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

[Capri]

There is no indication that George and Cindy hired this PI through their attorney. If he was hired as a direct contractor to them there is no privilege.

But what if Baez/KC gave info to the PI while he was employed by Baez, and he used that bit of info. Would that fall under priveledge?

 

[Chezhire]

Counselor, this is not a storyline.

Well, i said a simplistic one, and I'd bet any WS reader/poster here could finish it out rather grandly.

 

[Chezhire]

Don't we have a thread to discuss the legal BS here?!

okay - how about I go make some opcorn:???

 

[Wudge]

Oh, I see, you're quoting literary terms/phrases from fiction, not legal standards relied upon by judges when instructing juries. I misunderstod you. My apologies.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, not the playwright Arthur Miller, Arthur Miller the law professor and scholar. At the time, he was still at Harvard.


HTH

 

[TxRose]

Counselor, this is not a storyline.

Perhaps I can try and clarify. Let's say the storyline is that she wrapped the duct tape around her daughter's head and she died.

It is murder one if you think wrapping the tape around her head is aggravated child abuse...because she died while you were abusing her...whether you intended for her to die or not. Under Florida rules...that is murder one.

On the other hand, if you think it was not abuse, but she did die - wouldn't that be considered manslaughter?

The storyline is one storyline. How you interpret what laws were broken could give you more than one result. Am I off base? (be gentle...it's getting late....)

 

[kiki the parrot]

Is LA's attorney worried about his client facing charges because LA is the common denominator between PI Casey, PI/freelance videographer Hoover, meter reader Kronk... and remains? I'm sorry I am just trying to understand the connecton between all these unfolding developments but my brain is exploding lol I must be tired... sigh...

 

[Wudge]

Well, i said a simplistic one, and I'd bet any WS reader/poster here could finish it out rather grandly.

They can finish one out for the aggravated manslaughter charge, and they can finish another one out for the murder one charge (wilful, planned, deliberated and with malice aforethought), but the circumstances in the storyline could not support both charges, obviously.

(Please note, prosecutros skipped a murder two charge.)

 

[Friday]

There's a nice big retention pond in a clearing right next to the woods where Caylee's body was found. All Casey had to do was throw the garbage bag into the water and watch it sink. No need to dig with a shovel or drag a bag through snake-infested woods.

She may, or may not, have realized that torrential rainfall and tropical storm force winds could cause the contents of the pond to spill over and be carried away by the floodwater.

Perhaps her "plan" had been to dispose of Caylee exactly as she did, and she chose that nearby site because she wanted Caylee's remains to be discovered--eventually. I think that because I can't get past her remark to Robb: "They haven't even found the clothes she was wearing yet." (quote from memory.)

 

[SuziQ]

There are plenty of premeditated murders where the body isn't even moved, let alone buried well.

Especially if the muderer wants it to look like a random attack. Brad Cooper left his wife out in the open and tried to make it look like Nancy was attacked while jogging.

 

[Wudge]

Perhaps I can try and clarify. Let's say the storyline is that she wrapped the duct tape around her daughter's head and she died.

It is murder one if you think wrapping the tape around her head is aggravated child abuse...because she died while you were abusing her...whether you intended for her to die or not. Under Florida rules...that is murder one.

On the other hand, if you think it was not abuse, but she did die - wouldn't that be considered manslaughter?

The storyline is one storyline. How you interpret what laws were broken could give you more than one result. Am I off base? (be gentle...it's getting late....)

A prosecutor's storyline is a rendering to the jury of their version of what allegedly happened.

If prosecutors were to start with "Casey searched for chloroform" (there's no proof that we know of that it was Casey that did these alleged searches) with the intent to murder Caylee, because she was in her way, then clearly that storyline would be apart from an aggravated manslaughter storyline.

 

[kiki the parrot]

Perhaps I can try and clarify. Let's say the storyline is that she wrapped the duct tape around her daughter's head and she died.

It is murder one if you think wrapping the tape around her head is aggravated child abuse...because she died while you were abusing her...whether you intended for her to die or not. Under Florida rules...that is murder one.

On the other hand, if you think it was not abuse, but she did die - wouldn't that be considered manslaughter?

The storyline is one storyline. How you interpret what laws were broken could give you more than one result. Am I off base? (be gentle...it's getting late....)

Or... let's say the duct tape was instead used postmortem in the cover-up to distance herself from an accident by staging a brutal kidnapping. Abuse of a corpse, tampering w evidence, (failure to report, false statements, etc etc) JMO

 

[MissJames]

There's a nice big retention pond in a clearing right next to the woods where Caylee's body was found. All Casey had to do was throw the garbage bag into the water and watch it sink. No need to dig with a shovel or drag a bag through snake-infested woods.

She may, or may not, have realized that torrential rainfall and tropical storm force winds could cause the contents of the pond to spill over and be carried away by the floodwater.

Perhaps her "plan" had been to dispose of Caylee exactly as she did, and she chose that nearby site because she wanted Caylee's remains to be discovered--eventually. I think that because I can't get past her remark to Robb: "They haven't even found the clothes she was wearing yet." (quote from memory.)

Friday,
do you think KC ,in some way,was responsible for the PI looking and filming in this area?

 

[SuziQ]

Ok - well then Wudge raises a good point. Why are they including a lesser charge? If you go with the theory she flat out murdered her on purpose...that is clearly murder one. If you assume she was abusing her by using cloroform or duct tape...and she dies...that is murder one as well because of the Florida statute. So just what circumstance would cause a verdict of manslaughter - given what we know so far? Just a lesser charge included in case the jury can't bring themselves to convict her of murder one and the penalty that would follow?

I remember when the indictment was handed down, that it was mentioned the charges were brought about the way they were in case LE found out later there was another person involved and the fact they didn't have a body. Now they have a body...that may have been duck taped at the mouth. I wouldn't be suprised if manslaughter is taken off the table. And unlikely as it is, it's possible for the DP to be brought back.

 

[kiki the parrot]

Especially if the muderer wants it to look like a random attack. Brad Cooper left his wife out in the open and tried to make it look like Nancy was attacked while jogging.

In this case, murder is not the only scenario from which a young, fearful, guilt-ridden, irresponsible, self-centered, "unfit" mother might hope to distance herself. JMO

 

[Chezhire]

SNIPPED: "... If prosecutors were to start with "Casey searched for chloroform" (there's no proof that we know of that it was Casey that did these alleged searches)

There will be proof: who had physical access to that computer on the dates in question???
State Attorney: I now call George A to testify. . . . George A, did you search for chloroform on that computer?" (expected response: no)
State Attorney: I now call Cindy A to testofy. . . . Cindy A, did you search for chloroorm on that computer? (expected response: no)
State Attorney: I now call Lee A to testify. . . . Lee A, did you search for chloroform on that computer? (expected response: no)

Logic/deduction will lead the jurors to the conclusion that Casey performed the searches for chloroform
(Course, she could take the stand and testify! :woohoo::woohoo::woohoo: I'd love for her to do that to try to exonerate herself.)

 

[Chezhire]

So, with all things considered and his concern about the PI, it is pretty likely that she did tell Baez. (wonder how long ago!) If he thinks the PI may have heard privileged information and the PI was working for the A's, then they probably knew for a while as well.

How or could any of this be proved and who could face what charges. :crazy: I assume Baez would be protected due to privilege?

I haven't heard any factual or legal basis yet that I believe would support charges against the PI. Course, we're not privy to everything yet, so...

 

[Wudge]

There will be proof: who had physical access to that computer on the dates in question???
State Attorney: I now call George A to testify. . . . George A, did you search for chloroform on that computer?" (expected response: no)
State Attorney: I now call Cindy A to testofy. . . . Cindy A, did you search for chloroorm on that computer? (expected response: no)
State Attorney: I now call Lee A to testify. . . . Lee A, did you search for chloroform on that computer? (expected response: no)

Logic/deduction will lead the jurors to the conclusion that Casey performed the searches for chloroform
(Course, she could take the stand and testify! :woohoo::woohoo::woohoo: I'd love for her to do that to try to exonerate herself.)

That's a viable approach. However, I learned five decades ago never to guess on how a witness will answer.

(You will almost always get back what you have inspected beforehand, but all too often not what you might have otherwise expected.)

 

[Crafti]

I haven't heard any factual or legal basis yet that I believe would support charges against the PI. Course, we're not privy to everything yet, so...

What about any of the A's facing charges?

 

[SeriouslySearching]

There will be proof: who had physical access to that computer on the dates in question???
State Attorney: I now call George A to testify. . . . George A, did you search for chloroform on that computer?" (expected response: no)
State Attorney: I now call Cindy A to testofy. . . . Cindy A, did you search for chloroorm on that computer? (expected response: no)
State Attorney: I now call Lee A to testify. . . . Lee A, did you search for chloroform on that computer? (expected response: no)

Logic/deduction will lead the jurors to the conclusion that Casey performed the searches for chloroform
(Course, she could take the stand and testify! :woohoo::woohoo::woohoo: I'd love for her to do that to try to exonerate herself.)

Then each one could pipe up and say, "Yes, I did" then proceed to claim to have killed Caylee in various ways. This would leave the SA in a precarious position, wouldn't it?

 

[Chezhire]

That's a viable approach. However, I learned five decades ago never to guess on how a witness will answer.

(You will almost always get back what you have inspected beforehand, but all too often not what you might have otherwise expected.)

...especialy if any of the Anthony family members are offered immunity