notthatsmart
Former Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 1,543
- Reaction score
- 0
BBM
The Defense did not. And this I realize this of O/Tfftopic: on this thread but wished to answer.
The Feb. 1 2010 deadline ruled by Judge S to the Defense team passed and just to refresh my memory NTS, you were posting on that thread
Casey Anthonys Defense Misses Deadline-Blames prosecution - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
First Motion from SA filed on Sept 10, 2009
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/10/08/reciprocal.to.compel1.pdf
Defense Response to motion filed on Sept 17, 2009
http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2009/1007/21230892.pdf
During the Hearing held on October 16, 2009
http://www.examiner.com/x-1168-Crim...l-date-set-in-fraud-case-murder-charges-stand
"Caseys legal team was also given additional time to provide proof that someone elsebesides Caseyplaced 2-year-old Caylee Anthonys body in the wooded area where her remains were discovered in Dec. 2008. Defense attorney Jose Baez said of the evidence, There will be something. There definitely will be something. The information must be given to the court by Feb. 1, 2010."
http://wdbo.com/localnews/2009/10/state-defense-spar-during-case.html
"The Judge Stand Strickland ruled that the defense has to produce evidence specific to the claim made by Macaluso. They'll have until February 1st to do so, or explain why they can't.|
Second Motion Filed by the SA filed on Dec 9, 2009
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/10/second.motion.to.compel.reciprocal.discovery.pdf
Casey Anthony Defense Team Misses Deadline
http://www.wftv.com/news/22415041/detail.html
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...sey-anthony-deadline-20100202,0,2529495.story
"Prosecutors did not receive any paperwork from Casey Anthony's defense team that backed up one of her attorney's comments in court that someone else left the body of Anthony's daughter in the woods, according to the State Attorney's Office.
Four months ago, Orange Circuit Judge Stan Strickland told the defense team they had until Feb. 1 to provide information.
The attorneys involved are working out a schedule for the release of discovery. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I missed the information showing that the Defense did indeed comply with the Judge's order please provide the LINKnline: to me and it can be posted on the appropriate thread http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95000&page=2.
I would be very interested in reading it. :read: Thanks.
I think what it is, is that the defense probably planned to use the searchers info to claim it was substantial evidence. The judge gave Tes a continuation. That made it impossible for the defense to make their claim with documents. The Judge understood this, and changed the discovery schedule to this week. The deadline was changed by the Judge. He agreed to have both sides sit down this week and go over discovery.
In my opinion, the information from the Tes searchers is substantial evidence that shows the body was not there. They provided this information a long time ago. They did meet the deadline.
I am not sure that the Judge ever said that the defense had to bring this proof to the prosecution, but to him. And to stay on topic, I believe that it is possible that this latest motion may have something to do with a Tes searcher. Mooo