JBaez requests Ex Parte Hearing with Judge Strickland

[SoSueMe]

Did you say TEN depos in ONE week?

Insane, isn't it? ***No way Jose***

 

[Balthazar]

I'm getting the feeling this has something to do with someone's mental health.

I agree. I am theorizing that the defense will present a case in which Casey was being stalked by someone she knew and that person is the guilty party in this case. I think they will claim that since Casey knew her stalker and couldn't imagine that the stalker would hurt Caylee, Casey thought she could "handle it" herself as she told the 911 operator. I think it's also important for everyone to remember that while the evidence looks very damning, that would be because this is ONLY the prosecutions case that we have seen. But we only have half of the story because Casey has withheld the truth, yet over and over again, we are hearing her attorneys say that she is innocent - not that she is not guilty, but innocent. The attorneys know full well the meaning of not guilty versus innocent, so I find that very interesting. I also find it very intriguing that here is no direct evidence so far. Everything is circumstantial, which I believe makes this case so very fascinating.

 

[SoSueMe]

Hornsby said he thinks it's a smart move by Baez because "he sees something everyone else is missing, but he doesn't want to tip the state off to what he's going to raise at trial."

OK...JB wants to get records that aren't gonna be included in discovery documents....he wants to do this by meeting ex parte with SS to facilitate getting this info....
I'm still not gettin this though, doesn't he need to hand this info over to the state, anyway?? ("Info" being the records he wants to get) Or can he just "raise it at trial" by springing this info on them??

Oh for crying out loud, if JB had anything that would exonerate his client, he would have taken it to the SA by now. JMO

I thought he was doing 10 depositions this week? Has he done them already? He must be SUPERLAWYER.

MyTinkieGirl, please forgive me. My outburst was not directed toward you, but rather toward JB. That man is getting on my last nerve. I'm so tired of his antics and the trial hasn't even started.

 

[Balthazar]

Ok, I had a bit of a twisted thought. Now you guys who know the case much better than me will probably say this is so far left field that its out of the ball game, but..

Is it possible that JB has finally realised that KC is in fact guilty, and that she's been spinning stories the whole time. At first he believed her, but now he's had a epiphany. However, its too late to step out of the case without causing major damage, and so he is deliberately setting up a pattern of behaviour that will allow an appeal of ..is it called..ineffective counsel? Then, when everything is done and dusted, he can tell the world that he sacrificed his future career prospects for his client. Or maybe he thinks he'll make enough out of a book deal and doing the circuit of talk shows, that the lack of future legal clients wouldn't be a problem. Any thoughts?

Edited to add: So he has asked for this meeting with the judge, knowing it will be knocked back but it helps demonstrate ineffective counsel?

Defense attorneys don't care if their client is guilty or innocent. The key job of the defense attorney is to make the prosecution prove their case. Baez is not sacrificing his career, he's doing exactly what a defense attorney is supposed to do.

 

[amethyst221]

I agree. I am theorizing that the defense will present a case in which Casey was being stalked by someone she knew and that person is the guilty party in this case. I think they will claim that since Casey knew her stalker and couldn't imagine that the stalker would hurt Caylee, Casey thought she could "handle it" herself as she told the 911 operator. I think it's also important for everyone to remember that while the evidence looks very damning, that would be because this is ONLY the prosecutions case that we have seen. But we only have half of the story because Casey has withheld the truth, yet over and over again, we are hearing her attorneys say that she is innocent - not that she is not guilty, but innocent. The attorneys know full well the meaning of not guilty versus innocent, so I find that very interesting. I also find it very intriguing that here is no direct evidence so far. Everything is circumstantial, which I believe makes this case so very fascinating.

It means absolutely nothing to me that her lawyers say she is "innocent" instead of "not guilty" in the media. They are trying to give people the belief that they "know" better so it must be true, and to persuade potential jurors in advance of trial. This is the very reason that rules of professional responsibility totally preclude an attorney from making any such statement in court, at trial. It is NOT evidence of anything.

 

[watcher9]

I agree. I am theorizing that the defense will present a case in which Casey was being stalked by someone she knew and that person is the guilty party in this case. I think they will claim that since Casey knew her stalker and couldn't imagine that the stalker would hurt Caylee, Casey thought she could "handle it" herself as she told the 911 operator. I think it's also important for everyone to remember that while the evidence looks very damning, that would be because this is ONLY the prosecutions case that we have seen. But we only have half of the story because Casey has withheld the truth, yet over and over again, we are hearing her attorneys say that she is innocent - not that she is not guilty, but innocent. The attorneys know full well the meaning of not guilty versus innocent, so I find that very interesting. I also find it very intriguing that here is no direct evidence so far. Everything is circumstantial, which I believe makes this case so very fascinating.

What is the difference between not guilty and innocent?

 

[eddeva]

I am theorizing that the defense will present a case in which Casey was being stalked by someone she knew and that person is the guilty party in this case. I think they will claim that since Casey knew her stalker and couldn't imagine that the stalker would hurt Caylee, Casey thought she could "handle it" herself as she told the 911 operator.

*resp. snipped.
this version of accounts in no way explains casey's behaviour.
if you have ever been the victim of a crime committed against you by someone you 'know', the very first thing you realize is that you don't know them, you never did, and you're keenly aware that you have no idea what this 'stranger' is capable of. it's terrifying.

 

[snow_walker]

This issue is much like my dog insisting she is "innocent" when I charged her with breaking my cut glass vase this morning.. The evidence againt her is that I heard a crash, went running into the dining room.. there she sat beside a pile of glass fragments, with a pink Chysanthamum between her teeth.. but staring hard in the opposite direction.
The case against her is purely circumstantial, in that she has been known to pull flowers out of vases before, she was the only critter in the room at the time, and whenever something gets broken around here, she is always the one sitting beside or on top of the mess.

In her defense, no one actually saw her break it, and she WAS staring hard in the opposite direction from where the vase was sitting.

That may indeed mean she is 'not guilty' .. but add to that, that the cat was harbouring hard feelings towards the dog, (as the dog had chased her upstairs last night..) clearly the cat had broken the vase and vanished from the scene in that mysterious way cats have, and was trying to incriminate the poor hapless dog.. clearly the dog is not only 'not guilty', she is innocent!

 

[smolea]

This issue is much like my dog insisting she is "innocent" when I charged her with breaking my cut glass vase this morning.. The evidence againt her is that I heard a crash, went running into the dining room.. there she sat beside a pile of glass fragments, with a pink Chysanthamum between her teeth.. but staring hard in the opposite direction.
The case against her is purely circumstantial, in that she has been known to pull flowers out of vases before, she was the only critter in the room at the time, and whenever something gets broken around here, she is always the one sitting beside or on top of the mess.

In her defense, no one actually saw her break it, and she WAS staring hard in the opposite direction from where the vase was sitting.

That may indeed mean she is 'not guilty' .. but add to that, that the cat was harbouring hard feelings towards the dog, (as the dog had chased her upstairs last night..) clearly the cat had broken the vase and vanished from the scene in that mysterious way cats have, and was trying to incriminate the poor hapless dog.. clearly the dog is not only 'not guilty', she is innocent!

:clap:....awesomeness....:clap:

 

[Paintr]

This issue is much like my dog insisting she is "innocent" when I charged her with breaking my cut glass vase this morning.. The evidence againt her is that I heard a crash, went running into the dining room.. there she sat beside a pile of glass fragments, with a pink Chysanthamum between her teeth.. but staring hard in the opposite direction.
The case against her is purely circumstantial, in that she has been known to pull flowers out of vases before, she was the only critter in the room at the time, and whenever something gets broken around here, she is always the one sitting beside or on top of the mess.

In her defense, no one actually saw her break it, and she WAS staring hard in the opposite direction from where the vase was sitting.

That may indeed mean she is 'not guilty' .. but add to that, that the cat was harbouring hard feelings towards the dog, (as the dog had chased her upstairs last night..) clearly the cat had broken the vase and vanished from the scene in that mysterious way cats have, and was trying to incriminate the poor hapless dog.. clearly the dog is not only 'not guilty', she is innocent!

Hey! Give the puppy a break. She was obviously framed! The cat wrote a script. She threatened to destroy the dog's chew toy if the poor dog didn't hold the flower. The dog is the real victim here, not your broken vase or you for missing the vase and cleaning up the mess. That pup should be named 'Dog of the Year' when the real culprit is discovered(no doubt hiding under your bed)

 

[LancelotLink]

I totally respect the knowlege and acumen of Chezhire and JWG.

My own take? The wily Baez has seen too many vintage tv shows in his office. He sees himself in a "Perry Mason" courtroom moment where he shows the identity of the killer (or whatever) in the last few seconds, to the total astonishment of millions--including the befuddled judge and that ratty SA. Some credit is due to his exellent PI, of course. : )

We have seen too well how SURPRISE! works for foxy Mr. Baez--or should I say his erstwhile client, Mr. Diaz has seen it very well first hand. He took his conviction very hard, btw.

Good luck, "foxy" Baez.

Peel!
Thanks! Now I have the theme from Perry Mason in my head! :clap:

 

[nyvictoria]

What is the difference between not guilty and innocent?

I'm not a lawyer so FWIW, innocent means the person did not commit the crime. Not guilty = can't be convicted of the crime.

 

[LancelotLink]

Since he filed this yesterday shouldn't be up on the county website already? Also,don't you think the judge would have responded by now??

I have yet to read the rest of this thread, so if this is a repeat, I apologize. I found the ex-parte listing in the docket. Only now I'm confused.
This is for case number- 08-CF-0010925-O, where Casey is charged with neglect of a child and lying to LE.

3/30/2009 A MOTION TO SEEK EX PARTE HEARING

 

[LancelotLink]

Hey! Give the puppy a break. She was obviously framed! The cat wrote a script. She threatened to destroy the dog's chew toy if the poor dog didn't hold the flower. The dog is the real victim here, not your broken vase or you for missing the vase and cleaning up the mess. That pup should be named 'Dog of the Year' when the real culprit is discovered(no doubt hiding under your bed)

I agree! This pup is innocent! Anyone can see how courageous he was in trying to rescue the flowers before they were dashed to the floor. This crime was carried out by a scurrilous, shaggy haired, one-armed squirrel perpetrator. We ask that all charges be dropped.

 

[Rebound]

Hey! Give the puppy a break. She was obviously framed! The cat wrote a script. She threatened to destroy the dog's chew toy if the poor dog didn't hold the flower. The dog is the real victim here, not your broken vase or you for missing the vase and cleaning up the mess. That pup should be named 'Dog of the Year' when the real culprit is discovered(no doubt hiding under your bed)

We totally missed the squirrel, who was framing the dog AND the cat.

 

[mysteriew]

I believe that JB is going to go for insantity- a last ditch attempt. He will plead that KC got pregnant, wanted to abort and was 'forced' by CA to have the baby. After Caylee was born, KC felt she lost her mother's and father's love because it became "all about Caylee" and she 'snapped'. And I think he is trying to hide his alleged defense from the prosecution hoping they will be unprepared for that defense at trial. :crazy:

Thus the reason for the distance between KC and the family and the reason she is refusing visits, there appears to be a distance and distrust between JB and the family. And remember JB's statement something about being shocked when we heard the whole story? He will try to play her as the poor, misunderstood child- too young to be a mother, too young and immature for the responsibility, and under pressure from her parents. She 'snapped'. She is not legally responsible because she wasn't in her right mind and didn't intend to kill Caylee, she just wanted her parents love back. (It won't work, but it's an alleged defense.)

Does anyone know if KC ever recieved counseling- perhaps while she was a minor? If so he may be having trouble obtaining records from her counselor, and doesn't want to supoena the record because if he does the prosecution will learn his alleged defense strategy.

 

[eddeva]

This issue is much like my dog insisting she is "innocent" when I charged her with breaking my cut glass vase this morning.. The evidence againt her is that I heard a crash, went running into the dining room.. there she sat beside a pile of glass fragments, with a pink Chysanthamum between her teeth.. but staring hard in the opposite direction.
The case against her is purely circumstantial, in that she has been known to pull flowers out of vases before, she was the only critter in the room at the time, and whenever something gets broken around here, she is always the one sitting beside or on top of the mess.

In her defense, no one actually saw her break it, and she WAS staring hard in the opposite direction from where the vase was sitting.

That may indeed mean she is 'not guilty' .. but add to that, that the cat was harbouring hard feelings towards the dog, (as the dog had chased her upstairs last night..) clearly the cat had broken the vase and vanished from the scene in that mysterious way cats have, and was trying to incriminate the poor hapless dog.. clearly the dog is not only 'not guilty', she is innocent!

:clap::clap::clap:

POST OF THE DAY

:clap::clap::clap:​

 

[watcher9]

I'm not a lawyer so FWIW, innocent means the person did not commit the crime. Not guilty = can't be convicted of the crime.

Thank you for your simple answer. It was very helpful. I did like the dog and cat answer also.

 

[Paintr]

We totally missed the squirrel, who was framing the dog AND the cat.

I totally forgot the squirrel!

Wonder if MN would defend this poor pooch pro bono.

Maybe one of the great legal minds on here would represent the cat.

 

[Intermezzo]

No, I don't. I think it's some other entity. And JB DOES not what the SA to know what that entity is yet. If it were to get the FBI files there would be NO need to have a hearing w/o the SA present.

Agreed.
http://www.wesh.com/caseyanthony/19054582/detail.html

snipped from article.
"All along, Baez has said he knows information that will help explain why Casey Anthony didn't report Caylee missing for a month -- and why Casey Anthony didn't kill her daughter."

"Baez wants to explain why he is requesting to subpoena certain records that he believes may be critical to Casey Anthony's defense, but he wants to block those records from being made public because he doesn't want to divulge what Casey Anthony's defense will be."

"He wants somebody's records and he does not want to say who. Apparently they won't give it to him if he's tried to through other channels," criminal defense attorney Richard Hornsby said."

Could this have something to do with Jesse or Ricardo?

I may be wrong and correct me if I am but....Did Baez file a motion to obtain Jesse's DNA(medical records) and another to get his hands on Ricardo's computer?