2011.01.05 Hearing TES Volunteer Computer Subpoena

[logicalgirl]

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.

I think part of the issue here is Mr. Baez did not think of this a year ago. He's been out Kronked, failed at the TES mess he's created, and clearly is grasping at spaghetti, which in Baez's teacup looks like it spells JJ.

Would he not be using his time more efficiently working with his expert to prove there was water at the dump site during the appropriate weeks?

Bah!

 

[NJ Lawyer]

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?

I don't think "probable cause" is involved here. That refers more to a state actor's burden of proof to infringe on a person's rights in the criminal context. Baez isn't a state actor and as far as I know the blogger isn't at risk in the criminal context (unless he had child or something on his hard drive that techs could find with retrieval software). Despite Baez's "felony" claims, that is! I also don't think Baez would just be "fishing". He's got a person who photo'd a search site (Blanchard) and an admission that the person searched the critical site where the body was found. Baez would be looking specifically for Suburban Drive photos, whereas I think of fishing expeditions as searches that have no specific goal in mind and are,well, just fishing expeditions.

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.

I don't think defense counsel in a capital case should need to "prove" that someone posted photos of more than one search site in order to see if photos exist of other searches. Let's say I go to a party and take pictures and a murder occurs at the end of the party. I tell law enforcement/prosecutors/defense counsel, "I took pictures at the party and posted them on the internet and I also saw the murder but I don't have pics of the actual murder." If I'm anyone in the case (defense, prosecution, LE) I am going to want to see the camera. Maybe the court could arrange an "in camera" review (no pun intended) so my privacy rights aren't violated and the residents of the state of Florida aren't given access to the horrific photos of my cosmetic surgery which are on the same camera disk.

 

[Turnadot]

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.

No doubt Baez's concern is valid and he has every reason in the world to want photos of Suburban Drive if JJ has them. And Baez should get them if they exist. I simply think his motion was too broad, unfocused and his Q&A with HHJP was far too vague in regards to the reasons he believed the photos exist.

For example, Baez told HHJP that he believed it was possible that JJ has photos of Suburban Drive, and it is, but he didn't establish why that's possible; he extrapolated based on other pieces of information. He never mentioned that JJ, while searching for Caylee, took photos at Jay Blanchard Park, so therefore was likely to have other photos of search areas. IIRC, Baez only said he hadn't personally seen JJ's photos and no direct proof JJ had any photos at all!

If Baez would have searched on Google, he'd have found the photos of Jay Blanchard Park, and perhaps offered them up, like you say, to support his motion; he didn't do any of that.

IMO, HHJP didn't grant the subpoena because Baez had nothing to support his hunch other than some vague narrative about map pointing and bloggers.

Baez 'Had reason to believe...'

He didn't give the Court a reason to believe.


P.S. Your insights are really clever and thought provoking. Thanks for sharing them with me, the layman.

 

[BChand]

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

Thanks. I thought maybe you were referring to Dominic Casey's site but I don't see it there.

 

[LambChop]

I have a question for the TES volunteers. When you were searching and found an item you felt was significant what exactly did you do? Was there someone there to take pictures of the item before collection? I think this is very important because I would think the question, "Did you take any pictures" should have been asked of each volunteer on Suburban Drive right away. Was this question asked by any of the interviewers who have been calling the TES volunteers these past weeks??????

 

[TotallyObsessed]

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

You know if you post a link here, they will scrub their site.

 

[darnudes]

I just wanted to say thank you to JBJ and Beachy for keeping this thread open

Some of us in far away places get up early to watch the hearing - if it is on at 130pm Florida time that is 430am my time. So I watch the hearing in between getting ready for work but have little time to read all the comments and make some of my own. By the time I get home from work quite often the court hearing thread is closed which is such a bummer.

Also thanks to the group effort to put the hearing up on youtube - that was a stroke of genius and the hard work was so much appreciated. Dare I ask if there could be more uploads of hearings and insession commentaries?

 

[whiteangora]

I have a question for the TES volunteers. When you were searching and found an item you felt was significant what exactly did you do? Was there someone there to take pictures of the item before collection? I think this is very important because I would think the question, "Did you take any pictures" should have been asked of each volunteer on Suburban Drive right away. Was this question asked by any of the interviewers who have been calling the TES volunteers these past weeks??????

I thought TES had rules in place that did not allow the searchers to take cameras along. Perhaps there was an exception for the team leaders.

 

[logicalgirl]

While I understand the for and against HHJP's arguments here - let me just move time ahead six months for a moment as I see it.

Okay, the case is over and ICA is found guilty and given LWOP or the Death Penalty.
The experts have testified and proven there was standing water, the remains were completely skeletonized within 2 weeks, and had been dragged over an acre of land before flooding. The heavier bones have been proven to have plant growth securing them since early July. The decomp in the trunk has been proven, the death band hair introduced and accepted as evidence, and the duct tape was indeed wrapped around this baby's face. The garbage bag and white bag did indeed come from the Anthony home, as did the duct tape.

At this point, how interested is an appeals court in whether or not JJ has photographs of Suburban Drive, since he did not find the remains and was not in the area when they were found and in fact does not know exactly how close to the remains when he was searching? And internet searches has found no photographs posted taken by JJ of Suburban Drive?

Sorry, not a legal mind, just a logical one.

 

[Turnadot]

I don't think "probable cause" is involved here. That refers more to a state actor's burden of proof to infringe on a person's rights in the criminal context. Baez isn't a state actor and as far as I know the blogger isn't at risk in the criminal context (unless he had child or something on his hard drive that techs could find with retrieval software). Despite Baez's "felony" claims, that is! I also don't think Baez would just be "fishing". He's got a person who photo'd a search site (Blanchard) and an admission that the person searched the critical site where the body was found. Baez would be looking specifically for Suburban Drive photos, whereas I think of fishing expeditions as searches that have no specific goal in mind and are,well, just fishing expeditions.

I don't think defense counsel in a capital case should need to "prove" that someone posted photos of more than one search site in order to see if photos exist of other searches. Let's say I go to a party and take pictures and a murder occurs at the end of the party. I tell law enforcement/prosecutors/defense counsel, "I took pictures at the party and posted them on the internet and I also saw the murder but I don't have pics of the actual murder." If I'm anyone in the case (defense, prosecution, LE) I am going to want to see the camera. Maybe the court could arrange an "in camera" review (no pun intended) so my privacy rights aren't violated and the residents of the state of Florida aren't given access to the horrific photos of my cosmetic surgery which are on the same camera disk.

Hmmm, I don't think that analogy fits this situation at all.

1) LE has the photos, because JJ handed them over of his own volition, after he called LE and told them what he found at Jay Blanchard Park.

2) He's never denied having photos of Suburban Drive because he's never been asked.

3) Too bad for Baez that he doesn't have you at his table.

 

[NJ Lawyer]

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

Thanks and you've all increased my own concerns about the blogger's privacy, getting me to think more about the sunshine laws and their effect in this context. Like I've said in prior posts I just typed out, I personally would like to see the camera itself (or photo download site on the computer) reviewed by the court in privacy. You asked earlier in your post about what motive the blogger could have in withholding photos? Who knows? Personally, I feel a strong bias in this case. I have to think most of us are fairly convinced of Casey's guilt. What if you knew someone was guilty but you possessed something that inextricably "went the other way" in terms of evidence? You might fear that the one non-conforming piece will cause injustice if Casey ends up walking free because of it. So if you have a photo of Suburban Drive and the photo seems to show the body site with no body there....what do you do? I'm not saying the blogger isn't doing this. It's just that the issue is so important here. If I were defense counsel, I would understand human inclinations and would want to see the camera myself. With a private review of the camera, the blogger's privacy is protected and a crucial loophole is closed at the same time. Twenty years from now, we won't have ambiguous, fuzzy photos of Suburban Drive showing no body, alongside pictures like this:

http://www.crystalinks.com/lochnessurgeon.jpg

and endless appeals by a succession of Casey Anthony attorneys followed by "Free Casey" movements that rely on the "photos that were never allowed" or some such crazy stuff.

 

[LambChop]

I thought TES had rules in place that did not allow the searchers to take cameras along. Perhaps there was an exception for the team leaders.

If he had pictures taken of items collected at JBP than he had a camera with him or someone from TES took them. But why would he have copies of the pictures if he did not take them himself. Plus I believe he was a leader.

 

[LambChop]

Thanks and you've all increased my own concerns about the blogger's privacy, getting me to think more about the sunshine laws and their effect in this context. Like I've said in prior posts I just typed out, I personally would like to see the camera itself (or photo download site on the computer) reviewed by the court in privacy. You asked earlier in your post about what motive the blogger could have in withholding photos? Who knows? Personally, I feel a strong bias in this case. I have to think most of us are fairly convinced of Casey's guilt. What if you knew someone was guilty but you possessed something that inextricably "went the other way" in terms of evidence? You might fear that the one non-conforming piece will cause injustice if Casey ends up walking free because of it. So if you have a photo of Suburban Drive and the photo seems to show the body site with no body there....what do you do? I'm not saying the blogger isn't doing this. It's just that the issue is so important here. If I were defense counsel, I would understand human inclinations and would want to see the camera myself. With a private review of the camera, the blogger's privacy is protected and a crucial loophole is closed at the same time. Twenty years from now, we won't have ambiguous, fuzzy photos of Suburban Drive showing no body, alongside pictures like this:

http://www.crystalinks.com/lochnessurgeon.jpg

and endless appeals by a succession of Casey Anthony attorneys followed by "Free Casey" movements that rely on the "photos that were never allowed" or some such crazy stuff.

So why would JJ have to open up his computer to defense when all they could have ask for was the disk from the camera. JB wants those posts, too. Doesn't that sound a little "hinky"????

 

[NJ Lawyer]

Hmmm, I don't think that analogy fits this situation at all.

1) LE has the photos, because JJ handed them over of his own volition, after he called LE and told them what he found at Jay Blanchard Park.

2) He's never denied having photos of Suburban Drive because he's never been asked.

3) Too bad for Baez that he doesn't have you at his table.

Analogies are never perfect fits. In a capital case, I think it's fair to make sure that none of the photos taken by the blogger (of any search of Caylee) are relevant. No matter who was asked what, and when they were asked and by whom. As long as the photo reviews can be done privately. As for being at Baez's defense table, I heavily swing towards prosecution and would never be in the role of defense counsel. I loathe the site of Baez (and Baden Kenny is worse). I think prosecutors will want to close the loophole as well and would be smart to get this thing out of the way. They are going to win their case and have no tactical reason for not getting this straightened out now.

 

[Turnadot]

So why would JJ have to open up his computer to defense when all they could have ask for was the disk from the camera. JB wants those posts, too. Doesn't that sound a little "hinky"????

IMO, he wants to see if JJ hates KC enough to withhold photos that could help her defense. While stammering that tid-bit out, Baez couldn't even say for sure that any photos from JJ exist at all.

What a mess that argument was, imo.

Cart. Before. Horse.

 

[MD MOMMY]

I need to dig but I definitely remember seeing pictures from TES searches during it all. We were all floored since it was against TES rules. I'm NOT saying JJ took them. I just think pictures posted from ANY search related to Caylee being posted on the net is WRONG. These items could have been actual evidence and that IMO is not for a lay person to distribute. I'm not sure if photographs were supposed to be taken by anyone from TES. I know they were told to flag items and alert Team Leaders. It is my impression LE would look at items of interest, photograph if needed etc.

 

[Turnadot]

Analogies are never perfect fits. In a capital case, I think it's fair to make sure that none of the photos taken by the blogger (of any search of Caylee) are relevant. No matter who was asked what, and when they were asked and by whom. As long as the photo reviews can be done privately. As for being at Baez's defense table, I heavily swing towards prosecution and would never be in the role of defense counsel. I loathe the site of Baez (and Baden Kenny is worse). I think prosecutors will want to close the loophole as well and would be smart to get this thing out of the way. They are going to win their case and have no tactical reason for not getting this straightened out now.

Listen, I'm feeling your argument, and I agree.

Here's the problem:

At which point during the hearing did Baez establish that the blogger (JJ) took any photos of any search area?

At which point during the hearing did Baez establish that the photos the blogger (JJ) posted on the www, were taken by JJ himself?

 

[NJ Lawyer]

Why I'm I starting to get the feeling that Geraldo is a member of websleuths? :crazy:

I assume you mean Geraldo Rivera the talk show host? Ugh. I wasted 2 hours of my free time today posting my thoughts to strangers about the Casey Anthony case only to be called Geraldo Rivera, along with a "smiley" that's labeled "crazy" with 2 strangers "liking" that, and I did it all for free. LOL. Yep, I'm a loser. Carry on! I will click the Websleuths link again in another few years when I forget the lesson about talking on the internet. Maybe by then, the trial will have already occurred (one can only hope).

 

[NJ Lawyer]

repeat post

 

[Intermezzo]

I assume you mean Geraldo Rivera the talk show host? Ugh. I wasted 2 hours of my free time today posting my thoughts to strangers about the Casey Anthony case only to be called Geraldo Rivera, along with a "smiley" that's labeled "crazy" with 2 strangers "liking" that, and I did it all for free. LOL. Yep, I'm a loser. Carry on! I will click the Websleuths link again in another few years when I forget the lesson about talking on the internet. Maybe by then, the trial will have already occurred (one can only hope).

NJ Lawyer
I am really enjoying your posts...and would like to read more of your posts.