NANCY GRACE ~ Tuesday, 12/30/08

[Patty G]

Maybe our Mods can put this on the front of each NG thread for a quick reference. Bravo!

:waitasec:

 

[panthera]

Dec 10th LP said on Nancy Grace show "don't be surprised if LE already had the body." Next day the body was found by the meter reader.

I remembered his comment but had forgotten it was only the night before she was found!

 

[TxRose]

Thanks for explaining it ~ makes a little more sense now.

Just a "little"? LOL. :crazy:

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Morally it does put them in a precarious position, but interestingly enough defense attorney are the only ones in the court room that don't have to take the oath.

That is correct, defense lawyers tell client's they don't want to know...that's for several reasons: First, it's for a judge or jury to decide whether or not someone is guilty or innocent of the crime charged--it's not the lawyer's role; Second, a lawyer cannot put on known perjured testimony. So if a lawyer knows a client committed an act he/she can't call the client to the stand and allow them to testify falsely. However, in that case, if a client insists on taking the stand, the lawyer has to notify the court that the client will be testifying in the narrative. This way the lawyer doesn't ask any questions and the client just tells their story.

 

[*lore621*]

snipped

I believe the A's hired their PI long before an atty (Nejame) but was it in fact DC?

Okay, I have a question. Is this PI, Mr. Casey, the same PI that was following up on the Caylee sightings? The same PI that CA claimed was providing them with credible (positive) information about where an "alive" Caylee may have been, for example Puerto Rico, The Florida Mall, Gainesville, etc....?

 

[TxRose]

I got the impression it was Hoover who wanted to sell it & that's why he lied & later refused to give the tape to DC..It wasn't clear to me what DC's original motive was.

Yes - that is what LP said. I am sorry because I made it sound like they all did. It was just Hoover according to LP. Thanks for correcting!

 

[believe09]

If someone says they're going to "get" a dead body, shouldn't the person this was said to immediately inform LE before anything is disturbed?

Now that seems like a straightforward response to me. The path this leads me down is that they went to the site and disturbed evidence. They scattered her over an acre of ground-isn't that the space that her poor little bones occupied? Those boys tampered with the scene-I suspect that LE will head down this path as well....jmo. And then I suspect they will stop talking about their tape.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Morally it does put them in a precarious position, but interestingly enough defense attorney are the only ones in the court room that don't have to take the oath.

That is correct, defense lawyers tell client's they don't want to know...that's for several reasons: First, it's for a judge or jury to decide whether or not someone is guilty or innocent of the crime charged--it's not the lawyer's role; Second, a lawyer cannot put on known perjured testimony. So if a lawyer knows a client committed an act he/she can't call the client to the stand and allow them to testify falsely. However, in that case, if a client insists on taking the stand, the lawyer has to notify the court that the client will be testifying in the narrative. This way the lawyer doesn't ask any questions and the client just tells their story. Not sure what poster meant by stating that "defense attorney are the only ones in the court room that don't have to take the oath". No attorney takes an oath in the courtroom unless they are testifying ...which would be highly unusual. All attorneys take an oath when they are sworn in as attorneys--defense lawyers included.

 

[*lore621*]

Dec 10th LP said on Nancy Grace show "don't be surprised if LE already had the body." Next day the body was found by the meter reader.

Thanks Manny. :blowkiss:

 

[mydailyopinions]

Now that seems like a straightforward response to me. The path this leads me down is that they went to the site and disturbed evidence. They scattered her over an acre of ground-isn't that the space that her poor little bones occupied? Those boys tampered with the scene-I suspect that LE will head down this path as well....jmo. And then I suspect they will stop talking about their tape.

Just the thought of that makes me almost as sick as Caylee being thrown out like garbage there anyways

 

[impatientredhead]

Yes - that is what LP said. I am sorry because I made it sound like they all did. It was just Hoover according to LP. Thanks for correcting!

Okay, and does Hoover work for Casey? are they partners? Who worked for Baez directly and who worked for the Anthony's directly? If Casey falls under privilege by being paid by Baez, do we know for sure that Hoover does as well?

 

[scandi]

Morally it does put them in a precarious position, but interestingly enough defense attorney are the only ones in the court room that don't have to take the oath.

Thanks for the answer HRCODEPINK ;}

 

[Sherbie]

The question to me seems to be whether the "tip" to look there came from something PI Casey learned while working for the defense. If it was after he left the defense team, it doesn't seem to be privileged to me. I thought someone said he wasn't still working with JB on Nov. 15th. So just where did he get the tip?

Haven't read all the way through yet, so hope I'm not duplicating any responses you may have received.

My understanding is that they're saying that neither PI Hoover nor PI Casey were still in the employ of Baez/Casey at the time the videotape was made or when Hoover allegedly was told by PI Casey that Caylee wasn't alive and that they were going to get her.

From what I gathered -- and this is mostly from LP, so keep that in mind -- neither PI was employed by Casey or her atty Baez at either of these times. They were apparently employed by the Anthony family (or at least one was and perhaps the other was employed by neither, not sure on that). Thus they are not bound by client privilege as part of the defense team as they would be if they had been employed by Baez/Casey.

Putting aside his "daisy chain" theory (I'm not even sure I totally follow what he's saying with that), this isn't one of those usual claims LP makes where he states so-and-so did this or that (only his speculation). It seems that he is flat-out stating that he, himself, had these very specific conversations with Hoover, even right down to very specific items the FBI had confiscated from Hoover.

I realize he hasn't had any qualms about spouting theories regarding other people as fact (only admitting it was speculation if pressed by someone about it). However, this time he's claiming that he personally had those specific conversations with Hoover. This is extremely critical information -- if he's lying about it, he could be in HUGE legal trouble. He has to know that. Therefore, I tend to believe most of what he's saying this time is the truth.

Now, if it IS true, this is bad, bad news for a lot of people. If those PIs were employed by the Anthonys and not by Baez/Casey at the time, they have no obligation to uphold a client privilege as far as anything that developed after that professional, hired employment was terminated, IMO.

This may be exactly why JB has his knickers in such a knot about LE interviewing a PI and may be the real reason that he filed that motion. Perhaps it's not just that he wants to be in on the interview to be sure Casey's privilege is not trampled -- maybe he wants to be there to try to make sure nothing is said to cook his own goose!

The ramifications here are tremendous -- for the defense, the PIs and the Anthony family. Depending on who knew/did what and when, there could be all kinds of charges coming down the pike eventually if what LP says is true.

Pure speculation on my part is that Casey or someone she confided in told either Baez or the PIs where she'd left Caylee; that the defense and the PIs and Anthonys have known for quite some time, yet all continued the pretense of a "search" for an alive Caylee. I don't even want to go where my mind is wandering right now since there's nothing yet to substantiate what I think might have happened. Suffice it to say that Casey's defense would be far better off if Caylee's remains were never found; but maybe someone's conscience was getting to them.

Bottom line is that I think the PIs had no privilege obligation to the defense after their employ was terminated (at least for info/developments that occurred after that employ ended). There is also the issue of sharing what might have truly been privileged information with a party who was never obligated by defense privilege. Does that nullify the privilege on any information shared in that context? I think it might.

I think even though the PIs may have been technically employed by the Anthony family in the "search" for Caylee, Baez still may have used them via the Anthonys at times. This presents an interesting privilege scenario, but I believe it boils down to there being no privilege if they weren't in the actual employ of Casey/Baez at the time.

By the way, I think Leonard was referring to very RECENT conversations with Hoover. There is no way in hades he'd have sat on the information. He would have either searched the area himself or gone straight to LE with the info if he'd known it way back then.

Oh, and as for the white vs. black bag. The meter reader may very well have seen a white bag the first three times he called -- that certainly doesn't mean Caylee was transferred to a black bag. He didn't open the white bag to see what was in it. My opinion is that she likely was very nearby in the black bag the whole time.

 

[charo]

my last comment- I agree- LP has said things that didnt pan out but to me I took them as theories- just like our theories, but alot he has said were true facts- about Casey in the home, how she was acting, how there is a little bit of truth to everything she said. I can see poeple disagreeing with his "facts" and stating it in a decent way, but bashing him and name calling is simply uncalled for I think-and I seen that last night on the thread for NG show. I always thought bashing on this forum wasnt allowed- and I have had enough respect not do it to no other human being on this forum - the only one I have bashed to a point is Casey and that is totally understandable. Sorry Patty for another post on it but I was answering someone who answered me about LP_ enough said from my end- my words arent going to stop anyone from not liking LP or bashing him but at least I got off my chest how I feel about what was being said- I sit here day and night wracking my brains out what happened to Caylee and I invite anyones opinions, facts or theories to try and piece it together and the sad part is we may never know.

 

[txsvicki]

This case just gets crazier and crazier. If Leonard is right, the whole lot of people involved should be in jail. I just wonder if LP tried to report what the PI said about finding the body. If so, that's yet another tip that Caylee might be in that general area, but why didn't Leonard search there?

 

[Sherbie]

In the morning, stop back here and you will see the videos of the show as well as the transcript. I normally post them around 7:00 AM EDT. You can also watch other shows by going here : Show Videos and Transcripts

Patty, haven't thanked you in a while for all the videos you've put up for us. Can't count the number of times I've missed something but have been able to see it anyway thanks to your kindness!

 

[scandi]

That is correct, defense lawyers tell client's they don't want to know...that's for several reasons: First, it's for a judge or jury to decide whether or not someone is guilty or innocent of the crime charged--it's not the lawyer's role; Second, a lawyer cannot put on known perjured testimony. So if a lawyer knows a client committed an act he/she can't call the client to the stand and allow them to testify falsely. However, in that case, if a client insists on taking the stand, the lawyer has to notify the court that the client will be testifying in the narrative. This way the lawyer doesn't ask any questions and the client just tells their story. Not sure what poster meant by stating that "defense attorney are the only ones in the court room that don't have to take the oath". No attorney takes an oath in the courtroom unless they are testifying ...which would be highly unusual. All attorneys take an oath when they are sworn in as attorneys--defense lawyers included.

Hi SoCalSleuth, and thanks so much for your answer too ;} It certainly jives with what I heard and you explained it like a pro ;}

 

[HRCODEPINK]

That is correct, defense lawyers tell client's they don't want to know...that's for several reasons: First, it's for a judge or jury to decide whether or not someone is guilty or innocent of the crime charged--it's not the lawyer's role; Second, a lawyer cannot put on known perjured testimony. So if a lawyer knows a client committed an act he/she can't call the client to the stand and allow them to testify falsely. However, in that case, if a client insists on taking the stand, the lawyer has to notify the court that the client will be testifying in the narrative. This way the lawyer doesn't ask any questions and the client just tells their story. Not sure what poster meant by stating that "defense attorney are the only ones in the court room that don't have to take the oath". No attorney takes an oath in the courtroom unless they are testifying ...which would be highly unusual. All attorneys take an oath when they are sworn in as attorneys--defense lawyers included.

I was referring to the swearing to tell the truth in the trials. Not the oath when becoming an attorney, sorry for the confusion. Also, I wanted to add to my own posts tonight on this that other than the opening and closing statements there really not any chances for the attorney to lie him/herself because they are only asking questions and objecting. And it is gotten around in opening and closing statements by saying that they are speculating on what happened really, since the prosecutions version is not correct, hence the not guilty plea. I am sorry if that doesn't make sense. I am tired and NG tonight just fried me mentally, as KC usually does.

 

[*lore621*]

This case just gets crazier and crazier. If Leonard is right, the whole lot of people involved should be in jail. I just wonder if LP tried to report what the PI said about finding the body. If so, that's yet another tip that Caylee might be in that general area, but why didn't Leonard search there?

And the plot thickens.

 

[impatientredhead]

Now that seems like a straightforward response to me. The path this leads me down is that they went to the site and disturbed evidence. They scattered her over an acre of ground-isn't that the space that her poor little bones occupied? Those boys tampered with the scene-I suspect that LE will head down this path as well....jmo. And then I suspect they will stop talking about their tape.

That is exactly my thinking. Privilege or not, there is a difference between not disclosing communications made by the client and breaking the law. An attorney is not allowed to let another crime be committed when he knows it is about to occur, that is not privileged. He is not allowed to physically hide evidence. That is different than disclosing its location.

But lets use some of the teenage crimes we have seen, perps A and B kill someone and then tell their friends where the bodies are, friends C, D, and E all go into the house to check it out instead of calling the police (or remaining silent). They are potentially destroying a crime scene and would either be prosecuted with their friends or forced to turns states evidence.

I would like to hear the audio on that tape and see what the context of being in this location was.