2009.03.10 - Hand Written Note From Tot Mom in Response to Pros. Motion

[natsound]

:clap::clap: Exactly!! :clap::clap:

:woohoo::woohoo:

They are trying too hard and trying to be too clever to create a distraction and smokescreen when, if this is legit then -- what's the problem? Show the agreement.

So what do you think the strategy was here? Do you think KC wants to come off as aggressive in her battle against the charges? Was it her idea to add this, or did Baez talk her into it?

 

[BonKai]

The document is more noteworthy for what it doesn't include. Doesn't say anything about photos or videos. It also doesn't say whether or not he has a lien on her right to sell her own story or that of Caylee.

Good point.

 

[spyhouston]

The handwritten #7 just tells me she's throwing another one of her fits and JB lets her get by with it.

 

[elfie]

The State Attorney claims that JB is not acting in KC's best interest because the SA believes that a confession is in her best interest and that she should not present her defense in court at trial. I guess every defense attorney who takes criminal cases to trial can be accused of the same as far as the State is concerned.

Well, too bad. Just because the State wants to convict KC the easy way doesnt' mean that she has to follow their strategy to put her in jail. She is entitled to force the SA to prove the State's case against her and to present a defense to the State's case. Because she refuses to let the SA determine her defense strategy, the SA is attacking her attorney. To me, this is beyond low. KC is right, they are making a mountain out of JB's payments or lack thereof because KC and JB won't succumb to pressure to plea.

She is not required to make it easy on the State.

Even if you hate her, she is still entitled to have the attorney of her choice represent her and it is not the State's duty to attack the attorney of choice. And if you ask me, the SA is responding this way because KC will not plea. So, the State is trying to take her attorney out of the picture. This goes against everything that is emodied in the right to counsel and a fair trial.

She is on trial, not JB.

I've been an advocate of a plea deal since before Caylee's remains were found, but your well reasoned argument gives me pause.

 

[buckeyefan1]

The handwritten #7 just tells me she's throwing another one of her fits and JB lets her get by with it.

The is such a control freak just like her mom!

Has to get the last word in too all of the time.

Makes me wonder how much she "controlled" little Caylee when no one was around.

 

[karenz]

Her handwritten note could hurt her if she EVER wants to plea accidental death or wants to appeal. Once again, KC is the poor victim here with no concern for her dead murdered daughter.

In the words of my 14 year old daughter WHATEVVVVVER!!

Poor KC getting picked on by the big bad prosecutor who is trying to protect her civil rights and the only "plea deal" was used to locate the body of her missing daughter.

As for JB he was absolutely idiotic to allow her to write that. It is unprofessional and in my opinion furthers the notion that the "taking it personal" issue for KC is that someone was being a meanie to her boyfriend JB.

Or maybe it will help her appeal because she clearly is not represented well and the comment could infer that there is some form of improper relationship going on.

Regardless it does not remotely address what the prosecutors are worried about. That will be done in "private" so why bother to send this at all? Do they really think that we will all say, "Oh she SAYS her in #7 she did not commit the crime so lets all go home now and let her out...."

This case continues to be mind-boggling...

 

[zoey]

The is such a control freak just like her mom!

Has to get the last word in too all of the time.

Makes me wonder how much she "controlled" little Caylee when no one was around.

after reading the text messages between kc & tonE we can assume that "I'm the boss" was a common statement around the house....

 

[DesSands]

Yes everyone has rights but I know for sure if I haven't held a job since 2006....I doubt highly if I'd be able to "afford" all this legal help and high profile experts...we'd all like to know how she's paying her legal fees to make sure that she isn't profiting off of her dead baby...especially those of us who believe she commited the crime....I mean heck...I'm still trying to understand how she was able to afford a nanny...????????maybe she should answer this question first....

This girl doesn't even get the whole nanny yet let alone the murder of her daughter. When I had to leave my children with someone it was called a sitter. I always associated a nanny with wealthy people (actually still do).
But aside from that delusional part of her, this new statement jumped out at me. I think we might be hearing more from her as I have a feeling the walls are starting to close in on her. She has been isolated, used to always getting her way, even LP rescued her before. Lock up is starting to become intrusive, no night life, same old, same old.

She is raging mad and it shows with this statement. I'm picturing her back in the old jail tapes where she says she can hardly swallow. I'll bet things aren't much better now and her trial is a long way off. She does have feelings which I'm glad of, so prison will get to her, but not the death of her baby.

 

[BeanE]

I've been an advocate of a plea deal since before Caylee's remains were found, but your well reasoned argument gives me pause.

Except for the fact that no plea deal has been offered...

 

[DesSands]

Except for the fact that no plea deal has been offered...

BeanE do we know that for sure as I heard a couple talking heads say it must be true, otherwise JB would have been perjurying himself. :waitasec:

 

[elfie]

Except for the fact that no plea deal has been offered...

Enough of the positioning involved has left the option open as a possibility.

 

[Patty G]

BeanE do we know that for sure as I heard a couple talking heads say it must be true, otherwise JB would have been perjurying himself. :waitasec:

As far as what has been reported, there was no pleas deals made by the State, only a limited immunity offer back in late August, early September (2008), which has long expired.

 

[BeanE]

A few things I find interesting -

- both Baez and KC have personalized the SA's motion, and in doing so have reacted in a highly emotional, angry, and childish manner.

- that Baez obviously did not present the motion to his client in a matter of fact manner, explaining what the motion means, what their response needed to be, taking care of business, and moving on to more important things

- that Baez and KC are at complete odds in their personalization - in what they think the SA's motive is. Baez thinks it's to 'harrass and embarass' him personally. KC thinks it's to - oh I don't know exactly - slap her around for not taking a plea deal - a plea deal that doesn't exist... hmmmm... I can just imagine their conversation about this. Baez saying it's all about him and how the SA hates him. KC saying it's all about her and how the SA hates her. I wondered if they cried about it together... or if it occurred to either of them for even a second that the SA was not playing "nanny nanny boo boo - stick your head in doo doo", but doing a routine, professional job of precluding a potential overturn of a conviction... just... wow.

- it appears to me that KC's handwritten note makes the SA's point. KC indeed does not understand (her counsel has not effectively explained and informed her(?)) these agreements. If she did understand, if Baez had effectively explained and informed, all she needed to do was to present a statement of the facts of her agreements and her informed understanding of them. Instead she goes off on an angry, childish rant that is not germaine to the SA's motion... and her counsel allows her to. It boggles the mind.

 

[BeanE]

BeanE do we know that for sure as I heard a couple talking heads say it must be true, otherwise JB would have been perjurying himself. :waitasec:

Saying it must be true by talking heads on TV doesn't make it a fact - I hope!!

The fact is that as of yesterday no plea deals have been filed.

 

[debs]

The State Attorney claims that JB is not acting in KC's best interest because the SA believes that a confession is in her best interest and that she should not present her defense in court at trial. I guess every defense attorney who takes criminal cases to trial can be accused of the same as far as the State is concerned.

Well, too bad. Just because the State wants to convict KC the easy way doesnt' mean that she has to follow their strategy to put her in jail. She is entitled to force the SA to prove the State's case against her and to present a defense to the State's case. Because she refuses to let the SA determine her defense strategy, the SA is attacking her attorney. To me, this is beyond low. KC is right, they are making a mountain out of JB's payments or lack thereof because KC and JB won't succumb to pressure to plea.

She is not required to make it easy on the State.

Even if you hate her, she is still entitled to have the attorney of her choice represent her and it is not the State's duty to attack the attorney of choice. And if you ask me, the SA is responding this way because KC will not plea. So, the State is trying to take her attorney out of the picture. This goes against everything that is emodied in the right to counsel and a fair trial.

She is on trial, not JB.

Actually, it is exactly the State's job to make sure the defense is offering proper and reasonable services to their client, since it is the State which will have to proceed through another trial when it goes to appeal because of ineffectual counsel for the defense. In fact, Baez has gone on record as stating his client is innocent and he will offer evidence to such at trial. That says he's keeping something from the State, forcing the State to proceed in an action that he himself says they must in order to hear what he has to say about evidence to his client's innocence.

IF his client is innocent, and IF he has information that would prove that unequivocally, as an officer of the court, it is HIS duty to provide that to the State in order that the appropriate person faces prosecution.

And lastly, simply because Casey scrawled on the bottom of an affidavit that the State is mad at her for not taking a plea agreement (one that has never been acknowledged by her own attorney, let alone the State) does not make that statement true. Limited immunity (the only offer that is known to have been on the table) is not the same as a plea.

And now, add to all that the tape being released! Jose already has the touchy feely tape out there. Who can forget that initial perp walk out of the jail when she was first released? The smirk on her face, the caress of his shirt, the gentle whisper in her ear, and then the charge through the crowd to get into the car. If he repeated these actions inside the jail where there are notices all over the place that there are video cameras everywhere, then it seems to me Jose needs to learn to read.

 

[BeanE]

Enough of the positioning involved has left the option open as a possibility.

A lot of things can be speculated as possibilities, but the fact is that as of yesterday, no plea deals have been filed.

That Baez allowed his client to state that shows that his obligated explanation to his client of her options and position has been inadequate. His client thinks a plea deal exists that does not. Something is very seriously wrong with her defense counsel.

ETA: To clarify, by my last sentence, I am not referring to any person by 'defense counsel'. I mean specifically the counseling she is receiving from her defense team.

 

[zoey]

Actually, it is exactly the State's job to make sure the defense is offering proper and reasonable services to their client, since it is the State which will have to proceed through another trial when it goes to appeal because of ineffectual counsel for the defense. In fact, Baez has gone on record as stating his client is innocent and he will offer evidence to such at trial. That says he's keeping something from the State, forcing the State to proceed in an action that he himself says they must in order to hear what he has to say about evidence to his client's innocence.

IF his client is innocent, and IF he has information that would prove that unequivocally, as an officer of the court, it is HIS duty to provide that to the State in order that the appropriate person faces prosecution.

And lastly, simply because Casey scrawled on the bottom of an affidavit that the State is mad at her for not taking a plea agreement (one that has never been acknowledged by her own attorney, let alone the State) does not make that statement true. Limited immunity (the only offer that is known to have been on the table) is not the same as a plea.

And now, add to all that the tape being released! Jose already has the touchy feely tape out there. Who can forget that initial perp walk out of the jail when she was first released? The smirk on her face, the caress of his shirt, the gentle whisper in her ear, and then the charge through the crowd to get into the car. If he repeated these actions inside the jail where there are notices all over the place that there are video cameras everywhere, then it seems to me Jose needs to learn to read.

I am still amazed he would pick her up at home and take her to his office...WOW!!!!!:twocents:

 

[elfie]

A lot of things can be speculated as possibilities, but the fact is that as of yesterday, no plea deals have been filed.

That Baez allowed his client to state that shows that his obligated explanation to his client of her options and position has been inadequate. His client thinks a plea deal exists that does not. Something is very seriously wrong with her defense counsel.

You could well be correct. As far as I know and as of the most recent hearings the State displayed every intention of going to trial on this case.

It is only speculation based on overall positioning.

 

[Tiki]

Oh, I see -- so based on her note, the prosecution could call her to the stand, but she could invoke her fifth amendment rights to avoid answering their questions. Thanks!

Now, whether she's able to get on the stand and avoid flapping her gums...that's another question. It's like that Ron White routine (paraphrased): "I had the right to remain silent...but I did not have the ability."

posted respectfully

see Themis at

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3437177&postcount=240

 

[Roze]

- it appears to me that KC's handwritten note makes the SA's point. KC indeed does not understand (her counsel has not effectively explained and informed her(?)) these agreements. If she did understand, if Baez had effectively explained and informed, all she needed to do was to present a statement of the facts of her agreements and her informed understanding of them. Instead she goes off on an angry, childish rant that is not germaine to the SA's motion... and her counsel allows her to. It boggles the mind.

Not so mind-boggling. KC does, what KC wants to do. Let's not forget that ridiculous, inappropriately timed and worded statement JB read (in the middle of traffic with cars honking) the day before Caylee's memorial. I refuse to believe that statement was JB's idea. KC is completely full of herself, and as dumb as a bag of hair. Putting her JB sock puppet on, is her only means of communication with the outside world. JMO.