2011.06.30 TRIAL Day Thirty-two (Afternoon Session)
- Thread starter beach
- Start date
- Status
jane the dood
Dance like no one's looking
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2011
- Messages
- 1,689
- Reaction score
- 2
Maybe she was "practicing" on dosing them with Benadryl or something? To see how much they could tolerate, before she moved onto bigger game....Caylee? JMO :twocents:
momtective
Lifetime WS Non-Mod
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2008
- Messages
- 11,995
- Reaction score
- 31
Come'on HHJP...don't fail Caylee now.
Let those records in!
Let those records in!
strawberry
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2009
- Messages
- 12,064
- Reaction score
- 2,855
I will be LIVID if the DT gets away with lying like this and the SA not allowed to show it.
truthsleuth
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,946
- Reaction score
- 9
Discovery issues.
JB: Your Honor Mr. Mason will handle that.
CM: Yesterday counsel advised us they were expecting records & doc coming in regarding the employment/work record of CA for the purpose of impeaching her testimony as to whether she was at or not at work during the time of the computer inquiries regarding Chloroform. Then this morning we got records and we are objecting to this testimony in regard to a clear discovery violation.
MS. A's testimony was to new, she gave the same information July 30, 2009. They knew since the that Mrs. A. disclosed when she used the computer, and now the SA only subpoena'd records NOW.
The DT has been relying on her testimony all along and now SA goes out and gets records from the company.
LDB says the info they want to include is from March 17 to 21 2008. Also testimony covering those dates. The records show emails and deleted emails from those dates as well.
It's about time the terminal at Gentive as used with CA's user name and password.
Chlorophyll searches in July 2009 according to CM, but LDB says they have these documents. She talked about search and computer activities last week.
The info was requested from Gentiva following CA's testimony last Friday and we had an investigative subpoena issued. The purpose is to impeach CA. The info was sent electronically, and LDB informed DT she did not have paper copies last night and gave them to DT as soon as she had copies.
DT needs additional time to review the documents per LDB.
CM say you have told counsel that this is not to be a trial by ambush. CA gave the testimony 2 years ago. 27,000 pages of docs have been provided by SA.
At no time was there ever an issue about work records. She clearly testified about her searches two years ago, and SA should not be able to sit by about such an important issue and then bring on so late witnesses that she has discovered. This discovery violation should be dealt with only saying no. You must not reward the prosecution. We urge you to realize this is a discovery violation. Allowing our team one hour to look at the documents for 1 hour at lunch time should ot be allowed.
I have a question. When CA's deposition did she give an indication to show by her employment records to show the various times she was working?
The majority of the inquirers speaking about the computer searches.
And what were her answers.
She said she'd searched for chloroform because her dogs were acting lethargic. And she wanted to figure out what their malady might be.
JB saying when CA was asked "for chloroform." She answer, "I may have."
And later she went on to mention I believe other areas.
I'd rather give you testimony. [He's searching the depo.]
LDB's showing him testimony.
The searches rather than the work records were being discussed.
---
When did you notify DT you had the records?
Yesterday, but I was expecting records from Gentiva. I might have told them earlier this week but said I hadn't yes received docs.
Is this a new issue that has arisen since CA testified?
I can say I knew about the searches. I did not anticipate she would dispute the accuracy of her work records. she mentioned she was a salaried employee, but there is no further dispute.
I would add she said she said she searched "chloroform"--he reads from depo. She also says that she remembers looking up chlorophyll. I might have looked up chloroform as well.
JB: Your Honor Mr. Mason will handle that.
CM: Yesterday counsel advised us they were expecting records & doc coming in regarding the employment/work record of CA for the purpose of impeaching her testimony as to whether she was at or not at work during the time of the computer inquiries regarding Chloroform. Then this morning we got records and we are objecting to this testimony in regard to a clear discovery violation.
MS. A's testimony was to new, she gave the same information July 30, 2009. They knew since the that Mrs. A. disclosed when she used the computer, and now the SA only subpoena'd records NOW.
The DT has been relying on her testimony all along and now SA goes out and gets records from the company.
LDB says the info they want to include is from March 17 to 21 2008. Also testimony covering those dates. The records show emails and deleted emails from those dates as well.
It's about time the terminal at Gentive as used with CA's user name and password.
Chlorophyll searches in July 2009 according to CM, but LDB says they have these documents. She talked about search and computer activities last week.
The info was requested from Gentiva following CA's testimony last Friday and we had an investigative subpoena issued. The purpose is to impeach CA. The info was sent electronically, and LDB informed DT she did not have paper copies last night and gave them to DT as soon as she had copies.
DT needs additional time to review the documents per LDB.
CM say you have told counsel that this is not to be a trial by ambush. CA gave the testimony 2 years ago. 27,000 pages of docs have been provided by SA.
At no time was there ever an issue about work records. She clearly testified about her searches two years ago, and SA should not be able to sit by about such an important issue and then bring on so late witnesses that she has discovered. This discovery violation should be dealt with only saying no. You must not reward the prosecution. We urge you to realize this is a discovery violation. Allowing our team one hour to look at the documents for 1 hour at lunch time should ot be allowed.
I have a question. When CA's deposition did she give an indication to show by her employment records to show the various times she was working?
The majority of the inquirers speaking about the computer searches.
And what were her answers.
She said she'd searched for chloroform because her dogs were acting lethargic. And she wanted to figure out what their malady might be.
JB saying when CA was asked "for chloroform." She answer, "I may have."
And later she went on to mention I believe other areas.
I'd rather give you testimony. [He's searching the depo.]
LDB's showing him testimony.
The searches rather than the work records were being discussed.
---
When did you notify DT you had the records?
Yesterday, but I was expecting records from Gentiva. I might have told them earlier this week but said I hadn't yes received docs.
Is this a new issue that has arisen since CA testified?
I can say I knew about the searches. I did not anticipate she would dispute the accuracy of her work records. she mentioned she was a salaried employee, but there is no further dispute.
I would add she said she said she searched "chloroform"--he reads from depo. She also says that she remembers looking up chlorophyll. I might have looked up chloroform as well.
Premeditation is a big issue....
Actually it is. The jury may not be able to conclude that Casey did those searches.
I am too. My stomach is in knots!!!!!!!! We NEED this evidence in. The DT knows it and is fighting it tooth and nail.
He better let it in. How can they go after her word records and have people testify against her before she makes false statements on the record? Was the State supposed to get her to lie on stand when they had her testifying for them?
sleutherontheside
Retired WS Staff
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2009
- Messages
- 9,874
- Reaction score
- 4
Wonder why the dogs were lethargic?
Who the heck googles those ingredients? You can't just go read the bottle?
Who the heck googles those ingredients? You can't just go read the bottle?
MissSallyAnnie
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2011
- Messages
- 536
- Reaction score
- 0
Baez: "Salaried employees come and go."
What the H does that mean?
What the H does that mean?
TortillaChip
New Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
- Messages
- 410
- Reaction score
- 0
Wonder how CA feels, as they talk about her big lie.......man,she right there in the courtroom.
- Status
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 172
- Guests online
- 534
- Total visitors
- 706