Searchers and the Motion Regarding TES

[suepitzl]

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/anthony_case/112309-Anthony-defense-Searchers-didnt-see-body

 

[mydailyopinions]

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/anthony_case/112309-Anthony-defense-Searchers-didnt-see-body

I am assuming this is just Joy Wray..
She's a supporter..:waitasec:

I take that back, seems JJ was there..

 

[Insomnia Momma]

I am assuming this is just Joy Wray..
She's a supporter..:waitasec:

I take that back, seems JJ was there..

I can't believe JJ would swear to having been right in that exact spot and there was no body.

Me thinks someone wasn't looking very carefully. :waitasec:

 

[Soju]

Thanks for starting the thread, suepitzl.

From the orlando sentinel article:

"The motion was filed after Casey Anthony's defense attorneys found two people, not listed in EquuSearch's documents, who stated they searched the exact area where the skeletal remains were found.

Searcher Joe Jordan claims he searched the area on Sept. 1, 2008 with five or six others, including a dog handler named Danny Ibison and another dog handler from the Panama City Sheriff's Office, court documents show.

Another woman, Laura Buchanan, of Mendham, N.J., said that on Sept. 3, 2008 she searched "near the privacy fence and worked my way towards and then beyond the spot where the body was found," according to a sworn statement.

Both Buchanan and Jordan said there was no indication a dead or decaying body was in the area when they searched."

I skimmed today's motion and at first glance it seems like Mr.Jordan claims to have been about 5 feet from where the body was found, and Buchanan said she was "towards and beyond" the spot. I'm not sure how this means that the body wasn't there, though. Considering the denseness of the woods, it'd be hard to see anything unless you were basically on top of it IMO. As far as there being no smell, I'm not sure there'd still be any smell by the time they were searching. I don't know. I'd be curious as to how Baez got a hold of these people. Did he have a kind of hotline like the "do you have proof that casey is innocent" hotline, a la "did you search the woods and didn't find anything"?

 

[shellsbells]

I don't understand any of this.. it seems like they're trying to prove a negative. There's no way for them to prove that Caylee's body wasn't there (especially with the plant growth info), all they're doing is proving over and over again that the searchers didn't find her. :waitasec:

 

[Soju]

I don't understand any of this.. it seems like they're trying to prove a negative. There's no way for them to prove that Caylee's body wasn't there (especially with the plant growth info), all they're doing is proving over and over again that the searchers didn't find her. :waitasec:

ITA shellsbells. The title of the news article is this:

Witness: Caylee Not In Woods When I Searched
Defense Team Claims Body Dumped After Jailing

IMO it should read "Caylee Not in Woods WHERE I Searched"

 

[Kentjbkent]

Here's what I don't get....

if these witnesses are to be believed, what advantage is it to the defense to reveal this information NOW to the PUBLIC through the MEDIA as opposed to saving this information for testimony in a trial?

If these witnesses were kept in the pocket of the defense (so to speak) until the trial, then ONLY the jury would have an opportunity to try to discredit their testimony through the only means available to them during the trial (any other testimony/evidence entered into record), so at least a shot that these witnesses may be believable (only have to convince 12 people)

By releasing this "newfound witness story" NOW, before trial, to the PUBLIC through the media, aren't they opening the statements of these witnesses up to a much, much larger group of people with a LOT more resources to discredit them NOW which is a greater risk that any testimony they can offer would be less believable???

What could possibly be gained by the defense to show their cards (as unbelievably silly as they are) to the PUBLIC and MEDIA now??

 

[mydailyopinions]

Here's what I don't get....

if these witnesses are to be believed, what advantage is it to the defense to reveal this information NOW to the PUBLIC through the MEDIA as opposed to saving this information for testimony in a trial?

If these witnesses were kept in the pocket of the defense (so to speak) until the trial, then ONLY the jury would have an opportunity to try to discredit their testimony through the only means available to them during the trial (any other testimony/evidence entered into record), so at least a shot that these witnesses may be believable (only have to convince 12 people)

By releasing this "newfound witness story" NOW, before trial, to the PUBLIC through the media, aren't they opening the statements of these witnesses up to a much, much larger group of people with a LOT more resources to discredit them NOW which is a greater risk that any testimony they can offer would be less believable???

What could possibly be gained by the defense to show their cards (as unbelievably silly as they are) to the PUBLIC and MEDIA now??

Would I be off base to think that maybe the defense is begging for a plea deal now? They are just doing it in a way that doesn't come right out and say they can't defend this case?

 

[suepitzl]

SOJU.....You are welcome. I thought that JJ guy had a lot of posts about a year or so ago.

 

[sleutherontheside]

I understand that the defense will call "searchers" to testify that the body wasn't there at that time. They are entitled to present opinions and statement s that support their theory. HOWEVER.....there is NO WAY ON EARTH that is is possible to guarantee that their searches were without flaw or error. Interestingly.....the defense has "proclaimed" their position of withholding any evidence until the trial, where it will all "make sense", yet they have no issue with penning memos regarding Kronk, AND people that state the area was cleared. The dogs utilized by OCSO that "hit" on decomp will be evaluated, handlers discussed and experience analyzed, and credentials combed. Unofficial dog handlers along with their owners who took it upon themselves to search.....will be held to the same standard. I am so NOT concerned with these "searchers" because unless they have received training in search methods or at least formal briefing from credentialed professionals.....their testimony will be nothing more than a "he said / she said". 25 old men with metal detectors could walk a Florida beach looking for jewelry. Just because a few pass by the gold watch doesn't mean it wasn't there as they scanned the sand. Semantics......all it is.......oh and......perspective.

 

[essies]

Would I be off base to think that maybe the defense is begging for a plea deal now? They are just doing it in a way that doesn't come right out and say they can't defend this case?

You're reading my mind!! But, I don't think the SA will be swayed as the defense looks desperate with a plethora of theories.
Kronk may have killed Caylee and placed her on Suburban DR. and called LE TWICE!! When Caine doesn't cooperate with following thru and finding her-he moves her! Cause Caylee wasn''t there in Sept. -according to JW and these searchers! Then sometime in Oct. (I guess) Kronk returns Caylee to Suburban Dr. Then waits till Dec. 11th to re-discover her!:waitasec:
I can't wait till trial!!

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I am just now seeing this....JJ used to post here. We need to search the really really old threads....

I found this thread with posts made by JJ who goes by another name now evidently. Hope this is not violating TOS..I am not talking about another poster, just referencing. It will be interesting to read back and see what info was posted then regarding the searches he was participating in.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70761&highlight=joe+jordan

 

[Jay D]

It appears that the defense is trying to use the statements of two individuals to show that TES was not compliant with the order to provide info of all TES volunteers that searched the area. TES supplied the requested info for 32 searchers, and the defense claims that these two were not listed with the 32. The defense is arguing that since TES was not completely compliant, that info from each and every volunteer should be given to the defense.

But by her own testimony( http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21703813/detail.html ), Laura B admits that "4. We were not officially assigned to search that area. We went on our own."

TES had no control over that and should not be held responsible for LB's actions, rendering useless the submission of Laura B's statement by the defense.

(My own uneducated opinion of course :wink: )

 

[TotallyObsessed]

How creepy is this??? While looking back over the old posts made by JJ....here was a poster who suggested to him on 8/4/08:

Quote:

I posted on the main discussion thread last night that I believe when Casey told her father "she's close" that she meant it literally.

I think they should check the wooded area behind the Anthony home, accessible via the right-of-way which runs directly behind the home, towards the body of water.

Just a hunch, but I do think she would put Caylee in a place she was familiar with."

Uhhhh that is really creepy...

 

[JBean]

It appears that the defense is trying to use the statements of two individuals to show that TES was not compliant with the order to provide info of all TES volunteers that searched the area. TES supplied the requested info for 32 searchers, and the defense claims that these two were not listed with the 32. The defense is arguing that since TES was not completely compliant, that info from each and every volunteer should be given to the defense.

But by her own testimony( http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21703813/detail.html ), Laura B admits that "4. We were not officially assigned to search that area. We went on our own."

TES had no control over that and should not be held responsible for LB's actions, rendering useless the submission of Laura B's statement by the defense.

(My own uneducated opinion of course :wink: )

But we did put a lot of faith in those searchers at the time even though we knew they were searching on their own

 

[cyberborg]

I don't understand any of this.. it seems like they're trying to prove a negative. There's no way for them to prove that Caylee's body wasn't there (especially with the plant growth info), all they're doing is proving over and over again that the searchers didn't find her. :waitasec:

Exactly!! There wasn't what you'd expect to find or see as a 'body'. Most of Caylee was scattered in the undergrowth and animal holes over an acre, the skull and rest in the bag was tucked under a palmetto with LOTS of brush.

Even if you could see it (partially) you'd dismiss it as part of the rest of the trash and debris in that area.

It was skeletonized and so there would be no decaying remains, smell or, buzzards -- that was all long gone from July.

It took the die back of that vegetation to properly reveal the skull.

 

[Kentjbkent]

I understand that the defense will call "searchers" to testify that the body wasn't there at that time. They are entitled to present opinions and statement s that support their theory. HOWEVER.....there is NO WAY ON EARTH that is is possible to guarantee that their searches were without flaw or error. Interestingly.....the defense has "proclaimed" their position of withholding any evidence until the trial, where it will all "make sense", yet they have no issue with penning memos regarding Kronk, AND people that state the area was cleared. The dogs utilized by OCSO that "hit" on decomp will be evaluated, handlers discussed and experience analyzed, and credentials combed. Unofficial dog handlers along with their owners who took it upon themselves to search.....will be held to the same standard. I am so NOT concerned with these "searchers" because unless they have received training in search methods or at least formal briefing from credentialed professionals.....their testimony will be nothing more than a "he said / she said". 25 old men with metal detectors could walk a Florida beach looking for jewelry. Just because a few pass by the gold watch doesn't mean it wasn't there as they scanned the sand. Semantics......all it is.......oh and......perspective.

:clap::clap:

 

[cyberborg]

Would I be off base to think that maybe the defense is begging for a plea deal now? They are just doing it in a way that doesn't come right out and say they can't defend this case?

I agree, seeking a better plea deal? Listening to AL's conference seminar one of her options is plea deal in the case of such overwhelming evidence. They are revealing some cards to put pressure on the prosecution to sweaten a deal. JB made comments that life is harsh for KC and she wants to see her family.

 

[Kentjbkent]

It appears that the defense is trying to use the statements of two individuals to show that TES was not compliant with the order to provide info of all TES volunteers that searched the area. TES supplied the requested info for 32 searchers, and the defense claims that these two were not listed with the 32. The defense is arguing that since TES was not completely compliant, that info from each and every volunteer should be given to the defense.

But by her own testimony( http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21703813/detail.html ), Laura B admits that "4. We were not officially assigned to search that area. We went on our own."

TES had no control over that and should not be held responsible for LB's actions, rendering useless the submission of Laura B's statement by the defense.

(My own uneducated opinion of course :wink: )

Joy Wray also stated that although a TES volunteer, she searched on her own "10 times" (Suburban) two days after Caylee went missing???

 

[Soju]

Thanks Totally Obsessed for digging up that old JJ thread. Wow! Here's an interesting quote of his from that thread, dated Sep 9/08:

We have a group that were involved at TES... my team of about 15, most are going to continue with us. We also have some individuals that are off duty law enforcement that will be involved as well. We are trying to gather, and will announce a time and location so we can continue. This will not be so much an organized grid search as TES does, but more about probable areas of interest because of the number of searchers.

key word here is "were" involved with TES, as in 'not any more'. And here he's flat out admitting that their search isn't as organized as a TES grid. This is somehow justification for Baez's motion? I don't get it. Am I missing something?