Motion In Limine To Exclude Mental Health Experts

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Muzikman said:
The 4/13 State Motion in Limine:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/76609866/20110413-SA-Motion-in-Limine---Expert-Testimony

MM :rocker:
Click to expand...

I think we can work out what the issue is here. And no I don't think it is JA simply yanking the defenses chain. What is the one thing that KC could have claimed or told the shrinks, that would have been regarding a time period well before (years) Caylee went missing, and would be so prejudicial that even the mention of the possibility of this subject would be enough to influence some jurors to take the death penalty off of the table?

Quite simply the defense is trying to sneak KC's claims that she was sexually abused by George or Lee into trial via the psychiatrists. They are trying to play off the sympathies of the general public at even the remote possibility of such an occurrence. They are trying to take KC's lies and filter them out to the court via a pair of "experts" so as to try and pull a shell game to hide the fact that they are simply more KC lies.

if I am right on this it stands as one of the most un-ethical and sleazy things they have done to date.
 
Where does it specifically say JA does not want this information mentioned at the hearing on Friday? I think I am missing that part.
 
"Dr Danziger's name has been withdrawn as a defense witness on April 13, 2011. . . "

This is new, isn't it? I wonder why he has been dropped. Any guesses?
 
So she is going to throw blame on a family member...even I'm embarrassed for her parents. They are truly desperate.
 
ExpectingUnicorns said:
"Dr Danziger's name has been withdrawn as a defense witness on April 13, 2011. . . "

This is new, isn't it? I wonder why he has been dropped. Any guesses?
Click to expand...

He does not want to loose his crediability with the nonsense. Or does not beleive a word of what KC told him.:twocents:
 
ExpectingUnicorns said:
"Dr Danziger's name has been withdrawn as a defense witness on April 13, 2011. . . "

This is new, isn't it? I wonder why he has been dropped. Any guesses?
Click to expand...
I think he saw that the DT was going the illegal route and got the heck out of Dodge! He may not have minded giving his evaluation until he saw the path the DT was taking him down.
 
From reading the state's new motion in limine....IDK...but it seems that the good doctors talked about statements ICA has made....not that they examined her and found to be...but statements "remote" in time....I guess like her saying she was molested by her brother and dad. Is that what any of you are getting? That's how I am seeing it. Kind of like "if she was molested as a child, I can see where that would cause a dissasociative state where she totally disconnected from reality...blah, blah, blah"

I know I am not being clear as to what a psychiatrist would be saying, but it just seems that they were shown some statements by ICA, or told by JB and team, that IF this happened, what could then explain her behavior? Hence, JA saying it is totally hypothetical and prejudicial when those facts haven't even been introduced as fact evidence.

Hope I got my point over?

ETA: AND this plays into the defense using GA (most likely willingly I might add) as a scapegoat, and hence the reason he hasn't been in court lately. But what I don't get with that scenario is that GA stated in court he would lie, not show up, etc. to help his daughter. So IMHO you can't believe anything he says just like his daughter. When are you lying, then or now? Sorry - this is for another thread but my mind is going crazy.
 
MM- you are the most incredible absolute websleuther ever!! Thank you so much for getting this doc!!

What the heck? Now, after having attempted to add Dr. D late to the witness list, they take him off before his depo is completed? Me thinks the DT is absolutely scrambling to put together a defense right before trial & have no clue what they're going to do or how they're going to do it.

I don't think that the event that occurred a long time ago is the alleged sexual abuse because those claims are already in the public domain via her friend's statements to LE and via her jailhouse letters. Both LA and GA denied it occurred through their lawyers on more than one occasion. So it doesn't appear to me that's something that the SA would believe if revealed publicly would taint a jury-since it's already been revealed publicly. Although I do think it involves some sort of alleged sexual crime committed against KC as the DT mentioned their request for an expert to testify hypothetically re the "psychological defense mechanisms" that would explain away consciousness of guilt. So what are some pyschological defense mechanisms? Denial? Diassociation? Repression? Fantasy? Reaction Formation? Distortion? My guess that it's whichever one is associated with habitual lying.

Tony Pepitone claims today he has an exclusive piece of evidence that he is going to reveal tonight, I believe. Do you want to take bets that it's whatever the SA doesn't want revealed?
 
TotallyObsessed said:
From reading the state's new motion in limine....IDK...but it seems that the good doctors talked about statements ICA has made....not that they examined her and found to be...but statements "remote" in time....I guess like her saying she was molested by her brother and dad. Is that what any of you are getting? That's how I am seeing it. Kind of like "if she was molested as a child, I can see where that would cause a dissasociative state where she totally disconnected from reality...blah, blah, blah"

I know I am not being clear as to what a psychiatrist would be saying, but it just seems that they were shown some statements by ICA, or told by JB and team, that IF this happened, what could then explain her behavior? Hence, JA saying it is totally hypothetical and prejudicial when those facts haven't even been introduced as fact evidence.

Hope I got my point over?

ETA: AND this plays into the defense using GA (most likely willingly I might add) as a scapegoat, and hence the reason he hasn't been in court lately. But what I don't get with that scenario is that GA stated in court he would lie, not show up, etc. to help his daughter. So IMHO you can't believe anything he says just like his daughter. When are you lying, then or now? Sorry - this is for another thread but my mind is going crazy.
Click to expand...

When they say statements "attributed" to the defendant--they mean statements she told them--the state wasn't there when she allegedly made these statements, hence the qualifier "attributed".
 
SoCalSleuth said:
MM- you are the most incredible absolute websleuther ever!! Thank you so much for getting this doc!!

What the heck? Now, after having attempted to add Dr. D late to the witness list, they take him off before his depo is completed? Me thinks the DT is absolutely scrambling to put together a defense right before trial & have no clue what they're going to do or how they're going to do it.

I don't think that the event that occurred a long time ago is the alleged sexual abuse because those claims are already in the public domain via her friend's statements to LE and via her jailhouse letters. Both LA and GA denied it occurred through their lawyers on more than one occasion. So it doesn't appear to me that's something that the SA would believe if revealed publicly would taint a jury-since it's already been revealed publicly. Although I do think it involves some sort of alleged sexual crime committed against KC as the DT mentioned their request for an expert to testify hypothetically re the "psychological defense mechanisms" that would explain away consciousness of guilt. So what are some pyschological defense mechanisms? Denial? Diassociation? Repression? Fantasy? Reaction Formation? Distortion? My guess that it's whichever one is associated with habitual lying.

Tony Pepitone claims today he has an exclusive piece of evidence that he is going to reveal tonight, I believe. Do you want to take bets that it's whatever the SA doesn't want revealed?
Click to expand...

However her jailhouse letters were very mild in their accusations. She said she might remember vaguely her Dad doing something to her.
What if she told the doctors that she 'suffered' years of sexual abuse at the hands of her father and brother? That would surely taint the jury pool, and keep her off the DP, imo.
 
katydid23 said:
However her jailhouse letters were very mild in their accusations. She said she might remember vaguely her Dad doing something to her.
What if she told the doctors that she 'suffered' years of sexual abuse at the hands of her father and brother? That would surely taint the jury pool, and keep her off the DP, imo.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And then to have psychiatrists basically give "expert" opinions as to why she did what she did, without there being any evidentiary evidence whatsoever, in other words, based on a "hypothetical".....That is exactly what JB is trying to do and the reason DS said in court when they tried to bring in these last minute "hail Mary" so called expert witnesses that they would have to "litigate" the matter. YOU BET THEY WILL.
 
faefrost said:
I think we can work out what the issue is here. And no I don't think it is JA simply yanking the defenses chain. What is the one thing that KC could have claimed or told the shrinks, that would have been regarding a time period well before (years) Caylee went missing, and would be so prejudicial that even the mention of the possibility of this subject would be enough to influence some jurors to take the death penalty off of the table?

Quite simply the defense is trying to sneak KC's claims that she was sexually abused by George or Lee into trial via the psychiatrists. They are trying to play off the sympathies of the general public at even the remote possibility of such an occurrence. They are trying to take KC's lies and filter them out to the court via a pair of "experts" so as to try and pull a shell game to hide the fact that they are simply more KC lies.

if I am right on this it stands as one of the most un-ethical and sleazy things they have done to date.
Click to expand...


I have to say the only thing the DT can gain from this is if the jury believes it then it would explain Casey being afraid of her father. The whole reason she lied and tried to cover up an accident. Being molested wouldn't enter into it any other way imo for the guilt phase.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 172 more.
Total: 1,907 (members: 173, guests: 1,734)

Online statistics

Members online
173
Guests online
1,734
Total visitors
1,907
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,562
Messages
18,096,840
Members
230,880
Latest member
gretyr
Back
Top