2010.12.21 Stream of Motions - General Discussion

[Purple Iris]

{thank you Beach for fixxing my above my post - thought I "had" it}

 

[TrialAddict]

http://www.wftv.com/video/18212521/index.html

At 2:40 ... Lee asks, "how about your tattoo?" Casey replies "that's Caylee related."

I wonder if she can get the jury to believe she would have never had that tattoo if she had any clue, Caylee was never coming back to her. She may have been thinking if I get this tattoo no one will ever believe I didn't think she was with "nanny" somewhere having a great time.

 

[beach]

__________________
Wait a minute though ~ There MAY be something to this.
During the indengcy hearing, Baez was asked under oath when he had been retained or hired by Casey.
He lowers his head, and mumbles, June 16th, and is asked to repeat it.
Which he did, with the exact same day. And, what threw me for a loop that day was that no one questioned, or, corrected that date.
I know that we talked about here, and some thought that it was just a nervous slip up. I never did, then, or now esp in light of that particular motion now, as it reads. We know that they are dense, but, they are also sly and sneaky.

So, if that's the case, would Baez come back and say that "yes, she was reported missing, but to ME"?
He wouldn't have to dilvudge any reason for telling her to wait it out, as it were, I suppose, would he??

Which would bring us to FaeFrost's comment, that if they claim she told Lee, Cindy or George, that they would have to take the stand, or, Casey, null.

We would have Baez stating it, and that it had been client/attorney private info.

It would also explain how Baez made it to the court house in record time as Richard Hornsby wrote about on his blog one time.

Course, Baez would have to produce some paperwork to attest to that June 16th hire date, and we all know how his book-keeping has been.
But, its an interesting thought.........maybe???

Using THAT date, it would make the above true then.

Just reading this and trying to wrap my brain around it makes my head throb. lol

I get where you're going, but...... I think my biggest hurdle is that I believe you've got much more on the ball than JB & CM put together. I can't give them that much credit. They could never think of a strategy like this, imo. lol Not to mention....too many landmines to blow up in their face.

 

[zoomom]

Shhhh, BJB...we don't want to feed them their own defense now, do we??? LMAO



BBM...isn't that sad? Isn't it the sad "truth", Beach..even us laymen know this case better than those darn defense attornies. We have more insight to this case than Baez has his ego...as TWA says, you just can't make this stuff up!

Sadder yet is the fact the defense seemed to have done nothing for this upcoming trial before the prisoner was deemed indigent. Now, they are at full speed ahead, glaring gramatical/spelling errors and all. That should infuriate the Florida taxpayers. It also appears to me, they are downright lying about certain pieces of evidence. I just don't know how they can get away with that! JMHO

Hopefully, the SA's will put an end to his dishonesty, his unethical standards, his outright lies and he wants to be seen as an "officer of the court"! Maybe Baez needs that return trip down memory lane and refresh himself about why it took him so long to gain that license...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[zoomom]

I think what the motion implies is that KC got the tattoo two weeks after Caylee was reported missing. KC was in jail two weeks after CA reported Caylee missing and had been missing for 31 days. Big ooooppps on defense's part. See too many lies even they can't get it straight.

Lambchop! That's absolutley brilliant!!

 

[faefrost]

__________________
Wait a minute though ~ There MAY be something to this.
During the indengcy hearing, Baez was asked under oath when he had been retained or hired by Casey.
He lowers his head, and mumbles, June 16th, and is asked to repeat it.
Which he did, with the exact same day. And, what threw me for a loop that day was that no one questioned, or, corrected that date.
I know that we talked about here, and some thought that it was just a nervous slip up. I never did, then, or now esp in light of that particular motion now, as it reads. We know that they are dense, but, they are also sly and sneaky.

So, if that's the case, would Baez come back and say that "yes, she was reported missing, but to ME"?
He wouldn't have to dilvudge any reason for telling her to wait it out, as it were, I suppose, would he??

Which would bring us to FaeFrost's comment, that if they claim she told Lee, Cindy or George, that they would have to take the stand, or, Casey, null.

We would have Baez stating it, and that it had been client/attorney private info.

It would also explain how Baez made it to the court house in record time as Richard Hornsby wrote about on his blog one time.

Course, Baez would have to produce some paperwork to attest to that June 16th hire date, and we all know how his book-keeping has been.
But, its an interesting thought.........maybe???

Using THAT date, it would make the above true then.

I can't see it. If JB says well she did report it to somebody June 16... me! It tells the jury a few things very very clearly. If she simply told JB that the child was missing or kidnapped, they both opted to not report it, well that makes JB an actual part of an ongoing crime. (remember the child was still "missing" at that point). Which, much like a Mafia Don's Consigliore, drags him into the whole mess as a defendant. The alternative is that whatever she told JB he came to the conclusion that there was no longer an ongoing crime. In other words the murder had happened and the child was already dead. I really can't see where those would be a strong or winning trial strategy? Even by JB's less than stellar standards.

 

[ynotdivein]

IMO, the tattoo motion can be read one of four ways:

1. First, the transcriptionist typed "after" when he/she clearly meant "before"--mere typo, ooopsie, move along folks...

2. Second, the intent of the line in question was to say KC got the tattoo 2 weeks after the date upon which she and her family eventually settled as the last date she saw her daughter alive and then finally reported Caylee to have been missing from that date... (think about that little ball rattling round in the roulette wheel as you ponder this one)

4. Finally, the defense really meant it the way it was typed, and hoped no one would notice their little slip of the lip.

 

[Purple Iris]

I can't see it. If JB says well she did report it to somebody June 16... me! It tells the jury a few things very very clearly. If she simply told JB that the child was missing or kidnapped, they both opted to not report it, well that makes JB an actual part of an ongoing crime. (remember the child was still "missing" at that point). Which, much like a Mafia Don's Consigliore, drags him into the whole mess as a defendant. The alternative is that whatever she told JB he came to the conclusion that there was no longer an ongoing crime. In other words the murder had happened and the child was already dead. I really can't see where those would be a strong or winning trial strategy? Even by JB's less than stellar standards.

Ahhh..........snaaaaaaaap.
Ya got me on ALL your counter points....

But, it still bother's me that no one called Baez on his June 16 date !!

 

[The World According]

A scriveners’ error is a term long used in the law to minimize the impact of a drafting mistake. The concept is that the scrivener , a person performing the ministerial function of transcribing text simply gets it wrong, by innocent mistake.The actual date of the tattoo is memorialized in the tattoo parlor dude's testimony. Let me find it. It is just a mistake, they never fact check or proof read, that is all.

The tattoo is coming in, imo

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6Fr_gwZ4p4[/ame]
one minute mark, He says Casey was in his shop ONE DAY before the announcement of the baby missing, she had a long talk with him, happy go lucky, not a blink, not a hesitation, just "I'll bring her in with me next Saturday", Casey told him, referring to Caylee.

The mere idea that she is telling folks all over town Caylee is fine and she will bring her by, rather than asking have you seen this girl Zenaida, she is x tall, this nationality, etc , she took my child, can I post a flier in your shop or at your club, Fusion employees, is very, very compelling. Jose wants to argue that the tattoo is only to embarass her and depict some moral lacking for a young lady to have a tattoo. Popycock. The tattoo goes to state of mind, and her state of mind was indeed, carefree....bella villa. Wow!

 

[ZsaZsa]

Is Baez really that stupid? That he would know a child was 'missing' on June 16th and did nothing about it? Where is RH when you need him? Wouldn't he be in danger of being accused of aiding and abetting if he knew and said nothing?
As stupid as I think he is, I feel sure he just mis-spoke when he said June, and he meant July..

 

[cyberborg]

Given the stream of Motions it makes me wonder if this is what AL's team of students were doing all that time ... teeing up a collection of Motions to exclude 'anything' and 'everything' related to be triggered just before the end of the year ... to inundate the SA and HHJP?

I don't believe that JB has recently put these together and cranked them out ... I can see JB snickering (think Looney Tunes) hee, hee, hee as he pulled the trigger.

 

[Purple Iris]

Given the stream of Motions it makes me wonder if this is what AL's team of students were doing all that time ... teeing up a collection of Motions to exclude 'anything' and 'everything' related to be triggered just before the end of the year ... to inundate the SA and HHJP?

I don't believe that JB has recently put these together and cranked them out ... I can see JB snickering (think Looney Tunes) hee, hee, hee as he pulled the trigger.

Straight out of his "ACME" briefcase !!! Beep-beePPPPPppppppp.

I can SO see that he would pull something like that cyberborg !!

It wouldn't surprise me in the least.

 

[ynotdivein]

For what it's worth, I am heaving a small sigh of relief that the defense did file these motions. They may be a week late and a crate of oranges short, but by flinging these motions at the wall, they are helping to deny KC an "ineffective counsel" claim post-conviction (if I am understanding our beloved AZ and other legal eagles correctly).

 

[LancelotLink]

For what it's worth, I am heaving a small sigh of relief that the defense did file these motions. They may be a week late and a crate of oranges short, but by flinging these motions at the wall, they are helping to deny KC an "ineffective counsel" claim post-conviction (if I am understanding our beloved AZ and other legal eagles correctly).

Great post!! Too funny!

 

[RR0004]

...OR...

...perhaps we're learning that the defense strategy will be to say that Casey DID report Caylee missing to George, Cindy and/or Lee...and it was at THEIR direction that Casey complied not to involve the authorities. That would have Casey saying she feared for her life if she went to authorities...make her the victim, etc. etc.

Just sayin'

They also mentioned in one of their motions how the State offered to hide the family...I realize they were referring to the claim that the family was in danger (cough, cough)...but you never know...perhaps they are setting this up as a family affair.

 

[Aedrys]

IMO, the tattoo motion can be read one of four ways:

1. First, the transcriptionist typed "after" when he/she clearly meant "before"--mere typo, ooopsie, move along folks...

2. Second, the intent of the line in question was to say KC got the tattoo 2 weeks after the date upon which she and her family eventually settled as the last date she saw her daughter alive and then finally reported Caylee to have been missing from that date... (think about that little ball rattling round in the roulette wheel as you ponder this one)

4. Finally, the defense really meant it the way it was typed, and hoped no one would notice their little slip of the lip.

Good points...but what is #3? Did you skip over that on purpose, like #3 doesn't count? lol.

 

[Numbers]

Good points...but what is #3? Did you skip over that on purpose, like #3 doesn't count? lol.

#3 was missing in the original motion. Surprise - Jose can't count.

 

[ynotdivein]

...OR...

...perhaps we're learning that the defense strategy will be to say that Casey DID report Caylee missing to George, Cindy and/or Lee...and it was at THEIR direction that Casey complied not to involve the authorities. That would have Casey saying she feared for her life if she went to authorities...make her the victim, etc. etc.

Just sayin'

Ew.

BJB, do you REALLY think KC reported to GA, CA or LA that Caylee was missing on June 15/16/17 2008?

Either way, the fact that the defense might contemplate this story makes me want to go bathe in bleach. :sick:

 

[ynotdivein]

Good points...but what is #3? Did you skip over that on purpose, like #3 doesn't count? lol.

I was making a snarky joke about their motion, Aedrys. But you should apply to be a proofreader for the DT! They need eyes like yours! :hug:

You noticed #3 was missing in mine... no one noticed in theirs (before they submitted it) that they promised 4 rationales and provided only 3.

(ETA--TY Numbers for explaining!)

 

[RR0004]

Given the stream of Motions it makes me wonder if this is what AL's team of students were doing all that time ... teeing up a collection of Motions to exclude 'anything' and 'everything' related to be triggered just before the end of the year ... to inundate the SA and HHJP?

I don't believe that JB has recently put these together and cranked them out ... I can see JB snickering (think Looney Tunes) hee, hee, hee as he pulled the trigger.

Yes, I remember when she was leaving how she said her work was done. Funny, some of the motions seem "young" and have a little more dramatic flair than others.