Is the Prosecution brokering a deal with D. Casey?

[Bittiness39]

A deal for what? Why would Dc hide anything? He is the PI, I expect him to know a lot more than the rest of us. Why does he need a deal? What could have he done wrong where he would need a deal. I don't think its against the law for a PI to have info.

On the other hand, he has a contract with Kc and the A's. I would think it would be normal to keep all info secret for them. There may be some type of PI client priviledge thing going on here.

If I signed a contract with an attorney and the contract said I have to keep quiet about anything said, I would honor that contract. If furthermore it was protected by law (attorney client priviledge ), I would make sure I had an attorney to make sure the information is treated according to the law.
Just because the contract has ended, does not mean the info is up for grabs for anyone.

He is just trying to protect his clients. Thats an honorable thing to do.

As far as a deal...I have no idea if there is one/will be one/never has/never will be one. No clue. Just speculating. The Judge already ruled that DC can talk and that the SA questioning DC is not a violation of privilege. I would imagine all the state has to do is ask (thanks cecy) one question: Hey Mr. Casey, who were you on the cell phone with when you were poking through all of those garbage bags?

But again all of this, this thread in general and the above are just pure speculation on my part.

If I had to guess I would say (1) a deal has been brokered and (2) for whatever reason the state is not putting that out there...Why? I have no idea.

 

[RR0004]

Well yes I agree once on the stand, everyone has to give out the truth and the whole truth for the fact finding mission. It appears to me right now, which is not during court, that the SA wants to depose DC without JB being there. Why? and what deal could possibly be coming about? Do we think DC broke the law somehow and now he has to broker a deal? Why would he do that? Why does SA need to depose without Jb being there? I agree there is something fishy going on here, and I don't like it. I think depositions should be taken with both parties there.

It was a good thing that Jb was there during Ca deposition to tell her to zip it. She was about to give out info that a Judge had sealed. Sounded like to SA was going to allow it. Lets have a little respect for the Judge here.

Then all JB has to do is name him as a witness and this conversation will be moot. How do you know DC is trying to protect his clients?

 

[RR0004]

Well yes I agree once on the stand, everyone has to give out the truth and the whole truth for the fact finding mission. It appears to me right now, which is not during court, that the SA wants to depose DC without JB being there. Why? and what deal could possibly be coming about? Do we think DC broke the law somehow and now he has to broker a deal? Why would he do that? Why does SA need to depose without Jb being there? I agree there is something fishy going on here, and I don't like it. I think depositions should be taken with both parties there.

It was a good thing that Jb was there during Ca deposition to tell her to zip it. She was about to give out info that a Judge had sealed. Sounded like to SA was going to allow it. Lets have a little respect for the Judge here.

What info was that NTS?

 

[cecybeans]

DC has to be pivotal to this case for a variety of reasons. For one, he is the only person involved (other than the Anthonys themselves who tried to delay the Morgan depo which revolves, imo, about money matters more than the actual civil case) who has been obstinately uncooperative about going on record since the LE interview after that video was discovered. He has been holding out going on record to the state for longer than anyone else. That's a lot of rope-a-dope for someone who holds he was acting on a tip from a psychic. I mean, it's been over a year since all that hit the fan and still no formal deposition.

Second, we know that JB immediately freaked about him being interviewed regarding the search, the taping, and most likely the phone calls. Something about that incident made JB jump to the conclusion that privilege needed to be invoked, which is a big hint right away. Because if DC was not working for JB at the time, and the tip about Caylee's location came from some psychic, it's not work product for the defense team at all. He is not bound by the same confidentiality rules. UNLESS it is something he is acting on that he learned while under contract to JB. Which points, of course, directly to the defendant.

What is also of potential interest is the timing - why DC suddenly decided the week of the TES searches that it was paramount to look for Caylee on Suburban drive. Why the sense of urgency at that point? Was someone getting too close?

If JB had cut DC loose in early October, why would he even be nervous about him searching on Suburban a month and a half later unless he knew it was a hot spot?

JB always hits the fan when something happens that could make things look bad for him or his client - the jailhouse video, this situation with DC.

Perhaps, after LE visited the Anthony home the Friday after the TES searches, DC suddenly decided it would be a good thing to act on the information himself now that he was working on behalf of the Anthonys. It just makes my hinky meter go off the charts the way Hoover described him calling him up that Saturday at the crack of dawn and saying saddle up, we're going to get Caylee and she's not alive. As if he had known for awhile and was finally given the green light by someone.

Brokering a deal could be to avoid losing his PI license by violating attorney privilege (LDB made it very clear that the supposed confidentiality DC has with the Anthonys is not recognized or in the same category as any privilege enjoyed by JB).

It's just all very odd, that DC would go to such great lengths to dig in his heels and refuse to cooperate, when Hoover was more than happy to do so. Perhaps because he doesn't have cotnracts with conflicts of interest at stake.

 

[sleutherontheside]

What info was that NTS?

Um............IMO that would be whether or not CA recognized the "Big Trouble" t-shirt.......which later appeared in the Globe photo........which likely helped fund the defense.......which IF I HAD TO JUST GUESS, was specifically brokered to run AFTER the body was found since that was the shirt she was found in. It was sealed IMO and JMO because that could be harmful to the defense as it may be an inadvertant admission to "knowledge" of what Caylee was wearing when she died. Additionally it could reflect negatively on KC for selling pics of her daughter in her last attire to fund her defense. SA asking CA if she recognized it.....would only support it was in fact on of Caylee's t-shrts as opposed to one Zanny bought. They were much too adept in their backing CA into giving testimony to use against KC as opposed to being overt.

Additional thought added: The SA asked for how KC was paying. THis discussion was in camera. There was no conflict. Certain info was sealed. BUT......was the SA provided with a specific copy of a photo to remain off limits??? I have to wonder if JB just offered proof of sale of photos without divulging specific photos and contracts pertaining to each........................

 

[wonders]

I would like to add that if DC or anyone else for that matter DIDN'T have anything to hide a depo would have been done long ago.

 

[sleutherontheside]

I would like to add that if DC or anyone else for that matter DIDN'T have anything to hide a depo would have been done long ago.

And that folks.......is it in a nutshell!!!!!

 

[RR0004]

Um............IMO that would be whether or not CA recognized the "Big Trouble" t-shirt.......which later appeared in the Globe photo........which likely helped fund the defense.......which IF I HAD TO JUST GUESS, was specifically brokered to run AFTER the body was found since that was the shirt she was found in. It was sealed IMO and JMO because that could be harmful to the defense as it may be an inadvertant admission to "knowledge" of what Caylee was wearing when she died. Additionally it could reflect negatively on KC for selling pics of her daughter in her last attire to fund her defense. SA asking CA if she recognized it.....would only support it was in fact on of Caylee's t-shrts as opposed to one Zanny bought. They were much too adept in their backing CA into giving testimony to use against KC as opposed to being overt.

Additional thought added: The SA asked for how KC was paying. THis discussion was in camera. There was no conflict. Certain info was sealed. BUT......was the SA provided with a specific copy of a photo to remain off limits??? I have to wonder if JB just offered proof of sale of photos without divulging specific photos and contracts pertaining to each........................

Thanks...did we have knowledge that the t-shirt was part of "sealed" evidence? Wasn't it a well-known fact that the the letters spelled that out? I'm confused. LOL

 

[The World According]

A deal for what? Why would Dc hide anything? He is the PI, I expect him to know a lot more than the rest of us.

LMAO!!!
There are only a few things in life I know for sure. One of them is Mr. Casey has zero chance, zero, of knowing more than the rest of us. He was caught in bold face lies to LE during his interview, so he is not honorable as you state. Not by my standards. That is just too, too funny!:liar:uke::rolling:

With respect, here you go, maybe this will get us back on the right page NTS : [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhUbC7cmtFY[/ame]

 

[Kentjbkent]

A deal for what? Why would Dc hide anything? He is the PI, I expect him to know a lot more than the rest of us. Why does he need a deal? What could have he done wrong where he would need a deal. I don't think its against the law for a PI to have info.

On the other hand, he has a contract with Kc and the A's. I would think it would be normal to keep all info secret for them. There may be some type of PI client priviledge thing going on here.
If I signed a contract with an attorney and the contract said I have to keep quiet about anything said, I would honor that contract. If furthermore it was protected by law (attorney client priviledge ), I would make sure I had an attorney to make sure the information is treated according to the law.
Just because the contract has ended, does not mean the info is up for grabs for anyone.

He is just trying to protect his clients. Thats an honorable thing to do.

Just to claify the bolded/underlined for you.

DC apparently had a contract with KC, but the contract was dissolved prior to October (due to nonpayment according to complaint filed with BAR by DC).

The Anthonys signed a contract with DC engaging his services in October and that contract was part of a document dump (minus the contingency payment page).

So DC was not/is not under contract as PI for BOTH KC and Anthony as you stated above.

The State appears to be interested in the activites and movements of DC in NOVEMBER, at which time he was NOT employed by Baez/KC.

 

[Kentjbkent]

A deal for what? Why would Dc hide anything? He is the PI, I expect him to know a lot more than the rest of us. Why does he need a deal? What could have he done wrong where he would need a deal. I don't think its against the law for a PI to have info.

On the other hand, he has a contract with Kc and the A's. I would think it would be normal to keep all info secret for them. There may be some type of PI client priviledge thing going on here.

If I signed a contract with an attorney and the contract said I have to keep quiet about anything said, I would honor that contract. If furthermore it was protected by law (attorney client priviledge ), I would make sure I had an attorney to make sure the information is treated according to the law.
Just because the contract has ended, does not mean the info is up for grabs for anyone.
He is just trying to protect his clients. Thats an honorable thing to do.

Again, it is my impression that the State is not really interested in anything that DC could offer from his "investigative skills" during the time he was employed by Baez/KC. If you will recall from the document dump (you do read those, right?), during his employment by Baez, he was "investigating" the Grunds and exchanging outlandish speculative emails with Cindy.

The State has no interest in any of that...

 

[faefrost]

A deal for what? Why would Dc hide anything? He is the PI, I expect him to know a lot more than the rest of us. Why does he need a deal? What could have he done wrong where he would need a deal. I don't think its against the law for a PI to have info.

On the other hand, he has a contract with Kc and the A's. I would think it would be normal to keep all info secret for them. There may be some type of PI client priviledge thing going on here.

If I signed a contract with an attorney and the contract said I have to keep quiet about anything said, I would honor that contract. If furthermore it was protected by law (attorney client priviledge ), I would make sure I had an attorney to make sure the information is treated according to the law.
Just because the contract has ended, does not mean the info is up for grabs for anyone.

He is just trying to protect his clients. Thats an honorable thing to do.

I'm betting any deal gets him out of any possibility of evidence tampering, interfering with an investigation and possibly accesory after the fact. Basically a deal would prevent him from claiming 5th amendment privileges in explaining exactly why he was in that woods poking trash bags.

There is no such thing as PI client privilege. It simply does not exist. While there may be confidentially ethics that PI's attempt to adhere to, that all goes out the window as soon as LE enters the picture.

And even better if he does have formal direct contracts with KC and the A's, there is a high chance that this will negate any shield of attorney client privilege for his supposed work for Baez. Attorney client privilege really only exists between the Lawyer and the client. It is extended to the Lawyers direct employees, as a function of their employment, but it cannot be used to shield someone with a seperate relationship to the defendant. IE Baez could not simply pay GA a dollar to shield him from LE scrutiny as an employee. If KC has a seperate contractual agreement with DC then he is her employee. Which means he cannot be an employee of JB. And anything said in his presense is not privileged.

 

[Novice Seeker]

We know that DC confronted JB about payment of service which let to the termination of services b/w the two of them. Then IIRC there was a time delay of approx. 1 week before the Anthony's hired DC. So,

1. Did DC stop any investigative work during the time period he wasn't under
contract with either party?
2. Who informed the Anthony's about DC terminating his contract w/ Baez?
3. Was KC informed of the termination? If so, did she know the reason?
4. Was Baez legally accountable for informing his client?
5. Was Baez aware that the Anthony's had hired DC very soon after their
agreement was dissolved?



Novice Seeker

 

[nitasch]

Your mention of BC being there brought something to mind. On more than one occasion he has said something to the effect that the A's don't know what happened, that they just want the truth, but that things are going to get more difficult for them and more upsetting. I can't remember the exact statement, but to me he was insinuating that the truth was coming out, and would be very difficult for them to accept -- like he knew already what was coming. Could it be that he "knows" because he was there when DC was questioned?

This is something that has always stood out in my mind, BC WAS there at the interview, but was he representing DC? IF he was representing DC, then this information he learned that day would be confidential, and he could not discuss it with the A's.

I think LE has the information they need, "off the record" but are trying to find the best way to move forward on it, especially if LA is involved because he was given immunity.

One thing that I believe is crucial is the answer to this question....who exactly was DC working under contract with on the days he went into the woods looking? We know that he provided a letter dated Oct. 1 08 that he was severing ties with JB (in one of the latest doc dumps). But, he states that he was under contract with the A's AND with KC and has not severed ties, or canceled the contract with them.

SO......if he received information from KC regarding the remains AFTER he nulled the contract with JB...then JB's interest in being at the deposition would be to argue that he cannot share this information because of confidentiality with his/their client, KC..... right?? :waitasec:

 

[LambChop]

But if KC shared information with her parents, LA, DC she is not bound by Attorney/client priviledge, right? It would be the same as if she were to mention something to her parents on a jail house tape. No priviledge. If she has a confidential agreement with DC would he still get to claim confidentiality regarding a murder investigation? He is not an attorney, nor was he working for one. If JB severed their agreement can KC still have an agreement with DC or was that null and void when JB ended his relationship with DC on her behalf? To my knowledge DC was not working on any other cases for JB.

Did not see your post Faefrost and I believe you answered my questions. Thanks. Oh, and another thing that just struck me. SA released all those emails between Cindy and DC so I guess that answers our questions right there. There is a lesson here. Be careful what you email.

 

[comomx3]

I hope they have something on DC and that he will make a bargain with the State. I think it would seal the deal for KC.

 

[cecybeans]

But if KC shared information with her parents, LA, DC she is not bound by Attorney/client priviledge, right? It would be the same as if she were to mention something to her parents on a jail house tape. No priviledge. If she has a confidential agreement with DC would he still get to claim confidentiality regarding a murder investigation? He is not an attorney, nor was he working for one. If JB severed their agreement can KC still have an agreement with DC or was that null and void when JB ended his relationship with DC on her behalf? To my knowledge DC was not working on any other cases for JB.

Did not see your post Faefrost and I believe you answered my questions. Thanks. Oh, and another thing that just struck me. SA released all those emails between Cindy and DC so I guess that answers our questions right there. There is a lesson here. Be careful what you email.

So if I understand things correctly, DC has no special privilege in court regarding any relationship other than that with an attorney. If JB was present at any conversation, that is covered by confidentiality. If JB was not, and DC's concurrent "contract" kicked in with someone else, it would not. DC's lawyer kept mentioning the two types of contracts DC entered into (with an officer of the court and with private citizen/s) as if they were the same, but IIRC, LDB made special mention that they don't consider anything DC did outside the relationship with JB to have any binding privilege in court, particularly regarding a capital case like this. Please, faefrost, or any one of our attorneys step in and correct me if I've misunderstood.

 

[The World According]

Not a lawyer, but I did see the hearing in full. The judge did ruled on this already. Dominic has to answer the state's questions. There is no need to offer him anything!!

The state prevailed at the hearing, imo, because this is very similar to the imagined privilege Baez tried to argue when he wanted the judge to disallow Leonard, Tracy and Rob's testimony. Private confidentiality contracts have no bearing on these proceedings is what Mrs. Drane Burdick argued in both hearings. The judge was very specific in the recent hearing to get it on the record that the contract between the PI and Baez was canceled in October, and that Mrs. Drane Burdick was not going to ask questions relating to any earlier time period. On the record in open court, she agreed. At the 6.0 mark the judge ruled on this: He told the State to go ahead with the investigative subpoena and use the time they have scheduled already . [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAuXZ3jqJ70[/ame]

( This is just my understanding of what I heard the judge say, and again I am not a lawyer).
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_sEh-hVZcA[/ame]

 

[faefrost]

So if I understand things correctly, DC has no special privilege in court regarding any relationship other than that with an attorney. If JB was present at any conversation, that is covered by confidentiality. If JB was not, and DC's concurrent "contract" kicked in with someone else, it would not. DC's lawyer kept mentioning the two types of contracts DC entered into (with an officer of the court and with private citizen/s) as if they were the same, but IIRC, LDB made special mention that they don't consider anything DC did outside the relationship with JB to have any binding privilege in court, particularly regarding a capital case like this. Please, faefrost, or any one of our attorneys step in and correct me if I've misunderstood.

Please note, I am not a lawyer, do not wish to claim to be one. I just have had some experiences with employees relationships to lawyers, and under what circumstances people can testify.

I am going to guess that any final decision on what if any of DC's knowlege is covered by privilege will hinge in part on what order the agreements were entered into, and who exactly know of what arrangements when.

 

[The World According]

It is Dominic talking to a local reporter. He entered the woods beyond the area where Caylee was found according to Mike Torres, local reporter there.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0_ZJgJzApY[/ame]