logicalgirl
Peace Hawk
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2009
- Messages
- 16,024
- Reaction score
- 2
On page 1, the motion states that TES was "engaged in searching for the missing child Caylee Marie Anthony" in the fall of 2008. On page 6, it says that TES began its search for Caylee on August 31, 2008. On page 7, it says the TES searches continued into Sept. 2008.
Was this motion granted? I think it was. If so, Casey should be barred from arguing that she didn't know TES was searching for Caylee in Aug/Sept 2008. Unless she can somehow say she didn't know about it at the time but learned of the searches later. Which I doubt.
I am trying to find another motion's file that has the actual motion not just a link to a media outlet. I found one at the Hinky, but the motion was no longer there.
Somewhere in January after Caylee was found - between the 6th and the 20th of January:
"Quote" JB files Application for Subpoena Duces Tecum This motion is based on the reports that the site where Caylees remains were found had been previously searched. He requests all records, both from LE and Texas EquuSearch, all records associated with searches for Caylee; all records of volunteers who assisted Texas Equusearch in searching for Caylee; photographs and video recorded during searches; communications between Texas Equusearch and LE during searches for Caylee; maps of specific areas searched by Texas Equusearch."Quote"
!Quotes from the Hinky Meter with Thanks)
I didn't scroll down far enough yet to see if this motion was granted but this was part of JB's beginning argument about when exactly Caylee's body was placed there.