2011.01.05 Hearing TES Volunteer Computer Subpoena

[NJ Lawyer]

Intermezzo said, "I am wondering if, as Baez claims he recently learned about photos and blog posts, would the next step not be to contact, either by phone call or written correspondence, Jordan/his lawyer and ask if photos of the area do exist?"

My response: LOL. You'd think so, right? (Pick up the darn phone, reasonable people!) Probably, Baez needs to get the question answered officially or under oath or for the record, etc. if he's going to be doing his best as defense counsel. But maybe he can just use an interrogatory. Does anyone know if the blogger refused to answer one?

Intermezzo said: "I don't remember Baez even stating he tried to obtain the information before filing a Motion."

My response: I also don't recall hearing that. But I think he needs the answer to the question on record and under oath - see above.

Intermezzo said, "I am suspicious of Baez's claim that he only recently found this information out...

My response: I'm suspicious of all of Baez's claims, LOL. Right or wrong, though, he's made out a case for requiring a response from the blogger.

Intermezzo said, ...he has already in the recent past lied to JBP when asked if any of his Experts upon examination of evidence authored reports and Baez answered NO in court..but in handing over discovery the Prosecution and we come to find out that was not true.

My response: If his conduct has been so outrageous then I think there are remedies for that, but the Judge still needs to rule correctly on motions.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

Yes and to be perfectly honest, I think getting photos of the Suburban Drive search, if JJ has them, is a good move on Baez's part. But my opinion is by asking for the subpoena when he did, he put the cart before the horse. He didn't really seem to know what he was asking for; it was too broad and unfocused.

You are very right. Had JB found in his earlier depositon of JJ that he did, in fact have photos, he could ask for a subpoena. At this point, why wouldn't he just renotice a second depositon with subpoena duces tecum. That's done all the time in civil cases. Just ask them to bring with them to the deposition any and all...blah, blah, blah. Whatever you are looking for. Put it in your subpoena.

 

[The World According]

I want him to have the photos. News flash Jose Baez

read or listen to Mr. Jordan's state deposition
he details , very specifically that indeed the area on Suburban was not only
"Under water",
IIRC, he used the words, "knee deep".
You just can't make this stuff up!
What was that Bill Sheaffer cautioned when they wanted Judge Strickland to step aside? "Be careful what you wish for, Mr. Baez".



Mr. Mason....for your edification this morning:



http://www.wftv.com/video/26171628/index.html
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/anthony_case/092110-anthony-evidence-released

Moreover, wont it be funny if the defense does have each and every photo that Mr. Jordan took, in the discovery if they would just search through the CD s etc.

http://media.myfoxorlando.com/photogalleries/092110texasequusearch/indexGallery.htm

 

[Turnadot]

Perhaps if Baez would have reasonably established JJ had photos of Suburban drive, HHJP would have granted the subpoena. The problem is that Baez was extrapolating from other bits of information, that JJ has photos of Suburban Drive.

 

[NJ Lawyer]

But did the defense actually ask if there were any pictures? That's the thing. They hauled out the big guns demanding a ton of personal data with out first utilizing the most basic tools to determine if they existed. A simple phone call to JJ's lawyer would most likely be sufficient.

See my prior post - a simple phone call seems elegant and practical. Unfortunately, though, the timing of the body's placement at its ultimate resting place (poor Caylee) is critical (for the defense that is) and Baez needs to get a clear answer on this under oath.

Asking if the pictures exist under oath is a reasonable request. If they needed to they should have requested to put the witness back under oath to ask the question. Then only if they have some clear indication that the witness was not being truthful under oath should they go in and attempt to request the supeona they filed. It is the diference between ASKING SOMETHING UNDER OATH, where the defendants rights are paramount and compelling a SEARCH where the private citizens rights are. JB did not present sufficient cause to compel the search that he had demanded and HHJP kept telling him that over and over.

Ahhh...the crux of the matter: the appropriate scope of the inquiry into possible photos taken by the blogger. You are right that this is an important question. I think the Subpoena could have been narrowed. However, the judge needs to consider more than just the blogger's answer to the question "Are There Pictures?" even if the blogger seems honest. For example, if the blogger took enough photos of various search areas and the photos include more than just one search area, there may be reason to believe photos exist of a Suburban Drive search. If I knew someone took a bunch of photos of searches AND that they searched the area where the body was found, I would want to see for myself if there are any photos of the Suburban Drive search even if it's just to make sure the blogger isn't missing something on his own hard drive. That would hold true whether I'm defense or prosecution.

 

[Intermezzo]

Yes and to be perfectly honest, I think getting photos of the Suburban Drive search, if JJ has them, is a good move on Baez's part. But my opinion is by asking for the subpoena when he did, he put the cart before the horse. He didn't really seem to know what he was asking for; it was too broad and unfocused.

bbm
We have seen and read many of Baez's motions that are too broad and unfocused.

 

[Virtual Truth]

Perhaps if Baez would have reasonably established JJ had photos of Suburban drive, HHJP would have granted the subpoena. The problem is that Baez was extrapolating from other bits of information, that JJ has photos of Suburban Drive.

bbm: Not has, "might have"!!!

 

[Turnadot]

See my prior post - a simple phone call seems elegant and practical. Unfortunately, though, the timing of the body's placement at its ultimate resting place (poor Caylee) is critical (for the defense that is) and Baez needs to get a clear answer on this under oath.

Ahhh...the crux of the matter: the appropriate scope of the inquiry into possible photos taken by the blogger. You are right that this is an important question. I think the Subpoena could have been narrowed. However, the judge needs to consider more than just the blogger's answer to the question "Are There Pictures?" even if the blogger seems honest. For example, if the blogger took enough photos of various search areas and the photos include more than just one search area, there may be reason to believe photos exist of a Suburban Drive search. If I knew someone took a bunch of photos of searches AND that they searched the area where the body was found, I would want to see for myself if there are any photos of the Suburban Drive search even if it's just to make sure the blogger isn't missing something on his own hard drive. That would hold true whether I'm defense or prosecution.

JJ has only posted photos of, and posted about the photos he took at Jay Blanchard Park though, not various places - one place.

Also I think it's important to note that TES searchers are not allowed to take photos of TES search areas while searching with them. JJ, when searching Jay Blanchard Park, was searching on his own and not a search affiliated with TES, hence the photos.

 

[Paintr]

Perhaps if Mr Baez had simply asked the court to compel Mr Jorden to turn over 'any and all' photos taken during Mr Jordan's searches for Caylee, the court might have seen it's way clear to comply with Mr Baez's request. But were photos the only thing that Mr Baez desired? Perhaps trying to obtain all Mr Jordan's posts and/or comments on line was just carrying things that step too far into invasion of privacy.:waitasec:

 

[Intermezzo]

But did the defense actually ask if there were any pictures? That's the thing. They hauled out the big guns demanding a ton of personal data with out first utilizing the most basic tools to determine if they existed. A simple phone call to JJ's lawyer would most likely be sufficient. And while yes it is beyond reasonable to expect that they can get any pictures directly related to the case if they exist, The simple thought that something might exist does not give them the right to open up the entirety of a persons personal data.

Asking if the pictures exist under oath is a reasonable request. If they needed to they should have requested to put the witness back under oath to ask the question. Then only if they have some clear indication that the witness was not being truthful under oath should they go in and attempt to request the supeona they filed. It is the diference between ASKING SOMETHING UNDER OATH, where the defendants rights are paramount and compelling a SEARCH where the private citizens rights are. JB did not present sufficient cause to compel the search that he had demanded and HHJP kept telling him that over and over.

bbm 1
I think No...or else I believe he would have stated so in his Motion.

bbm 2
Yes he did, over and over and over.

 

[Soju]

Perhaps if Mr Baez had simply asked the court to compell Mr Jorden to turn over 'any and all' photos taken during Mr Jorden's searches for Caylee, the court might have seen it's way clear to comply with Mr Baez's request. But were photos the only thinkg that Mr Baez desired? Perhaps trying to obtain all Mr Jorden's posts and/or comments on line was just carrying things that step too far into invasion of privacy.:waitasec:

ITA, Paintr! It's true, Baez himself said in court yesterday that he was also looking for "evidence of bias" etc. JB would've dug around everything JJ ever said anywhere and tried to muddy the issues, as usual. IMO, this motion had nothing to do with pictures of the area in question, but everything to do with Kronking JJ.

 

[The World According]

The important thing to remember is that Joe Jordan is NOT NEW NEWS to the defense. I will find the spot in the hearing when Mark Nejame informed the judge that the defense has had Joe Jordan's name...
hold on to your seats...
since they were first hand delivered the list of the 32 searchers that were in the relevant area!!!
Jose was claiming he couldn't read it, that the name was cut off at the top. Mark said, no sir, and provided the judge with the copy. Judge Strickland concurred the name was indeed legible.

So for him not to have deposed Joe Jordan and the other 32 folks on that list, until one year later and then claim there is new news is appauling to me!!!

If you recall this hearing, Mr. Nejame was especially frustrated and he turned around from the podium to face Jose and yelled come on over, stop by and review the papers for the love of God (paraphrasing).

From February, LAST YEAR
EquuSearch Attorney: Baez Motion Is A Waste Of Time
Nejame slaps down defense motion, asks for fees

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.wftv.com/news/22535671/detail.html


The lawyer for TES expected that the defense would retract their accusation that he released the TES documents to the press. When they did not, he filed a motion with the court, responding to that and their requests for all of the documents. The very experienced Mr. Nejame, sets out the defense is out of line, and has their facts wrong. Again.

Nejame asks the court to award TES attorney fees.
snip

"He has caused unnecessary attorney time and Court time to be wasted, especially since he has been fully advised of its misrepresentations and inaccuracies and nevertheless continues to proceed," NeJame wrote.

Baaaaam!
__________________
__________________

 

[beach]

*sigh* I understand there's nothing out there about photos from the actual Suburban Drive search. I took pains to note as much in my post. Rather, the point I made is that the blogger conducted searches for Caylee and posted pictures of some of the searches (I understand Blanchard Park). He didn't post pics of a Suburban Drive search but apparently, he said he looked in the area. Therefore, it's reasonable to ask the blogger if he has pictures of the Suburban Drive search and if so, give us copies. The prosecutor should be entitled to them too, not just defense counsel. Baez said he didn't ask the blogger about it at the deposition b/c he didn't know the blogger had searched Suburban Drive at that point. True or not, the state and the defense are both entitled to the photos if they exist. When you're talking about someone who went and searched for Caylee and contacted law enforcement and kept a blog....it is not a "fishing expedition" to demand an answer to the simple but critical question: Do you have pictures of the area where Caylee's body was found and, if so, turn them over copies, please. We're not talking about tenuous inquiries into tangential matters -- this is a question about whether photos of a body's location exist and what the photos show. I'm confident an appeals court would quickly overturn the judge's decision but I don't think an appeal will be necessary. Ashton seems like a smart guy and surely he will step in to make the same request so a future conviction isn't overturned on something stupid. Remember, you don't want to win the battle and lose the war.

Please don't feel like *sigh*! I am thrilled to read your well-thought out, intelligent thoughts. And, I hope we hear much more from you! We need to consider such points because otherwise we become a complacent herd of sheep and that is not good for anyone. I totally understand where you are coming from and I think you points are very valid. Thank you for sharing with us.

Three final thoughts I have:

1.) HHJP denied the request without prejudice, so the door is still open and may be reconsidered. I think HHJP denied it w/o prejudice for a very good reason. Hopefully, JB picks up on that. If he is reading here today, we are all doing him a favor.

2.) The ONLY basis for my opinion (and really the only reason I agree with HHJP's ruling) is because - well, if JJ was willing to post and share the photos of his other searches before 12/11/08, if the photos of Suburban actually do exist, what reason would he have to not shared them like all the others? At that point (prior to 12/11/08) those photos would have meant no more than the one at Jay Blanchard Park. So, it is further reason to believe they do NOT exist. So, as of yesterday, I believe that HHJP ruled correctly.

3.) I think the real issue is what you state - that someone should have established that the photos do in fact exist. Baez should have asked the question, "So, when you were at Suburban, didja take any photos?" He can file another motion to request a second depo, if ONLY to ask that one question, and if needed, a few follow-ups. I don't know if, "I wasn't aware of photos prior to the first depo" is gonna be a good enough reason for HHJP to grant it, because I think it was ridiculous to not ask it the first time. Either way, I would be just fine if he did grant it. (fwiw, I don't believe Baez wasn't aware before he deposed him - yes, I think he is lying, but that is neither here nor there. To be on the safe side, let him ask it.)

I guess the point I am trying to make here is that I believe erring on the side of protecting the rights of invasion of privacy of a citizen is more important than granting the defense motion w/o being able to establish probable cause. That is an extremely dangerous precedent to set, in my opinion. And my feelings about that, go welllllll beyond this case.

I totally understand and respect the concerns you have and frankly, you have raised my concerns as well.


Thank you so much for sharing and I hope you will do so more often!!!

 

[Virtual Truth]

Ahhh...the crux of the matter: the appropriate scope of the inquiry into possible photos taken by the blogger. You are right that this is an important question. I think the Subpoena could have been narrowed. However, the judge needs to consider more than just the blogger's answer to the question "Are There Pictures?" even if the blogger seems honest. For example, if the blogger took enough photos of various search areas and the photos include more than just one search area, there may be reason to believe photos exist of a Suburban Drive search. If I knew someone took a bunch of photos of searches AND that they searched the area where the body was found, I would want to see for myself if there are any photos of the Suburban Drive search even if it's just to make sure the blogger isn't missing something on his own hard drive. That would hold true whether I'm defense or prosecution.

bbm: Question is would you have the right (legally) to search that person's hard drive to see if he is "missing something" without probable cause to say he is missing something, or would you just be "fishing" to find that answer? That is exactly why I believe Judge Perry ruled as he did. JB showed no proof that this man posted photos of more than one site excluding Suburban Dr purposely, and never asked him to produce photos from the site in question on Suburban Dr. The appeals court is not obligated to go back and do the Defense Attorney's job for him after the fact, correct? Isn't it up to JB/CM to right their ship now, rather than rely on the tattle-tale approach later to the higher court to say "the mean, ole judge just wasn't fair to us when we screwed up and didn't ask what we should have on behalf of our client:waitasec:?

 

[NJ Lawyer]

JJ has only posted photos of, and posted about the photos he took at Jay Blanchard Park though, not various places - one place.

Hmmn. Well then...even so, if I were defense counsel (Ick...I would hate that)...if someone searched Blanchard Park and took photos of that search but then told the world they searched Suburban Drive too, I'd want to check and see personally if there were photos of Suburban Drive even if the searcher said "Oh I took pics of the Blanchard Park search but not the Suburban Drive search". Especially knowing that the general public (understandably) hated my client and might be skewed against her. Given those facts, if my defense was so reliant on the location of the body, I'd press to see the file containing the photos and not just be content to hear "Oh, I don't have any photos." I'd go to the ends of the earth to try and gain access to a possible source of photos. If a defense attorney was content to sit back with an answer of "I snapped Blanchard photos but not Suburban Drive photos" I might fault them for being ineffective. It would be nice to have the computer viewed in camera....in the privacy of the judge's chambers and not have the public see the computer contents. That would alleviate the blogger's privacy concerns. Not sure if that's allowable under Florida's liberal sunshine laws. Which sometimes get in the way of a prosecutor's strategy believe it or not.

 

[LambChop]

*sigh* I understand there's nothing out there about photos from the actual Suburban Drive search. I took pains to note as much in my post. Rather, the point I made is that the blogger conducted searches for Caylee and posted pictures of some of the searches (I understand Blanchard Park). He didn't post pics of a Suburban Drive search but apparently, he said he looked in the area. Therefore, it's reasonable to ask the blogger if he has pictures of the Suburban Drive search and if so, give us copies. The prosecutor should be entitled to them too, not just defense counsel. Baez said he didn't ask the blogger about it at the deposition b/c he didn't know the blogger had searched Suburban Drive at that point. True or not, the state and the defense are both entitled to the photos if they exist. When you're talking about someone who went and searched for Caylee and contacted law enforcement and kept a blog....it is not a "fishing expedition" to demand an answer to the simple but critical question: Do you have pictures of the area where Caylee's body was found and, if so, turn them over copies, please. We're not talking about tenuous inquiries into tangential matters -- this is a question about whether photos of a body's location exist and what the photos show. I'm confident an appeals court would quickly overturn the judge's decision but I don't think an appeal will be necessary. Ashton seems like a smart guy and surely he will step in to make the same request so a future conviction isn't overturned on something stupid. Remember, you don't want to win the battle and lose the war.

BBM: Well this certainly is not true because JB was indeed aware JJ searched Suburban Drive prior to the deposition because there was that phone conversation that took place regarding LB searching with JJ on Suburban and the TES documentation that appeared to have been fabricated earlier last year. So JB was more than aware JJ was on Suburban. JJ is a member here and I do not believe any of us have ever seen pictures of the exact spot where Caylee's remains were found taken by anyone on this site. I think JB was more interested in JJ's posts. Wouldn't this be the only way JB could use them in court is if he were to subpoena the posts? And he already had the poor man in a deposition, did JB not ask if JJ had any relevant information. Isn't THAT what the taxpayers are paying for a thorough job done by defense??? I think the judge made the right decision based on what he knows JB is up to. I don't think HHJP would have denied JB's motion unless he truly felt it was a fishing expedition. jmo

ETA: Don't we all remember when JB told the court that JJ was a witness and would be testifying at a hearing that day and JJ did not show up. This depo for JJ was last month. JB has had mountains of time to get it straight. This also involves LB claim she searched Suburban Dr. with JJ. No way did JB not know, no way.

 

[beach]

I think the Subpoena can be narrowed to ask only for pics and info of the Suburban Search and blogger's counsel can respond to the Subpoena to the effect that no pictures in fact exist. That should solve the problem. Don't know if another deposition is needed. But.....if something more *is* needed, it could just be interrogatories to blogger with appropriately worded questions (about the existence of photos). If another dep is needed, it can be like a 3 question thing. I've seen follow-up deps last 1 minute. (Costly? Not really in the scheme of things. Once again, I want to see the war won).

This is the answer, imo.

And Baez, if you're reading today, - here is your answer. Heed the call and send NJLawyer some flowers or something.

 

[logicalgirl]

See my prior post - a simple phone call seems elegant and practical. Unfortunately, though, the timing of the body's placement at its ultimate resting place (poor Caylee) is critical (for the defense that is) and Baez needs to get a clear answer on this under oath.

Ahhh...the crux of the matter: the appropriate scope of the inquiry into possible photos taken by the blogger. You are right that this is an important question. I think the Subpoena could have been narrowed. However, the judge needs to consider more than just the blogger's answer to the question "Are There Pictures?" even if the blogger seems honest. For example, if the blogger took enough photos of various search areas and the photos include more than just one search area, there may be reason to believe photos exist of a Suburban Drive search. If I knew someone took a bunch of photos of searches AND that they searched the area where the body was found, I would want to see for myself if there are any photos of the Suburban Drive search even if it's just to make sure the blogger isn't missing something on his own hard drive. That would hold true whether I'm defense or prosecution.

Isn't that what "without prejudice" is about?

Hasn't HHJP left the door wide open for Baez to ask that all important question, "JJ do you have or have you had photographs you took during your independent search of Suburban Drive?

JWG over on the Hinky Meter this morning gave Mr. Baez simple and detailed instructions on how to do a net search for JJ's pictures. You see, the "thing" about the net is - what goes on in the net, stays in the net - forever!

What HHJP was saying to Mr. Baez (IMO) when he denied the motion was - Mr. Baez you have asked the wrong question. Go away and come back if you have actual information. The JAC does not fund fishing trips.

Okay, we are back to "without prejudice" I think.

 

[BChand]

WELL I CAN PROVE THAT THE TEAM READS HERE. The video I sent MUZIKMAN is on their website --- like client, like counsel - take whatever you want...........
LOL - CM stands for: Loss of LIBERTY -- just what the electric chair or LWOP (I am hoping you know that one) will give your client. Oh and IMHO, etc.

Grrrrrrrrrrr- your MISSION will fail. Again, IMHO....etc....

Which website A News Junkie? Baez's?

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Which website A News Junkie? Baez's?

One I have recently found and have on my radar. Let me send it to a mod - and see if it can be posted.