Legal Q&A for Rhornsby #2

[songline]

I am so glad I'm not the only one who remembers this, I was just discussing it with Muzikman. I remember Savage(but I thought it was Yuri) saying they had 1200 pics and George said "yeah she's done some bad things" It was a taped interview. But those pics have not materialized in discovery yet. And the taped interviews need to be replayed to hear the conversation, I don't have time. lol
WTH are they? For some reason this is driving me nuts, and maybe it could explain part of the motive.

It was my understanding based on anther forum that the photos are compromising nudes...
So they will never appear in the discovery....In fact it was GA who came upon this and it was those pictures that have resulted in confrontations, car chasing, and other things that led to fights. But I was not there just saying.....
I also said from the very beginning that I would not be shocked if there is an escort service she is tied in with. But the photos are not directly tied to a Caylee murder, just nudes....MOO

 

[JWG]

Mr Hornsby,
Want a laugh?
http://www.pr-inside.com/high-profile-criminal-defense-attorney-jose-r1605844.htm

(please comment)
Thanks

Larry Daniel (the host of that show) is the computer and cell phone forensics person on Baez's team.

 

[Macara]

from R.Hornsby's blog:
http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2009/11/30/the-clueless-wonder-strikes-again/

:woohoo:


Think I am starting to :blowkiss: you.

 

[Riley1833]

I have a few questions regarding Casey's incarceration that I hope someone can/will be able to answer.

1. her incomingmail - I understand that all her mail is opened and read by jail personnel understandably so. And I would think anything like a threat etc., would not be forwarded to her by jail personnel. My question is, if her mail is also read and perhaps censored by a member of the defense team and could they not allow her to read some mail?
2. her outgoing mail - is this also read by jail personnel? And would her defense team know who she is corresponding with?
3. - visits - is Casey or the defense team in charge of who would be allowed to visit her? If she said I want to see my brother could the defense team stop the visitation?
4. - Since the defense is allowed to take a computer into the jail now, what is she allowed to see or do on the computer? Is there wireless available for the defense team to hook up with?
5. - How much TV is Casey allowed to watch daily and is what she watched censored?

TIA Riley

 

[milliac]

Mr Hornsby,
Want a laugh?
http://www.pr-inside.com/high-profile-criminal-defense-attorney-jose-r1605844.htm

(please comment)
Thanks

hmmmm...I had no idea he had a Criminology degree and aspirations to be Federal LE or Secret Service. Wow...what happened to put him on the other side?

 

[100%Agave]

hmmmm...I had no idea he had a Criminology degree and aspirations to be Federal LE or Secret Service. Wow...what happened to put him on the other side?

Could someone explain to me exactly what makes a "High-profile defense attorney"?

Surely it takes more than one case that wouldn't have been high profile if he had kept his mug off the tv.

 

[RR0004]

Only thing I can think of is canvas gardening gloves.

Way back when I wondered if they were taken from the shed.

 

[whats the punch line]

Larry Daniel (the host of that show) is the computer and cell phone forensics person on Baez's team.

Larry Daniel didn't do the show, a Leslie did.

They had "tech" issues. Baez said he was in a hold queue, because he isn't tech savvy.

I have issue with this defense team calling the forensics "junk Science"
when Baez is claiming in this interview, that we have so many tests currently available, and juries want the forensic evidence.

Media is focused on the story, and bloggers, commenters are "grossly detached. He doesn't read blogs, he peruses them...for humor.

Here's a link to the page if anyone wants to listen to the interview.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/talkforensics

Quite honestly, I wasn't impressed

 

[whats the punch line]

hmmmm...I had no idea he had a Criminology degree and aspirations to be Federal LE or Secret Service. Wow...what happened to put him on the other side?

In the interview he said his girlfriend at the time

 

[babycat]

Way back when I wondered if they were taken from the shed.

I can definitely see her wearing gloves. I don't really see her risking touching poor little Caylee with her bare hands, in that state I don't even think it was about hiding fingerprints as much as it was about protecting her own hands.




Mr. Hornsby, even if Casey's fingerprints aren't on the tape, if no other fingerprints are also found on the tape, won't that negate the fact that Casey's weren't there? I mean, someone obviously put the tape on her. Just because no prints are found doesn't mean no one put her there.

ETA: I guess my point is...if there are no fingerprints found on the tape, it doesn't really help the defense at all if they are claiming someone else put her there. I mean, if they try to point the finger at a Zanny, Kronk, or Grund, the fact that their prints aren't on the tape, either, can't help, right? Especially since there is more evidence against Casey, circumstantial or not.

 

[whats the punch line]

I apologize in advance to those who my blunt language is about to offend, so turn away if you are squeamish.


And lets talk superhuman strength, imagine a dead limp body. It cannot be easy to maneuver and even harder to get inside a small bag. And based on the evidence, when she finally disposed of the body it was already decaying, which means there would have been bodily fluid. Someone was bright enough to either think in advance, or get the original laundry bag into black plastic bags - that takes two people.

Okay, I got started and i am finished because i just know someone helped her - someone with law enforcement experience is my guess.

Scroll by my post too if you don't like graphic posts.

First, I think it would be easier to place the body in the bags when it first occurred. You wouldn't have to pick the body up, you could roll the body.

second, it has been supposed by experts and testing, that the body was in the car up to 72 hours. I'm going to assume in the bags.

Rigor starts to set in 3-4 hours after death, and usually isn't complete untill 72 hours after death.

I'm of the opinion that rigor would have made it harder to remove the body from the trunk..I am opining that is why it was in the car so long.. It was a limp lifeless body the first 3-4 hours, but it wasn't again until maybe 48-72 hours later.

Sorry for being gross.

 

[rhornsby]

I finally finished the 1st thread and haven't seen this question asked yet, but we have discussed it in other forums.
IF KC was to accept a plea deal, would the SA require some sort of statement or explanation as to what happened? Would we ever find out what happened to Caylee?
Thank you for being here and answering our questions.

The State Attorney could condition a plea agreement on a proffer - meaning if she does not explain what happened they will not agree to the plea deal.

 

[whats the punch line]

But do this. Go grab a roll of duct tape, tear off three pieces, and place them on something.

Now ask yourself, if the FBI were to check those three pieces of duct tape six months from now, would the impressions from my fingertips still be present on the sticky side of the tape?

The answer is yes, and if you carried out my experiment, you would see your fingers touched the sticky part hundreds of time.

To further enhance your experiment, add a little dry erase marker to your fingertips.

 

[rhornsby]

I can definitely see her wearing gloves. I don't really see her risking touching poor little Caylee with her bare hands, in that state I don't even think it was about hiding fingerprints as much as it was about protecting her own hands.

Mr. Hornsby, even if Casey's fingerprints aren't on the tape, if no other fingerprints are also found on the tape, won't that negate the fact that Casey's weren't there? I mean, someone obviously put the tape on her. Just because no prints are found doesn't mean no one put her there.

ETA: I guess my point is...if there are no fingerprints found on the tape, it doesn't really help the defense at all if they are claiming someone else put her there. I mean, if they try to point the finger at a Zanny, Kronk, or Grund, the fact that their prints aren't on the tape, either, can't help, right? Especially since there is more evidence against Casey, circumstantial or not.

Well, I just know I would argue to a jury that she is not sophisticated enough to not only have thought to use gloves BUT actually have been able to accomplish not getting fingerprints anywhere.

That is what I would argue, it would be to the State to present evidence otherwise or argue convincingly the evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[Kimster]

Well, I just know I would argue to a jury that she is not sophisticated enough to not only have thought to use gloves BUT actually have been able to accomplish not getting fingerprints anywhere.

That is what I would argue, it would be to the State to present evidence otherwise or argue convincingly the evidence suggests otherwise.

From what I've seen, KC is too self-absorbed to allow her attorneys to imply she isn't sophisticated. If she won't allow them to say it, they won't use that defense, right?

 

[whats the punch line]

Well, I just know I would argue to a jury that she is not sophisticated enough to not only have thought to use gloves BUT actually have been able to accomplish not getting fingerprints anywhere.

That is what I would argue, it would be to the State to present evidence otherwise or argue convincingly the evidence suggests otherwise.

If I were a states attorney, I might argue that she was sophisticated enough to convince people she had a job, she had money, she could pass bad checks, and she had a nanny, create phony emails, and forge a deposit reciept, and create the "story" she gave to LE.

Then I would ask the jury why NO ONES prints are on any side of the tape.

Someone as sophisticated in tale telling is probably sophisticated enough to wear gloves, and wipe fingerprints.

 

[Wudge]

Could someone explain to me exactly what makes a "High-profile defense attorney"?

Surely it takes more than one case that wouldn't have been high profile if he had kept his mug off the tv.

Great trial attornies typically have large, if not massive, egos. They're not only skilled inside the courtroom but are also skilled in dealing with the media, which is really a base requirement to handle a high-profile case today. Moreover, they've become a brand name; e.g., Tom Messerau.

Baez seemingly has a large ego, but, amongst other self imposed obstacles (flub a dub variety), he gives the appearance of being IQ cycle challenged. This case quickly developed into a ratings monster; it's way out of his league.

 

[rhornsby]

Larry Daniel didn't do the show, a Leslie did.

They had "tech" issues. Baez said he was in a hold queue, because he isn't tech savvy.

I have issue with this defense team calling the forensics "junk Science" when Baez is claiming in this interview, that we have so many tests currently available, and juries want the forensic evidence.

Media is focused on the story, and bloggers, commenters are "grossly detached. He doesn't read blogs, he peruses them...for humor.

Here's a link to the page if anyone wants to listen to the interview.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/talkforensics

Quite honestly, I wasn't impressed

Well, he got his "junk science" quotes from a report that was released from the National Academy of Sciences regarding forensic crime labs. (Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward).

If you recall, he went to a forensic seminar in Las Vegas last year and came back suddenly claiming all forensic science was junk science, or highly suspect - which I would agree the report supports as to many criminal based forensic fields (gun shot residue tests, ballistics, fingerprints).

The report basically says because most labs that do these tests are government funded for prosecution, their results tend to be biased, untrustworthy, and not subject to outside peer review - all of which I agree with.

However, while that sounds all good and dandy for soundbites, what he fails to mention is that the primary forensic evidence being offered against his client is based on traditional and peer reviewed science; entomology and botany.

Ironically though, the evidence regarding body decomposition originates from the body farm in Tennessee, which is one of the only criminal based forensic sciences that has been sufficiently documented and based on the scientific method.

 

[MADJGNLAW]

I have a few questions. Defense filed motions suggesting Roy K. as the killer or as the person disposing of the body? Reason I ask, Has the Defense changed their story about Zenaida G. "The Imaginary Nanny" kidnapping Caylee? Or are they now claiming that Roy is the so called Nanny? And that would not work either because he is not a female, is not a 10, and is not named ZFG. Or, could they now throw him under the bus as knowing a so called ZG? Anyone know if Roy knows a ZG?

Also, why is the defense claiming the DP as inhumane, well what are they afraid of? If Casey is not guilty then she will not get the DP. But if she is, why not give her the DP? An eye for an eye, it's OK to kill a child but inhumane to punish the killer! Regardless of the circumstances, Caylee was Murdered and who ever took part should pay the ultimate penalty...

I am with Patty G. I to felt one or two others helped disposed of the body...just saying. I have not heard this to be the case, but have felt this to be the case. I feel Cindy, George knew much more and did not share with LE. But that is JMO. All the man power, money used by TES, and tax dollars should be repaid if LE can figure a way to prove that someone else knew where Caylee's remains were.

What I don't understand is why LE has been soft on George and Cindy? The defense as well, if anyone I would of thought they would of put the blame on George or Cindy. Not Kronk or ZFG.

And one more question, sorry....Do we know if the Anthony's knew Kronk? Was it not said that one of the Anthony's neighbors knew him? Was Kronk the regular meter reader in that area?

All JMO and Questions of course...TIA

 

[babycat]

Well, I just know I would argue to a jury that she is not sophisticated enough to not only have thought to use gloves BUT actually have been able to accomplish not getting fingerprints anywhere.

That is what I would argue, it would be to the State to present evidence otherwise or argue convincingly the evidence suggests otherwise.

bbm

What does not having to touch icky decomp have to do with sophistication? I think if she wore gloves, it had nothing to do with fingerprints. (I bet dollars to doughnuts she used gloves when trying to clean the decomp out of her trunk, too..afterall, there was decomp found on the paper towels in trash bag from Tony's.) I think she didn't want to risk getting any of it on her hands in the event of a garbage bag tear. OR, I know that sometimes when I carry heavy bags with my hands, they hurt my hands because weight of the bags makes the handles dig into my palms. I'm sure the prosecution could reasonably explain away a pair of gloves. She doesn't have to be sophisticated to use them- just self absorbed.

Just my two cents.