Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[The World According]

Will the jury respect the experts opinions or see them as hired guns?"Why don't we make a list for the Prosecution of all the books currently out by the defense lawyers/experts.

We know Professor Lyons just released a book.

Dr. Badden and his wife Linda Kenny Badden released a book this year.

Kathy Reichs the forensic anthropologist released a book, 206 Bones.

Dr. Werner Spitz is the author and editor of the textbook, Medicolegal Investigation of Death, now in its third edition and considered to be the authoritative textbook in this specialty, worldwide.

Dr. Lee has a book out currently too.

Do we really wonder how and why being involved in a high profile case that is covered nationally and internationally helps them? Pro bono? How about free advertising?

We see them often on news and cable shows giving commentary, even about this case. So they clearly enjoy the limelight. Do you think it will effect their credibility with the jury when the prosecutor asks them if they are currently peddling a book? Even Dominic is rumored to be co authoring a book with Brad, mom and pop! What do you think?

From Bean E "*Very* interesting comment from Richard Hornsby on his blog in regards to the experts:


Richard Hornsby says:
December 29, 2009 at 10:38 am

snippet

...the problem an expert witness list creates for Baez is two-fold.

1. It requires your experts to finally give their opinion – and an opinion is no good unless is supports your theory. If their opinion does not support your theory, you don’t list them.

2. It allows the State to inquire into how they are getting paid, by whom, and financial arrangements they have made, and media rights they have negotiated, etc. And if the experts are doing this “pro bono” the State can then go into ulterior reasons they agreed to work on the case – books that are coming out, etc.

3. Finally, when the State deposes an expert (or any attorney deposes the other sides’ expert) the opponent has to pay the expert what the expert charges the hiring attorney. So if these experts are not charging Baez, they are not allowed to charge the State.

Basically the witness list opens Pandora’s Financial Box for Mr. Baez."

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2009/...time/#comments



ETA: Please see [ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92404"]Professional Posters - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[JBean]

OK I am unclear what the topic is in here. Is this a Q&A for attorneys only? if so, please do not answer any questions if you are not an attorney or commment. This was upsetting a lot of people a bit ago because several people were answering professional questions as though they were professionals. So, we are trying to keep that from happening again.
But if this is just a discussion thread, then let's amend the title to the topic.
thanks

This looks like it is an opinion thread for attorneys only?? is that right?

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92404"]Professional Posters - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[AZlawyer]

Expert Credibility:
I think that the people on this board who would qualify as jurors (probably everyone) would be more qualified to answer the question about how the jurors will see the experts than those of us who are lawyers. But from my point of view, it all depends on the expert. If they are up front and not defensive about how much they are being paid, have NON-VERBAL communication that matches their testimony (i.e., they really seem to believe what they are saying), and remain non-defensive and in "helpful mode" even on cross, the jury will not care about payment. They know people have to make a living.

Baez's Appearance as Counsel:
After reading Rhornsby's blog entry on the subject, I have to agree there is something fishy about Casey's story of getting a referral from a random stranger at the jail. But there are so many other possibilities that it's hard to conclude that Casey had him lined up as her lawyer ahead of time. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the As who hired him, though, as they seemed genuinely confused and annoyed about how he turned up on the scene.

 

[The World According]

December 15, 2008 Dr. Lee says he is indeed working Pro Bono:
"GRACE: Tonight, a stunning discovery allegedly of a trail of bones leading to a child`s skull. All of this just 15 homes away from grandparents George and Cindy`s home.

Straight out to special guest joining us right now, famed forensic pathologist Dr. Henry Lee. He is a forensic scientist and a consultant on the Anthony defense team. Dr. Lee, thank you for being with us. Dr. Lee, what have you heard regarding a trail of bones leading to the child`s skull?

DR. HENRY LEE, FORENSIC SCIENTIST, CONSULTANT TO DEFENSE TEAM: That`s the first time I heard. We were in Florida yesterday. However, as you know, the coroner (ph) did not judge (ph) did not prove that. So the other defense expert, we did not have chance to observe, nor examine anything.

GRACE: Dr. Henry Lee, everyone, famed forensic scientist, is on the Anthony defense team. Dr. Lee, you are saying the judge denied a particular motion. Was that to allow you and other defense experts on the scene while police were processing it?

LEE: Not exactly observe. Not really join examination. But many time, you know, like (ph) cases, most of time, they allow for defense expert to observe. Some of the time, we even join together, work on the searching (ph) of the remain or search of the trace evidence.

GRACE: To Sheryl McCollum joining us tonight, crime analyst and director of the cold case squad at Pine Lake Police Department. Sheryl, I find that highly unusual, that defense experts are at the initial processing of the scene? No way!

SHERYL MCCOLLUM, CRIME ANALYST: No way. With all due respect to Dr. Lee -- and I`ve trained under Dr. Lee -- no way are they going to be on my crime scene. They`re not necessary. They`re not needed.

GRACE: Back to Dr. Henry Lee, who, as you all know, is a famed forensic scientist on the Anthony defense team. Dr. Lee, I`ve just got to ask you, you know, tot mom Casey Anthony was siphoning gasoline from her family`s car to fill up her own tank. How the heck are you getting paid? I`m sure you`re costing a pretty penny. Dr. Lee does not come cheap.

LEE: No, we did not get any pay for that and for -- I`ll say, you know, this country, as you know, everybody entitled a defense. And many forensic experts, we do pro bono cases and that`s our obligation to our profession. As an expert, we look at evidence, doesn`t matter inculpatory, exculpatory, we report (ph) as it is. I don`t think should be labeled as a defense expert going to just for defense. Many time, found more evidence, inculpatory evidence, than the police found. There -- you know, case history, case example, many time we`re allowed to work on the case together. Many of my cases, I let the defense expert observe. It`s nothing wrong.

GRACE: So Dr. Lee...

LEE: Nothing unusual.

GRACE: Dr. Lee, are you telling me that you are working on the case pro bono, for free?

LEE: Yes."

My question is how common is this really for someone like Dr. Lee to work pro bono on a case that does not have publicity?

 

[The World According]

OK I am unclear what the topic is in here. Is this a Q&A for attorneys only? if so, please do not answer any questions if you are not an attorney or commment. This was upsetting a lot of people a bit ago because several people were answering professional questions as though they were professionals. So, we are trying to keep that from happening again.
But if this is just a discussion thread, then let's amend the title to the topic.
thanks

This looks like it is an opinion thread for attorneys only?? is that right?

Professional Posters - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

My apologies to all. I realized that what I had here was a lot of questions for the lawyers, so I changed the title. Prior, others had posted under the heading The experts and how they are being paid....so that is why the commentary. I tried to delete my comments, and now only a few questions and a couple comments are remaining. Since Mr. Hornsby isn't here currently I thought maybe our other wonderful lawyers could field some of our questions for us. Please just delete or remove if needed. I am sorry for the confusion.

 

[AZlawyer]

December 15, 2008 Dr. Lee says he is indeed working Pro Bono:
"GRACE: Tonight, a stunning discovery allegedly of a trail of bones leading to a child`s skull. All of this just 15 homes away from grandparents George and Cindy`s home.

Straight out to special guest joining us right now, famed forensic pathologist Dr. Henry Lee. He is a forensic scientist and a consultant on the Anthony defense team. Dr. Lee, thank you for being with us. Dr. Lee, what have you heard regarding a trail of bones leading to the child`s skull?

DR. HENRY LEE, FORENSIC SCIENTIST, CONSULTANT TO DEFENSE TEAM: That`s the first time I heard. We were in Florida yesterday. However, as you know, the coroner (ph) did not judge (ph) did not prove that. So the other defense expert, we did not have chance to observe, nor examine anything.

GRACE: Dr. Henry Lee, everyone, famed forensic scientist, is on the Anthony defense team. Dr. Lee, you are saying the judge denied a particular motion. Was that to allow you and other defense experts on the scene while police were processing it?

LEE: Not exactly observe. Not really join examination. But many time, you know, like (ph) cases, most of time, they allow for defense expert to observe. Some of the time, we even join together, work on the searching (ph) of the remain or search of the trace evidence.

GRACE: To Sheryl McCollum joining us tonight, crime analyst and director of the cold case squad at Pine Lake Police Department. Sheryl, I find that highly unusual, that defense experts are at the initial processing of the scene? No way!

SHERYL MCCOLLUM, CRIME ANALYST: No way. With all due respect to Dr. Lee -- and I`ve trained under Dr. Lee -- no way are they going to be on my crime scene. They`re not necessary. They`re not needed.

GRACE: Back to Dr. Henry Lee, who, as you all know, is a famed forensic scientist on the Anthony defense team. Dr. Lee, I`ve just got to ask you, you know, tot mom Casey Anthony was siphoning gasoline from her family`s car to fill up her own tank. How the heck are you getting paid? I`m sure you`re costing a pretty penny. Dr. Lee does not come cheap.

LEE: No, we did not get any pay for that and for -- I`ll say, you know, this country, as you know, everybody entitled a defense. And many forensic experts, we do pro bono cases and that`s our obligation to our profession. As an expert, we look at evidence, doesn`t matter inculpatory, exculpatory, we report (ph) as it is. I don`t think should be labeled as a defense expert going to just for defense. Many time, found more evidence, inculpatory evidence, than the police found. There -- you know, case history, case example, many time we`re allowed to work on the case together. Many of my cases, I let the defense expert observe. It`s nothing wrong.

GRACE: So Dr. Lee...

LEE: Nothing unusual.

GRACE: Dr. Lee, are you telling me that you are working on the case pro bono, for free?

LEE: Yes."

My question is how common is this really for someone like Dr. Lee to work pro bono on a case that does not have publicity?

It is extremely unusual for an expert to work pro bono if there is no publicity...but of course in this case there is publicity. I had ONE expert refuse to accept any payment from me in a medical malpractice case because he was morally offended that a member of his profession was allowed to continue to practice so haphazardly. As soon as I told the other side that my expert had refused payment they decided to settle.

I found it very interesting that Lee was supposedly working pro bono. Normally, when an expert seems to have suddenly stopped working on a case, it's because they haven't been paid. But if a pro bono expert stops working on the case, it's because they DISAGREE with your positions and have no incentive (i.e., money) to try to spin the facts to fit your case.

 

[JBean]

Oh we love the input of AZLawyer and Themis. I am happy for them to have a thread for legal questions, I was just confused. On other threads we had 4 or 5 people answering on the legal questions and that was a problem because they are not attorneys as far as we know.
So in response to complaints we are trying to monitor that more closely.
So, this is fine, lets keep it strictly legal Q&A for AZLawyer and Themis if they would like to do that.

 

[BondJamesBond]

Also FWIW, for reference...33 pages re: procedure & legal questions. Note the linked thread was for open discussion...so not necessarily attorneys' opinions there...but may interest some interested in this thread.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75687&highlight=procedure

ETA: Bold, underline, italics for emphasis.

 

[elementary]

It is extremely unusual for an expert to work pro bono if there is no publicity...but of course in this case there is publicity. I had ONE expert refuse to accept any payment from me in a medical malpractice case because he was morally offended that a member of his profession was allowed to continue to practice so haphazardly. As soon as I told the other side that my expert had refused payment they decided to settle.

I found it very interesting that Lee was supposedly working pro bono. Normally, when an expert seems to have suddenly stopped working on a case, it's because they haven't been paid. But if a pro bono expert stops working on the case, it's because they DISAGREE with your positions and have no incentive (i.e., money) to try to spin the facts to fit your case.

I so appreciate your input!

About pro bono: when experts are flown in to inspect a case, who pays?

 

[JBean]

Also FWIW, for reference...33 pages re: procedure & legal questions. Note the linked thread was for open discussion...so not necessarily attorneys opinions there...but may interest some interested in this thread.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75687&highlight=procedure

Thank you Bond BUT I am putting up a disclaimer!
Not all the answers on that thread are from lawyers and that was part of an undetected problem on my part.

I took the thread the same way you did that it was open for anyone to answer, but a lot of people expected those that answered to be lawyers. So it created a problem in that some thought people were responding as though they were an attorney and made complaints about it. I am not suggesting any of the handful of people that answered as a non-attorney did anything wrong, because they too could have interpreted the thread as you and I did Bond. I think it was a misunderstanding and people assumed they were lawyers. I am trying to clear that up.

So, unless it is a post from a verified attorney,(Themis/AZLawyer/Miracles happen/Rhornsby) the answer should not be given any more weight that any other poster and should be assumed to be just a layman's opinion.

I am sorry to be a pill about this, but we had many complaints about this and am trying to clear it up moving forward. i did not remove the non attorney answers,but rather am letting you all know.

Fore reference:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92404"]Professional Posters - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]



ETA: I removed any answers or comments from non-lawyers on THIS thread. sorry and thanks

 

[TexasLil]

I so appreciate your input!

About pro bono: when experts are flown in to inspect a case, who pays?

If a defendant is declared indigent and a public defender is assigned would the state also pay for experts and their associated expenses if warranted? What about additional counsel such as LKB. If so, are any special petitions or filings required to get the experts paid?

Not saying Baez is working in the capacity of public defense but just wondering how the indigent status applies to other counsel and experts.

TIA

 

[The World According]

It is extremely unusual for an expert to work pro bono if there is no publicity...but of course in this case there is publicity. I had ONE expert refuse to accept any payment from me in a medical malpractice case because he was morally offended that a member of his profession was allowed to continue to practice so haphazardly. As soon as I told the other side that my expert had refused payment they decided to settle.

I found it very interesting that Lee was supposedly working pro bono. Normally, when an expert seems to have suddenly stopped working on a case, it's because they haven't been paid. But if a pro bono expert stops working on the case, it's because they DISAGREE with your positions and have no incentive (i.e., money) to try to spin the facts to fit your case.

Very interesting!!!!

 

[Searchfortruth]

So, Casey was searching for legal assistance early on. It took some nerve for her to call her boyfriend's dad though (I know she's not short on nerve). From what we know she had not spoken with Tony's parents before this, right ?

I understand everyones right to legal counsel, but (generally) seeking a lawyer before one has been charged speaks to the actions of a guilty person. But, that's just my opinion.

I wonder what time on the 15th this call to TL's dad was placed ?

 

[Kentjbkent]

Wasn't sure where to post this, so thanks for this new thread! Wonder if any of our attorneys could expound or comment on whether there are similarities in this case, and a possible future appeal (if convicted) of KC?

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9234765067865176425

This is a case that was taken under appeal for a defendant convicted of first degree murder in Florida. The appeal is based on alleged multiple claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during the criminal proceeding resulting in his conviction. Where I think it may be worthy of comparison is that the claims include the defense attorney's lack of hiring experts, lack of depositions, financial arrangements, as well as conflict in interest whereas the defense attorney's involvement potentially put him in the position of becoming a witness in the case. Very interesting read....

1. Delayed Disclosure Of The Murder Weapon.

Shortly after the shootings, Mr. Alessi's family hired attorney Huntley Johnson to represent Mr. Alessi at trial. In an early telephone conversation between Mr. Johnson and Mr. Alessi, Alessi informed Johnson that he was contemplating suicide. In response, Mr. Johnson told Mr. Alessi to "get rid of the gun" — the weapon Mr. Alessi had used in the shooting — which was obviously evidence in the murder case. Mr. Alessi followed his lawyer's advice and tossed or hid the gun in a storm drain. A week later, the two discussed the fact that Mr. Johnson would need to turn the gun over to the State. Mr. Alessi immediately agreed, and told Mr. Johnson where the gun was hidden. However, Johnson delayed his disclosure to the State for approximately four months.

At trial, the State argued that hiding the gun and delaying the disclosure of its location evidenced Mr. Alessi's consciousness of guilt. In response to the State's questions, Mr. Alessi attempted to explain that he was acting on the advice of counsel, but Mr. Johnson objected to the line of inquiry. At a bench conference, Mr. Johnson expressed his outrage that the State was pursuing this line of questioning, and the associated argument, when the prosecutor knew that Mr. Alessi had been acting on his advice and that he — not Mr. Alessi — was responsible for the long delay.

Then, in its closing argument, the State argued, without objection, that Mr. Alessi's decision to hide the gun, and his delay in disclosing its location, further evidenced his consciousness of guilt.

I speculate if this is where the ongoing saga with Dominic Casey is playing out. It was stated by Hoover (I believe) that Baez supposively told DC NOT to contact LE if they were to discover the remains while looking at the wooded area off Surburban Dr in November. What was DC told? By whom? What role did JB play in this? Could this pave the way for appeal if convicted by KC?


2. Fee Arrangement And Decision To Forego Expert Witnesses.

The retainer agreement between the Alessi family and Mr. Johnson established a fee of $135,000, which included "any services of investigators, or experts employed by undersigned attorney." Mr. Alessi's family testified at the evidentiary hearing that Mr. Johnson told them that he would seek "police experts" to go through the case and offer re-enactments and testimony regarding bullet projectories [sic], and that he would "have all kinds of experts on this case."

I am curious as to whether KC entered into a similar retainer agreement with Baez, and that the initial amount was funded from the sale of pictures, videos shortly after she was bonded out by LP (remember all the visits to Baez office with loaded arms). Could this be why the "big guns" were initially brought on board (paid out of retainer fee) but all parties assumed that future licensing fees would continue to financially pay for the defense, but then the State shut that plan down by filing the motion? No more money, no more defense expert!

Additionally, Mr. Johnson's own investigator, Kirby Jordan, testified that early on in his involvement in the case, he recommended to Mr. Johnson that they secure expert testimony to support the defense theory that it was a reactionary shooting upon seeing Mr. Herron's gun. Mr. Jordan offered to locate an expert but Mr. Johnson said he would take care of it. About a month before trial, Mr. Jordan again asked about expert testimony. Mr. Johnson told Mr. Jordan that he would not be hiring experts because the Alessi family could not afford them. Mr. Jordan assumed that Johnson would ask the family for more money because "we all agreed that it was going to be a critical part of the case." Later, Mr. Johnson's explanation for not using experts shifted from lack of money to the fact that Mr. Johnson felt he had prepared the case without them, and did not think he needed one.In his testimony at the evidentiary hearing, Mr. Johnson acknowledged the retainer agreement and that any money he would have spent on experts would have come from his fee. Mr. Johnson testified that he considered using experts, but explained that his decision not to hire an expert was strictly strategic, and had nothing to do with the fee arrangement. According to Mr. Johnson, his primary concern was that the State would hire an expert in response. Mr. Johnson testified that:
ased on the reports that we had and the fact that the State did not have [an expert], we felt like we could make the argument sufficiently with the photographs and with the reports [and] that [our defense] could not be contradicted unless they had an expert. And we didn't want to get into doing experts when we thought we could make the argument . . . without an expert.
Mr. Johnson testified that he explained his reasoning to Mr. Alessi, who agreed with the decision. Testimony from Mr. Johnson's law partner also supported Mr. Johnson's position that Mr. Johnson did not pursue an expert witness for reasons unrelated to the cost.

On various defense threads, we have discussed the lack of experts in this case, with the exception of one examination by Dr. Henry Lee. Does Mr. Baez have the same defense theory...that he doesn't need experts to counter the prosecution experts, but instead feels confident that he can debunk the state experts himself? Or do you think lack of funds do play into this? (BTW...appeal court sided with defense atty in this incident, citing it did not find experts were not hired due to conflict of interest (personal financial).

2. The Burnside and Cole Tests For Applying Sullivan.

The attorney in Cole had entered a retainer agreement providing that all deposition costs would come from his fee, and then deposed no witnesses. Based upon the trial court's finding that the attorneys' decision to forego depositions was unaffected by the fee arrangement, our court affirmed the denial order. Of course, in that case, the defendant had established a viable alternative defense strategy (deposing witnesses in preparation for trial), that was inherently in conflict with counsel's financial self-interest. Therefore, if this court had applied the two-part viable alternative test recited in Burnside, ad litteram (i.e., to the letter, or precisely), it would have reversed the denial order, and required a new trial in Cole.

It is my understanding that to date, Baez has conducted few depositions, apart from Kronk and the OCSD investigators. Do we know if Baez has more depositions scheduled, or is it a matter of finances? If Baez chooses to forego any additional depositions prior to trial, could this be a factor for KC in filing an appeal based on ineffective counsel?

The types of fee arrangements employed in this case, and in Cole, are so susceptible to claims of conflict and questions regarding the ethics of the attorney's strategic decisions at odds with his or her own financial interests that an attorney should probably expect an ethics inquiry by the Florida Bar with respect to any case for which this type of fee arrangement is used. In fact, this type of fee arrangement is so obviously prone to allegations of ethical lapse that the supreme court may want to consider barring it altogether in criminal cases.

Comments, opinions from our lawyers?

 

[The World According]

A question from Bean E:

"FLORIDA COLLEGE OF ADVANCED JUDICIAL STUDIES 2009
CONDUCTING THE PENALTY PHASE OF A CAPITAL CASE

6.10.0 CIRCUMSTANCES NOT CONSIDERED MITIGATING

6.10.6 Testimony of Relatives of the Victim Requesting the Death Penalty Not be Imposed

Florida cases have held it either not to be an abuse of discretion to exclude this testimony or that the testimony was irrelevant because it had nothing to do with defendant's character or record.


My question:

Does this mean that (should KC be found guilty) Cindy and George won't get to ask that the DP not be imposed on KC?

Thank you! "

 

[The World According]

question from Seeking Justice: "Do you think there is any likelihood that George and or Cindy, will be charged with anything?
Thanks"

question from AutumnLover: "I really respect your opinion and I'm anxious to hear what you think of the Anthony's and how their behavior could affect the outcome of the trial. Specifically, do you think their credibility will be affected because of their conflicting stories to LE and behavior in the media (as well as number of appearances on TV)?

Thanks so much for answering. "

 

[The World According]

Expert Credibility:
I think that the people on this board who would qualify as jurors (probably everyone) would be more qualified to answer the question about how the jurors will see the experts than those of us who are lawyers. But from my point of view, it all depends on the expert. If they are up front and not defensive about how much they are being paid, have NON-VERBAL communication that matches their testimony (i.e., they really seem to believe what they are saying), and remain non-defensive and in "helpful mode" even on cross, the jury will not care about payment. They know people have to make a living.

Baez's Appearance as Counsel:
After reading Rhornsby's blog entry on the subject, I have to agree there is something fishy about Casey's story of getting a referral from a random stranger at the jail. But there are so many other possibilities that it's hard to conclude that Casey had him lined up as her lawyer ahead of time. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the As who hired him, though, as they seemed genuinely confused and annoyed about how he turned up on the scene.

Hi AZ lawyer you are absolutely right, I found this for you:

"On page 20 of George Anthony’s July 24, 2008 OCSO interview, Sergeant John Allen asked George how Jose Baez came to be Casey’s attorney:

George: . . . I, I, I don’t like this freaking attorney that she has. I can tell you that right now from, from personal experience. I don’t like the guy.

John Allen: How’d y’all get that guy? How’d he come about?

George: My, my daughter talked to someone when you guys initially incarcerated her. And I guess, who she ever talked to, you know, according to my daughter now, this is what Mr. Baez told me, or Jose – I’ll just call him that – says, told, uhm, Jose Baez, “Oh, I asked someone, ‘Who’s a good attorney?’” And she has five thousand dollars supposedly, or at least fourteen hundred of it, to give him as a retainer to assist. We did not contact this man. We initially, when he came to our, called us, we thought he was a court-appointed attorney.

*****

During a 9:00am video visitation on July 25, 2008, Lee asked Casey how Baez came to be her lawyer (Part 1, starting at 7:40):

Lee: How did Jose become your attorney?

Casey: It just kind of happened at random in booking. I heard a couple people talking about attorneys, things like that, and they just flat-out asked me if I had anyone yet, and I said, “No.” And his name came up, and I was like, “Well, if he’s good, could you do me a favor and pass my name along?” So, he came and saw me the next day. It was like immediately, right after I saw the judge, so . . .

Lee: So, was it an inmate, was it a corrections officer?

Casey: It was an inmate, and there was three other people that confirmed it, so . . .

Lee: Okay. So that’s kind of how that happened. That makes sense, then, because from what I could find out, I didn’t think he was court-appointed.

Casey: No.

Lee: Okay, okay. "

 

[sleutherontheside]

So KC totally admits that HE CAME TO SEE HER. She did not call HIM. Interesting.

 

[The World According]

Dominick Casey was at the time a private investigator for Jose Baez. If he is listed as having visited Casey Anthony in jail Aug. 8, representing Baez,

this means he met with Casey face to face, not over the recorded telephone videotaped method like mom and pop, correct?

What do you make of Dominic telling LE in his interview that Baez cut off his communication with Casey? How can he admit that, yet insist he is still to this day under contract with her?

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Okay I have a question...I'm not sure exactly how to ask, but here goes:

Is there a legal mechanism of some kind in place to prevent people from 'playing games' to get a defendant off - such as Cindy or george or lee suddenly,surprisingly 'confessing' to something (or everything) in order to get Casey freed...

Such as if Cindy says she killed Caylee, then Casey gets set free, then there is not evidence to convict Cindy. I know it's far fetched, but with the lying, perjury, belligerence and game playing we've seen so far, I'm afraid to think of what we will see when the anthonys testify. They'll be doing everything they can to help out Casey.