2010.12.21 Stream of Motions - General Discussion

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Did I miss that one? It's up in the motions sticky thread. Here it is again tho.

:rocker:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6772632...efendant-Has-History-of-Lying-And-Or-Stealing

Thanks again, Muzikman. This is even better than the last "official" doc dump! And it's all thanks to you. We do love you!

 

[SunnyinMO]

:yourock:

thank you Mrs G! I agree MM ROCKS! I was fairly sure these motions would be originated from Mason

 

[shotgun09]

Okay, so after gulping half the glass and skimming through the motion...doesn't the legal charge of "Providing false witness to.." = lying?

 

[zoomom]

what in god's name were these people drinking when they came up with this plan and thought these were reasonable requests?

 

[Mystic]

ON the knife.....all these references to burglaries in the motion have me thinking did she use the knife to break into the shed, did she use the knife to break into Tony's neighbors apartment....as always every time Baez attempts to have something excluded you just end up thinking 'Well I wasn't interested in this item before, but I most CERTAINLY am now!!'

Another thing I thought about wanting the knife left out is it can used to lean towards pre-med since the preparation and time it takes to get a kitchen knife (if they can link it to the duct tape).

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Thanks again, Muzikman. This is even better than the last "official" doc dump! And it's all thanks to you. We do love you!

And he doesn't even demand travel expenses, food and lodging! Though I would pitch in for that cause...

 

[nums24]

Thank you so much for doing this Muzikman. It is appreciated !

Channel Six inferred there would be 2 motions about the sexual history. I see the one about Tony Lazarro but there should be one about Anthony Rusciano also, bringing the total to six.

All of today's motions are here: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5922817&postcount=161"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - List of Motions **NO DISCUSSION HERE PLEASE**[/ame]

 

[ziggy]

Very Very Cool Musikman!!!!

I just read the first one to supress anything relating to her lying and stealing as a) inadmissible character evidence with no probative value and b) prejudicial effect would outweigh any probative value which is the same as our CA evidence code 352.

I just learned in my evidence class that character evidence can be admissible for other purposes than to show the defendant is the type of person who would lie or otherwise act in conformity with their bad character trait(s). This evidence might be admissible to impeach the credibility of a witness (George maybe?) who gave inconsistent statements?

I'm not sure how else the prosecution can get this in...to show planning, common plan or scheme...just thinking out loud or on keyboard; maybe the lawyers can help me understand how this works in real life

 

[Marshmallow]

Did I miss that one? It's up in the motions sticky thread. Here it is again tho.

:rocker:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6772632...efendant-Has-History-of-Lying-And-Or-Stealing

any one else keep saying "really??" as they read this?

 

[Horace Finklestein]

what in god's name were these people drinking when they came up with this plan and thought these were reasonable requests?

Seriously. Seems like they're requesting to throw out things that are inextricably woven and embedded into this case. Do they really think a knife and a shovel aren't relevant in a murder case, despite whatever narrow definitions they want to apply?? And the promiscuity - good lord the 31 days is completely relevant. Surprised there was nothing about the tattoo or the Pontiac.

I also see they got another little swipe in at Tim Miller, claiming his report about the map/marker at the kitchen table was unfounded, basically calling him a liar. Unbelievable. Can't wait to hear these get laughed out of court.

 

[beach]

All of today's motions are here: Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - List of Motions **NO DISCUSSION HERE PLEASE**

Hey guys, just getting a chance to check in today. Haven't even had a chance to read the motions yet. Since there are quite a few, please open new threads as necessary so we can don't have to search through this one general thread regarding several different issues. TIA!

And thank you MM!!!

 

[watergirl]

Did they not notice the State on this motion? They're asking for a response from the State.

a response in 10 days which brings us to 12/31...which makes me think they planned on filing these today all along, regardless of the fallout from yesterday's hearing. pushing the envelope yet again. gah.

these are ridiculous... but they obviously put more than 30, i mean 5, minutes into them, they cite case law and everything (wow). definitely not written by JB.

maybe its timed to distract from krystal's audio with LE, those were very iincriminating imo.

 

[momtective]

any one else keep saying "really??" as they read this?

Actually the thought that continuously echos in my head as I read these is "Are you freakin' kiddin' me...what idiots!"


Just more proof that JB et.al. are grasping at straws.


MM you are the man! :bow:

 

[Marshmallow]

Actually the thought that continuously echos in my head as I read these is "Are you freakin' kiddin' me...what idiots!"


Just more proof that JB et.al. are grasping at straws.


MM you are the man! :bow:

my two year old granddaughter has been known to look at me, usually when I ask if she likes something, and say "are you frikkin kidding me Grandma?"
reading what you wrote made me picture her saying it.

This is indeed a major grasping of straws and in a sad way almost laughable. Especially her sexcapades not being important to the case.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

 

[ziggy]

This is sssuuppper interesting since I am going into my second semester of Evidence class in about a week. As professor Hardcastle says..."is it relevant? Hell yes, just about everything is, but it may not be admissible."

I'm sure the lying, stealing and sexual promiscuity is being brought forth by Baez as inadmissible character evidence. I can't WAIT to see the hearings on these motions - can't wait to see the response from the Prosecution... My classroom in action.

 

[Muzikman]

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!


Hittin' the thanks button wasn't enough. :dance:

 

[logicalgirl]

I'm still trying to figure out where on the timeline "passed sexual relations" falls.

Hookt on Fonicks werkd for mee.

Wait a minute, never mind your fonicks - just who was it who actually passed sexual relations?

 

[logicalgirl]

a response in 10 days which brings us to 12/31...which makes me think they planned on filing these today all along, regardless of the fallout from yesterday's hearing. pushing the envelope yet again. gah.

these are ridiculous... but they obviously put more than 30, i mean 5, minutes into them, they cite case law and everything (wow). definitely not written by JB.

maybe its timed to distract from krystal's audio with LE, those were very iincriminating imo.

So if all of these have to be filed and heard before the 31st, does this mean HHJP and Baez et al are pulling an all nighter on the 23rd? That is going to be one tetchey judge!

 

[NSS]

It may be possible that ICA's sex life is relevant.

Prior to Caylees death, ICA had to make arrangements for booty calls or take the baby along. In the 31 days between Caylee being murdered and her being reported missing, ICA had unrestrained availability for her sexual activities.

Since there is no nanny, her increased availability is indeed pertinent to the whereabouts of her child during this time.