P.I. Says He Videotaped Area Where Caylee Was Later Found #2

[LancelotLink]

Do I smell a busy week coming up for JB & all of the A's lawyers? A's lawyer said he is putting in the paper work for the A's on Monday for immunity. I think we're going to get hit with a lot next week....doc dumps, JB's Oh noooo this can't be happening motions. I agree no immunity for DC but still yes for JH.

Is what LP kept referring to on NG last month about a bombshell that was to come soon? As much of a talker he is....he wouldn't reveal to NG what that was. Maybe this is what he was talking about....The dueling PI's & knowing where Caylee was in Nov.! This could be why LP didn't come back to search after he had the divers at the Little Econ? He did say he was coming back & ended up going home to CA! :waitsec:

Y-e-s-s...I thought at first he was dodging a polygraph, but this makes more sense.
Immunity-the race is on.

 

[Angel Who Cares]

How is it that SO many people in this weird twisted story can lie so easily when we are talking about a 2 YEAR OLD LITTLE GIRL???

Her name is Caylee, she was 2 years old. She is MORE than a pile of bones to be shifted around and argued over. :furious:

ITA with you...:furious: I posted this somewhere today..."That I pray Caylee is too busy singing and playing with all of the other :angel:'s & dosen't have a clue as to what is going on here on earth. :blowkiss:

 

[SeriouslySearching]

yep. I still want to know if "Mr. Joy" works for Jose, in what capacity? The man has a battery arrest (or 2) on his record. Why would an attorney, or law firm, take a chance in hiring someone with that arrest record?

A) The same reason they would ask that a group of law students go onto the internet to various websites discussing the case to toss around theories, interject absurd scenarios, and try to garner a case for reasonable doubt?!

B) You get what you pay for?!

C) They are spending someone else's money and wanted to include all their friends on the tab in any capacity so everyone gets a cut?!

D) All of the above?

 

[LancelotLink]

A) The same reason they would ask that a group of law students go onto the internet to various websites discussing the case to toss around theories, interject absurd scenarios, and try to garner a case for reasonable doubt?!

B) You get what you pay for?!

C) They are spending someone else's money and wanted to include all their friends on the tab in any capacity so everyone gets a cut?!

D) All of the above?

I agree whole-heartedly!
I didn't know about (A)

 

[Capri]

A) The same reason they would ask that a group of law students go onto the internet to various websites discussing the case to toss around theories, interject absurd scenarios, and try to garner a case for reasonable doubt?!

B) You get what you pay for?!

C) They are spending someone else's money and wanted to include all their friends on the tab in any capacity so everyone gets a cut?!

D) All of the above?

LOL, I vote D:clap::clap::clap:

 

[cyberborg]

yep. I still want to know if "Mr. Joy" works for Jose, in what capacity? The man has a battery arrest (or 2) on his record. Why would an attorney, or law firm, take a chance in hiring someone with that arrest record?

Because it was on the Defense team job description as mandatory skills, that they were looking for professionals with appropriate criminal experience. :bang:

 

[cyberborg]

I wonder if he checked out Fusions too? He wouldn't need to take pictures there, lol all he would have to do is ask a few million people for them..surely someone would give them to him:bang:

Nah, Fusions was already covered. KC spent 31 days making sure Fusions was thoroughly investigated and validated as to whether this is where folks hang out and she took plenty of photos (or posed for).

 

[Paintr]

Good idea, I still have almost a full bottle left over from last night, I might need it



Reminds me of a scene from The Outlaw Josey Wales, "I didn't surrender they snuck up on my horse and made him surrender"

There goes my keyboard also! LMAO! Thanks stagehand, I was getting angry thinking of all the people wanting immunity for doing 'nuthin' illeagle. Needed the laugh.:blowkiss:

​

 

[gitana1]

When MN gave a statement after he quit he said the A's had every right to continue hoping Caylee was alive.This was in the midst of the mall sighting and the CA sighting the A's talked about on LKL.If MN thought the A's knew where Caylee was at that time I don't think he would have made those comments.I think he was fed up with them talking.

I agree with you MissJames.

 

[gitana1]

I will never understand the law in this regard. To know where the remains of a body are and not be able to tell is wrong on so many levels. The truth should win over rights in that situation.

That's why I don't practice criminal law!

 

[TravelingBug]

ITA. I think on Nov14 after Dr. Lee looked at the car and told JB in no uncertain terms that there was a dead body in the trunk, JB went to KC and told her to come clean. He then got word back to the A's and the PI's and had the PI's go out and video tape the general area so they could see if the bag was visible now that the vegetation had started to die off.

I don't think it was taken to support a defense of "look, the body wasn't there on 11/15 so my client couldn't have done it" but was taken to assure themselves that the body was hidden well enough and wouldn't be found. You'll also notice that this is about the time that MN quit. I speculate that he found out that the A's knew about the location of the body and that they were going to keep quiet about it and he didn't want to be a part of that crime so he quit. Everything was going along fine. The A's were still able to play the "Caylee is still alive, please send us money to help search for her", they could still pretend that KC was innocent. Then along came Roy on 12/11 and screwed their plans all up. Now everyone's getting nervous about being charged, they're asking for immunity and lawyering up and they're just waiting for the other shoe to drop. The PI that has the video figures he better leak it to the media and take the stance that "I didn't know the reason they asked me to video tape that area. They just told me to go to Suburban Dr and video tape the swamp on the south side of the road"

***the above is purely speculation on my part, but like any puzzle, if the pieces fit.....*****

:clap:

I think that scenario is one of (if not THE most) the most plausible since all this has come out!

 

[gitana1]

I will add that if MN had been told by CA or GA that they intended to commit a crime (or fraud), MN could be compelled to disclose that communication.

Actually, that is not true. Attorney's are NEVER compelled to break confidentiality and are only PERMITTED to do so if certain guidelines have been met as follows:

Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Client-Lawyer Relationship

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality Of Information

(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).

(b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:

(1) to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm;
(2) to prevent the client from committing a crime or fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another and in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer's services;
(3) to prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the client's commission of a crime or fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer's services;
(4) to secure legal advice about the lawyer's compliance with these Rules;(5) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer's representation of the client; or
(6) to comply with other law or a court order.




http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/rule_1_6.html (Emphasis mine)

 

[madeleine]

Are you sure all these people know which side they're on?

 

[Wudge]

Actually, that is not true. Attorney's are NEVER compelled to break confidentiality and are only PERMITTED to do so if certain guidelines have been met as follows:

Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Client-Lawyer Relationship

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality Of Information

SNIP

(2) to prevent the client from committing a crime or fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another and in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer's services;

SNIP

You referenced the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege.

Under this exception, both courts (usually after an evidence hearing) and Grand Juries can compel an attorney to reveal the related communication and/or produce related documents.

HTH

 

[impatientredhead]

You referenced the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege.

Under this exception, both courts (usually after an evidence hearing) and Grand Juries can compel an attorney to reveal the related communication and/or produce related documents.

HTH

The part you snipped included other crimes, and the crime they intended to commit would have to meet the standard of serious bodily harm or death possibly resulting. Unless they told Nejame they were going to kill, mame, or conduct an armed robbery it is not likely they met that standard.

 

[Wudge]

The part you snipped included other crimes, and the crime they intended to commit would have to meet the standard of serious bodily harm or death possibly resulting. Unless they told Nejame they were going to kill, mame, or conduct an armed robbery it is not likely they met that standard.

I referenced the cited existence of the exception merely to show the poster that the exception exists.

Courts adjudicate these issues (exceptions) -- including Grand Jury subpeonas for documents deemed to be privileged.

Regarding this case, I highly doubt that any such issue will develop.

These issues far more frequently rear their head in tax cases and/or corporate cases.

 

[Kimmer]

OK here is my questions...If the A's knew at some point that Caylee was dead and where her remains could be found...and CA knew what items were missing from her home, could she have had the PI go to the woods to also see if he could locate any of the items that were possibly missing? Also if she knew that say a book of Caylee's was gone why would the PI not tell someone that there was a childs book located in the woods and if it was Caylee's then they would have a full month to remove at least that piece of evidence...My thought is that if there is a video then he was in the wrong area..

 

[Elphaba]

Hmmmm... interesting development over the video tape:

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/p...n=3&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1

 

[KDB]

Maybe I'm in the minority but quite frankly, I can't see CA divulging the location of the body (if she knew and I don't think she did) to an outsider and I also don't see KC telling JB. I really don't. That takes some control away from them. While the circumstances are suspicious of the PI's being there, I think they gained this information some other way... maybe they came across something while in the Anthony home, talked with some of KC's friends who had some thoughts of the area or overheard something they should not have. JMO

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

But DC in his interview with FOX says this & proves that they were there. So I'm betting there is/was a video.

Casey took photos of the area and said he's turned over his photos to the Anthony's attorney, to give to prosecutors.

So that still dosen't explain why they were looking Nov. 15th when Kio told LE about hanging out there July 18th or it was the 19th. I posted the link to prove it was even sooner then what the transcript was done. JMO

AND, IIRC, Kio met with the investigator in the school parking lot to tell him about where (behind the school) they hung out. NOT on Suburban where PI supposedly was.

ETA that I'm pretty positive it was Kio....I can go back and check if it was her or someone else.....I hate going thru all those documents !! :crazy:

ETA ETA : http://itsamysterytome.wordpress.co...w-transcript/?referer=sphere_related_content/

ETA ETA ETA : IIRC, Police DID search the area where Kio showed them