2011.04.04 Motion Defendant's: For Withdrawal of Appointed Counsel

[Caligram]

And to think I got up soooo early to find out who was leaving. Sigh. What a waste. A huge waste. Off I go, it's back to bed for me.

:sleep: :thud: fftobed:

 

[Sooner Fan#1]

And to think I got up soooo early to find out who was leaving. Sigh. What a waste. A huge waste. Off I go, it's back to bed for me.

:sleep: :thud: fftobed:

Me too!

 

[Softail]

OMG... Jean C is saying it was an AMAZING interview with Jose. She is saying she thinks the 1st minute when he explains the 31 days - He will blame someone else.

Blatt saying it is troubling, has no idea how he will explain it. We may be caught by surprise, we just have to wait. She may not be a bad mother - we don't know all the facts. She was in all probability an outstanding mother. It has to be explained reasonable and rationally... when we get all the facts.

:banghead:

 

[Bon]

JB stated that within a minute into his opening statement he will explain why KC didn't report it.



hmmmmmm that doesn't mean it will be true.

Can't wait to hear this one.................

 

[beach]

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6292937#post6292937"]Thread for discussion of the In Session interview is here.[/ame]

Opened up a new one since this one is taking a wide-right turn headed into OT land.

 

[Bon]

OMG... Jean C is saying it was an AMAZING interview with Jose. She is saying she thinks the 1st minute when he explains the 31 days - He will blame someone else.

Blatt saying it is troubling, has no idea how he will explain it. We may be caught by surprise, we just have to wait. She may not be a bad mother - we don't know all the facts. She was in all probability an outstanding mother. It has to be explained reasonable and rationally... when we get all the facts.

:banghead:

These are the kind of statements that worry me

 

[sleutherontheside]

My suspicions are proving to be correct. I am too smart for my own self.

nahhhhhh I'm not THAT smart all it shows is that JB is as transparent as air.

 

[pip]

:doh:ullhair::silenced:

 

[Softail]

Thread for discussion of the In Session interview is here.

Opened up a new one since this one is taking a wide-right turn headed into OT land.

Ok... Sorry.

 

[Amil]

That's what I said...?

My bad! I read it wrong! :truce:

 

[Turnadot]

Um, there's no reasonable and rational explanation why a mother doesn't report her child missing unless it involves the mother being bound, gagged, and held captive. And In Session is being misleading. KC didn't wait 31 days to report Caylee missing; she didn't report it at all, because it was Cindy who dialed 911. I really hope either JA or LDB points that out in opening statements, IMO.

 

[sleutherontheside]

IN Session.....haven't you ever heard the phrase...SMART is sexy?

Think about that why don't ya.

 

[Turnadot]

My bad! I read it wrong! :truce:

No problem at all. This thread is flying!

 

[beach]

Ok... Sorry.

No problem at all. The interview started off on topic, then they ventured into another galaxy altogether. lol I figured we'd just use the other thread to discuss the whole interview in context and leave this one for discussion about Curtis Jackson's motion.

 

[doogiesgirl]

OMG... Jean C is saying it was an AMAZING interview with Jose. She is saying she thinks the 1st minute when he explains the 31 days - He will blame someone else.

Blatt saying it is troubling, has no idea how he will explain it. We may be caught by surprise, we just have to wait. She may not be a bad mother - we don't know all the facts. She was in all probability an outstanding mother. It has to be explained reasonable and rationally... when we get all the facts.

:banghead:

She may not be a bad mother - we don't know all the facts. She was in all probability an outstanding mother.

It has to be explained reasonable and rationally... when we get all the facts.


Is this guy serious??

:cow:

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

04/01/2011 Notice
of Objection to Proposed Juror Television Channels
04/01/2011 Court Minutes
04/04/2011 Motion
Defendant's; for Withdrawal of Appointed Counsel
04/04/2011 Brief
in Support of Defendant's Motion for Withdrawal of Appointed Counsel
04/04/2011 Affidavit
of Curtis Jackson
04/04/2011 Request
for Endorsement and Production of Witness
04/04/2011 Correspondence
from Curtis Jackson
04/04/2011 Justice Administrative Commission's Response
to Defendant's Motion for Transcription Services
04/04/2011 Notice
of Providing Appendix A for Purposes of Motion to Exclude Unreliable Evidence Pursuant to FRYE, or in the Alternative, Motion in Limine to Exclude (Chloroform) & Motion to Exclude Unreliable Evidence (Decompositional Chemical)(FRYE)
***********************************************
This is cut and paste from yesterdays updates....they have listed "correspondence" from Curtis....AND the "motions"....

Sorry to quote my own post....but, basically....the Clerk is saying, CJ sent a "correspondence".....and an "affidavit" (which I DID see at the end of his "motion").....which ALSO became listed as a "DEFENDANTS Motion".....AND a "Brief" in support of the Defendants motion??
Soooo...can we also say, that there's a possibility that the "Request for Endorsement and Production of Witness" was ALSO CJ requesting he be "endorsed" and "produced" so he can stare at his beloved KC during trial as a witness???

Whoda thunk a prisoner, totally unrelated to a case, yet involved only by his own assertion, can wreak such havoc in the Fla justice system....and get a motion, which appears to me, to be considered a "legal" filing??? AND, for them to "accept" it as one, without any endorsement by a client he has NOTHING what so ever to do with.

I can't help but hope THIS is the "punked" part and there is really more to this. I'd really like to see ALL the rest of what was filed with the clerk yesterday....all the paperwork, even the JAC correspondance and court minutes.

And, if this whole thing is NOT a hoax and obviously accepted a a "motion"....we should all write a "motion" saying we represent ICA, and that ICA wants to take a plea deal and WANTS the death penalty as soon as possible and skip the whole trial....:banghead:

Oh...forgot to mention another motion we'll file...to remove JB, CM, AF, DS as her representation.....and have Pee Wee Herman represent her....a partner with the law firm of Dewey, Cheatum and Howe.

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

OMG... Jean C is saying it was an AMAZING interview with Jose. She is saying she thinks the 1st minute when he explains the 31 days - He will blame someone else.

Blatt saying it is troubling, has no idea how he will explain it. We may be caught by surprise, we just have to wait. She may not be a bad mother - we don't know all the facts. She was in all probability an outstanding mother. It has to be explained reasonable and rationally... when we get all the facts.

:banghead:

From following this case for 3 years, watching mind numbing, endless interviews and hearings. Reading statements and depositions until my eyes were as dry as the Sahara. Pouring over evidence and taking apart pictures, pixel by pixel. I can say with 100 percent accuracy there is no rationale or reasonable explanation that can explain Caylee Marie Anthony's death. NONE!

 

[beach]

Thread for discussion of the In Session interview is here.

Opened up a new one since this one is taking a wide-right turn headed into OT land.

:bump:

 

[Tulessa]

That's what I said...?

That's what I understood you to say lol.

 

[sleutherontheside]

In Session was wondering how in the world the clerk registered it as a real motion. Next thing you know JB will claim that the clerk is leaking to the media.