_dUmQTgNM[/ame]
This is my favorite part, watch Baez:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAuXZ3jqJ70[/ame] They canceled the first depo, as a matter of fomality , as they issued the second subpoena per the judge's orders, and we do not see those, they are not public record. My guess.

 

[notthatsmart]

Something is just wrong here. Smells a little funky to me. I still maintain that imho a deal has been sought but just not publicized....but frankly I cannot understand the need for being all secret about it IF a deal has been made. What would be the strategy there in not putting out the message that a deal is "maybe" out there? Also, I have not one littlebitty proof of anything.

A deal for what? Why would Dc hide anything? He is the PI, I expect him to know a lot more than the rest of us. Why does he need a deal? What could have he done wrong where he would need a deal. I don't think its against the law for a PI to have info.

On the other hand, he has a contract with Kc and the A's. I would think it would be normal to keep all info secret for them. There may be some type of PI client priviledge thing going on here.

If I signed a contract with an attorney and the contract said I have to keep quiet about anything said, I would honor that contract. If furthermore it was protected by law (attorney client priviledge ), I would make sure I had an attorney to make sure the information is treated according to the law.
Just because the contract has ended, does not mean the info is up for grabs for anyone.

He is just trying to protect his clients. Thats an honorable thing to do.

 

[sleutherontheside]

A deal for what? Why would Dc hide anything? He is the PI, I expect him to know a lot more than the rest of us. Why does he need a deal? What could have he done wrong where he would need a deal. I don't think its against the law for a PI to have info.

On the other hand, he has a contract with Kc and the A's. I would think it would be normal to keep all info secret for them. There may be some type of PI client priviledge thing going on here.

If I signed a contract with an attorney and the contract said I have to keep quiet about anything said, I would honor that contract. If furthermore it was protected by law (attorney client priviledge ), I would make sure I had an attorney to make sure the information is treated according to the law.
Just because the contract has ended, does not mean the info is up for grabs for anyone.

He is just trying to protect his clients. Thats an honorable thing to do.

In our legal system, you are bound to tell the truth on the stand. Working for the Anthony family does NOT extend him priviledge unless they are attorney's and I missed that discussion. THe PI himself severed ties with JB. The only thing protected, is their discussion and work product. Additionally, a non-disclosure / confidentiality agreement does not extend to a court proceeding...only to regular conversation.

 

[notthatsmart]

In our legal system, you are bound to tell the truth on the stand. Working for the Anthony family does NOT extend him priviledge unless they are attorney's and I missed that discussion. THe PI himself severed ties with JB. The only thing protected, is their discussion and work product. Additionally, a non-disclosure / confidentiality agreement does not extend to a court proceeding...only to regular conversation.

Well yes I agree once on the stand, everyone has to give out the truth and the whole truth for the fact finding mission. It appears to me right now, which is not during court, that the SA wants to depose DC without JB being there. Why? and what deal could possibly be coming about? Do we think DC broke the law somehow and now he has to broker a deal? Why would he do that? Why does SA need to depose without Jb being there? I agree there is something fishy going on here, and I don't like it. I think depositions should be taken with both parties there.

It was a good thing that Jb was there during Ca deposition to tell her to zip it. She was about to give out info that a Judge had sealed. Sounded like to SA was going to allow it. Lets have a little respect for the Judge here.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Well yes I agree once on the stand, everyone has to give out the truth and the whole truth for the fact finding mission. It appears to me right now, which is not during court, that the SA wants to depose DC without JB being there. Why? and what deal could possibly be coming about? Do we think DC broke the law somehow and now he has to broker a deal? Why would he do that? Why does SA need to depose without Jb being there? I agree there is something fishy going on here, and I don't like it. I think depositions should be taken with both parties there.

It was a good thing that Jb was there during Ca deposition to tell her to zip it. She was about to give out info that a Judge had sealed. Sounded like to SA was going to allow it. Lets have a little respect for the Judge here.

Ummmmmmmmm lying in a deposition is perjury. You don't have to be on the stand. Lying to the SA during a subpoenaed interview is illegal. The State never said they didn't want JB there....but he would only be a guest...not part of the proceeding. As far as brokering a deal.............if he lied during his LE interview..he can be brought up on charges. His loyalty to the Anthony's is non-existant. He is being loyal to himself and covering his A$$.


As far as JS "letting" out sealed info. It was sealed from us...not from the parties involved. If an officer of the court can get someone to bring something up then it's free for the taking. THey were not doing anything shady. In court......it's called testimony.

 

[Just Jayla]

Correct me if I'm wrong but IIRC when DC gave that interview with LE BC was with him b/c until that interview DC was under the delusion that HIS testimony would be above the law. After DC ran out of the jug of KC kool-aid Cindy had given him DC realized rut row and pulled out the yellow pages.

Something IMO is interesting is the seating arrangement every time there's a court hearing. DC always sits behind the prosecution and George,Cindy and BC sit behind Baez and stare straight ahead. During the last hearing DC at one point gets up and leaves and it appeared there was no verbal or visual acknowledgment. Has anyone else picked up on this????


Novice Seeker

Yes, and strange because GA said in his state depo that he had not spoken to DC in months.

 

[Just Jayla]

Ummmmmmmmm lying in a deposition is perjury. You don't have to be on the stand. Lying to the SA during a subpoenaed interview is illegal. The State never said they didn't want JB there....but he would only be a guest...not part of the proceeding. As far as brokering a deal.............if he lied during his LE interview..he can be brought up on charges. His loyalty to the Anthony's is non-existant. He is being loyal to himself and covering his A$$.


As far as JS "letting" out sealed info. It was sealed from us...not from the parties involved. If an officer of the court can get someone to bring something up then it's free for the taking. THey were not doing anything shady. In court......it's called testimony.

Just like KC was initially arrested on (in part) charges of misleading LEO's.

 

[sleutherontheside]

I would venture that if there were going to be any "deal"......it would be that DC would answer truthfully and the State of FLorida would "overlook" his obstruction of justice, perjury, and anything else that he did. He would stay out of jail and go on about his life after this trainwreck finally pulls into the station.

 

[Novice Seeker]

A deal for what? Why would Dc hide anything? He is the PI, I expect him to know a lot more than the rest of us. Why does he need a deal? What could have he done wrong where he would need a deal. I don't think its against the law for a PI to have info.

On the other hand, he has a contract with Kc and the A's. I would think it would be normal to keep all info secret for them. There may be some type of PI client priviledge thing going on here.

If I signed a contract with an attorney and the contract said I have to keep quiet about anything said, I would honor that contract. If furthermore it was protected by law (attorney client priviledge ), I would make sure I had an attorney to make sure the information is treated according to the law.
Just because the contract has ended, does not mean the info is up for grabs for anyone.

He is just trying to protect his clients. Thats an honorable thing to do.

He lost any/all honor the moment he sat down with LE and attempted to LIE to LE. If that isn't enough, just throw on DC's investigation and attacks on innocent people rather than focusing his time on searching for the "Nanny". DC lost his professionalism when he crossed the line and developed personal relationships with some of the family members. Then there's the numerous contracts with Baez, the Anthony's, and KC. Isn't that something like double dipping?? Any detective of honor and morals would have done the ethical thing. Bring Caylee home...

Novice Seeker

 

[steadychick]

Is BC entitled to be at any questioning of DC because he was "working" for the Anthony's or did Dominic want him there? I ask this because I don't feel BC has a right to know if Dominic is working out some kind of deal with the SA.

IIRC, wasn't there a short period of time, including during this interview, when BC was acting as Dominic's attorney? Somehow they assumed that since they were all such good buddies (the A's and DC) that they could share the same attorney, that BC could look after all of thier best interests. It was sometime after this interview that DC decided he needed his own attorney.

 

[wonders]

Respectfully Snipped By Me.

I think the Anthony's know the truth but they will never, IMO, accept the truth because the truth is that their daughter murdered their granddaughter. They don't even think the remains that they had cremated are Caylee's. They think everyone from LE to the FBI to the ME are framing Casey. Which just boggles my mind.

IMO they could have had Caylee's remains independently DNA tested. Why they think anyone would believe that lie is mind boggling indeed.



Did she lie because she thought by admitting to knowing would make her look guilty of knowing Caylee was out there... or did she lie because she sent him out there because she KNEW Caylee was out there? Hopefully we will find out.

IMO she DID KNOW Caylee was there.
I will never understand why DC would put himself in such a situation, it's just crazy and I pray to God that every lie and misdeed will be exposed for Caylee's sake. Caylee is the only one any of these people should have been thinking about, instead they all do the cover my a-- thing.