Sleuthing Cindy's Depo & Baez Objections to Sealed Items

[Texas Mist]

ThoughtElf, it's my understanding that appeals are automatic for DP cases in Florida....are you thinking that the problem with the "ethics" would cause a verdict to be overturned on appeal?

 

[ThoughtElf]

ThoughtElf, it's my understanding that appeals are automatic for DP cases in Florida....are you thinking that the problem with the "ethics" would cause a verdict to be overturned on appeal?

TY for the BBM part above. Very good reminder.

Yes, I am thinking that an ethics issue might cause an overturn on appeal.

Well, not really.

I am concerned that JB found a 'conflict of interest' legal loophole to work within that it might later provide grounds for a specific, (versus automatic,) appeal, as noted above in the 'conflict of interest' motion screen shots.

I am biased, and have followed Caylee's case closely, so I'm a crummy benchmark to use as a baseline.

I don't think the case can be appealed on ethics issues based on what we currently know, and considering how many FL Bar complaints JB has been cleared on to date.

That said, I do have concerns about the specific 'conflict of interest' questions raised by the OC/FL SA office.

Even so, I am not overly concerned that this would ultimately result in Casey's eventual guilty verdict being overturned, because I believe that the State is doing all they can to clearly document potential issues on the record via motions, sidebars, in cameras and depos.

I think JB might actually be angling in hopes that he can eventually manipulate someone else into raising ethics issues after the fact, but that's just a hunch. And I do believe that Ashton, LDB, and the rest of their staff are more than a wee bit aware of this possibility. Thus, this whole thread.

I don't respect JB, but he might be more shrewd than many believe him to be. He's working what he can - whether we like it, or not. And, based on his history, he's more adept at working the system, than he is at respecting the law, IMO.

I mean c'mon. For every 100 decent defense lawyers out there who besmirch the reputation of those who believe in the course of justice, there are only a very few like JB and his team. Unfortunately, those few are media Darlings because they take on 'high profile' cases.

My last pennies are still on placed firmly the SA team.

Bad lawyer jokes aren't about 98% of either defense or prosecution litigators. They're all about those in their profession who are either inept, 'work' the system, or both.

 

[Valhall]

How did the SA know to question GA about the laundry bag containing balls. Is there a picture we haven't seen?

*snipped to point*

3dog - CA's depositions were on the 28th and 29th of July and GA's deposition was on the 5th of August. CA told them that they had one of the round cloth laundry bags and one of the rectangular cloth laundry bags. She is the one that tells them first about the balls being kept in the round one.

 

[MissJames]

TY for the BBM part above. Very good reminder.

Yes, I am thinking that an ethics issue might cause an overturn on appeal.

Well, not really.

I am concerned that JB found a 'conflict of interest' legal loophole to work within that it might later provide grounds for a specific, (versus automatic,) appeal, as noted above in the 'conflict of interest' motion screen shots.

I am biased, and have followed Caylee's case closely, so I'm a crummy benchmark to use as a baseline.

I don't think the case can be appealed on ethics issues based on what we currently know, and considering how many FL Bar complaints JB has been cleared on to date.

That said, I do have concerns about the specific 'conflict of interest' questions raised by the OC/FL SA office.

Even so, I am not overly concerned that this would ultimately result in Casey's eventual guilty verdict being overturned, because I believe that the State is doing all they can to clearly document potential issues on the record via motions, sidebars, in cameras and depos.

I think JB might actually be angling in hopes that he can eventually manipulate someone else into raising ethics issues after the fact, but that's just a hunch. And I do believe that Ashton, LDB, and the rest of their staff are more than a wee bit aware of this possibility. Thus, this whole thread.

I don't respect JB, but he might be more shrewd than many believe him to be. He's working what he can - whether we like it, or not. And, based on his history, he's more adept at working the system, than he is at respecting the law, IMO.

I mean c'mon. For every 100 decent defense lawyers out there who besmirch the reputation of those who believe in the course of justice, there are only a very few like JB and his team. Unfortunately, those few are media Darlings because they take on 'high profile' cases.

My last pennies are still on placed firmly the SA team.

Bad lawyer jokes aren't about 98% of either defense or prosecution litigators. They're all about those in their profession who are either inept, 'work' the system, or both.

First,TE,you are a supersleuth! Apparently you work best on no sleep.
Is it possible that JB is "courting" Miz Anthony? I wonder if an appeal attorney could throw in that JB cultivated a more intimate relationship than the typical attorney/client relationship,thus having more control over KC.On his advice she no longer spoke to her parents,except through him.She got all of her info ,only through him. In this way he was able to convince her to follow his plan,which only was in his best interest,not his clients.
ITA about the SA's team. They prove over and over again that they have what it takes to win this case.We ain't seen nothin' yet :dance:

 

[Macushla]

Two questions I hope someone can answer for me.

1) Was the DP brought back to the table before or after the March 25th hearing about how the defense was being funded? That in itself might be a real clue as to what the sealed 'item was'.

2) Is there any link to some motion, document, etc. that definitively shows that Judge Strickland sealed the 'nasty' photos? I can't seem to find anything, or was this just brought up in a hearing? I know the FBI discussed these photos with GA and I know something was brought up about them at one hearing (or was that the photobucket account?). So do we know as a fact, with supporting evidence, that those photos were sealed. Wow, I am beginning to sound like an attorney - must be spending way to much time on the 'legal' threads

 

[Valhall]

Two questions I hope someone can answer for me.

1) Was the DP brought back to the table before or after the March 25th hearing about how the defense was being funded? That in itself might be a real clue as to what the sealed 'item was'.

2) Is there any link to some motion, document, etc. that definitively shows that Judge Strickland sealed the 'nasty' photos? I can't seem to find anything, or was this just brought up in a hearing? I know the FBI discussed these photos with GA and I know something was brought up about them at one hearing (or was that the photobucket account?). So do we know as a fact, with supporting evidence, that those photos were sealed. Wow, I am beginning to sound like an attorney - must be spending way to much time on the 'legal' threads

I can answer number 1 - it was before, March 13th.

 

[Tracey276]

I am wondering if the defense is going to try to implicate Cindy (and/or George) and this might have something to do with that. Because just after all this, both AL and JB question Cindy and want to know specifics about the immunity that was offered to her. Pure speculation.

I haven't gotten very far into reading this thread yet. However, I had to comment on this. I totally agree with you lacey. I think the defense (KC) are going to try and implicate the A's in something. Because along with JB's questioning here, I think KC's complete refusal to acknowledge her parents in the courtroom says volumes. When I saw GA and CA nearly bend into pretzels to make some sort of eye contact with KC and her ignoring them, worse than ever before, it made me sure something was up. I believe this time, KC even could have had the opportunity to touch her parents if she had wanted and she wouldn't even look their way. Did anyone else get this feeling worse than ever before here?

 

[Tracey276]

Trying to attach pix---

Oh my gosh. Thanks for the pic, lacey. I had forgotten just how BIG this backpack was. What the hail was she bringing to his office??? I can't imagine what all could be in there.

WOW!

 

[lizzysf]

*snipped to point*

3dog - CA's depositions were on the 28th and 29th of July and GA's deposition was on the 5th of August. CA told them that they had one of the round cloth laundry bags and one of the rectangular cloth laundry bags. She is the one that tells them first about the balls being kept in the round one.

Love how Baez sets up scenario that they had garage sales and it could have been sold at one... oh...so did Zanny buy the round cloth bag from the Anthony's garage sale? LOL ..or some other mysterious killer.. :banghead:

 

[Just Jayla]

Two questions I hope someone can answer for me.

1) Was the DP brought back to the table before or after the March 25th hearing about how the defense was being funded? That in itself might be a real clue as to what the sealed 'item was'.

2) Is there any link to some motion, document, etc. that definitively shows that Judge Strickland sealed the 'nasty' photos? I can't seem to find anything, or was this just brought up in a hearing? I know the FBI discussed these photos with GA and I know something was brought up about them at one hearing (or was that the photobucket account?). So do we know as a fact, with supporting evidence, that those photos were sealed. Wow, I am beginning to sound like an attorney - must be spending way to much time on the 'legal' threads

I was under the impression they were, though I cannot say for sure, would have to find that proceeding. Another problem with the photos is that they may be dated well before Caylee's murder, and JB/AL might try to block them for being prejudicial in nature. Attys here can 'splain more on that that I can

 

[Muzikman]

Two questions I hope someone can answer for me.

1) Was the DP brought back to the table before or after the March 25th hearing about how the defense was being funded? That in itself might be a real clue as to what the sealed 'item was'.

2) Is there any link to some motion, document, etc. that definitively shows that Judge Strickland sealed the 'nasty' photos? I can't seem to find anything, or was this just brought up in a hearing? I know the FBI discussed these photos with GA and I know something was brought up about them at one hearing (or was that the photobucket account?). So do we know as a fact, with supporting evidence, that those photos were sealed. Wow, I am beginning to sound like an attorney - must be spending way to much time on the 'legal' threads

The DP was put back on the table April 13 2009, after that hearing.
Story: http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2009/4/13/oprah_to_interview_casey_anthonys_parents.html
Document: http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/19169375.pdf

There is nothing official about nasty photos even existing. The hearing was for the PB account photos, motion filed by the Sentinel, which were already out at that time anyway, so it was a moot point.

 

[Valhall]

The DP was put back on the table April 13 2009, after that hearing.

There is nothing official about nasty photos even existing. The hearing was for the PB account photos, motion filed by the Sentinel, which were already out at that time anyway, so it was a moot point.

Thanks, Muzikman! I was off a month!!!

 

[celticthyme]

Oh my gosh. Thanks for the pic, lacey. I had forgotten just how BIG this backpack was. What the hail was she bringing to his office??? I can't imagine what all could be in there.

WOW!

Is there a photo of that somewhere?
I wonder if she was carting whole photo albums?

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

I think that early on, many of us were concerned that there were deep pockets funding the defense. That raised suspicion that someone with info to protect wanted to make sure that KC kept her mouth shut. Now, I think we see that KC was selling out her daughter to fund her own defense, and while legal, is disgusting. Perhaps the reason that JB fought so hard to keep this under wraps, is because it would further support the theories that she was interesting inonly herself. I can't imagine any innocent mother selling out their dead child for their own good and benefit being viewed in a positive manner. This is, while legal, absolutely unethical.

Getting in on the last of this thread, but have read every post..I must say that your post required more than the Thanks button. It deserves a standing ovation!
:aktion033::aktion033::aktion033::aktion033:

 

[celticthyme]

I think that early on, many of us were concerned that there were deep pockets funding the defense. That raised suspicion that someone with info to protect wanted to make sure that KC kept her mouth shut. Now, I think we see that KC was selling out her daughter to fund her own defense, and while legal, is disgusting. Perhaps the reason that JB fought so hard to keep this under wraps, is because it would further support the theories that she was interesting inonly herself. I can't imagine any innocent mother selling out their dead child for their own good and benefit being viewed in a positive manner. This is, while legal, absolutely unethical.

The 2 slimeballs really do deserve each other
Months ago I posted about the legal / ethical issue of this case not being Plea'd out, but now I see that it is not in his best interest for him to do so, the State, and probably the Judge, have seen this coming all along, and are not in any legal position to do anything about it. Lord, just when you think it can't get any more disgusting, . . it does. . .
The stench of what these people are capable of is just beyond belief.

 

[Macushla]

The DP was put back on the table April 13 2009, after that hearing.
Story: http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2009/4/13/oprah_to_interview_casey_anthonys_parents.html
Document: http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/19169375.pdf

There is nothing official about nasty photos even existing. The hearing was for the PB account photos, motion filed by the Sentinel, which were already out at that time anyway, so it was a moot point.

So there is a remote possibility that something the SA heard during that 'in camera' session was a factor in deciding to reinstate the DP. I know, it's a stretch, but it is possible.

And there were no photos sealed (other than crime scene).

Oh My! Now this is getting more and more intriguing. I have one more question about the depo and the exhibit. IF the 'item' being disputed was sealed - they could not have attached it to the end of the depo. right? My point being that whatever photos, pictures are in the depo - they can not be the disputed ones because that 'item' had been sealed. I can't imagine the SA would risk either sanctions or getting this all important depo tossed by attaching something they KNOW has been sealed.

 

[MissJames]

Is there a photo of that somewhere?
I wonder if she was carting whole photo albums?

I think I remember in some evidecne photos pictures of a scrapbook ,basically to show the heart stickers.What struck me was that pictures appeared to be missing.There were captions or decorations,but the pics were gone.At the time I thought Cindy had used them to stage KC's room during that video tour,but now I wonder if KC took them to JB.
IIRC kc also took bed linens of Caylee's.Folded up,they would also create some bulk.

 

[Muzikman]

So there is a remote possibility that something the SA heard during that 'in camera' session was a factor in deciding to reinstate the DP. I know, it's a stretch, but it is possible.

And there were no photos sealed (other than crime scene).

Oh My! Now this is getting more and more intriguing. I have one more question about the depo and the exhibit. IF the 'item' being disputed was sealed - they could not have attached it to the end of the depo. right? My point being that whatever photos, pictures are in the depo - they can not be the disputed ones because that 'item' had been sealed. I can't imagine the SA would risk either sanctions or getting this all important depo tossed by attaching something they KNOW has been sealed.

That's my understanding. Unless they slipped up, which happened once before when they released the OC Jail staff audio before they were supposed to.

No photos to my knowledge, other than the remains and autopsy photos, have been sealed.

But I'm wondering, because Dominic's second interview was sealed, and I can find no order on that...

 

[celticthyme]

Late night brain-fart:

Could part of the reason that the State has such a problem with JB's ethical behavior be that they recognize that it doesn't seem as if JB has really gotten through to Casey that she really is facing the DP?


If our theories about her being the source via photos/images for $$$$$ It would not be in HIS best interest for her to do a plea. What is unclear to me, is how soon did he know or realize the $$$ benefit, so that her taking a plea just was never put to her, ( or the horrific fact that most of the evidence is very damning and stacked against her)

Initially, peeps thought taking the plea was because of Casey not wanting to admit to anything . . now???

The other question is, what is AL's part in this?? Why would she not have that come to Jesus talk with Casey??

 

[kew17]

Something else that bothers me is KC's belief that this will end in a mistrial. Almost seemed convinced of it! From my post earlier, I feel a connection to the in camera meeting on March 25, JS's following bar complaint and then the DP back on the table 4/13/09 to this Sealed secret.