State Motion to recover Investigative Costs

[my2sense]

When she ran and hid, he was alive. He was murdered while she was hiding in the old building. The following day, the police questioned her, before she found out he was dead (she had went to work where she felt safe). She lied because she was planning on hiding there again.

It was a quick hypothetical, I am sure there are holes in it LOL. I just think that if the judge goes 100% with the prosecution, that it will cause some real interesting cases down the line.

Yep, holes for sure -- like, she'd probably know he was dead within a day, and she could come clean before exhaustive monies were spent on the lie.

Really, I'm "good" with holding people accountable for their lies. I'd prefer it if people got back to being more truthful/accountable. (my age is showing)

 

[21merc7]

Just got back, thank you everyone for the updates.

I hate to tell you this, but today was shameless and merely cost tax payers more money. (Wait until all vouchers are turned in, a few months from now.)

This could have been handled "In Courtroom Hours" within 10 to 20 minutes max, hence my much earlier comment that I could not believe it was still going on. All of the questions could have been done via paperwork, depositions, skype since they use it, or many other alternatives.

When I say tax payers I mean all in the U.S. Not just Florida, when one State is lacking all pick it up. One big budget that is not budgeted at all. One big mess. Today is just another example of no one caring about that, t.v. is in the way. Try to make more "hype" for the FKC case and make their own small life money is in the way.

I'll stop there now on that issue.

The Judge will issue another paper Order when the time is there. Media will get a copy and post it.

 

[Brooke]

Replays of today's hearing are at this link--there are 5 parts.
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 2011.08.29-09.04 This Week's Current News **NO DISCUSSION HERE PLEASE**

Thanks so much! I had to tend to a husband who just got back from the dentist for an extraction when the hearing started and I also had an appointment later on. I was able to watch part of it, but was hoping I'd be able to watch the whole thing.

It's probably a good thing I couldn't watch the whole thing at once, though; I could feel my blood pressure rising rapidly when CM was up to bat. :sick:

 

[strawberry]

Was anyone watching HLN around 5:10? I just turned it on and Jean C. was saying "not at all and in fact quite the opposite and very alienating." From the rest of the convo (someone said don't look for an apology from FCA because she wasn't raised that way) it sounded like the question was whether FCA through her DT was taking responsibility for or was apologetic for lying. Did anyone hear what JC was asked?

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Did she lie to police? Yes. She should pay whatever it cost to rule her out as a suspect after her lie. If she told the truth and was later ruled out, she wouldn't owe anything in my opinion.

So you feel there should be zero tolerance, for lying to a police officer for any reason whatsoever?

I should have spent a little more time on the hypothetical, but after the lady was proven to have lied to the police about the allnight restaurant, she did tell the truth, that she was in the old building. She could not prove that until someone came forward in the middle of the trial with proof she had been near the old building. She was totally innocent of the murder, and was lying out of fear of her abusive husband.

Anyway, I just think the precedent that could be set from the judges decision will have some major impact in the future, and a lot of people who may not realize it right now, could be affected by this decision.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Was anyone watching HLN around 5:10? I just turned it on and Jean C. was saying "not at all and in fact quite the opposite and very alienating." From the rest of the convo (someone said don't look for an apology from FCA because she wasn't raised that way) it sounded like the question was whether FCA through her DT was taking responsibility for or was apologetic for lying. Did anyone hear what JC was asked?

I think they had asked if KC or anyone from the DT in her behalf, had apologized
for this whole situation, caused from her initial lies.

 

[strawberry]

I think they had asked if KC or anyone from the DT in her behalf, had apologized
for this whole situation, caused from her initial lies.

Thank you..I thought it was something like that. Sounds like she did not like CMs pomposity. Is that a word? Spell check likes it, so I'll go with it.

 

[RANCH]

When she ran and hid, he was alive. He was murdered while she was hiding in the old building. The following day, the police questioned her, before she found out he was dead (she had went to work where she felt safe). She lied because she was planning on hiding there again.

It was a quick hypothetical, I am sure there are holes in it LOL. I just think that if the judge goes 100% with the prosecution, that it will cause some real interesting cases down the line.

Thanks for your reply.I'm sure one could come up with a scenario that would fit. In the real world having an innocent person with a legitimate reason to lie to police,then be charged with a crime,then be acquitted for that crime, then be forced to pay for the investigation seems pretty remote to me.MOO.

 

[SondraK]

I thought the reimbursment for costs was only when lying in a missing person's case. Did I misunderstand that??? I certainly could have, as all of this legal stuff is over my head much of the time. Thanks for your patience, Blessings

 

[Concerned Papa]

I'm betting Martha Stewart would have thought $500K with no prison time to be a bargain for her lies.

It's a sick world we live in when lying about your own money lands someone in prison, but lying about your murdered child gets you six figure offers for your story.

 

[3doglady]

For someone who won his case, CM spews a lot of venom. He made it clear that money is a big concern to him. Sounds like things didn't turn out quite as he had planned. Part of his anger may also stem from concern over what JA's book will reveal. (I can dream)

The body language at the end of the trial spoke volumes. For those that didn't see it, LDB walked over to LF and spoke. It looked like she was congratulating LF on a job well done. They both laughed. When CM walked by, both SA's turned their back and smiled at each other. Then LF turned back as she was leaving the courtroom to smile and wave at GF who returned the wave.

Maybe the next book cover could be a picture of CM giving the finger to Lady Justice with KC and JB laughing in the background. Titled "Southern Gentlemen Just Wanna Have Fun".

 

[Scamperoo]

I just don't see where that's at all appropriate. He was letting JB get away with lying, and he was basically telling him how to do things/holding his hand instructing him on things he should have already known...which is just wrong. God forbid he would pull that with a serial killer on trial or something and have them set free in part because of his grandiosity.

I must say I agree with you, added to which the implication could be to the jury the judge was showing a decided bias in favor of Beaez and Co. JP was never slow on censuring the prosecution for the merest infraction, yet was overweeningly helpful and courteous to the defense. In my opinion JP was more interested in keeping his spotless record than anything else and thus set the groundwork for the appalling decision by a dull and indolent jury..

 

[wonders]

That is true, and they probably won't, I just would not like to see the precedent set that might tempt prosecutors across the country to try to use this in the future. Obviously from the lack of case law, it has not been pushed to these limits very often.

I really don't think there will be to much of a backlash from this at all. I hope you don't worry yourself to much over this as this case is most unusual to date and if CFCA, her family and attorney's hadn't lied on the grand scale they did it wouldn't even be an issue. KWIM?

 

[strawberry]

I thought the reimbursment for costs was only when lying in a missing person's case. Did I misunderstand that??? I certainly could have, as all of this legal stuff is over my head much of the time. Thanks for your patience, Blessings

Interesting you should ask. I'm rewatching CMs closing cuz I had to keep muting him there the first time. It's making my blood boil all over again. But yes, that's what CM is saying...that it should only be for when they were still investigating as missing persons.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

I really don't think there will be to much of a backlash from this at all. I hope you don't worry yourself to much over this as this case is most unusual to date and if CFCA, her family and attorney's hadn't lied on the grand scale they did it wouldn't even be an issue. KWIM?

There isn't a whole lot I worry about these days LOL.

This case is definately unusual. As far as the hearing today, I had never read or heard of this type of thing happening before, and I now know why, it has never happened before. The case law they cited, was only vaguely similar in substance, and there was very little case law to cite from, which is why I had never heard of this before.

I am completely confident in HHBP following the letter of the law. I am looking forward to his decision, but I really don't see him giving an order for KC to pay the entire $515,000 the state is asking. I have been wrong before, and very well could be wrong now, I just see the amount being much much less.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[cyberborg]

Instead of lying to LE, you have the right to remain silent, plead the 5th, get an attorney but one doesn't have to lie. The other side of that is why would a parent lie about the whereabouts of their 2+ year old baby.......

The fundamental question is, why sit in jail for 3 years while charged with Murder 1 and facing the DP and allow your child to rot in the swamp ... If this was simply an accident?

The DT can try to trivialize this but the stakes were high and yet FCA remained defiant and resolute -- why?, because she was seeking to get away with murder and lied to do so.

 

[sleutherontheside]

The DT had high hopes that some searcher had a criminal history involving kidnapping or a crime against a child. The DT was voracious in their attempt to find just one volunteer with a "record suitable for framing". Pun intended.

The money expended by the JAC was overwhelmingly used for investigative costs.

The stalking of volunteers by the investigators was all in hopes of finding just one to blame.

When nothing usable or hinky was found, they were forced to revert to the original Roy Kronk story. Remember they laid off him for a wee while.

Do I think the drowning story was the plan from day one? Nope.......but it was their last chance and sadly...it paid off.

I'd like my money back please.

 

[Remove the covering]

So you feel there should be zero tolerance, for lying to a police officer for any reason whatsoever?

I should have spent a little more time on the hypothetical, but after the lady was proven to have lied to the police about the allnight restaurant, she did tell the truth, that she was in the old building. She could not prove that until someone came forward in the middle of the trial with proof she had been near the old building. She was totally innocent of the murder, and was lying out of fear of her abusive husband.

Anyway, I just think the precedent that could be set from the judges decision will have some major impact in the future, and a lot of people who may not realize it right now, could be affected by this decision.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only

It is a good hypothetical, because I thought about it for the last hour as I picked a mountain of tomatoes and beans in my garden.

I think we have to set strong penalties for lying to police. We can't really function as a society if we do not consider honesty a core value. Police investigations seem to consist largely of conversations with citizens. If they cannot get honest answers, their ability to uncover the truth is significantly hindered.

I don't have an elegant answer for why the state must seek reimbursement in this case. All I can say is that in your hypothetical the woman lied to preserve her safety in a situation where she was powerless.

FCA was in no danger, and she had ample power to help herself. Her lie was unnecessary and embellished way beyond the point of substituting one location for another. Big fat lies all over the place, here. She was also given many opportunities to correct her initial mistruth, and she was told about the consequences of persisting in her lie. She lied for only 1 reason- she had to or she would be found out due to the evidence that was in the process of deteriorating.

I can think of other situations when a person would lie to the police to protect their safety, but I can't think of a single situation, other than guilt, why a perfectly "safe" person would lie given these circumstances. Mental illness, I guess- which was implied, but not substantiated at trial.

I'd hope that any judge considering this as precedent would employ some discretion about pursuing reimbursement. I don't know what the legal angle is on this type of discretion.

I'd also like to add that the lie was not fully exposed until the trial. The police could have considered that the bogus nanny was somehow implicated in the death of Caylee, upon finding her remains. FCA was the only person who could clear up the confusion. Her parents continued to supply new tidbits and admonishments to the police about pursuing the wrong angle on her behalf.

Thanks for something to think about.

 

[LambChop]

CM said something today that struck my funny bone. Complaining about KC spending 3 years in jail, she could have been out working. Truth is if her DT knew Caylee's death was an accident they were the one's who were constantly delaying the trial, running up bills for the State. One excuse after another. SA said they were ready for trial early on. The time she spent in jail however was towards her conviction of lying and stealing. What would motivate an attorney to drag a case out as long as he could when he knew he could win with an accidential death theory?

I don't think anyone should get away with lying to LE to this degree. It's time we stopped this type of behavior and made people accountable for their actions. jmo

 

[pinup]

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?

As someone who works in law enforcement, I can answer that question. When you lie to LE, you're wasting their time. We have limited resources as it is, and it takes away from other cases, other crimes, and other victims when people deliberately thwart LE. Citizens who truly want LE's help do not lie to officers, by the way.

Lying wastes not only police resources, but taxpayers' money. We as taxpayers are providing the funds to keep LE functioning (essentially, as I live and work in the same city, I pay my own salary!). So when you write, "It's their job," you forget that the taxpayers pay for that job. And I don't think any taxpayer wants to see their hard-earned money go to waste instead of providing help to actual victims who need it.