All Texas Equusearch-Related Filings #1

[Kentjbkent]

Yes, exactly, the calls/inspection are also scheduled for tomorrow:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/54702866/09142010-Notice-of-Inspection---TES-Records (Thanks MuzikMan!)

Thanks again!

Have been on hiatus for more than a couple weeks lately and am just getting back to forums today, so have not seen a lot of this stuff!

But with your help, I think I am straight with it all now!!!!

 

[nums24]

Thanks again!

Have been on hiatus for more than a couple weeks lately and am just getting back to forums today, so have not seen a lot of this stuff!

But with your help, I think I am straight with it all now!!!!

I can only speak for myself, I'm glad to help, welcome back and thank you! for all that you and all the mods do!

 

[Kentjbkent]

I can only speak for myself, I'm glad to help, welcome back and thank you! for all that you and all the mods do!

:blowkiss:



Now back to werk!!

 

[Kentjbkent]

So am sitting here pondering just how relevant this strategy is to the defense...

For argument sake, let's imagine that the defense has strong evidence that KC had help and someone else dumped/moved Caylee on Suburban after KC was jailed....(don't believe it for a second, but let's play Devil's Advocate)

KC is being charged with the MURDER of Caylee. To my knowledge, she is not facing an additional charge related ONLY to the dumping of Caylee's body on Suburban, correct?

So IF someone else was involved in the disposal of Caylee's body, that does NOT relieve KC of culpubility in her murder.....it would only speak to LE's inability at this point to determine a co-defendant, right?

So does the defense really believe that any juror is going to completely discount all evidence leading to KC as the murder based strictly on the knowledge that she could NOT have killed Caylee because someone else eventually dumped her body on Suburban?

DISCLAIMER: I do NOT believe anyone else was involved...this is strictly for argument sake!

 

[logicalgirl]

So am sitting here pondering just how relevant this strategy is to the defense...

For argument sake, let's imagine that the defense has strong evidence that KC had help and someone else dumped/moved Caylee on Suburban after KC was jailed....(don't believe it for a second, but let's play Devil's Advocate)

KC is being charged with the MURDER of Caylee. To my knowledge, she is not facing an additional charge related ONLY to the dumping of Caylee's body on Suburban, correct?

So IF someone else was involved in the disposal of Caylee's body, that does NOT relieve KC of culpubility in her murder.....it would only speak to LE's inability at this point to determine a co-defendant, right?

So does the defense really believe that any juror is going to completely discount all evidence leading to KC as the murder based strictly on the knowledge that she could NOT have killed Caylee because someone else eventually dumped her body on Suburban?

DISCLAIMER: I do NOT believe anyone else was involved...this is strictly for argument sake!

Okay, I'll play. Can I ask where Caylee's body was until ICA was conveniently in jail with no bond? Is the defense's theory she was kept alive somewhere and killed later? Is it that the body was kept somewhere and moved there after ICA was out of the picture? Is the defense saying she was dumped after the water receded? So someone else, since Caylee would have been a skeleton by then, not only dumped her off but scattered her little bones over that acre of land? And the plant growth just accelerated because of all that water to make it look like it was five or six months but it was actually just a month or two?

I have about 50 more questions but I think I've made my point. And as KJBK says, ICA seems to be charged with murder not mistreating a corpse or improper burial.

 

[shotgun09]

You're right KJBK! All this talk of Touch DNA (unknown's as in the clothing manufacturers on the shorts) and the TES volunteer whose memory may be a bit cloudy, does not scream Casey is innocent at all. This is all just more proof that the defense has absolutely no defense.

 

[nums24]

So am sitting here pondering just how relevant this strategy is to the defense...

For argument sake, let's imagine that the defense has strong evidence that KC had help and someone else dumped/moved Caylee on Suburban after KC was jailed....(don't believe it for a second, but let's play Devil's Advocate)

KC is being charged with the MURDER of Caylee. To my knowledge, she is not facing an additional charge related ONLY to the dumping of Caylee's body on Suburban, correct?

So IF someone else was involved in the disposal of Caylee's body, that does NOT relieve KC of culpubility in her murder.....it would only speak to LE's inability at this point to determine a co-defendant, right?

So does the defense really believe that any juror is going to completely discount all evidence leading to KC as the murder based strictly on the knowledge that she could NOT have killed Caylee because someone else eventually dumped her body on Suburban?

DISCLAIMER: I do NOT believe anyone else was involved...this is strictly for argument sake!

I believe that the goal of the defense is to spare ICA's life (they have to know she won't be acquitted), they are obviously trying to create reasonable doubt, the indictment leaves wiggle room that ICA may have had an accomplice. Bottom line is, I think it was JB's ego wanting to win and get access, that's been achieved.

You made excellent points upthread about the credibility of these "new witnesses", why wouldn't they come forward before now?

 

[logicalgirl]

I believe that the goal of the defense is to spare ICA's life (they have to know she won't be acquitted), they are obviously trying to create reasonable doubt, the indictment leaves wiggle room that ICA may have had an accomplice. Bottom line is, I think it was JB's ego wanting to win and get access, that's been achieved.

You made excellent points upthread about the credibility of these "new witnesses", why wouldn't they come forward before now?

I see that Baez's statement says "scores of searchers say they were on Suburban, but did they SEARCH the exact area Caylee was found or were they there just milling around and gathering. Can you be more specific Mr. Baez, we are "on" to your usual word tricks.

 

[ynotdivein]

So am sitting here pondering just how relevant this strategy is to the defense...

For argument sake, let's imagine that the defense has strong evidence that KC had help and someone else dumped/moved Caylee on Suburban after KC was jailed....(don't believe it for a second, but let's play Devil's Advocate)

KC is being charged with the MURDER of Caylee. To my knowledge, she is not facing an additional charge related ONLY to the dumping of Caylee's body on Suburban, correct?

So IF someone else was involved in the disposal of Caylee's body, that does NOT relieve KC of culpubility in her murder.....it would only speak to LE's inability at this point to determine a co-defendant, right?

So does the defense really believe that any juror is going to completely discount all evidence leading to KC as the murder based strictly on the knowledge that she could NOT have killed Caylee because someone else eventually dumped her body on Suburban?

DISCLAIMER: I do NOT believe anyone else was involved...this is strictly for argument sake!

RBBM, Kent, and as a "devil's advocater" myself, thank you for putting this in play.

HOWEVER... The defense has discovered that they cannot win with the SODDI plan. IMO they are testing the waters now to find out how far they can take the SODDHT (Some Other Dude Dumped Her There) argument. They tried for a combo SODDI/SODDHT with Kronk but clearly aren't getting too far with that.

Given what the evidence thus far has shown, the defense's best bet after RK is to pin *at least* the body dump on GA, and if they possibly can, the murder too.

And yet.

- KC was the last one seen with a live Caylee.
- KC when confronted by her dad on 6/24 about the gas cans did her level best to prevent him getting near enough to sniff the trunk (which had probably held a decaying Caylee for upward of 3 days, then had another 8 days to ferment, and this was BEFORE the Amscot folly...).

I do not envy the defense their job.

 

[Kentjbkent]

I believe that the goal of the defense is to spare ICA's life (they have to know she won't be acquitted), they are obviously trying to create reasonable doubt, the indictment leaves wiggle room that ICA may have had an accomplice. Bottom line is, I think it was JB's ego wanting to win and get access, that's been achieved.

You made excellent points upthread about the credibility of these "new witnesses", why wouldn't they come forward before now?[/QUOTE]

Reminiscent of the computer store guy, huh???

Whoever these volunteer/volunteers are, when they answered in the affirmative that at some point they searched Suburban on their own, I sure hope they remember exact details, dates and times and hopefully have something for verification, because once their name becomes public (if Baez lists them as a witness), there life will never be the same.

And God help them if they have even the smallest of history they would prefer not be out in the public forum.....

 

[RR0004]

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't mean you had to clarify what you were saying! I meant that even if somebody says they searched that exact area, I believe chances of them scientifically being within the exact two foot spot are slim.

I found this old video of the day Caylee was found (obviously not the day it was announced to be her), where the reporter interviews a gentleman who searched "that area" with TES as well as alone, several times he says, and while he doesn't bring up any aspect of standing water, he does say something truly beautiful for Caylee, so I thought I'd throw it up here and take the chance to say thank you, again, to all the searchers.
http://www.wesh.com/video/18255174/detail.html

Thanks, Gnatcatcher.

It's amazing...after 2 plus years...watching this scene crushes me.

Will the sadness ever go away? This child deserves her day.

 

[Kentjbkent]

I see that Baez's statement says "scores of searchers say they were on Suburban, but did they SEARCH the exact area Caylee was found or were they there just milling around and gathering. Can you be more specific Mr. Baez, we are "on" to your usual word tricks.

And please take particular notice that Baez and Mason are being very careful to use the term "searchers" without identifying them specifically as TES searchers or "solo" searchers...

Recall the script they are required to follow:

Did you search Suburban as a volunteer of TES?

Did you search Suburban on your own?

Interesting they are leaving it wide open to be interpreted that TES has been "hiding" all these people from the defense....

Would be interesting if someone from the media went out into the neighborhood and interviewed homeowners in close proximity to remains site to ask them what kind of activity they noticed at the lot on a daily basis?

We know the Anthony home was being bombarded with protestors, but was this particular lot crawling with people banging the bushes??

 

[RR0004]

So am sitting here pondering just how relevant this strategy is to the defense...

For argument sake, let's imagine that the defense has strong evidence that KC had help and someone else dumped/moved Caylee on Suburban after KC was jailed....(don't believe it for a second, but let's play Devil's Advocate)

KC is being charged with the MURDER of Caylee. To my knowledge, she is not facing an additional charge related ONLY to the dumping of Caylee's body on Suburban, correct?

So IF someone else was involved in the disposal of Caylee's body, that does NOT relieve KC of culpubility in her murder.....it would only speak to LE's inability at this point to determine a co-defendant, right?

So does the defense really believe that any juror is going to completely discount all evidence leading to KC as the murder based strictly on the knowledge that she could NOT have killed Caylee because someone else eventually dumped her body on Suburban?

DISCLAIMER: I do NOT believe anyone else was involved...this is strictly for argument sake!

I'd love to find that CM statement where he pretty much says the same thing...that it doesn't mean his client isn't guilty...but...it was a classic.

 

[Kentjbkent]

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't mean you had to clarify what you were saying! I meant that even if somebody says they searched that exact area, I believe chances of them scientifically being within the exact two foot spot are slim.

I found this old video of the day Caylee was found (obviously not the day it was announced to be her), where the reporter interviews a gentleman who searched "that area" with TES as well as alone, several times he says, and while he doesn't bring up any aspect of standing water, he does say something truly beautiful for Caylee, so I thought I'd throw it up here and take the chance to say thank you, again, to all the searchers.
http://www.wesh.com/video/18255174/detail.html

If I am not mistaken, that is Joe Jordan, is it not?

Cause that's a whole nuther subject....

 

[RR0004]

I betcha there's a similar number of people who were certain they spotted an "alive" Caylee about the same time...just because they say something...doesn't make it true.

 

[RR0004]

If I am not mistaken, that is Joe Jordan, is it not?

Cause that's a whole nuther subject....

I think he gave a different name, but maybe I heard someone else talking.

 

[Kentjbkent]

I believe that the goal of the defense is to spare ICA's life (they have to know she won't be acquitted), they are obviously trying to create reasonable doubt, the indictment leaves wiggle room that ICA may have had an accomplice. Bottom line is, I think it was JB's ego wanting to win and get access, that's been achieved.

You made excellent points upthread about the credibility of these "new witnesses", why wouldn't they come forward before now?

I completely agree with you, although I think more than trying to create reasonable doubt, Baez is trying to save face (especially over the TES issue..) and is posturing to appear as if he is working to defend this case....just in case any future criminals are watching.....

I will not be surprised to see his next media appearances end with....

"JoseBGood.....One Call, That's All" <insert smirk here>

407-705-0000

 

[logicalgirl]

I completely agree with you, although I think more than trying to create reasonable doubt, Baez is trying to save face (especially over the TES issue..) and is posturing to appear as if he is working to defend this case....just in case any future criminals are watching.....

I will not be surprised to see his next media appearances end with....

"JoseBGood.....One Call, That's All" <insert smirk here>

407-705-0000

:floorlaugh:

That is so funny - did you just make that up right now?

Just think - Baez is going to read something here he can actually use!!!
:rotfl:

 

[LambChop]

So defense is saying "scores" of people say they were on Suburban. A score is "20" so how many would that be.....40, 60, 80, 100????

 

[Numbers]

I can hear Jose now.

"We found 250 people who searched on Suburban. We'll need to push back the deadline for depositions and very likely postpone the trial date...."