State Motion to recover Investigative Costs

[logicalgirl]

Casey, IMO, is a liar and a murderer. It's LE's duty to look for a missing child which they thought Caylee was, based on Casey's lies. Why would they want to be reimbursed for looking for a missing child. It's their job. Let's say for argument's sake Caylee was found alive and well. Should they/LE be reimbursed?

Simple - the answer is yes. Because FCA said the child had been kidnapped. The answer is yes, because she was convicted of lying. Six months of searching - yes.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Casey, IMO, is a liar and a murderer. It's LE's duty to look for a missing child which they thought Caylee was, based on Casey's lies. Why would they want to be reimbursed for looking for a missing child. It's their job. Let's say for argument's sake Caylee was found alive and well. Should they/LE be reimbursed?

Yes, they would want reimbursed for their efforts if it turned out the person who reported the child missing was lying and knew where the child was the whole time. Why shouldn't they be paid by the liar for looking?

 

[Magdalyn]

Only $2250? I was thinking their expenses were around $80k...... Oh well.

They do look sorta similar with the dark hair. Casey mowing grass somewhere.........what a thought!!

If you read the people mag article, it mentions she was also in the process of paying back the state. Something like 43,000?

So she paid more than the 2250. :woohoo: (Georgia tax payer here.)

 

[logicalgirl]

The jury did find her guilty of lying and that's the point. The State was not outmaneuvered by JB (actually I find that :floorlaugh: ). They were outmaneuvered by a lazy jury who couldn't understand the evidence and were in too much of a hurry to get home to take the time to even worry about looking at any of the evidence or to ask the Judge to clarify. At any rate, this isn't personal even though CM thinks it is. This has to do with tax money expended because of a convicted liar that wouldn't have been spent if she hadn't lied. It's really very simple.

But let's cut to the chase here. This hearing is about the lies the jury convicted her of. Lying to the LE as to the whereabouts of her child, and the costs incurred searching for her. This hearing has no bearing on the rest of the trial.

 

[JBounds]

So in 30 days JP will make a decision? I wasn't watching and missed any posts about it.

 

[Just K]

My bet, HJBP will charge the convicted criminal for one half of what the state has submitted. It is obvious that the State did not even go after the investigative hours/$$$ that Florida gave the DT to follow up with "witnesses," etc...even after they admitted that that Caylee died before any of the felons lies were ever investigated.

CM said they spent $2 million of their own $$$ to save her life. So, with their lack of experience, ineffective use of time with an overabundant number of staff and their deliberate misuse of JAC $$$ you know that the cost to defend this selfish little Felon had to have cost the state another $2 million.

No, doubt the actual costs of the entire three year menagerie had to have equaled several million dollars for this woman (NOT A YOUNG GIRL...a YOUNG WOMAN) whose child supposedly drowned in a backyard swimming pool and who did not have the common decency to even call 911.

 

[LambChop]

But a little light on some case law?

LG: Not sure what you mean by some case law???

 

[logicalgirl]

So in 30 days JP will make a decision? I wasn't watching and missed any posts about it.

Didn't HHJP say he would have his decision out before the deadline of the 22 of September so he didn't have to ask for an extension?

 

[Talina]

Casey, IMO, is a liar and a murderer. It's LE's duty to look for a missing child which they thought Caylee was, based on Casey's lies. Why would they want to be reimbursed for looking for a missing child. It's their job. Let's say for argument's sake Caylee was found alive and well. Should they/LE be reimbursed?

Florida, along with a number of other states, have statutes that permit the state to recover costs of investigations for which a person is convicted. It has nothing to do with a "missing child". They can sue to recover costs for any type of conviction. There is a statutory minimum but beyond that, if the case is extensive in costs, states do go after more than the statutory minimum. In this situation, her lies led the investigators in so many different directions, she was convicted on the charges of lying that wasted tons of taxpayers dollars. I see absolutely no problem with the state asking for reimbursement.

Seems to me you are saying that when a child is missing, it is the state's obligation and responsibility to investigate and spend whatever resources they have to find this child - alive or deceased. For that, I do not disagree. I do, though, disagree with how you are then applying it to this situation and case. This child was not missing. She was reported missing by Casey - through lies and false police reports - and caused the state to waste thousands of dollars.

What you are saying and what she is being asked to repay are apples and oranges in my opinion.

 

[RR0004]

Casey, IMO, is a liar and a murderer. It's LE's duty to look for a missing child which they thought Caylee was, based on Casey's lies. Why would they want to be reimbursed for looking for a missing child. It's their job. Let's say for argument's sake Caylee was found alive and well. Should they/LE be reimbursed?

Come to think of it...the whole family perpetrated the fraud that Caylee was missing. It's a shame the State of Florida can't recoup some of their losses from George and Cindy.

 

[logicalgirl]

LG: Not sure what you mean by some case law???

According to the poster who quoted Judge Alex, he (the Judge) was questioning whether FCA should be assessed these amounts because she was found not guilty of the murder charges. Should have used the word Statutes not case law.
These assessments have nothing to do with the murder charges, they have to do with the lying convictions.

Big diff.

 

[RR0004]

Agree but don't you mean six months too long?

I was thinking that if she had told the truth from Day 1...that is, if she really drowned.

 

[okiedokietoo]

And you know this how? The jury didn't seem to know. If anyone is to blame for this mess it's JA who LOST a case and now is writing a book. I keep asking with no answers where the proceeds to his book will go. He was outmaneuvered by a rookie. The whole State was outmaneuvered by JB. What a laugh. :waitasec:

I figure the proceeds are going to JA, imo he should get the proceeds. He is writing the book. It's his book. He spent 3 years of his life on this case. I hope the book hits #1 and he makes 100,000's from the book.
Yes, JB was a rookie but people that play dirty, lie and cheat sometimes do win, initially, but isn't it interesting how the Universe works because as my Grandmother would say "it will all come out in the wash".

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

We should be careful what we wish for.

Both sides and the judge had trouble finding caselaw about this. So, basically, HHBP will be setting precedents that will be used in other cases in the future. Because his decisions will be used in the future, he will need to take only the law into consideration (which he always does). HHBP will not rule with any feelings towards KC or the public outrage, since those feelings are not points of law. If he finds rules 100% in favor of the state, the aftermath will be prosecutors around the country will be attempting to place the costs of entire investigations on the defendants. I realize we want KC to be made to pay as much as possible, however, in future cases, it won't always be the most hated woman in America as the defendant. If HHBP rules completely in favor of the state, all the state would have to do in most cases in the future, is add a lying to police charge (which very often will be upheld in court, as it really does happen all the time), and voila, the state can spend whatever they want on a case and charge the defendant all costs. This may be oversimplifying the implications of HHBP favoring the state 100%, but, his decisions on this will set precedents for many cases down the road. I don't think these decisions are easy, or simple, and I think HHBP will do his homework on this. Don't be to disappointed if he rules that any costs after the indictment will not have to be paid by KC.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[RR0004]

Didn't HHJP say he would have his decision out before the deadline of the 22 of September so he didn't have to ask for an extension?

He said he'd try.

 

[Talina]

But a little light on some case law?

Alex Ferrer. Google him. Very well known and respected former judge in Florida and he is actually the judge that HHJP referenced when he said he was giving the attorneys some guidelines on how to conduct their closing statements. This was written by Judge Alex.

I don't know what the other poster was referring to as to his direct comments on this particular hearing/situation. However, I did see him on several MSM talk shows and news briefs during and after this trial. He was very outspoken about how he felt the SAO's had proven their case way beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[okiedokietoo]

Here's the question
I've been asking myself all day. I think Judge Alex touched on it, but here goes. Why is prosecution asking to recover expenses for a missing child aka Caylee, when obviously the jury found Casey NG of murder. So........ what happened to Caylee? In effect Casey didn't harm Caylee according to a jury of her peers.

which part of your post is actual Judge Alex quote?

 

[logicalgirl]

He said he'd try.

LOL - he's very good at trying and he looked by the end of the hearing that he'd like to make a decision and have it placed in Mr. Mason's "ear".

 

[LambChop]

Not even to mention the defense asking for money to investigate TES volunteers at a great expense to the state when you knew all along your client was going to claim Caylee drowned??? If I were a Florida taxpayer I'd be ripping mad. jmo

 

[Sustained]

We should be careful what we wish for.

Both sides and the judge had trouble finding caselaw about this. So, basically, HHBP will be setting precedents that will be used in other cases in the future. Because his decisions will be used in the future, he will need to take only the law into consideration (which he always does). HHBP will not rule with any feelings towards KC or the public outrage, since those feelings are not points of law. If he finds rules 100% in favor of the state, the aftermath will be prosecutors around the country will be attempting to place the costs of entire investigations on the defendants. I realize we want KC to be made to pay as much as possible, however, in future cases, it won't always be the most hated woman in America as the defendant. If HHBP rules completely in favor of the state, all the state would have to do in most cases in the future, is add a lying to police charge (which very often will be upheld in court, as it really does happen all the time), and voila, the state can spend whatever they want on a case and charge the defendant all costs. This may be oversimplifying the implications of HHBP favoring the state 100%, but, his decisions on this will set precedents for many cases down the road. I don't think these decisions are easy, or simple, and I think HHBP will do his homework on this. Don't be to disappointed if he rules that any costs after the indictment will not have to be paid by KC.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

Note to self - don't lie to the police or it may cost me. Why should the taxpayers foot the bill for convicted liars ?