All Texas Equusearch-Related Filings #1

[ExpectingUnicorns]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XL0rNmdbqQ

The first part of this hearing, audio is off because Judge Perry is having side bar with the State, defense and TES lawyer, Mark Nejame. Appparently this is where the decision was reached about when and how the folks would be called, (the searchers).

The Judge says at the 12 minute mark that any documents the defense becomes interested in, the special magistrate, the retired Judge will flag and copy and bring to him. I was surprised that the order set out that they could initially call the folks, under supervision, but skip over this step the judge articulated and go straight to contacting the searchers for their follow up questions, without supervision. Did I miss more arguments on this matter, or a motion to change the judge's verbal order? Help!

"In the event after the above questions are asked, the Defense determines that further investigation or questioning is appropriate, then the search field activity form of the identified searcher shall be released to the Defense so they may conduct their further investigation as they may deem appropriate."

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/Hi...cuments in Possession of Texas Equusearch.pdf

 

[The World According]

Thank you EU. I am just thinking the verbal order seems to set out something different than the written. Perhaps they clarified in a subsequent session with the judge. This is why I take my digital recorder with me, so I can review exactly word for word what judges say. If you line up five people, you can often get five different accounts of what they heard at the same hearing, in their favor. LOL!

 

[Snaz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XL0rNmdbqQ

The first part of this hearing, audio is off because Judge Perry is having side bar with the State, defense and TES lawyer, Mark Nejame. Appparently this is where the decision was reached about when and how the folks would be called, (the searchers).

The Judge says at the 12 minute mark that any documents the defense becomes interested in, the special magistrate, the retired Judge will flag and copy and bring to him. I was surprised that the order set out that they could initially call the folks, under supervision, but skip over this step the judge articulated and go straight to contacting the searchers for their follow up questions, without supervision. Did I miss more arguments on this matter, or a motion to change the judge's verbal order? Help!

BBM

TWA, I don't know if it's me or what, but when I click on the video link, it is only 20 seconds.... I wanted to re-listen to what the judge had to say at the 12 minute mark....

Anyway, I'm thinking that this is the explanation as to why so many of us were confused... we heard (at least I thought I heard) HHJP say at the hearing that any documents the defense was interested in would be flagged by the Magistrate and brought to him.... yet his Order did not specify that. That could be why many of us were surprised that the defense bypassed the documents being approved by HHJP and went right on to the next step of contacting the searchers for follow-up.....

Thanks!

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

BBM

TWA, I don't know if it's me or what, but when I click on the video link, it is only 20 seconds.... I wanted to re-listen to what the judge had to say at the 12 minute mark....

Anyway, I'm thinking that this is the explanation as to why so many of us were confused... we heard (at least I thought I heard) HHJP say at the hearing that any documents the defense was interested in would be flagged by the Magistrate and brought to him.... yet his Order did not specify that. That could be why many of us were surprised that the defense bypassed the documents being approved by HHJP and went right on to the next step of contacting the searchers for follow-up.....

Thanks!

That was the initial impression I was under too, Snaz. Until fla*mom posted about her unexpected visit from JL. When I was questioning how the defense could have received approval to interview her so quickly the new "Joint Stipulation" was brought to my attention. Apparently this is what was agreed to by the defense and TES in their effort to come to a compromise on the conditions of the records review. Yuck.

 

[The World According]

BBM

TWA, I don't know if it's me or what, but when I click on the video link, it is only 20 seconds.... I wanted to re-listen to what the judge had to say at the 12 minute mark....

Anyway, I'm thinking that this is the explanation as to why so many of us were confused... we heard (at least I thought I heard) HHJP say at the hearing that any documents the defense was interested in would be flagged by the Magistrate and brought to him.... yet his Order did not specify that. That could be why many of us were surprised that the defense bypassed the documents being approved by HHJP and went right on to the next step of contacting the searchers for follow-up.....

Thanks!

HI Snaz! First, I was wrong, it begins at the ten minute mark. There is a quick commercial, a pause and then the hearing should begin. Try these links or on the You Tube video
Scroll down till you see the part one, part two, etc. under the video and click on part one. It will look like this: ( but is is blue). I think this was the time period where the news stations were giving us a hard time about posting the hearings before they did.

Sierra1947 | July 16, 2010

Part 1
http://www.wftv.com/video/24276341/in...

Part 2
http://www.wftv.com/video/24283447/in...

Part 3
http://www.wftv.com/video/24274228/in...

Part 4
http://www.wftv.com/video/24273074/in...

Part 5
http://www.wftv.com/video/24283126/in...

Part 6
http://www.wftv.com/video/24283718/in...

Part 7
http://www.wftv.com/video/24284138/in...

Part 8
http://www.wftv.com/video/24285378/in...

Part 9
http://www.wftv.com/video/24285832/in...

Images
http://www.wftv.com/slideshow/news/24...
http://www.wftv.com/slideshow/news/24...

 

[logicalgirl]

That was the initial impression I was under too, Snaz. Until fla*mom posted about her unexpected visit from JL. When I was questioning how the defense could have received approval to interview her so quickly the new "Joint Stipulation" was brought to my attention. Apparently this is what was agreed to by the defense and TES in their effort to come to a compromise on the conditions of the records review. Yuck.

What I really appreciate about this situation is that fla*mom came on to the thread and posted about what the PI was like and how he came into her house and into her kitchen and made himself comfortable, then proceeded to try to twist her words to make them into something he wanted to hear - and focused on her own discomfort about the whole situation.

She did this at least a week before we heard from the two searchers who went to Mason and the media. So I trust her rendition completely - and I have to admit I have a slight reservation regarding the other two searchers who went to the OCSO, then the press. Not that I disbelieve them, but I've had quite my fill of drama queens from other side this far along into the case, thank you very much.

 

[ThinkTank]

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 2010.10.20 - PI Lyons Accused of Witness Tampering

picture of Mr. Lyons in first video ( it is working now )

By picture of Mr. Lyons ... you mean the back of his head only, right?
Has anybody found a recent photo of his face?
TIA

 

[ThinkTank]

I am told by someone who has met P.I. Lyons in person, that he looks very much like this man - Pastor Chuck Smith.

 

[fla*mom]

fla*mom, I have not read through to the end of the thread, but wanted to ask you if you made Lyons show you his identification at your door before you let him in. He should have shown you his investigators badge and ID. He also should have left you a business card when he started to leave.

I just do not like this guy.

Bless you for having searched for little Caylee.

No, he didn't show a badge. I didn't even think to ask. He said he was going to leave his card, he didn't do that either.

Not that I was expecting them, I wasn't, it happens so fast that he was there and said who he was and since the phone call the week before I believed he was with who he said he was with.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[fla*mom]

What I really appreciate about this situation is that fla*mom came on to the thread and posted about what the PI was like and how he came into her house and into her kitchen and made himself comfortable, then proceeded to try to twist her words to make them into something he wanted to hear - and focused on her own discomfort about the whole situation.

She did this at least a week before we heard from the two searchers who went to Mason and the media. So I trust her rendition completely - and I have to admit I have a slight reservation regarding the other two searchers who went to the OCSO, then the press. Not that I disbelieve them, but I've had quite my fill of drama queens from other side this far along into the case, thank you very much.

All I can say is that I didn't know who he was before he was standing at my front door. Didn't know who he talked to or what his reputation was. I think in one of my first posts about him comming to my house was that I thougt he was like a "rent a PI" I could not imagine them sending one of their real team to my house.

And I've said this before also that I am glad I didn't. Only because I might have been way more nervous and not acted like myself.

 

[LambChop]

Myself, I don't like the idea of them sending someone to your home when you already answered the questions over the phone. It seems like a form of intimidation. Now if they were to ask me to come down to MN's office and give a brief statement to clarify what was said over the phone, that would be acceptable. You would have MN there looking out for your rights. I'm sure they could have made arrangements for all those volunteers they wanted to reinterview to meet as a specific time and place and the cost would have been much less than sending a PI out to everyone's home. And clearly they are only interested in getting the facts not fabricating stories, RIGHT? jmo

 

[fla*mom]

Myself, I don't like the idea of them sending someone to your home when you already answered the questions over the phone. It seems like a form of intimidation. Now if they were to ask me to come down to MN's office and give a brief statement to clarify what was said over the phone, that would be acceptable. You would have MN there looking out for your rights. I'm sure they could have made arrangements for all those volunteers they wanted to reinterview to meet as a specific time and place and the cost would have been much less than sending a PI out to everyone's home. And clearly they are only interested in getting the facts not fabricating stories, RIGHT? jmo

It is a little strange that with the phone calls they were so highly monitored, but with the visits you are not protected with the with the assurance that what and how the questions are asked are not shady and leading in any way.
JMO.

 

[LambChop]

It is a little strange that with the phone calls they were so highly monitored, but with the visits you are not protected with the with the assurance that what and how the questions are asked are not shady and leading in any way.
JMO.

Exactly. But now we all know you do not have to talk to anyone and I know in many states PI's have to show you ID and you should always ask of anyone coming to your door for identification. Most people do not realize that and answer questions because the person identifies themselves as an investigator so your thoughts go to LE. You are under no obligation to answer and if you wish to answer make sure you have someone with you who can verify what you have said. Well, that is what I would do.

Now, not all PI's are like this. Most are pretty good and follow the rules strictly. We just have seen the worst of the worst in this case. Which tells us a PI who is on the up and up would only report what the facts are and defense does not want that. They want the guys who are willing to get down and dirty apparently. Good news is they are now exposed and the good citizens of Orlando are aware of who they are. jmo

 

[fla*mom]

Just throwing this question out there. When someone hires a PI, what is the procedure? Are they just supposed to find out information? Not be biased either way. Or does the person/group that hires them want pre-determined answers no matter how they get them? Just wondering if truth matters.
TIA

 

[AZlawyer]

Just throwing this question out there. When someone hires a PI, what is the procedure? Are they just supposed to find out information? Not be biased either way. Or does the person/group that hires them want pre-determined answers no matter how they get them? Just wondering if truth matters.
TIA

Depends on what you hire them to do. If you hire a PI to "find out what happened to Caylee," for example, you'd expect him to follow all reasonable leads. If you hire a PI to "find an alive Caylee only," you would not expect him to go poking around in the woods with a stick. If you hire a PI to "find out the conditions at the remains site in Nov 2008," you'd expect him to ask open-ended, non-leading questions of witnesses. If you hire a PI to "find a witness who will sign an affidavit stating that the remains site was dry and thoroughly searched in Nov 2008," you would expect him to ask leading questions and try to steer witness testimony (but not to mislead the witnesses by lying to them, as that would be tampering).

 

[LambChop]

Just throwing this question out there. When someone hires a PI, what is the procedure? Are they just supposed to find out information? Not be biased either way. Or does the person/group that hires them want pre-determined answers no matter how they get them? Just wondering if truth matters.
TIA

They are not LE so they want information that is beneficial to their client. They should do a report and turn that information over to the person who hired them. If the information is not favorable they may just give their client a verbal report and move on to another person. With this PI it does not sound as if truth matters just so he gets what he wants. I would say the fact that he claims to be GOOD at what he does is a form of intimidation.

I think NOT hearing back from him is a good thing. jmo

 

[dsntslp]

Who posted the screen shot of the bald guy in the blue shirt at the hearing and what happened to that post or am I just not seeing it? Can the poster please repost that post? Thanks so very much, truly.

 

[Numbers]

Who posted the screen shot of the bald guy in the blue shirt at the hearing and what happened to that post or am I just not seeing it? Can the poster please repost that post? Thanks so very much, truly.

Check the "PI Lyons Accused of Witness Tampering" thread. I think you'll find your pictures there.

 

[dsntslp]

FlaMom,

The guy that came to see you...did he look like the guy that is in the screen shot/blue shirt/bald at the hearing or more like this gray haired man in the red shirt above please?
Thanks

Numbers, Thank you, truly.

 

[ThinkTank]

Who posted the screen shot of the bald guy in the blue shirt at the hearing and what happened to that post or am I just not seeing it? Can the poster please repost that post? Thanks so very much, truly.

I was informed that P.I. Lyons has not attended any Hearings, so the man in the audience in the blue shirt is NOT him.

Someone who met P.I. Lyons in person, says he looks very much like the bald man in the black and white photo - who is Pastor Chuck Smith.

The man in the red shirt IS positively P.I. Lyons - but only the back of his head, as he was going into the room where the Defense was reviewing the TES searchers records. Published by WFTV.

The brownish, older photo is of Officer Jerry Lyons, from a book.