*UPDATE *INFO CAN BE RELEASED ANY TIME 'Casey Pros Allowed To Keep Evidence Secret

[Macushla]

snipped.....

I am curious about the defense silence though. It seems in the past when there has been inculpatory evidence released, they go out on the circuit. I have not seen that this time. I find it hard to believe the the defense does not know what this is. IMO

I think the defense has SOME idea of what this new material/information is and that is why they are being so quiet. Whatever it is, I have a feeling it's going to be something that can not be talked around, explained away, or given a different twist. No matter how hard he tried and still does try JB can not put a good light on the fact that KC never reported her daughter missing and spent 30 days pretending things were just fine (and they probably were in her mind). This was the first 'fact' I learned about in this case and it was all I needed to decide KC was guilty. Yeah, the defense knows or has a pretty darn good idea of what is coming their way and they are in the process of digging a bunker, which is why we haven't heard from them.

Whatever it is, I have a feeling it's going to be introduced as a 'nuclear bombshell' on NG when it finally comes to light - and I hope it comes to light soon.

 

[notthatsmart]

NG is an [unusual person]. Such motions are rare, but not unheard of.

The information has to be something that the defense could reasonably be expected to interfere with, because otherwise the judge would have had no basis for keeping the information from the defense for any period of time. I base my conclusion that the information is inculpatory on the fact that most people will not interfere with evidence that is helpful to them.

But I did acknowledge last time you asked this question that there is some slight chance that the judge would withhold information for a short time from the defense if the information is inculpatory of someone VERY CLOSE to the defendant, like a family member--someone that the defense team would feel protective toward.

So...if the information was just exculpatory, the judge would have said, "Of course you can't hold on to this information for 30 days. Tell the defense immediately. They aren't going to interfere with your investigation. Most likely, they'll volunteer to help."

If the information was inculpatory (of Casey), the judge would have said, "OK, you can hold this back for a little while to investigate."

If the information was inculpatory of a close family member of Casey, the judge MAYBE would have said, "OK, you can hold this back for a little while to investigate," but he would have been on slightly shakier legal ground.

If the information was inculpatory of someone else (Jesse, Kronk, ZFG), the judge would have said, "Of course you can't hold on to this information for 30 days. Tell the defense immediately. They aren't going to interfere with your investigation. Most likely, they'll volunteer to help. But let's hold it back from public release until the investigation is complete."

I bet you are looking forward to hearing the darn good reason for the Judge to do this, because in essence, he is saying that the equally respected officers of the court (The Defense) that is on this fact finding mission to find the truth with us, can not be trusted. That shows me that the Judge may not respect the Defense. How could she possibly get a fair trial?

 

[JBean]

I bet you are looking forward to hearing the darn good reason for the Judge to do this, because in essence, he is saying that the equally respected officers of the court (The Defense) that is on this fact finding mission to find the truth with us, can not be trusted. That shows me that the Judge may not respect the Defense. How could she possibly get a fair trial?

I don't think this has anything to do with respect NTS and I don't think he is saying that in essence or in any other way.

Also,I think this evidence will be highly inculpatory and difficult to refute.

 

[noonie]

I bet you are looking forward to hearing the darn good reason for the Judge to do this, because in essence, he is saying that the equally respected officers of the court (The Defense) that is on this fact finding mission to find the truth with us, can not be trusted. That shows me that the Judge may not respect the Defense. How could she possibly get a fair trial?

I don't think the TRUTH has reared it Lovely head in this case as far as the defense is concerened. HMMMMMM Does anybody?? The Judge has been very right and forthcoming in all the facts he has so far. No one is to blame but the guilty .:waitasec:

 

[noonie]

Please let me reply, It is about TRUTH!!!!! Thanks The REAL Thing!!!!!

 

[AZlawyer]

I bet you are looking forward to hearing the darn good reason for the Judge to do this, because in essence, he is saying that the equally respected officers of the court (The Defense) that is on this fact finding mission to find the truth with us, can not be trusted. That shows me that the Judge may not respect the Defense. How could she possibly get a fair trial?

The defense team is not on a fact-finding mission to find the truth. Actually, that is not even their job. They are supposed to protect their client's constitutional rights and do their best to minimize the time she spends in prison DESPITE the truth. Even if their client TELLS them the truth, they are not permitted to tell the judge or us, unless it will help their client.

 

[BondJamesBond]

I bet you are looking forward to hearing the darn good reason for the Judge to do this

*snipped*
Yep.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

The defense team is not on a fact-finding mission to find the truth. Actually, that is not even their job. They are supposed to protect their client's constitutional rights and do their best to minimize the time she spends in prison DESPITE the truth. Even if their client TELLS them the truth, they are not permitted to tell the judge or us, unless it will help their client.

Thank you, AZlawyer. Your statement (that I respectfully bolded) wasn't clear to me for a long time. At the beginning of this case I thought everyone had to play by the same rules. I was under the impression that morality was every bit as important to the defense team as it was to the prosecution. I thought the objective of both legal teams was to expose the truth. It came to me in bits and pieces that the defense's major goal is to protect their client with small regard to truth and morality. As demonstrated by Team Lyon, they have no concern who is injured by the arrows they shoot to protect their client. And they're within their legal rights to shoot those arrows. sigh.

I was so upset and disheartened when I realized that this is the way is was in our legal system that I had to stop posting for a while. I know I'm not smart enough to help deflect any of those arrows but I sure do enjoy watching all of you brilliant and creative WSers work at uncovering the truth for Caylee. Thank you!

 

[JBean]

Thank you, AZlawyer. Your statement (that I respectfully bolded) wasn't clear to me for a long time. At the beginning of this case I thought everyone had to play by the same rules. I was under the impression that morality was every bit as important to the defense team as it was to the prosecution. I thought the objective of both legal teams was to expose the truth. It came to me in bits and pieces that the defense's major goal is to protect their client with small regard to truth and morality. As demonstrated by Team Lyon, they have no concern who is injured by the arrows they shoot to protect their client. And they're within their legal rights to shoot those arrows. sigh.

I was so upset and disheartened when I realized that this is the way is was in our legal system that I had to stop posting for a while. I know I'm not smart enough to help deflect any of those arrows but I sure do enjoy watching all of you brilliant and creative WSers work at uncovering the truth for Caylee. Thank you!

EU, I appreciate you frustration, but we are all provided fundamental rights and they apply to the guilty as well as the innocent.

It is the goal of ANY defense, not just this defense, to make sure that their client takes full advantage of the rights afforded them. We cannot pick and choose who gets these rights and who doesn't, prior to due process and/or trial. It would just be wrong on so many levels and is positively frightening to even consider,imo.

Our justice system is certainly flawed and no one will deny it. But it is the best thing goin on ,specifically because of the rights we have that are,in a perfect world, designed to protect the innocent. Moreover, if the defense does not protect her rights then they are fostering appellate issues and it can start all over again. Now that would be the real miscarriage of justice KWIM?

jmho of course

 

[JBean]

I think the defense has SOME idea of what this new material/information is and that is why they are being so quiet. Whatever it is, I have a feeling it's going to be something that can not be talked around, explained away, or given a different twist. No matter how hard he tried and still does try JB can not put a good light on the fact that KC never reported her daughter missing and spent 30 days pretending things were just fine (and they probably were in her mind). This was the first 'fact' I learned about in this case and it was all I needed to decide KC was guilty. Yeah, the defense knows or has a pretty darn good idea of what is coming their way and they are in the process of digging a bunker, which is why we haven't heard from them.

Whatever it is, I have a feeling it's going to be introduced as a 'nuclear bombshell' on NG when it finally comes to light - and I hope it comes to light soon.

Hi there Macushla. I think the defense knows EXACTLY what it is. IMO, there is no way they could keep this 100% secret and the defense is most likely scrambling to counter it right now.
I just hope this unusual method of asking to withhold stands up to all scrutiny down the road so that nothing gets tossed. I am sure it is fine but I have seen all kinds of inculpatory evidence tossed from other trials, so it is always a risk.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

EU, I appreciate you frustration, but we are all provided fundamental rights and they apply to the guilty as well as the innocent.

It is the goal of ANY defense, not just this defense, to make sure that their client takes full advantage of the rights afforded them. We cannot pick and choose who gets these rights and who doesn't, prior to due process and/or trial. It would just be wrong on so many levels and is positively frightening to even consider,imo.

Our justice system is certainly flawed and no one will deny it. But it is the best thing goin on ,specifically because of the rights we have that are,in a perfect world, designed to protect the innocent. Moreover, if the defense does not protect her rights then they are fostering appellate issues and it can start all over again. Now that would be the real miscarriage of justice KWIM?

jmho of course

Oh yes, JBean, I understand this. I did not intend to imply that I thought this defense team alone should be held to any different standards than what is normal. I guess because this is the first case I've ever followed in any detail, that I was caught unaware and disappointed to realize that there are flaws in our legal system. I do want innocents protected, rights protected and the truth to always prevail. I now understand that these rights can not always be meted out without sometimes being in conflict with one another. I guess my "hat" sums it up pretty well ~ I know not to go hunting unicorns in the real world of our legal system. It is flawed but I do understand (and am grateful!!) that it is the best justice system this side of heaven. But I still cannot help feeling disappointed that there seems to be so much collateral damage in this particular case. Hopefully, that is not generally the rule.

 

[beach]

Hi there Macushla. I think the defense knows EXACTLY what it is. IMO, there is no way they could keep this 100% secret and the defense is most likely scrambling to counter it right now.
I just hope this unusual method of asking to withhold stands up to all scrutiny down the road so that nothing gets tossed. I am sure it is fine but I have seen all kinds of inculpatory evidence tossed from other trials, so it is always a risk.

Agreed.

One of the most telling things for me is the pure SILENCE <*chirp* *chirp* > from Baez and the Anthonys. Come on....everybody wants to know what this is! I feel sure one of the local reporters have attempted to contact Baez for a comment in re. these 'materials and information'. Has anybody even SEEN Baez since the judge's granting the SA the 30 days??? Wonder if his stomach issues have resurfaced?

eta: I, too, worry about the risks you suggested. I try to make myself feel better by knowing that LDB and JA will be doing everything they can to ensure that, if it is so important, it will remain safe. I have a lot of confidence in both of them.

 

[JBean]

Oh yes, JBean, I understand this. I did not intend to imply that I thought this defense team alone should be held to any different standards than what is normal. I guess because this is the first case I've ever followed in any detail, that I was caught unaware and disappointed to realize that there are flaws in our legal system. I do want innocents protected, rights protected and the truth to always prevail. I now understand that these rights can not always be meted out without sometimes being in conflict with one another. I guess my "hat" sums it up pretty well ~ I know not to go hunting unicorns in the real world of our legal system. It is flawed but I do understand (and am grateful!!) that it is the best justice system this side of heaven. But I still cannot help feeling disappointed that there seems to be so much collateral damage in this particular case. Hopefully, that is not generally the rule.

OMG your parallel to your hat is perfect :blowkiss: Love it.

Take notice of the thread topic. The prosecution has sort of asked to "bend the rules" in a way. So you see it is a 2 way street. Rest assured the motivation behind asking for the delay is defintiely not to benefit the defense lol.

If all the rules are followed and the case is solid, a conviction will hold up forever and that is the name of the game.

 

[JBean]

Agreed.

One of the most telling things for me is the pure SILENCE <*chirp* *chirp* > from Baez and the Anthonys. Come on....everybody wants to know what this is! I feel sure one of the local reporters have attempted to contact Baez for a comment in re. these 'materials and information'. Has anybody even SEEN Baez since the judge's granting the SA the 30 days??? Wonder if his stomach issues have resurfaced?

eta: I, too, worry about the risks you suggested. I try to make myself feel better by knowing that LDB and JA will be doing everything they can to ensure that, if it is so important, it will remain safe. I have a lot of confidence in both of them.

Well, I don't mean I lie awake at night worrying about it LOL. But as you know, another judge and another court can view the same arguments differently in the future. happens every day.

 

[logicalgirl]

Agreed.

One of the most telling things for me is the pure SILENCE <*chirp* *chirp* > from Baez and the Anthonys. Come on....everybody wants to know what this is! I feel sure one of the local reporters have attempted to contact Baez for a comment in re. these 'materials and information'. Has anybody even SEEN Baez since the judge's granting the SA the 30 days??? Wonder if his stomach issues have resurfaced?

eta: I, too, worry about the risks you suggested. I try to make myself feel better by knowing that LDB and JA will be doing everything they can to ensure that, if it is so important, it will remain safe. I have a lot of confidence in both of them.

Absolutely Beach, agree - I am loving the silence also. And do we know where Fair Andrea is these days? Not a peep out of anyone. Hello? Media Spokesperson??? Oh, is that an echo I hear?

 

[beach]

Absolutely Beach, agree - I am loving the silence also. And do we know where Fair Andrea is these days? Not a peep out of anyone. Hello? Media Spokesperson??? Oh, is that an echo I hear?

ahhhh, yes! i forgot about the new media spokesperson! baptism by fire, anyone?

I would say this may be the difference since the new PR spokeswoman works with AL and she is the more silent type. I haven't even heard a 'no comment' though. Besides, nothing has ever shut up JB before when he wanted to talk.

 

[okiedokietoo]

Absolutely Beach, agree - I am loving the silence also. And do we know where Fair Andrea is these days? Not a peep out of anyone. Hello? Media Spokesperson??? Oh, is that an echo I hear?

http://www.thesunnews.com/2010/02/24/1333001/killer-may-get-new-trial.html

Wednesday, Feb. 24, 2010
Alice Donovan killer may get new trial
Law professor testifies Fulks' attorney erred
By Meg Kinnard - The Associated Press
(quoted from article)
"DePauw University law professor Andrea Lyon testified as part of a weeklong hearing to see if Chadrick Fulks, 32, will get a new trial and sentence for the death of Alice Donovan."

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I bet you are looking forward to hearing the darn good reason for the Judge to do this, because in essence, he is saying that the equally respected officers of the court (The Defense) that is on this fact finding mission to find the truth with us, can not be trusted. That shows me that the Judge may not respect the Defense. How could she possibly get a fair trial?

Wait a minute - let's get this right. The job of the defense is NOT to find truth (or justice), it is to zealously defend their client. Justice does not need to figure into their equation. The prosecution is burdened with finding justice. After all of the lies, hypocrisy and nonsense from the defense, it only makes sense for Judge S. to be cautious. Baez has not exactly carried himself well in this case. Judge S. is careful and patient and he should be praised for that.

 

[LambChop]

I bet you are looking forward to hearing the darn good reason for the Judge to do this, because in essence, he is saying that the equally respected officers of the court (The Defense) that is on this fact finding mission to find the truth with us, can not be trusted. That shows me that the Judge may not respect the Defense. How could she possibly get a fair trial?

I believe the judge is trying to insure that KC has a fair trial. Now a fair trial to KC may not have the same meaning as it will to the jurors, facts being what they are in this case. JMO

 

[JSR]

Hi there Macushla. I think the defense knows EXACTLY what it is. IMO, there is no way they could keep this 100% secret and the defense is most likely scrambling to counter it right now.
I just hope this unusual method of asking to withhold stands up to all scrutiny down the road so that nothing gets tossed. I am sure it is fine but I have seen all kinds of inculpatory evidence tossed from other trials, so it is always a risk.

I understand your concern. But I have every faith that JS is keeping a squeaky clean record. So far, he's been very very fair in his rulings. I have a feeling there will be nothing for appellate review down the line. At least in regards to JS.