2011.01.05 Hearing TES Volunteer Computer Subpoena

[Paintr]

Exactly! You are right that these are 2 different issues. The possibility of photos of the crime scene are one thing. JJ's comments about Casey/Caylee/the search/George/Cindy, etc. are another thing. I don't know enough about Part B so can't answer that. Have been focused on Part A. I guess if prosecutors call JJ as a witness, defense might throw some of his statements at him to hurt his "credibility" as a witness. I haven't read JJ's blog in question and so can't comment on the proper result. Thoughts?

I would have taken bets that this would never, ever happen....and I cringe as I type this.....but I agree with Mr Baez that the defense should have access to search photos of the 'magic' area if any exist. I thought Mr Baez argued it badly but he has a duty to his client to try.

However I have great issue with the defense being given access to Mr Jordan's computer. After the defense handling of Mr Kronk, if I were a judge, I would be extreemly careful to take Mr Jordan's rights and therefore, by extension, the rights of any person Mr Baez might fixate on in the future of this trial, very seriously.

 

[AZlawyer]

Just noticed in JJ's 11/5/09 interview with LE they did ask him if "Helen" took any photos during the search on Suburban, and he volunteered in response that "nobody" was allowed to use their cell phones or cameras during that search.

He also gave LE his WS names at that time, so there was no excuse for JB not to have known about them before JJ's recent depo.

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/22918267/detail.html

 

[darnudes]

What do you mean serving them with "search and seizure"? Anyhow, I don't think the protesters identified themselves so how would Baez even be able to "serve them with search and seizure"? He's asking for stuff from an identifiable guy who actually blogged on the searches and the case. It's tempting to throw up one's hands and say "well, if you go down that road you'll end up with the entire universe". Baez needs to be thrown a bone so the integrity of the verdict is preserved and then we move on to the next issue or the trial.

Lots of people searched then went on forums to discuss that searching. Is the next step of Baez's to subpoena all their comments on every Anthony forum to look for more reasonable doubt? If the judge had granted that motion then it would have opened the door for Baez - he would have found "something" in those comments of JJ's, then would have requested more investigative funds and continued to fish to his hearts content.

One day I'm going to work out the amount of money Baez has spent on investigating anyone but the "nanny" that should be interesting.

 

[logicalgirl]

What do you mean serving them with "search and seizure"? Anyhow, I don't think the protesters identified themselves so how would Baez even be able to "serve them with search and seizure"? He's asking for stuff from an identifiable guy who actually blogged on the searches and the case. It's tempting to throw up one's hands and say "well, if you go down that road you'll end up with the entire universe". Baez needs to be thrown a bone so the integrity of the verdict is preserved and then we move on to the next issue or the trial.

I would have preferred you had highlighted and answered my last two questions in this post, but here goes.

My point is this isn't an issue to anyone but Baez. Baez doesn't need to be thrown a bone unless he can come up with more than a maybe and at this very late date when he is close to not being able to even present this so-called "maybe" information, this is simply an extension of the TES harassment. Because even if such a photograph existed, it would not be possible to prove it was taken at that exact spot where the remains were found.

I believe all trials and verdicts have teensy questions that are not answered, but I also believe the experts will prove this wasn't even a question.

 

[NJ Lawyer]

...is there usually this much attention given to worrying about appellate issues later?

No, not usually. I only apply appellate considerations here heavily b/c:

(1) the issue involves Casey's only defense - the location of Caylee's body (yes, the defense is pathetic and doesn't even make sense but it's all they have apparently).

(2) as a capital case, appellate work will be certain to occur, will be considerable and be performed by excellent attorneys (i.e., not Baez).

(3) there is no confession in this case or eyewitness to the actual murder and the physical evidence in the case doesn't appear to be taken directly from Casey's body (Caylee's blood on her hands or clothing. Yes, her car had physical evidence in it but that's different). I am always more confident with a confession, eyewitness, physical evidence on the defendant's person, etc.

 

[Macushla]

Snip

IIRC the objection filed by his lawyer sort of coyly avoided saying whether any such photos actually existed.

NJL, I am also glad you decided to brave the trenches once more!

AZ, I am glad you brought this up because I was really surprised that his attorney did not say that in court. IF there are no photos of Suburban Drive, why didn't he just state that in both is motion AND his argument before the judge? Would that have not solved the problem and avoided the possibility of appeal based on this issue?

What would be the advantage of being coy like this if there were no photos?

 

[Lanie]

I don't think all of that is necessary just to see if JJ's computer has photos of the crime scene. Has JB asked to see all those travel records? Or to depose each and every one of the TES searchers? If not, they wouldn't be required.

What I was saying was the argument used towards JJ could be used towards all these other people, not these other people have anything to do with JJ having or not having pictures of the Suburban location.

To my knowledge, Baez has not asked to see all these travel records.

Baez did, however, file motion after motion to have all 4000 TES searcher records handed over to him, with the argument that even if it didn't show on a searcher's TES file that person had searched near the area where the remains were eventually found, some of those searchers had also made searches on their own, and so he should be able to question, and/or depose, each and every one of them. So my point of bringing in all these other people is to say, yes, it is true a person could sign up with TES, go on TES sponsored searches, and still go off on their own, and it is just as possible any person could have searched for Caylee without ever signing up with TES at all, and since we are just speculating along, it is reasonable speculation some people didn't have anything to do with TES, like, say, Roy Kronk, and still went out and searched the area Caylee was found. Cameras are a dime a dozen these days, so it is within the realm of possibility someone somewhere took some pictures, so at what point is it okay for the court to say enough already?

NeJame, attorney for TES, appeared in court and fought these motions to protect the rights of TES and the people who searched for them. JJ's attorney, McKellan?, came to court and fought to protect JJ's rights, which JJ still has, no matter what Casey Anthony did or did not do. And just as Casey Anthony has the right to make the state prove she did something, JJ has that same right, if the defense wants to seize his records and photos and everything else they think he might have, they have the burden of proof to show he actually has something before they get to commit what IMO is a major invasion of privacy. JJ 'might have' this and 'might have' that, IMO, is just not enough.

 

[LambChop]

Forgive me, but who is TM? I don't have this down as you all down with the abbreviations, etc. Are you speaking of Tim of ESearch?

Also, if anyone could recap the JJ and Laura Buchanan thing in a short paragraph. I did not know she had anything to do with him. Really appreciate it. Thanks again.

Tim Miller, yes. LB stated she had searched with JJ on the day she was actually assigned to JBP. From what I understand she called JJ and tried to get him to confirm that they searched together. He claims he does not know her and could not identify her from her photos. LB produced a TES form that SA is now questioning as false. She claims she and others from her search group also searched Suburban Drive on their own. We have never heard from the "others" so it is not even clear they even exist. LB claimed she searched the exact spot where Caylee's remains were found and nothing was there. Now she denies knowing the exact spot where Caylee's remains were found. The problems JJ is having now I would guess pretty much have to do with LB. He did not insert himself from what we know and it was more of an ambush possibly because of what LB had told defense. I think I have that right but anyone else feel free to correct me. I have never seen so many people willing to lie to be on KC's BBF list. Oye. jmo

 

[AZlawyer]

Am I missing something here, I obviously bow down to greater minds than mine with legal expertise but is there usually this much attention given to worrying about appellate issues later?
If prosecutors/judges were this concerned in every murder case they try about appellate issues then every legally insufficient motion ever filed by a defense attorney would be granted with the words "mustn't give them an in later". I'm not getting it. If Baez had one comment from JJ posted on the net that he took those photos I'm sure Judge Perry would have granted the motion. Baez was on a fishing expedition and the judge has mentioned this in the past that he won't condone it nor use public funds for Baez to take that fishing expedition. The Judge also said the other day that he "didn't mind trying this case twice, hell, I've seen cases in the states tried 3 times. It didn't change the outcome in the end.

I just think there is too much focus on appellate problems down the track. If judge Perry has the law on his side and ruled correctly on that motion, that there was no legal basis to grant it then the judge ruled correctly and the defense moves on with the next motion.

Yes, especially in death penalty cases it is very normal for the judge and the prosecution to be constantly looking out for appeal issues. This doesn't lead to judges granting clearly groundless defense motions (because the appellate court would not care about those) but it does sometimes lead to judges granting sort-of-questionable defense motions. The problem is that, in many cases, reasonable lawyers (and appellate judges!) can disagree about whether or not a motion should be granted. The JJ motion is one of those kinds of motions. It isn't a motion with "no legal basis to grant it," it's just a motion that IMO was OK to deny--but an appellate court could disagree.

The other problem is that, even when a motion/argument is crappily presented by the lawyers and therefore SHOULD be denied, the judge doesn't want to set up an "ineffective assistance of counsel" issue down the road. So sometimes a judge will make sure that the defendant's rights are protected even if her lawyers are not doing such a good job of protecting her rights. For example, in this case HHJP could have denied the subpoena that was requested, but granted the defense the right to issue a more narrow subpoena, or ordered JJ to answer under oath whether or not he had any photos of the Suburban Drive search.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Site not allowed to be linked. Thanks for asking before posting.

Your welcome - but to you and all the readers; I have learned to ask before mentioning, and I apologize for leaving you all hanging.
Moral of the story: ask before mentioning and ALWAYS before posting if in question!
:blowkiss:

(And hug a mod today, they have been working like crazy with the server and about 5 cases having major news this week. I am always in awe of how hard and dedicated they are!)

 

[Macushla]

Tim Miller, yes. LB stated she had searched with JJ on the day she was actually assigned to JBP. From what I understand she called JJ and tried to get him to confirm that they searched together. He claims he does not know her and could not identify her from her photos. LB produced a TES form that SA is now questioning as false. She claims she and others from her search group also searched Suburban Drive on their own. We have never heard from the "others" so it is not even clear they even exist. LB claimed she searched the exact spot where Caylee's remains were found and nothing was there. Now she denies knowing the exact spot where Caylee's remains were found. The problems JJ is having now I would guess pretty much have to do with LB. He did not insert himself from what we know and it was more of an ambush possibly because of what LB had told defense. I think I have that right but anyone else feel free to correct me. I have never seen so many people willing to lie to be on KC's BBF list. Oye. jmo

BBM - I am not sure I agree with this statement. I was a volunteer and I did come on WS and talk in general terms about the searches. We were told not to talk about exactly what we did and what areas were searched and of course not to take photos.

I remember reading some of JJ's posts and he did take a much more proactive role in searching than most of the volunteers, including going out on his own with others. Nothing wrong with that, HOWEVER, as JB said at the hearing, he did more than just search, he contacted LE with tips, suggestions, etc. called them out when he found things and most of all, started his own web site in regards to all this, aside from posting on Ws and other forums. He did post pictures of things that were found at Blanchard Park. While I don't want to make too much of a comparison - he did much the same things Joy W. did, but not quite as 'bizarrely' if I can use that term. He did contact LE and say he had searched Suburban and Caylee was not there. I hope I am not sounding too critical of JJ because I know he was doing it because he wanted to find Caylee - he made that clear from the beginning. However, he did take a few steps over the line from the rest of the people who volunteered their time to look for Caylee. My opinion only of course.

 

[LambChop]

Thanks AZ. Or in JB's own words, "Why didn't he just pick up the phone and call them" and ask if he had an photos taken on Suburban.

You know what I think? I think JB wants those posts because it's personal...... jmo

 

[TotallyObsessed]

BBM - I am not sure I agree with this statement. I was a volunteer and I did come on WS and talk in general terms about the searches. We were told not to talk about exactly what we did and where we searched and of course not to take photos.

I remember reading some of JJ's posts and he did take a much more proactive role in searching than most of the volunteers, including going out on his own with others. Nothing wrong with that, HOWEVER, as JB said at the hearing, he did more than just search, he contacted LE with tips, suggestions, etc. called them out when he found things and most of all, started his own web site in regards to all this, aside from posting on Ws and other forums. He did post pictures of things that were found at Blanchard Park. While I don't want to make too much of a comparison - he did much the same things Joy W. did, but not quite as 'bizarrely' if I can use that term. He did contact LE and say he had searched Suburban and Caylee was not there. I hope I am not sounding too critical of JJ because I know he was doing it because he wanted to find Caylee - he made that clear from the beginning. However, he did take a few steps over the line from the rest of the people who volunteered their time to look for Caylee. My opinion only of course.

I understand exactly what you are saying. My humble opinion is that this should be a good lesson to all "web" sleuthers. You never know when you could find yourself smack dab in the middle of something as bizarre as this case. Not to say people shouldn't volunteer, etc., but just be aware that you might be used as a pawn in some "dream team scheme"!

 

[Paintr]

Thanks AZ. Or in JB's own words, "Why didn't he just pick up the phone and call them" and ask if he had an photos taken on Suburban.

You know what I think? I think JB wants those posts because it's personal...... jmo

Even if Mr Baez had picked up the phone and asked, he would never have believed Mr Jordan or his lawyer if the answer had been 'no'.

 

[The World According]

Just noticed in JJ's 11/5/09 interview with LE they did ask him if "Helen" took any photos during the search on Suburban, and he volunteered in response that "nobody" was allowed to use their cell phones or cameras during that search.

He also gave LE his WS names at that time, so there was no excuse for JB not to have known about them before JJ's recent depo.

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/22918267/detail.html

Huge, beautiful flowers and fruits/candies delivered to your office on the first of the month, every month from now on for all of the work you do here!!! You have been and continue to be a major asset here at Websleuths.
This fact you just gave us is good stuff, as always!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCJIt5USXqA[/ame]

http://www.wftv.com/slideshow/news/20480714/detail.html

 

[LambChop]

BBM - I am not sure I agree with this statement. I was a volunteer and I did come on WS and talk in general terms about the searches. We were told not to talk about exactly what we did and where we searched and of course not to take photos.

I remember reading some of JJ's posts and he did take a much more proactive role in searching than most of the volunteers, including going out on his own with others. Nothing wrong with that, HOWEVER, as JB said at the hearing, he did more than just search, he contacted LE with tips, suggestions, etc. called them out when he found things and most of all, started his own web site in regards to all this, aside from posting on Ws and other forums. He did post pictures of things that were found at Blanchard Park. While I don't want to make too much of a comparison - he did much the same things Joy W. did, but not quite as 'bizarrely' if I can use that term. He did contact LE and say he had searched Suburban and Caylee was not there. I hope I am not sounding too critical of JJ because I know he was doing it because he wanted to find Caylee - he made that clear from the beginning. However, he did take a few steps over the line from the rest of the people who volunteered their time to look for Caylee. My opinion only of course.

But would you really call that inserting yourself into the case. MD I would say has inserted himself. LB has certainly inserted herself by calling CA. Any citizen who is contacted by defense in order to give a statement that you know is not correct should be reported to LE. So I have to differ with you there. It appears to me, anyway, that LB is responsible for JJ being drug into this matter. Up until the time defense's LB and defense's PI contacted him I don't think he was much different than many of the other searchers who posted here (they were very, very diligent I might add and good for them). It was a very intense time trying to figure out where Caylee was and there were a lot of emotions from posters on here. JJ just happened to be on Suburban Drive and just happened to be a leader. Perfect target for someone to say, "oh, you must remember me. I searched that area, too, on my own time." Imagine if Caylee had been found where you searched the overwhelming emotions you would have felt. Then have someone come along and say you and I searched that area and there was nothing there and you don't know this person from Adam. lol I give all of the TES volunteers a lot of credit for doing this in spite of the fact that the family was so dead set against you all searching. God bless you all and thanks from the bottom of my heart. You deserve the best that life can bring to you. jmo

 

[The World According]

Joe Jordan's transcript for Mr. Mason and Mr. Baez who do not appear to have read it!!! IMO
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/22918297/detail.html
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/22918267/detail.html

Tim Miller
http://www.wftv.com/video/18254579/index.html
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/22918226/detail.html

Brett Reiley
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/22918362/detail.html

Brett Churchill

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/22918425/detail.html

PHOTOS OF REMAINS EVIDENCE IN DISCOVERY DOCS
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21252744/detail.html

WATER DEPTH REPORT!
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21909869/detail.html

3-D ANIMATION
http://www.wftv.com/video/20321952/index.html

Baez better hope the jurors do not think the way Sheriff Berry does, check it out..
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoJxyKRzEL4[/ame]
common sense ...that is what Jose is discounting, imo.

http://www.wftv.com/caseyanthony/

http://www.wftv.com/caseyanthony/25370431/detail.html


http://www.wftv.com/video/18255280/index.html areal video

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOCUMENTS: EquuSearch Records Contradict Witness Story
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/25290953/detail.html

RAW INTERVIEW: WFTV Presses Baez On Docs
http://www.wftv.com/video/25303092/index.html

VIDEO REPORT: Docs Released In Casey Case
http://www.wftv.com/video/25291607/index.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljYL4udxQZk[/ame]

 

[darnudes]

Thanks NJ and AZ lawyers! Love having you both here.

Baez outright lied in the court hearing. First he says we searched "what little blogs we're aware of in this case" and this was on 8 Dec 2010, then he says a few minutes later "here's the thing the I'm not sure if the court understands there's """thousands""" of blogs about this case". There are a couple of other places where he kinda didn't tell the truth but I'll get to those later.

Judge Perry said "all I'm interested in is a factual basis for the court to issue a subpoena ducus tecum all I'm trying to find out is what is the basis in fact that this court has to order blogs and what you requested in this for the court to order that". Judge Perry said he wanted a basis for the issuance of a subpoena ducus tecum.

No factual basis, motion denied. Isn't that it in a nutshell? So is the argument about what Baez presented and did it have a factual basis?

 

[Turnadot]

There's isn't a specific law that would govern every situation (whether it be chocolate chip cookies or photos of crime searches). Every situation is different. I think if Baez could show he has a good faith/reasonable belief that someone's computer has photos of the crime scene, it won't matter who owns the cookies/photos or who took them, and the court could order a limited, private review of the cookies. If I were a judge, the fact that someone posted photos of a different search (Blanchard) taken by a private person and not LE, combined with a statement that the poster might have searched the area around the crime scene and a few other things....would be enough to order some kind of limited review or at least require a meeting in chambers of both sides, plus JJ's attorney where I'd work out an acceptable arrangement for all. I wouldn't just deny the motion. I'd order everyone to get their butts in chambers for a meeting. I think this will eventually happen.

Thanks for the detailed explanations, and your patience, NJ.

 

[LambChop]

Even if Mr Baez had picked up the phone and asked, he would never have believed Mr Jordan or his lawyer if the answer had been 'no'.

Well I'm sure Mr. Baez would not expect the attorney to "lie" about it. lol

And why would the website be taken down? My guess is because of something defense has said to him about his postings. I don't really think this is about any pictures because he can't say they were ever there. I think this about the postings. Why would he ever ask about the posting unless he were to find something relevant with the phantom pictures??? jmo