Can this be used at the trial?

[LaLaw2000]

My reason in asking was very well explained by others- prior finds did not net the same reaction that this one did, according to what we heard.

If it is true that the find in the little econ was met with little reaction or concern while the find at Suburban was met with such a reaction- and a need for sedatives, before it was even confirmed that this body was that of a little girl, let alone that it was Caylee, it is clear that Casey knew that act 1 of her little play was over.

I agree with your assessment, pirate. Casey KNEW it was Caylee's body that had been found. Her reation was one of surprise and not a planned performance on her part.

So, yes, she immediately knew Act 1 was over.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

But Baez will turn this around and try to show it in favor of KC.

I think he will try and say how devastated she ways but her reaction even before the remains were id'd speaks volumes.

She will not walk out of that jail. She will get LWOP unless, big unless, she pleads out to manslaughter...which IMO, she will not do since according to Baez his client is 100% innocent. I do wonder if he read the same discovery documents we have?

Seems he's a stones throw away from loosing his private practice when this case is all said and done. He will do himself a great injustice with trying KC...

He will ruin whatever reputation he thinks he has.

 

[Ames]

LOL I know you didn't mean that to be funny, it just read funny. Rip her face off, I love that!! :blowkiss:

HAHA, thanks! I really would if I could...

 

[Ames]

Someone mentioned that it would be a natural reaction to become upset if your child were missing and bones were found in a close vicinity to your home. And that the reaction to the find in the little econ river versus the find at Suburban and Hopespring made sense because of ther proximity.

We all know that Suburban and Hopespring is about 1/4 mile from Casey's home.

Blanchard Park is 2 miles from the Anthony home.


So the distance thing is, in my opinion, irrlelvant.

Good point!

 

[SoCalSleuth]

More than one jailer at John Couey's (sp?) trial testified about things he'd said directly to them. And, iirc, they also were able to testify to behaviors they witnessed.

Everything you say and do.......

That's an entirely different thing. The thread isn't about Casey's behavior that they witnessed. It isn't about something Casey said to them spontaneously and without any prompting. Here, the approached her without her attorney present and started a conversation by telling her something. They are not allowed to testify to her reaction or what she said.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

I can assure you that correctional staff duly recorded her reaction in her personel file.
Which can be called into evidence if they are called to testify what they observed which is admisable.
Thats exactly why Correctional Officers ahve to document everything that happens on their shift.
They testify in court all the time.

Yes, they testify in court all the time. Yes, they can record it in her file. However, as stated in the above post, under no circumstances can they come to her on their own volition, tell her that remains have been found that could be her missing child and then testify as to her reaction. Absolutely no way. It's a violation of her constitutional rights.

 

[LCoastMom]

The person who started this thread is astute--I get what you are saying and if it was admissible at trial it could very well be ascribed your meaning. That said, it's not admissible. KC has invoked her right to remain silent and her right to an attorney. Every employee at the jail is an arm of LE and they cannot use any info they get from her without her attorney being present. So after being told about the find--even if she said to the jailer: Shoot! I never thought they would find her--they can't introduce that at trial. Now if she made the comments to another inmate that would be a different story. Sorry to burst your bubble, this was a really good thread.

This doesn't make sense to me, you're saying because KC has asked for an atty and the right to be silent, she can say whatever she wants and it can't be used at trial?

If she came up to one of the jail staff and unsolicited started talking, walked in and spelled the whole story out to the staff, it can't be held against her? Wouldn't she be giving up the right to remain silent just by opening her mouth and talking? Obviously she is not incapacitated, she knows whether her atty is present or not. She's in control of what comes out of her mouth.

If this is true, why did her atty spend one & a half hours talking her out of talking to her dad and OCSD on Aug 14, after KC sent the note to Sheriff Beary requesting a meeting.

When Mirandizing a suspect, they are told "you have the right...blah blah, if you give up that right, what you say may be used against you".

Not trying to bust your post, it truly just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[LCoastMom]

But Baez will turn this around and try to show it in favor of KC.

I think he will try and say how devastated she ways but her reaction even before the remains were id'd speaks volumes.

She will not walk out of that jail. She will get LWOP unless, big unless, she pleads out to manslaughter...which IMO, she will not do since according to Baez his client is 100% innocent. I do wonder if he read the same discovery documents we have?

Seems he's a stones throw away from loosing his private practice when this case is all said and done. He will do himself a great injustice with trying KC...

He will ruin whatever reputation he thinks he has.

You know, (poor JB) he doesn't have $1,000. to buy the disk, if only he took the time to to get on line and read like we do. He would realize he has them at his finger tips, all free of charge! Of course it is a little more work this way and he has showed us repeatedly he doesn't do his own leg work. But really...finger tips, not that big a deal! Might even burn off that second donut he ate with breakfast.

Of course once he reads them, there is no way in Beverly Hills that he can still say his client is innocent. So this maybe part of his reason not to read them. Seeing in black and white what Cutie KC has done to her precious baby, might just slant his view of her too.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

This doesn't make sense to me, you're saying because KC has asked for an atty and the right to be silent, she can say whatever she wants and it can't be used at trial?

If she came up to one of the jail staff and unsolicited started talking, walked in and spelled the whole story out to the staff, it can't be held against her? Wouldn't she be giving up the right to remain silent just by opening her mouth and talking? Obviously she is not incapacitated, she knows whether her atty is present or not. She's in control of what comes out of her mouth.

If this is true, why did her atty spend one & a half hours talking her out of talking to her dad and OCSD on Aug 14, after KC sent the note to Sheriff Beary requesting a meeting.

When Mirandizing a suspect, they are told "you have the right...blah blah, if you give up that right, what you say may be used against you".

Not trying to bust your post, it truly just doesn't make sense to me.

No, that is not what I said and not what I meant. My response was to the initial post which started this thread. That post stated, in effect, that jail personnel went to KC and informed her that remains were found near her parents home and reported her statements and reaction upon being told this by jail personnel. That conversation and her reaction is not admissible at trial because LE cannot on their own volition go to her and start a conversation with her --make a statement to her which unquestionably is going to get a reaction from her and gain ANY EVIDENCE to be used against her from that conversation. Doing that is not in any way shape or form the same as KC, on her own volition, without any prompting from LE whatsoever, voluntarily and spontaneously making statements to jail personnel.