Defense files motion to have 911 calls, party pix tossed

[doogiesgirl]

Interesting, I had forgotten some of this, but here's the interview with the photographers, Piper and Azzilano. Azzilano says he knew TonE from NY.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...0.html+john+azzilano&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Some of Piper's sites state that he graduated from Full Sail (where TonE went )and went back home, out of state after graduation.

Well I read the interview at the link but it just states that they took photos of KC and others at Fusion on June 20th besides other dates so.....????

 

[doogiesgirl]

It seems LE had a little trouble getting the photos from Piper and Azzilano

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/01 Orange County Sheriff Misc. Documents.pdf

Looks like it took ten days for LE and FBI to get the "original" photos from John, who in the end was very cooperative. I'd bet my last buck that LE/FBI found Teddy not long after and that they have any/all "original" photos these two had in their possession. If any tampering was done, they will know. I bet today Teddy wishes he'd have cooperated when asked the first time. Like I said before, if they were hesitant to hand over rolls of film, I think it was b/c of something they were worried about for themselves, not anything to do with Caylee's case. Let's face it, everyone has skeletons in their closets, what may seem like a hugh skeleton to one person, something they carry great guilt or fear over or something personal they don't want public, may seem like nothing to everyone else. I personally think thats what was going on with these two. I don't think it is suspicious that AL knew one of these guys either. I mean if he is away from home, and finds people he knows while in FLA, why wouldn't he be in contact with them, esp if they could help each other in their "promotions" work. That's moo anyway.

 

[The World According]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU_AR0bGTfA[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qBoNMZ_-uY[/ame]

These are from the first hearing about the photos.

 

[Pollywog]

IMO, the pary pix that were taken while her baby was missing should be allowed. Those prior to maybe not. Oh but I forgot, she was actually looking for her baby during that thirty days of partying wasn't she - NOT!

 

[butterfly1978]

I beleive the pictures prior to Caylee "being missing" should be allowed because it shows motive, her behavior never changed before or after Caylee went missing, it shows that she was irresponsible and that she wanted her freedom.

 

[azwriter]

There is no way, in my opinion, the defense will be able to completely eliminate all references to Casey's story about the nanny, Zenaida. Casey's own written statement to LE has got to be admissable, doesn't it? Here's a link to Casey's statement, in her own writing, swearing it is the truth written voluntarily under no duress: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1473802/Statement---Casey-Anthony-Written-2008-0715

You know, Casey's written statement to LE is one of my favorite things to read. She has Caylee's outfit down to the shoestrings. She describes the Nanny to a tee. But, the entire statement starts off with an error. She has the wrong date of her daughter's disappearance in wake of the video showing Caylee visiting her great grandfather on Father's Day, a little more than a week after the day Casey claims her daughter was taken by the Nanny.
The whole family had the date wrong in the beginning of reporting Caylee missing. So, once they saw the video proving Caylee was still around till Father's Day, just what did that whole family say? Oh!...never mind. What a group. Casey is dead in the water on this. jmo

 

[Intermezzo]

I asked this question on the NG thread but am repeating it here on the proper thread.

I wonder if some of the pics in the prior to June 15, 2008 will be admissible?
Lets say for theory, within the 6 months leading up to Caylee's disappearance to show a pattern of Casey wanting to be single & free.

Such as, the pics from the No Clothes Party.
Or pics of Caylee at JPC and RM apartment, when Casey told Cindy they were taken in ZFG apartment when she was supposedly working?

IMO the pics of her partying it up for her 21st Bday in 2007 will most likely not be admissible.
__________________

 

[Aedrys]

I posted this on the other thread but am posting it here as well as it is about the 911 call. Just wondering why we have two threads for the same topic?

Did anyone else read on page 10 where it says
"In addition Casey Anothony's statement regarding how her daughter was taken 31 days ago by the nanny and that she had been looking for her using her own resources are also in narrative form, making them neither spontaneous or reliable." Then it goes on to say "the statements made by Cindy AND Casey are in narrative form, recalling events that have past and not the fact that anything is happening at the moment. BOTH Cindy and Casey answer questions when asked by the 911 operator, that there was time to reflect and therefore the statements are not admissible under an excited utterance hearsay objection."
After rereading this tonight what the defense is doing is , they are wanting the statement made by Casey herself about "the nanny" not admissible, that way they can lay the path for the SODDI defense, because they know there is no NFG, and they know that Casey herself said that was who had Caylee. The defense knows they can't try and say someone else did it when Casey herself stated on the 911 call that Zanny had her, and they can not defend that statement, so they want it to go away, so that they can say Kronk or someone else is responsible.

My question is, the way he worded this motion makes it sound like he's admitting that both Cindy and Casey knew for awhile Caylee was missing and didn't notify the authorities. Did he just admit guilt on both of their parts in this case? Isn't it a crime not to report a crime? Missing or dead, why on earth would he word this motion to get the 911 calls thrown out by making his client and her mother look guilty for what happened to Caylee? His logic makes no sense, unless a motion cannot be used as evidence as against a person, so whoever writes it can say what they want?

Can a lawyer help me out with this?

 

[truckengirl]

I dont see why JB is wasting his time filing all these motions to have evidence withheld because remember in JB's own words he stated "at trial when I make my opening statement everyone will say oh okay now I undertstand" So JB why the need to get all the evidence thrown out if you are so sure everyone will understand and believe your client is not guilty like you have stated on national tv so many times.

 

[ZsaZsa]

IMO, the pary pix that were taken while her baby was missing should be allowed. Those prior to maybe not. Oh but I forgot, she was actually looking for her baby during that thirty days of partying wasn't she - NOT!

Yes, she definitely was . Didn't you watch NG last night ?- she stated that Casey was looking for her in the Beer section of Target.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I dont see why JB is wasting his time filing all these motions to have evidence withheld because remember in JB's own words he stated "at trial when I make my opening statement everyone will say oh okay now I undertstand" So JB why the need to get all the evidence thrown out if you are so sure everyone will understand and believe your client is not guilty like you have stated on national tv so many times.

Why did he file so many motions? Well he had $110 K to spend, so he had to use it up on something...

 

[ZsaZsa]

I posted this on the other thread but am posting it here as well as it is about the 911 call. Just wondering why we have two threads for the same topic?

Did anyone else read on page 10 where it says
"In addition Casey Anothony's statement regarding how her daughter was taken 31 days ago by the nanny and that she had been looking for her using her own resources are also in narrative form, making them neither spontaneous or reliable." Then it goes on to say "the statements made by Cindy AND Casey are in narrative form, recalling events that have past and not the fact that anything is happening at the moment. BOTH Cindy and Casey answer questions when asked by the 911 operator, that there was time to reflect and therefore the statements are not admissible under an excited utterance hearsay objection."
After rereading this tonight what the defense is doing is , they are wanting the statement made by Casey herself about "the nanny" not admissible, that way they can lay the path for the SODDI defense, because they know there is no NFG, and they know that Casey herself said that was who had Caylee. The defense knows they can't try and say someone else did it when Casey herself stated on the 911 call that Zanny had her, and they can not defend that statement, so they want it to go away, so that they can say Kronk or someone else is responsible.

So none of her statements to Police about Zanny taking Caylee would be admissible either?

 

[A_News_Junkie]

I asked this question on the NG thread but am repeating it here on the proper thread.

I wonder if some of the pics in the prior to June 15, 2008 will be admissible?
Lets say for theory, within the 6 months leading up to Caylee's disappearance to show a pattern of Casey wanting to be single & free.

Such as, the pics from the No Clothes Party.
Or pics of Caylee at JPC and RM apartment, when Casey told Cindy they were taken in ZFG apartment when she was supposedly working?

IMO the pics of her partying it up for her 21st Bday in 2007 will most likely not be admissible.
__________________

I think it will pend on the relevancy issue. If the State makes a good case that this evidence shows that KC was more interested in partying before and after Caylee's death then I think the judge will allow a limited amount of this evidence in. Goes to state of mind prior to and right after. I bet he will limit the pics in some way or form. JMHO - no special knowledge so correct me attorneys if you think I am dreaming.

 

[kaRN]

My question is, the way he worded this motion makes it sound like he's admitting that both Cindy and Casey knew for awhile Caylee was missing and didn't notify the authorities. Did he just admit guilt on both of their parts in this case? Isn't it a crime not to report a crime? Missing or dead, why on earth would he word this motion to get the 911 calls thrown out by making his client and her mother look guilty for what happened to Caylee? His logic makes no sense, unless a motion cannot be used as evidence as against a person, so whoever writes it can say what they want?

Can a lawyer help me out with this?

I'm not a lawyer but your post really got me thinking.
Such a big deal has been made about CA holding the baby first, competing to play mommy at the birthday party etc. Cindy has also made some disparaging statements about KC's mothering skills, called her a sociopath and then there's the myspace 'blog'.
They may be shifting maternal responsibility of Caylee to Cindy. By alleging CA knew Caylee was missing for a month+, she becomes even more guilty than KC of child neglect. The neglect facilitated the murder.

CA the RN is required by law to report any suspicions she has that a child is in danger to CPS. That includes her own Grandaughter. In her 'blog' she asks 'Who is taking care of her now', clothing her feeding her etc. So on one hand she knows she is the sole provider for the child and the child is missing. Blogging on myspace rather than calling CPS was a fatal error it turns out.
It doesn't make her the murderer but it does make her liable (sp?).

 

[AZlawyer]

My question is, the way he worded this motion makes it sound like he's admitting that both Cindy and Casey knew for awhile Caylee was missing and didn't notify the authorities. Did he just admit guilt on both of their parts in this case? Isn't it a crime not to report a crime? Missing or dead, why on earth would he word this motion to get the 911 calls thrown out by making his client and her mother look guilty for what happened to Caylee? His logic makes no sense, unless a motion cannot be used as evidence as against a person, so whoever writes it can say what they want?

Can a lawyer help me out with this?

You're correct--the motions cannot be used as evidence.

 

[Aedrys]

You're correct--the motions cannot be used as evidence.

Dangit, I was hoping for a moment there! Still, it doesn't seem very smart to point out guilt for a more minor crime to get a statement or phone call thrown out so he can better defend his client of the major crime she's accused of. Or maybe that's just Baez logic.

I do agree that Cindy is being not only being thrown under the bus, but that bus is backing up and rerunning over her several times. I hope she is ready for the "Blame mom, it's all her fault for everything" defense that will be presented in the court room next year. If not, this is going to be one nasty or really short trial between the antics of CA and Casey.

 

[faefrost]

I suspect that alot of the pics, particularly anything prior to Caylee going missing will be tossed. And some of the subsequent ones will be limited to the less salacious ones. The Judge will feel that the jury does not need to be put in a situation where they are making judgements on the defendents lifestyle instead of her crimes or actions. So some photos showing where she was,a nd implying yes she was partying, after June 15. But probably nothing where she is groping other women or sticking her tongue down peoples throats etc. Just simply enough to prove that she was going to parties at Fusion etc. Nothing more.

There isn't a snowballs chance in hell anything on any 911 tapes gets excluded. None! Zip! Nada! Absolutely Zero! Baez is a complete fool for even bringing such a motion.

 

[doogiesgirl]

BTW---does anyone know when this goes in front of JSS and we will all find out for sure what his ruling on this is?? TIA.

moo

 

[Searchfortruth]

A question, the pics of Casey at Target (with no Caylee in sight) and at BOA, will they be allowed in this trial, even though they were part of the fraud case ?

 

[AZlawyer]

A question, the pics of Casey at Target (with no Caylee in sight) and at BOA, will they be allowed in this trial, even though they were part of the fraud case ?

It kind of depends on the defense strategy. If the defense is actually going to claim that Casey was lying, cheating and stealing to find Caylee, I would think it would be fair game for the SA to prove that she was actually lying, cheating and stealing for her own selfish reasons.