Nancy Grace 10/24/08

[Sundance]

Yes, Sundance, I remember that as well. It seems like it was the psychologist lady on NG a while back...maybe when Casey was seen wearing the rosary beads...???

And Cindy didn't want to give up the credit card bill for Penney's.

::: picks up pen, makes check mark::: Yep, that'll work.

Nice to meet you SpaceMonkey.

 

[TakeNote]

Im not good about reading the charts on the FBI report....does it say the air sample is the same as the other decomp as being decomp for 2.6 days?

 

[Cerenity2u]

Where did that come from?! Very interesting.

This site was sent to me by a friend of mine a few months ago...it is a legitimate site...the link to the home page is actually on the report link that I put in my last post. Unfortunately I have had to use this site to search for my missing uncle of several years....long story...but anyhow, the same friend who sent me the site, also notified me of the new case from FL....it is indeed very interesting and has most of us wondering, could this be partial remains of Caylee?...We find it odd that no info is given in the reports. You have to have credentials to be a member of this site to get further details on a lot of these cases...which I don't have. But if you look, there is info filled in on other cases...just not this one from FL......strange!

 

[galvino]

Who's this guy that said that there's too much being made of this? He says without a body, the prosecution has little chance of going for the death penalty? He must be working for Kobi.

I am gonna go out on a limb here-

I am occasionally pro DP, tho as of late I have been less so -It disgusts me that it costs so much more to house DP inmates, and I feel that hell on earth (being in gen pop, or ad seg for the rest of one's natural life) is more of a punishment. The reason I continue to advocate for it is it's use as a bargaining tool to get cooperation from perps as to testimony against accomplices, body recovery, etc.

My feeling is that in this case, (even tho evidence leads us to believe it is warranted under fed law), proving it beyond ALL doubt will be difficult without Caylee's body. Even if Caylee is found, unless there is physical proof of injury (decomp will not show soft tissue damage or a soft kill) the defense will be able to argue that pros. can not prove that the death was not due to an accident or neglect. Now I know that the prosecution only needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but I think that jurors tend not to give the DP to women unless there is NO Doubt of pre-meditation, horrific circumstances, etc. The fact that I think that her own family is not above lying and bending the truth on the stand in order to slant things will not be lost on the jury and the public will create both outrage as well as sympathy for the family.

Because of all the ire and spotlight focused on the A's, this case, this community-and the fact that this case has taken on a life of it's own, I am going to be very surprised if the DP is sought. The leaks from OSCO early on about their theory of the case is enough to give jurors a whiff of reasonable doubt about motive - heck, even the # of us here that agree on her guilt but can't agree on how or why it happened-(and you can bet the def. will bring that up). I am sure that the prosecution has enuff evidence that we don't know about, and (barring rogue jurors) will be able to get a guilty verdict. I hope so b/c I think KC is a sociopath who deliberately set out to destroy her daughter and live a life of her own design while giving the finger to anyone who wanted to hold her accountable.

However, I am going to bet that because of the murky(ish) facts of the case (again, due to lies, destruction of evidence, differing interpretations of facts, and the fact that police were 31 days behind the 8-ball), the rarity of even Fla seeking the death P for women, the State of Fla. will not seek it.

I like my Crow served ala mode, with a sprinkling of cinnamon and a crunchy cookie on the side! I would love some feedback on this!

 

[Theonly1]

You are awesome.......Thank You

So it would be Privileged "unless" the Priest intends to relay it too a 3rd party Then it ceases to be privileged...............

The Priest can't say to LE "I can't tell you what KC said because it's Privileged" & then go & tell George & Cindy everything she said........That makes sense.

When any third-party enters the equation it loses its privilege.

Like even if an attorney has someone else in the room (non-staff) and is speaking with a client about a matter then it loses its privilege.

If a person is jailed and speaking to clergy but speaks loud enough for other people to hear it (like yelling) then it loses its privilege.

Just saying...

 

[Janis396]

I'm so confused. Maybe if what is heard by the 3rd party is accidental then it is not privleged. But, who is to say what is accidental v/s intentional. BUT if what is said to a 3rd party is intentional then it is not privleged?

LOL...ok now my head is REALLY spinning!! I'm beginning to think there is no absolute answer...depends on the state, the circumstances, etc etc...

 

[impatientredhead]

The jail website says all visits are videotaped and subject to monitoring. Attorneys and LE professionals can request a non-recorded visit. Nothing about clergy having that same right.

http://www.orangecountyfl.net/cms/DEPT/correct/inmateinfo/video/default.htm

Just because it is recorded doesn't make it admissable in a courtroom though.

 

[TakeNote]

should we start a thread about the decomp info and the 2.6 days....I dont know how that works and if its a good idea or not....>>

 

[Boston]

During O.J.'s criminal trial O.J. supposedly told Rosey Grier he killed two people. The conversation was overheard by deputies.

There was a hearing to determine whether or not the deputies could testify. They couldn't. The judge ruled that O.J.'s conversation with Rosey was privileged because Rosey was a minister.

OMG.....I remember that

The confession WAS privilidged but if OJ said to Rosey .......

"Rosie, tell My friend Marcus Allen to get rid of my Bali Shoes because Nicoles blood is all over them" .....then I don't think that part of the conversation would be priviliged because Rosey was going to relay it to a 3rd party.

 

[TigerBalm]

During O.J.'s criminal trial O.J. supposedly told Rosey Grier he killed two people. The conversation was overheard by deputies.

There was a hearing to determine whether or not the deputies could testify. They couldn't. The judge ruled that O.J.'s conversation with Rosey was privileged because Rosey was a minister.

That was 1994 in Cali, with a star struck Judge.

Casey is no Paris Hilton, even if she wears those ginormous sunglasses! :crazy:


The Florida Supreme Court ruled that incriminating statements made by a murderer to a priest were not protected from disclosure in court by the clergy-penitent privilege.
A bank robber shot and killed a police officer while making his getaway. The killer went to a priest a few days later, and asked the priest to perform a "ritual" that would prevent him from being apprehended. The priest informed the police of this conversation, and later received a $100,000 reward that had been offered to anyone providing information identifying the killer. The priest testified at the murder trial, and disclosed the incriminating statements that had been made to him. On appeal, the killer claimed that the court should not have allowed the priest to testify since the conversation was protected by the clergy-penitent privilege. The court noted that the Florida clergy-penitent privilege statute specifies the following:
Continued

 

[Janis396]

When any third-party enters the equation it loses its privilege.

Like even if an attorney has someone else in the room (non-staff) and is speaking with a client about a matter then it loses its privilege.

If a person is jailed and speaking to clergy but speaks loud enough for other people to hear it (like yelling) then it loses its privilege.

Just saying...

What about this post then?

Originally Posted by Jolynna
During O.J.'s criminal trial O.J. supposedly told Rosey Grier he killed two people. The conversation was overheard by deputies.

There was a hearing to determine whether or not the deputies could testify. They couldn't. The judge ruled that O.J.'s conversation with Rosey was privileged because Rosey was a minister.

 

[Capri]

***If it goes to trial and the car evidence comes in (I think it will) I make a bet the defense will claim Casey had a miscarriage and that was what was in the trunk.***

well, then they'd better do better than mitochondrial DNA!

 

[Theonly1]

You guys gotta remember that Casey is in jail right now so IMO I would think it would impossible for her to confess with something or for that ministor to relay messages without it being recorded. This could be another case where LP(No offence to this guy) is saying this is what is going on as FACT and not his theory and its not the first time he's done that.

I really do not know how the ministor would be able to keep anything becuase of that simple fact of her being in jail.

Her in-person conversations with her attorneys are not recorded. Her in-person conversations with any clergy (does not have to be her home church) would not be recorded. If she uses the PHONE and the message says "this call is being recorded" then I would assume it is recorded but could not be used against her at all because of the privileged conversation.

Now, if she goes on a tear, yelling and screaming about anything loud enough for anyone else to hear it (even if she's yelling while speaking with clergy) and there are other people within earshot then it can be argued that it loses its privilege. Remember during the OJ case when the minister/friend (I think his name was Rosie?) came to see him and he allegedly confessed but yelled or some such nonsense? They tried to get that in arguing the communication had lost its privilege, in which case only what would lose the privilege would be what was overheard over normal tones. I believe in FLORIDA (and I could be wrong) we would let those types of communications *in*.

 

[Janis396]

I understand jail visits between clergy & inmates is not recorded.

Anyone can become a "clergy" via hundreds of various online websites. So that person can ask to see an inmate and not have the conversation recorded? Just present your online web certificate of clergyship? <(taking a stab at the appropriate term!> and voila, no recording?? If that's the case, I imagine we'll soon be hearing from Reverand Cindy.

 

[Boston]

The jail website says all visits are videotaped and subject to monitoring. Attorneys and LE professionals can request a non-recorded visit. Nothing about clergy having that same right.

http://www.orangecountyfl.net/cms/DEPT/correct/inmateinfo/video/default.htm

I don't see why LP would say that KC was using her Clergy member to pass messages to George & Cindy

Thats what started all this I think.....If the visits are taped then what difference does it make...LE is going to know what they're saying

 

[impatientredhead]

What about this post then?

Originally Posted by Jolynna
During O.J.'s criminal trial O.J. supposedly told Rosey Grier he killed two people. The conversation was overheard by deputies.

There was a hearing to determine whether or not the deputies could testify. They couldn't. The judge ruled that O.J.'s conversation with Rosey was privileged because Rosey was a minister.

Rosey didn't want to testify though, right? He claimed the info was privileged. The court did not compel him to testify. In the case linked the "priest" collected reward money and voluntarily testified. The privilege issue wasn't raised until the appeal. I don't think the court would have compelled him to testify as it would be such an easy source of an appeal after conviction.

 

[Im On It]

Hey! We haven't seen LA lately! Anybody check the trunk?

I heard he eloped with ZFG.

 

[galvino]

Yes, Sundance, I remember that as well. It seems like it was the psychologist lady on NG a while back...maybe when Casey was seen wearing the rosary beads...???

I won't hold my breath for that. Those who have no concience are not apt to be converted!

 

[Janis396]

Rosey didn't want to testify though, right? He claimed the info was privileged. The court did not compel him to testify. In the case linked the "priest" collected reward money and voluntarily testified. The privilege issue wasn't raised until the appeal. I don't think the court would have compelled him to testify as it would be such an easy source of an appeal after conviction.

From how I read that, the judge wouldn't allow the 2 deputies who overheard the conversation testify about it.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I don't think the Minister is even worthy of discussion. It isn't like Casey is going to say a darn thing anyway!! I can hear it now..."It is a waste. A HUGE waste you coming here when I know that all that God really wants is for them to find Caylee!!" says Casey as she rolls her eyes and flings her arms in the air.