2009.07.30 Document Release

[ThoughtElf]

BBM Don't forget folks that the Judge could have blocked these documents about Jesse had he felt it was not relevant.

Respectfully, I don't think Judge Strickland had a lot of leeway with these docs under the Sunshine Law.

Regardless, I feel that while I will not read these personally, it will inevitably benefit the prosecution that these docs were released. Thus, I don't personally believe that the SA's office wanted Judge Strickland to rule on these documents, else they would have filed a motion against the release citing impact on the prosecution's case.

Not worth filing a motion over when the prosecution knows that there is no singular detail in any of these reports that lends a shred of credence towards the Soddi defense, so why bother? Certainly, I would guess that several members of the SA team are as repelled by this release as some of us are, but they also know that this helps their case. I am also of the opinion that they discussed this release and warned JG in advance. Probably many months ago when JB requested these reports/reviews. Likely around the time when JG finally hired an attorney.

The defense request for these reports clearly shows not only the willingness by them to muddy up the waters with irrelevant and 'frivilous' (I believe that was JB's latest favourite word quote,) but also points to desperation in their attempts to bolster the meek & meager SODDI agenda.

I am very willing to entertain any factual argument you might have that illustrates how these reports are relevant, if you have the time and are so inclined? I'm not so concerned with Judge Strickland's failure to secret these files when no request was made by the prosecutors to do so.

I am interested in any and all points within the review reports that you can isolate for our consideration that might be significant in casting new light on what happened to Caylee?

Judge Strickland couldn't have withheld these docs lacking a motion asking to do so. No motion is telling in itself, IMO.

I guess what I am saying is that if you think these reports are relevant, please point out specifics within the JG review reports for discussion.

Judge S. isn't and can't post here, but you can & are. Lacking his assessment of what is useful whether a motion is filed or not, perhaps you can guide me?

How are these reports relevant in any way to Caylee's demise? (In your own determination, not a presumption of Judge Strickland's thoughts.)

Thanks in advance for helping clarify the significance of the reports, because I don't get it.

 

[Leila]

Video on Documents Released In Casey Anthony Case - Kathi B talks about Jesse and what the defense might be planning!!

http://www.wftv.com/video/20225606/index.html

Very interesting! It's been clear from the beginning that CA has been trying to implicate someone else in Caylee's disappearance, and her focus has been on JG and AH. Once Caylee's remains were found, Cindy has made other statements publicly that someone else is to blame for Caylee's death. She's had JG in her sights for a long time.

I feel so bad for JG............he's been thoroughly investigated by LE and obviously is not a suspect. But that hasn't deterred the defense or the Anthonys from going after him. They continue in their attempts to place the blame on an innocent party. It's so unfair to publish JG's employment records, school grades, and other personal information that has no bering on the case whatsoever.

After this is over, I think we'll see some civil lawsuits filed.

With LA and CA both making depositions, I wonder if these will be released publicly as other depos have?

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

BBM
Go ahead and post the link. But I'll need a minute to pick from the many LE related websites there are to choose from supporting the use of lie detector tests. I just don't think LE would waste time using this investigative tool if it was only a "co-ersion tactic". I'm not LE but isn't coercion frowned upon?
The As not wanting to take one tells me they didn't want to risk exposing their, uh, backsides-so to speak.

JMO

Love where your heart is, christee, and agree with everything except I'm not real sure LE wouldn't use coercion to get to the truth. As a matter of fact, I've been involved in a situation where a govt arm of LE told a lie to my daughter and me to try to get her to back down from her rape accusation at the Air Force Academy. The AFOSI even admitted to us afterwards that it was a tactic they used to make sure she was being honest. This has made me a good watchdog and not just swallow everything that anyone in LE says is true . . . Not a criticism of you or LE ~ Just a warning/precaution so you won't always take everything they say as gospel. . . It helps me keep everything in perspective. :blowkiss:

 

[christee]

Respectfully, I don't think Judge Strickland had a lot of leeway with these docs under the Sunshine Law.

Regardless, I feel that while I will not read these personally, it will inevitably benefit the prosecution that these docs were released. Thus, I don't personally believe that the SA's office wanted Judge Strickland to rule on these documents, else they would have filed a motion against the release citing impact on the prosecution's case.

Not worth filing a motion over when the prosecution knows that there is no singular detail in any of these reports that lends a shred of credence towards the Soddi defense, so why bother? Certainly, I would guess that several members of the SA team are as repelled by this release as some of us are, but they also know that this helps their case. I am also of the opinion that they discussed this release and warned JG in advance. Probably many months ago when JB requested these reports/reviews. Likely around the time when JG finally hired an attorney.

The defence request for these reports clearly shows not only the willingness by the to muddy up the waters will irrelevant and 'frivilous' (I believe that was JB's latest quote,) but also points to desperation in their attempts to bolster the SODDI agenda.

I am very willing to entertain any factual argument you might have that illustrates how these reports are relevant, if you have the time and are so inclined? I'm not so concerned with Judge Strickland's failure to secret these files when no request was made by the prosecutors to do so.

I am interested in any and all points within the review reports that you can isolate for our consideration that might be significant in casting new light on what happened to Caylee?

Judge Strickland couldn't have withheld these docs lacking a motion asking to do so. No motion is telling in itself, IMO.

I guess what I am saying is that if you think these reports are relevant, please point out specifics within the JG review reports for discussion.

Judge S. isn't and can't post here, but you can & are. Lakcing his assessment of what is useful whether a motion is filed or not, perhaps you can guide me?

How are these reports relevant in any way to Caylee's demise? (In your own determination, not a presumption of Judge Strickland's thoughts.)

Thanks in advance for helping clarify the significance of the reports, because I don't get it.

:bow:
Thank-you, Madam PotatoHead for saying, so eloquently, what I wished I could have said(written).

 

[Leila]

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/20224751/detail.html

This one letter from the FBI that's in today's doc dump says soooooo much to me about this case. It makes me absolutely sick to my stomach.

And, this is how the story has unfolded since the beginning, with Casey's friends cooperating with LE in any way they could to help find Caylee. In the meantime, the Anthonys - Cindy, George, and Lee - have done everything possible to not cooperate with LE, and have tried to steer the investigation away from Casey or themselves.

 

[Brini]

Ok here's the reason for no polygraph from the As....Not admissible in court. Why do it if it truely proves nothing? I can link you to a page with a quote by the FBI that states that the polygraph is no more than a co-ersion tactic by LE to get people to talk. There is no scientific proof of it's ability to determine a lie. All is proves is that a person is the nervous type or cold like a fish...that is all. Want the link? Also the fact that others lined up to take on proves nothing conclusive, other than thier butts weren't on the line.

How odd. Everything I've heard and read from the FBI states the opposite.

In fact, the FBI boasts that it hires the best polygraphers.

I would say the As butts are FIRMLY on the line, BTW. If only for possible perjury and obstruction of justice.

As CA said, "Lying isn't illegal." It is in SOME circumstances, as she is finding out.

 

[Brini]

And here I thought it was SOP when a child goes missing to rule the family out. I'll go by what people like Mark K. and John W. adhere to...do anything to help find the missing child!

Ah, yes! But, Mr. K, et al WANTED the missing child found.

 

[JSV]

That is the address of the OCSO on West Colonial Drive. It is a large office with many police cruisers and vans on the property.

Thank You

 

[Brini]

I thought you would get a charge at the banner below. I'm feeling CA is the queen Narcissist and KC narcisisst princess as the narcissist feels they are.

I think they've been fighting over the crown for a long time.

I wouldn't get between either one of 'em and a mirror or a video camera.

 

[MaedchenX]

And, this is how the story has unfolded since the beginning, with Casey's friends cooperating with LE in any way they could to help find Caylee. In the meantime, the Anthonys - Cindy, George, and Lee - have done everything possible to not cooperate with LE, and have tried to steer the investigation away from Casey or themselves.

:clap:

Not only that but they are keen to place blame and lay suspicion on the very people who have been intent on helping Caylee. They have clearly made their choices and pledged allegiance to someone else, someone they know to be guilty but do not want to see punished (IMO).

 

[Leila]

I feel the EXACT same way you do. I stopped reading because it just felt wrong to me. I hope JG will one day be able to move away from this mess and have a somewhat normal life.

I read the first few pages and realized these were very personal records, and not in any way related to the case, and I too stopped reading.

 

[Imbackon]

Very interesting! It's been clear from the beginning that CA has been trying to implicate someone else in Caylee's disappearance, and her focus has been on JG and AH. Once Caylee's remains were found, Cindy has made other statements publicly that someone else is to blame for Caylee's death. She's had JG in her sights for a long time.

I feel so bad for JG............

RESPECTFULLY SNIPPED

Not sure about this, and not feeling like checking with the lawyer or lawyer types about it just now (reasonable doubt thread) but it seems to me that there is something in the law about not being able to just throw out in court that someone else did a crime without some initial level of evidence to back you up.
You have to have something before you could really even get into any witness testimony concerning that person I think. It is for the obvious purpose of keeping out frivolous testimony just to throw off the jury.
I don't know where I remember this, but it sure may come into play during this trial if I am correct.

 

[zoomom]

What? You don't use a straightening iron on straight hari ever? Raeally? I find that extremely strange as every other hair stylist I've ever known or heard about uses one on all types of hair. That's like saying people with curly hair never use curlers,hot rollers/ect.

I was referring to a hair straightening product. Sodium thioglycollate. A nasty chemical that has to be on and off in a matter of minutes because it starts to melt the hair. Couldn't figure out why KC would use that. When I'm talking about a straightening iron, I call it a straightening iron. I don't call it a hair straightener.

 

[Brini]

FL's sunshine laws are far too invasive. Release should be limited to only AFTER the trial and, perhaps, only to information directly related to the trial. FL should change these intrusive laws to protect witnesses and innocent bystanders. Absolutely no SS or phone numbers should be released. Addresses should probably also be redacted. Otherwise, there will be a lot less co-operation with the authorities when people think their private lives could be laid bare for all to see and use just because they saw a crime or knew someone who committed one. The legislature really should do something. The broad scope of FL's sunshine statutes does not protect the rights of the innocent!

Yet everyone LOVES it when they contain documents that make the case AGAINST Casey!

You think JG's grades and OCSD performance evals make a case FOR KC? How so?

And, there's a MOUNTAIN of evidence pointing straight to the killer. And, baby-killers don't elicit much support.

 

[AZlawyer]

I was referring to a hair straightening product. Sodium thioglycollate. A nasty chemical that has to be on and off in a matter of minutes because it starts to melt the hair. Couldn't figure out why KC would use that. When I'm talking about a straightening iron, I call it a straightening iron. I don't call it a hair straightener.

Cindy must have meant a straightening iron, though, because LE swabbed the plug end for, I guess, DNA.

 

[christee]

Sorry you had that experience ExpectingU...
No I'm not that naive abt LE-was just pointing out that I didn't think LE would use Lie Detector test ONLY as a coercive tool. Seems it would be a waste of time and money.

 

[AZlawyer]

Last time I did the research (maybe 10 years ago?), polygraphs were universally ruled inadmissible in court and, in most studies, were deemed unreliable for actually detecting lies. At a recent seminar I went to, however, a U.S. Attorney said that just from observing an FBI polygraph about a fake crime he felt an overwhelming urge to confess to things just because of the atmosphere--the impressive machinery, the imposing FBI interrogator, etc. His opinion was that FBI polygraphs work by getting people to tell the truth rather than by detecting their lies.

 

[kaRN]

Ok here's the reason for no polygraph from the As....Not admissible in court. Why do it if it truely proves nothing? I can link you to a page with a quote by the FBI that states that the polygraph is no more than a co-ersion tactic by LE to get people to talk. There is no scientific proof of it's ability to determine a lie. All is proves is that a person is the nervous type or cold like a fish...that is all. Want the link? Also the fact that others lined up to take on proves nothing conclusive, other than thier butts weren't on the line.

I'm trying to imagine caring about my butt when my 2yo GD's life lies in the balance or debating the validity of a lie detector at that time. KC's friends have nothing to hide is the reality. KC's family does and did from day 31 on strangely enough.
Irony is, Cindy would have probably passed a lie detector. Compulsive liar and all.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Sorry you had that experience ExpectingU...
No I'm not that naive abt LE-was just pointing out that I didn't think LE would use Lie Detector tests ONLY as a coersive tool. Seemed it would be a waste of time and money.

I'm right there with you about the Lie Detector tests!! Can't imagine not doing it, either. I didn't mean to imply that you were naive at all!!! (No sorries anymore ~ it has just helped make our family become better people, I think. . . as all experiences do if you overcome their challenges.)

 

[kaRN]

How odd. Everything I've heard and read from the FBI states the opposite.

In fact, the FBI boasts that it hires the best polygraphers.

I would say the As butts are FIRMLY on the line, BTW. If only for possible perjury and obstruction of justice.

As CA said, "Lying isn't illegal." It is in SOME circumstances, as she is finding out.

I don't know about Florida law regarding RN's. I know the state of Florida is desperate for Canadian RN's so I imagine Nursing ethics can't be that different. Lying is very much illegal and Cindy knows it. Maybe bricklayers can lie in their personal lives with no adverse affect on their professional performance but RN's, can't. If you lie about your daughters 'tumor' for example outside of work, how are you to be trusted telling me about mine at work??