Anthonys Seek Private Jail Visit With Casey

[Khaki_Pants]

Ok, I want to post on this....

As far as their request being granted, I feel it doesn't matter either way as long as it is not special treatment. The thing that does bother me is hearing the attorneys tell the media that the reason the family can't meet is because the meetings will be released to the press. Almost in a "poor them" kinda way. Now don't misunderstand me, I understand their "feelings" about that, but It's just kinda the way it is, and instead of hearing how sorry for themselves the feel about that (that might have been a bit harsh), I would rather have them ask Casey why on earth she put them all in this situation to begin with, and demand the truth, and accept nothing but. Their would be no recorded visits at the jail if it weren't for KC. And even if they want to claim she is innocent of murder, she would still be there on the other charges. My thought is that, maybe KC should have googled Florida Prison Policy and Sunshine laws along with the other stuff, before she made the decisions she made.
It all goes back to Casey.

jmo

 

[JBean]

Quick Mod Moment.
Do not use this forum to further any kind of agenda such as a letter writing campaign or anything like that. you must have Tricia's approval before you can use her forum in such a way.
Thank you

/mod moment

 

[jennyb]

So here's my question again. Are they just asking for the tapes not to be released or they asking for a face to face meeting as well? Rather than the standard videophone meetings?

I'm not sure at all. I'm just conjecturing that they want a super duper special private meeting but dunno. Meanwhile it just occurs to me that all the released vids came in doc dumps because JB requested them as part of discovery? That's why we saw them so long after. Now I'm even more confused.

 

[elementary]

I'm not sure at all. I'm just conjecturing that they want a super duper special private meeting but dunno. Meanwhile it just occurs to me that all the released vids came in doc dumps because JB requested them as part of discovery? That's why we saw them so long after. Now I'm even more confused.

IIRC, initially the As were asking for a face to face meeting with the perp so they could "mourn as a family". Now?

 

[angeleleven]

I don't buy it. They KNOW the crux of what happened. The baby is dead. It's not like there's some ticking time bomb where the rules should be bent to save a life. Their curiosity about the details will just have to wait.

ETA: She NOT GOING TO CONFESS!!! Not to her parents, or her brother or anyone else!

If she didn't talk to them when she was at home, I don't think she will ever talk or confess. Its totally unfair for them to have a private visit. I hope that never happens, I don't trust any of them. As long as its taped, I don't care if it gets released. I think for protection purposes, that it does need to be taped just like every other visit. IMO

 

[jennyb]

IIRC, initially the As were asking for a face to face meeting with the perp so they could "mourn as a family". Now?

I'd really like to say what I think about this family but I can't cuz JBean is here.

 

[cocowiley]

what i can't understand is why they even keep telling the media that they are planning on asking for these private visits or to not have the video released in the first place? i don't get it..why not just go in and ask the sheriff's office in private? every time the attorney "confirms" that the A's are even requesting this it's like they're basically saying;"we're going to go visit casey in jail and we get to talk to her in private and the video won't ever be released and you can't watch it, nanana boo boo!" it's like they're trying to thumb their nose at the public.

i don't know if i explained this right, hope you know what i mean...it's just the sense it get.

who cares though, really...if they've got nothing to hide, who cares?!

 

[amethyst221]

If the media requests the video of the visit, and it is withheld under a LE exception to the statute, that can be challenged in court. If LE has a legitimate investigatory reason, the court would probably rule in their favor. But why would LE make such a claim just as an assist or favor to the A's, if it weren't legitimate? They wouldn't place themselves in a false position with the court.

 

[GoneWithTheWind]

I think they (KC and her parents) should be kept apart. No more collabaration and no more comparing their stories. Divide and conquer! KC controls her parents . . . they (A's) need to come to terms with the truth and they will not do this as long as KC whips them back into submission.

 

[Shavaun]

Heres an idea.

Since Baez takes his laptop in there - why dont they tape a message to her and send it to his email - ?

He can play it for her!

hope they dont read here..

 

[angeleleven]

Quick Mod Moment.
Do not use this forum to further any kind of agenda such as a letter writing campaign or anything like that. you must have Tricia's approval before you can use her forum in such a way.
Thank you

/mod moment

Okay, thank you.

 

[jennyb]

If the media requests the video of the visit, and it is withheld under a LE exception to the statute, that can be challenged in court. If LE has a legitimate investigatory reason, the court would probably rule in their favor. But why would LE make such a claim just as an assist or favor to the A's, if it weren't legitimate? They wouldn't place themselves in a false position with the court.

I don't think LE would do that either. Definitely not.

 

[CarolineJ]

Hmmm reading a few posts does everyone understand that they aren't asking for privacy in terms of not being recorded or monitored..they just don't want it released to the public? I think this is totally reasonable.

It may be totally reasonable but Florida is not going to ignore the sunshine laws for this visit.

http://www.myfloridalegal.com/sun.nsf/manual/A342F688127D5AFD852566F30055F8C8

Here's a snippet from the above link (about halfway down the page):

Closure in criminal proceedings is acceptable only when:

1) it is necessary to prevent a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice;
2) no alternatives are available, other than change of venue, which would protect the defendant's right to a fair trial; and
3) closure would be effective in protecting the defendant's rights without being broader than necessary to accomplish that purpose.

And see, Bundy v. State, 455 So. 2d 330, 339 (Fla. 1984), noting that the trial court properly used a combination of alternative remedies for possible prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity instead of barring public access to pretrial proceedings.

Note that 2 and 3 above is an AND situation and not OR. Both 2 and 3 are necessary for closure to the law.

 

[Jolynna]

Meetings are monitored to make sure they are not planning a jail escape for goodness sake. No one is expecting a confession through these meetings. they just make sure an inmate is directing evidence to be destroyed or information to be carried, things like that. Sort of like how they screen their mail. Why do *we* have to see it? Maybe there are laws in place that allow this in Florida but come on, is it really necessary for every word between family members to be revealed?
if she says something incriminating or violates a jail rule, the authorities will hear it, isn't that what counts?

How many other inmate conversations have we listened to? i have never listened to any...ever.

Hulk Hogan's son.

If Florida Sunshine laws violate Florida inmate rights to privacy, the Sunshine laws have to be changed.

But, in the meantime, the same rules need to apply to ALL.

JMO

 

[CarolineJ]

If the media requests the video of the visit, and it is withheld under a LE exception to the statute, that can be challenged in court. If LE has a legitimate investigatory reason, the court would probably rule in their favor. But why would LE make such a claim just as an assist or favor to the A's, if it weren't legitimate? They wouldn't place themselves in a false position with the court.

There is no LE exemption to the statute. There is a judicial one. So LE is certainly not the final authority on this one.

 

[Recovering-Lurker]

The behavior of Casey, her family and all of the other "characters" in this case, including the lawyers, are what makes the media want to get their hands on anything they can. Let's face it, this case is kooky, and it seems to get kookier every, single day.

They should not get preferntial treatment. Unfortunately for them, the Sunshine Law exists in Florida. How did this information even get to the media? I have a feeling the A's wanted this info out there, so everyone will know they still love and support Casey. Of course, just my opinion.

 

[jennyb]

There is no LE exemption to the statute. There is a judicial one. So LE is certainly not the final authority on this one.

I may have been incorrect in assuming LE held back a few of the tapes for investigatory reasons. I thought there were some we haven't seen. Or maybe it went to the court for a decision and they were allowed to hold it. Thanks for the info.

 

[CarolineJ]

That last tape we saw, the August 14th one, was supposed to have been released in November and in error, was not. Jose is the one who (in one of his 17 motions) asked for that one to be released. Bet he's sorry!

 

[DianeB]

We don’t know that Casey actually wants to meet with them, do we?

Publicly or privately.

 

[JBean]

It may be totally reasonable but Florida is not going to ignore the sunshine laws for this visit.

http://www.myfloridalegal.com/sun.nsf/manual/A342F688127D5AFD852566F30055F8C8

Here's a snippet from the above link (about halfway down the page):

Closure in criminal proceedings is acceptable only when:

1) it is necessary to prevent a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice;
2) no alternatives are available, other than change of venue, which would protect the defendant's right to a fair trial; and
3) closure would be effective in protecting the defendant's rights without being broader than necessary to accomplish that purpose.

And see, Bundy v. State, 455 So. 2d 330, 339 (Fla. 1984), noting that the trial court properly used a combination of alternative remedies for possible prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity instead of barring public access to pretrial proceedings.

Note that 2 and 3 above is an AND situation and not OR. Both 2 and 3 are necessary for closure to the law.

I totally understand all that, but thank you for posting.

My point is only that they don't release things automagically do they? In this case wouldn't the media request for the tapes to be released? if so, to what end? Why is it important for us to see this visit? What is the point? because we can? Will it help the case for the general public to be privy to the family visit? Personally, I don't think the Sunshine laws were enacted to boost ratings. JMHO of course!