2009.09.30 Baez Motions-the missing Memos of Law/Exhibits

[faefrost]

This whole duct tape scenario has my mind reeling for several reasons:

a: even if the labs conclusively declared the pieces of duct tape as an "exact" match, Baez would still be calling it circumstantial, because KC's prints were not found on them.

b: The mere fact that he is now making such a big deal out of this duct tape in my mind shows he feels it is significant enough to tie KC to the crime - and if more information/tests come out in the coming days, he won't be able to backtrack on the importance he's given in this piece of evidence.

c: The defense keeps saying "the truth will come out at trial" yet with the thousands upon thousands of pages that have come out since the most recent dump, JB and his crew come out NOW and say there is no evidence to prove she committed the crime. So up to this point, we can only assume JB and the crew haven't been able to find ANYTHING to support their client's innocence. We know all of the evidence is not out there yet, so what gives? Seems sloppy and careless to me.

d: This whole duct tape nonsense seems to be a diversionary tactic designed to pull our thoughts away from everything else looming in the case. What about the Winnie the Pooh blanket she was found with? With no prints on the duct tape, isn't Caylee's bedding from her room just as significant as a piece of duct tape from her garage?

e: and then of course, there is all of the other evidence that we haven't heard a reasonable explanation for yet - the fact that she just randomly abandons her car, that happens to smell like human death to every member of her family. Visits to a missing children's website months before, the fact that Caylee's body shows up in her childhood hangout, countless lies, including lying about a pregnancy that her burgeoning belly can't even keep under wraps, etc, etc, etc.

It just kind of blows my mind JB can think his case is going to be dismissed because they can't find fibers on a waterlogged piece of duct tape that was rotting in a swamp for several months.

A smart lawyer would not have brought that FBI document indicating that the fibers don't match before trial. The defense had no obligation to reveal that now. It was in the public document releases, so obviously it was fair game to use. For them it would have been far better to pull it out as a rebutal item during the actual trial. But instead they chose media splash over actual courtroom benefit. They just gave the SA months to dig deeper into exactly why the fibers don't match, and look for more consistancies and inconsitancies in the evidence. This could have been an OJ "glove doesn't fit" moment for them in front of the jury. Instead they wasted it on the media. And all it accomplished was inspiring the local news media to dig through their archives and find footage of that exact make and model of rare duct tape being used by the family to hang posters after Caylee was reported missing.

Way to go Matlock!

 

[ZsaZsa]

The State's response to Baez' motion to dismiss.
Sounds like Mr Baez was not paying attention in Law School.

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/1005 Casey Motion.pdf

 

[BeanE]

"Although Miss Anthony's Motion to Dismiss does not specifically move for dismissal under any particular rule of procedure, it appears that she was inartfully attempting to ask..."

"The flaws in Miss Anthony's motion are glaring and fatal..."

:floorlaugh:

I lubs me some SA.

 

[Dear Prudence]

The State's response to Baez' motion to dismiss.
Sounds like Mr Baez was not paying attention in Law School.

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/1005 Casey Motion.pdf

So true! And since Mr. Baez is the only lawyer on the dream team to be licensed in the state of Florida, I'm sure the rest of the team counts on him to make sure they are following the legal procedure and precedent of that state. Oops!

 

[believe09]

Even if the duct tape does not match from the same roll that was on the Anthoys gas can...so what, respectfully speaking? Does it match to the roll Casey borrowed from Amy or is there none left to compare it to??

I would expect the defense to posture heavily regarding whether or not this is a DP case given that the aggravators that are obvious are speculative. Yawn...turn page, lol. Just a question for them...is it less ghastly that your client potentially OD'd her child and then rather than calling for help she opted to wrap her baby in duct tape and drive around with her in garbage bags in the trunk of the car??? Then when things got messy she dumped her in the woods while in the midst of partying her brains out??? I'm just sayin....I think that more than qualifies as the death of a child while in the commission of abuse...ie OD her and let her die rather than calling 911 and having her stomach pumped.

 

[essies]

The State's response to Baez' motion to dismiss.
Sounds like Mr Baez was not paying attention in Law School.

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/1005 Casey Motion.pdf

My favorite part-"if and when Miss Anthony decides to swear to any or all material facts, the State of Florida will issue the response required..."

:woohoo:BOOYA!!!:woohoo:

Caylee's Angels - LDB and KB have struck again!!!:woohoo:

 

[JSR]

So true! And since Mr. Baez is the only lawyer on the dream team to be licensed in the state of Florida, I'm sure the rest of the team counts on him to make sure they are following the legal procedure and precedent of that state. Oops!

You don't need to be a licensed attorney in FL to know this motion would not have gone over well. Most states have the same general Rules of Procedure in their state regarding dismissal of a criminal action. I'm not saying that AL shouldn't file a motion to dismiss, but it was a mistake to do so at such an early juncture (not that I think the case should be dismissed or that there are any grounds for an appropriate dismissal but AL wouldn't be a very good DP atty if she didn't at least try)

And if they didn't know then they should have researched it before they filed it. AL should not be depending on JB to appropriately know the Rules of Procedure. Her name is on that caption as much as JB's, and she's responsible for knowing the rules, regardless if she's licensed to practice in that state. Local counsel advises but that doesn't negate your responsibility. Ignorance is not a defense.

 

[Kentjbkent]

So true! And since Mr. Baez is the only lawyer on the dream team to be licensed in the state of Florida, I'm sure the rest of the team counts on him to make sure they are following the legal procedure and precedent of that state. Oops!

See, I don't think there is a "dream team"....I think there is only a man with a "dream".....

And JoseBgood ain't be good at motions!!

 

[RR0004]

You would think for something as important as this that they'd thoroughly research and prepare it with i's dotted and t's crossed, unless:

1. They knew this was not going to fly and were just going through the motions (pun intended) on a regular due-diligence cycle to protest,

2. They want to keep the ineffective counsel as a plan B option should they not get a technicality, based on KC's mistrial statement.

I guess they also needed an excuse to raise more money with all the interviews that followed this p.o.c. motion.

 

[RR0004]

You don't need to be a licensed attorney in FL to know this motion would not have gone over well. Most states have the same general Rules of Procedure in their state regarding dismissal of a criminal action. I'm not saying that AL shouldn't file a motion to dismiss, but it was a mistake to do so at such an early juncture (not that I think the case should be dismissed or that there are any grounds for an appropriate dismissal but AL wouldn't be a very good DP atty if she didn't at least try)

And if they didn't know then they should have researched it before they filed it. AL should not be depending on JB to appropriately know the Rules of Procedure. Her name is on that caption as much as JB's, and she's responsible for knowing the rules, regardless if she's licensed to practice in that state. Local counsel advises but that doesn't negate your responsibility. Ignorance is not a defense.

What material facts were they referring to? I thought the motion was based on lack of evidence.

 

[Nosey Parker]

Well there's one thing for sure in this case - JB and gang will never outwit LDB. :dance:

 

[marspiter]

I'm pretty sure the defense especially AL knew this motion wasn't going to fly. The defense has nothing to defend their client with. So the only option they have is to try and file as many motions as they can in hopes that the SA makes a mistake somewhere. That and slow the process down. They are all hoping beyond hope for the miracle that will make them all more famous then Johnny Cochran and nothing more. It's all just a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

In the words of the great and all powerful Oz. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

 

[essies]

See, I don't think there is a "dream team"....I think there is only a man with a "dream".....

And JoseBgood ain't be good at motions!!

JB shoulda had AL's students proof read his motions! But, like it says in Proverbs-Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.:angel:

 

[JSR]

What material facts were they referring to? I thought the motion was based on lack of evidence.

Basically, they are saying that the defense has offered NO PROOF or Evidence to refute the state's case. You can't ask for a MTD without citing some evidence or corroboration. The defense hasn't given the SA any expert reports etc. They can't just say what they think their experts will say or conclude. Just because a case is primarily circumstantial doesn't mean it automatically gets dismissed.

 

[Dear Prudence]

You don't need to be a licensed attorney in FL to know this motion would not have gone over well. Most states have the same general Rules of Procedure in their state regarding dismissal of a criminal action. I'm not saying that AL shouldn't file a motion to dismiss, but it was a mistake to do so at such an early juncture (not that I think the case should be dismissed or that there are any grounds for an appropriate dismissal but AL wouldn't be a very good DP atty if she didn't at least try)

And if they didn't know then they should have researched it before they filed it. AL should not be depending on JB to appropriately know the Rules of Procedure. Her name is on that caption as much as JB's, and she's responsible for knowing the rules, regardless if she's licensed to practice in that state. Local counsel advises but that doesn't negate your responsibility. Ignorance is not a defense.

You don't need to be a licensed attorney at all to know this motion would not go over well. I was basing my opinion straight from Richard Hornsby's (Orlando defense attorney) interview on WESH which I should have linked in my original post. He thinks it's a real problem that no attorney (except JB) on the dream team is from Florida. He also said this motion to dismiss should have been filed a year ago, that it's not early at all but late.

http://www.wesh.com/video/21174128/index.html

 

[RR0004]

Basically, they are saying that the defense has offered NO PROOF or Evidence to refute the state's case. You can't ask for a MTD without citing some evidence or corroboration. The defense hasn't given the SA any expert reports etc. They can't just say what they think their experts will say or conclude. Just because a case is primarily circumstantial doesn't mean it automatically gets dismissed.

Gotcha...thanks much!

ETA: It would have helped me to read the motion in its entirety. LOL
Thanks, again!

 

[cyberborg]

The State's response to Baez' motion to dismiss.
Sounds like Mr Baez was not paying attention in Law School.

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/1005 Casey Motion.pdf

Ouch! :banghead:

 

[cyberborg]

Basically, they are saying that the defense has offered NO PROOF or Evidence to refute the state's case. You can't ask for a MTD without citing some evidence or corroboration. The defense hasn't given the SA any expert reports etc. They can't just say what they think their experts will say or conclude. Just because a case is primarily circumstantial doesn't mean it automatically gets dismissed.

So I wonder if this was intended more just to fuel the renewed PR media campaign and confuse/taint the future Jury pool more than anything? :waitasec:

 

[JSR]

You don't need to be a licensed attorney at all to know this motion would not go over well. I was basing my opinion straight from Richard Hornsby's (Orlando defense attorney) interview on WESH which I should have linked in my original post. He thinks it's a real problem that no attorney (except JB) on the dream team is from Florida. He also said this motion to dismiss should have been filed a year ago, that it's not early at all but late.

http://www.wesh.com/video/21174128/index.html

Yes, you are correct. If they wanted this motion to succeed then they should have filed it BEFORE Caylee's remains were found. Once the remains were found, a MTD would not be very successful. But even then, even though they consider the trunk evidence "junk science" it would have been hard to have the case entirely dismissed. But they had a better shot. At this juncture until the defense gets expert reports of their own to refute the evidence this motion was filed too soon.

 

[JSR]

So I wonder if this was intended more just to fuel the renewed PR media campaign and confuse/taint the future Jury pool more than anything? :waitasec:

BINGO! We have a winner. I'm sure the defense team knew this motion didn't have a chance in you know where ....