MythBuster Thread Discussion Area

[ibyoungr]

Per June 17th ping records, Casey was not at Sawgrass apartments She could not have been there at the same time as the real Zenaida G.


http://cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/DONE mbi-letters-murphy-monforte.pdf
Page 7

Ping maps http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=e...8592,-81.309128&spn=0.265966,0.43396&t=h&z=11

6/16
4:14 pm Anthony home
4:18 pm driving north from Anthony home
4:25 moving to the west .5 mi west of Amscot 2 mi south of TonyL where is she for 1 hour and 32 minutes? This would be on Colonial Dr. She is near Amscot.. what other stores are in this area?
5:57 moving to the northwest

5:57 Tony's apt and Blockbusters until 11:17 pm cell is there overnite

6/17
10:52 pm Casey is at Tony's
2:18 pm moving south
3:30 Anthony home Hopespring Dr
3:45 -4:05 tower near C Stutz
Missing hours start... she is NOWHERE NEAR SAWGRASS.. This may be a time when she was visiting C Stutz?
5:20 - Near Tony R's house and Hess (Receipt dated 6/17)
5:20-8:23 Missing hours.. did she shut off her phone to be with TonyR?
8:23 puts her back at TonyL apt

The ping records consistently put her west of Sawgrass to the north and to the south.

 

[Sundance]

Jose can not bring his laptop into the jail - MYTH IS BUSTED.


Articled dug up and posted by: Amanda2396

Originally Posted by amanda2396
I think this statement from the jail clears up the theory that JB is using his cell phone for internet access. He can't bring it into the jail.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ter.html?cat=8

Thank you to everyone for your technical insights.

The link in your post says the article is not available, but I found this other article on WFTV.com.

Yes, he can bring his laptop into the jail:

http://www.wftv.com/news/18052701/detail.html

Casey Anthony's Attorney Can Bring Laptop To Jail
Posted: 5:15 pm EST November 24, 2008

ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. -- Casey Anthony's lawyer won't have to fight for his laptop.

Jose Baez is supposed to go to court Tuesday asking to see more evidence from investigators (read all motions). He was also going to ask for special permission to bring his laptop to the jail when he visits Casey.

But Monday, the jail told Eyewitness News it has suddenly changed its laptop policy. They will allow private attorneys to carry in their computers starting next month.

(I posted this on the other MythBuster thread before I came to this thread, should I go delete that post?)

Sundance

 

[ibyoungr]

The link in your post says the article is not available, but I found this other article on WFTV.com.

Yes, he can bring his laptop into the jail:

http://www.wftv.com/news/18052701/detail.html

Casey Anthony's Attorney Can Bring Laptop To Jail
Posted: 5:15 pm EST November 24, 2008

ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. -- Casey Anthony's lawyer won't have to fight for his laptop.

Jose Baez is supposed to go to court Tuesday asking to see more evidence from investigators (read all motions). He was also going to ask for special permission to bring his laptop to the jail when he visits Casey.

But Monday, the jail told Eyewitness News it has suddenly changed its laptop policy. They will allow private attorneys to carry in their computers starting next month.

(I posted this on the other MythBuster thread before I came to this thread, should I go delete that post?)

Sundance

Thanks... but I thought it said that inmates were not allowed to use it. Wouldn't viewing a letter or video from her family be considered using it?
Maybe there is communications... I was just posting the link as it appeared they could not take them in.
But the rules changed on us.....

Oh well, I am not so sure she wants to talk to her parents. She has the ultimate excuse to avoid explaining to her mom.

 

[carrie]

For the record, I don't think KC mixed up a batch of chloroform either, but I'll dive in anyway for fun:

The link you posted about not storing it in plastic containers merely says for 'long periods of time,' the length of which is not defined. Is a long period a month? Year? Eons?

Also, just because there is an advisory against it, I wouldn't assume that a murderer using chloroform would necessarily follow proscribed guidelines.
Syringe results can't come soon enough. Far more interesting than the diary, really.

*Bolding by me*

I was thinking this also. What would happen if it was stored in a plastic bottle? Would the bottle remain intact? I was thinking that just because it is advised against and/or isn't safe, KC wouldn't be likely to follow such directions.

(I actually doubt she used it either.)

 

[BondJamesBond]

Thoughts on the following as a busted myth re: Cindy telling Casey 'bout the gas cans being stolen prior to Casey's arrival @ G&C's 6/24...

Explained here that there is an absence of evidence to support that Cindy and Casey discussed the gas cans being missing prior to Casey's arrival @ G&C's 6/24 -counter to the account Cindy gave on the interview w/ Greta.

Will look for "Thank you"s as an indication that this belongs as a busted myth. Otherwise, follow-up Q&A. I haven't really been monitoring the standard needed to be designated as 'busted'.

TIA!

 

[AZlawyer]

Thoughts on the following as a busted myth re: Cindy telling Casey 'bout the gas cans being stolen prior to Casey's arrival @ G&C's 6/24...

Explained here that there is an absence of evidence to support that Cindy and Casey discussed the gas cans being missing prior to Casey's arrival @ G&C's 6/24 -counter to the account Cindy gave on the interview w/ Greta.

Will look for "Thank you"s as an indication that this belongs as a busted myth. Otherwise, follow-up Q&A. I haven't really been monitoring the standard needed to be designated as 'busted'.

TIA!

I would hold off on this pending investigation of the 11:19 outgoing phone call from Casey.

 

[Pattymarie]

Are the A's expecting a new grandchild? Has this ever been confirmed?

 

[treeseeker]

Would it be worth considering that the Lexus look-out was about Cindy instead of George? And the later 24th Lexus calls were to make sure George hadn't beaten her to the punch and sent Cindy into action ie heading home? Be brutal, I can take it.

 

[carrie]

Can we bust the myth that LE/SA can hold back evidence until the trial?

From what I've read posted by our legal folks in the legal questions thread, the Prosecution isn't allowed to use anything in the trial they haven't released to KC's defense first. (And vice versa for Baez.) Therefore, due to FL's Sunshine laws, we will see everything before the trial.

It seems many folks are waiting for heretofore unseen bombshell evidence to come out at the trial that proves KC's guilt. From what I can tell, that cannot happen.

I realize new (to us) evidence may come out before the trial takes place. But it seems to me the key word here is before the trial.

Could one of legal folks provide a link that busts this myth once and for all so we can reference it and end this speculation (not that anything will actually end it - lol)?

TIA

 

[nephers]

Can we bust the myth that LE/SA can hold back evidence until the trial?

From what I've read posted by our legal folks in the legal questions thread, the Prosecution isn't allowed to use anything in the trial they haven't released to KC's defense first. (And vice versa for Baez.) Therefore, due to FL's Sunshine laws, we will see everything before the trial.

It seems many folks are waiting for heretofore unseen bombshell evidence to come out at the trial that proves KC's guilt. From what I can tell, that cannot happen.

I realize new (to us) evidence may come out before the trial takes place. But it seems to me the key word here is before the trial.

Could one of legal folks provide a link that busts this myth once and for all so we can reference it and end this speculation (not that anything will actually end it - lol)?

TIA

http://www.cobblawfirm.com/Rules_Discovery.htm

This sums it up pretty well. Hope it helps.

and here is a good summary of the sunshine laws for reference ... http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Florida_Sunshine_Law

 

[fortytwo]

Can we bust the myth that LE/SA can hold back evidence until the trial?

From what I've read posted by our legal folks in the legal questions thread, the Prosecution isn't allowed to use anything in the trial they haven't released to KC's defense first. (And vice versa for Baez.) Therefore, due to FL's Sunshine laws, we will see everything before the trial.

It seems many folks are waiting for heretofore unseen bombshell evidence to come out at the trial that proves KC's guilt. From what I can tell, that cannot happen.

I realize new (to us) evidence may come out before the trial takes place. But it seems to me the key word here is before the trial.

Could one of legal folks provide a link that busts this myth once and for all so we can reference it and end this speculation (not that anything will actually end it - lol)?

TIA

I'm not sure that there's a myth here to be busted.

(Standard disclaimer... not a lawyer ... blah, blah, blah)

Yes, the prosecution has to disclose evidence they intend to use in the trial to the defense.

They get 'wiggle room' in that they aren't required to turn over evidence that is 'still under investigation'.

I believe that they get to decide whether or not something is 'still under investigation'.

There is probably something of a balancing act in play, since it would present issues in review of trial if the defense could claim that some evidence wasn't provided to them in a timely fashion. Such an assertion might require the prosecution to demonstrate the validity of 'still under investigation'.

I expect that the prosecution will pussyfoot around releasing key evidence until the last possible (in their opinion) moment. I don't think that they will endanger the results of a successful conviction by stringing out the discovery for too long.

I have a feeling that this is an element of trial strategy with which they have a great deal of experience.

If JB (or whoever ends up in court) wants to get a jump on evidence review he needs to quit filing "Mommeee... They're keeping secrets from meeee." motions and wear out some of his own shoe leather.

 

[AZlawyer]

I'm not sure that there's a myth here to be busted.

(Standard disclaimer... not a lawyer ... blah, blah, blah)

Yes, the prosecution has to disclose evidence they intend to use in the trial to the defense.

They get 'wiggle room' in that they aren't required to turn over evidence that is 'still under investigation'.

I believe that they get to decide whether or not something is 'still under investigation'.

There is probably something of a balancing act in play, since it would present issues in review of trial if the defense could claim that some evidence wasn't provided to them in a timely fashion. Such an assertion might require the prosecution to demonstrate the validity of 'still under investigation'.

I expect that the prosecution will pussyfoot around releasing key evidence until the last possible (in their opinion) moment. I don't think that they will endanger the results of a successful conviction by stringing out the discovery for too long.

I have a feeling that this is an element of trial strategy with which they have a great deal of experience.

If JB (or whoever ends up in court) wants to get a jump on evidence review he needs to quit filing "Mommeee... They're keeping secrets from meeee." motions and wear out some of his own shoe leather.

The "active investigation" exception does not apply to items that fall within the required disclosure categories in a criminal case. (Fla. Statute s 119.011(3)(c)(5)) There are also multiple court opinions that discuss this aspect of the law--see the Florida Government-in-the-Sunshine Manual, section 1.d. on this page: http://www.myflsunshine.com/sun.nsf/...2566F3006C7A1A

In other words, no LE cannot hold back information because it is under "active criminal investigation" IF it is also something listed in the disclosure rule--e.g., a witness statement.

 

[fortytwo]

The "active investigation" exception does not apply to items that fall within the required disclosure categories in a criminal case. (Fla. Statute s 119.011(3)(c)(5)) There are also multiple court opinions that discuss this aspect of the law--see the Florida Government-in-the-Sunshine Manual, section 1.d. on this page: http://www.myflsunshine.com/sun.nsf/...2566F3006C7A1A

In other words, no LE cannot hold back information because it is under "active criminal investigation" IF it is also something listed in the disclosure rule--e.g., a witness statement.

Many thanks.

The link isn't working. It dead ends into a missing page notice. I'll try and look up the statute.

You capitalized your "IF". I take that to mean that there remains some latitude with some kinds of evidence.

I expect this is the area that many of us are very curious about.

Any hints?

 

[fortytwo]

The "active investigation" exception does not apply to items that fall within the required disclosure categories in a criminal case. (Fla. Statute s 119.011(3)(c)(5)) There are also multiple court opinions that discuss this aspect of the law--see the Florida Government-in-the-Sunshine Manual, section 1.d. on this page: http://www.myflsunshine.com/sun.nsf/...2566F3006C7A1A

In other words, no LE cannot hold back information because it is under "active criminal investigation" IF it is also something listed in the disclosure rule--e.g., a witness statement.

Many thanks.

The link isn't working. It dead ends into a missing page notice. I'll try and look up the statute.

You capitalized your "IF". I take that to mean that there remains some latitude with some kinds of evidence.

I expect this is the area that many of us are very curious about.

Any hints?

Thanks again AZ. You've started me hunting on my own. I needed the push. BTW, that link is still a deader.

I found Fla. Statute s 119.011(3)(c)(5) here. I didn't find the statement you had in bold, so I'm thinking that was an interpretation and the cite was a reference. Right?

The legalese has me confused. (Yeah, I know. That's easy to do.) It seems to be a definition saying,

...

[SIZE=-1](c) "Criminal intelligence information" and "criminal investigative information" shall not include:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]
...

[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]5. Documents given or required by law or agency rule to be given to the person arrested, except as provided in s. 119.071(2)(h), and, except that the court in a criminal case may order that certain information required by law or agency rule to be given to the person arrested be maintained in a confidential manner and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1) until released at trial if it is found that the release of such information would:

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]a. Be defamatory to the good name of a victim or witness or would jeopardize the safety of such victim or witness; and [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]b. Impair the ability of a state attorney to locate or prosecute a codefendant. [/SIZE]

... etc.

I'm struggling with how this helps. I'm sure it does. I just need some hand holding.

I found this very useful link to a .pdf of "FLORIDA RULES OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 2009". The section on discovery starts at pg.76.

Unfortunately it wasn't useful enough to help me puzzle out the question at hand, which is, "What things might the SA not have released in discovery yet, and how, and why?"

I think what's driving this question is that we know that there are things we haven't seen yet. One example... the FBI reports on the duct tape with Caylee's remains. We know that fibers were detected. We know that the tape was sent on for further analysis of those fibers. We haven't seen any else (I think).

There are a number of areas in the docs released so far from which a reasonable person could infer that there is more remaining to be disclosed.

What has kept this out of discovery. Is it only that these results have not been returned?

The section on discovery in "CRIMINAL PROCEDURE" seems to say that only the court can determine if things required in discovery might be held from release. Would we necessarily know if an in camera proceeding took place?

"Work product" appears to be exempt from discovery. Would this keep us from seeing progress reports of on-going lab work? Could this be a mechanism for the SA to have info that we don't because it is protected from release through discovery?

Just some thoughts.

Need help.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks again AZ. You've started me hunting on my own. I needed the push. BTW, that link is still a deader.

I found Fla. Statute s 119.011(3)(c)(5) here. I didn't find the statement you had in bold, so I'm thinking that was an interpretation and the cite was a reference. Right?

The legalese has me confused. (Yeah, I know. That's easy to do.) It seems to be a definition saying,

...

[SIZE=-1]
...

[/SIZE]... etc.

I'm struggling with how this helps. I'm sure it does. I just need some hand holding.

I found this very useful link to a .pdf of "FLORIDA RULES OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 2009". The section on discovery starts at pg.76.

Unfortunately it wasn't useful enough to help me puzzle out the question at hand, which is, "What things might the SA not have released in discovery yet, and how, and why?"

I think what's driving this question is that we know that there are things we haven't seen yet. One example... the FBI reports on the duct tape with Caylee's remains. We know that fibers were detected. We know that the tape was sent on for further analysis of those fibers. We haven't seen any else (I think).

There are a number of areas in the docs released so far from which a reasonable person could infer that there is more remaining to be disclosed.

What has kept this out of discovery. Is it only that these results have not been returned?

The section on discovery in "CRIMINAL PROCEDURE" seems to say that only the court can determine if things required in discovery might be held from release. Would we necessarily know if an in camera proceeding took place?

"Work product" appears to be exempt from discovery. Would this keep us from seeing progress reports of on-going lab work? Could this be a mechanism for the SA to have info that we don't because it is protected from release through discovery?

Just some thoughts.

Need help.

Thanks for letting me know that link is no good anymore.

This is the guide written by the Florida Attorney General for LE agencies to help them comply with the Sunshine Laws:

http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/MRAY-7E8QJ6/$file/2008LEGuide.pdf

It is written in much more plain language than the statutes, etc.

This is from p. 36 (bold is mine):

4. Are records released to the defendant considered
to be criminal investigative or intelligence information?

Except in limited circumstances, records which have been given or are required to be given to the person arrested cannot be
withheld from public inspection as criminal investigative or
intelligence information. In other words, once the material has
been made available to the defendant as part of the discovery
process in a criminal proceeding, the material is ordinarily no
longer considered to be exempt criminal investigative or criminal
intelligence information.

For example, in Bludworth v. Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc., the
court upheld a trial judge’s order requiring the state attorney to
release to the news media all information furnished to the defense
counsel in a criminal investigation. The state attorney had argued
that the documents could be withheld because the criminal
investigation was still “active” and “active” criminal investigative
information is exempt from disclosure. However, the court
rejected this contention by concluding that once the material
was given to the defendant pursuant to the rules of criminal
procedure, the material was excluded from the statutory definition
of criminal investigative information. Therefore, it was no longer
relevant whether the investigation was active or not and the
documents could not be withheld as active criminal investigative
information.

I have speculated in previous posts about different situations that might be going on with some of the evidence: e.g., FBI reports not yet written and transmitted to LE (including results reported orally to LE but not yet documented).

I am not personally monitoring the court docket, but I know other people here are, and I don't see how a court order could have been entered excluding certain material from public disclosure without us knowing about it. Even an in camera proceeding would leave some trace in the docket.

 

[fortytwo]

Thanks for letting me know that link is no good anymore.

This is the guide written by the Florida Attorney General for LE agencies to help them comply with the Sunshine Laws:

http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/MRAY-7E8QJ6/$file/2008LEGuide.pdf

It is written in much more plain language than the statutes, etc.

This is from p. 36 (bold is mine):



I have speculated in previous posts about different situations that might be going on with some of the evidence: e.g., FBI reports not yet written and transmitted to LE (including results reported orally to LE but not yet documented).

I am not personally monitoring the court docket, but I know other people here are, and I don't see how a court order could have been entered excluding certain material from public disclosure without us knowing about it. Even an in camera proceeding would leave some trace in the docket.

Okay. Appreciate the help.

I was pretty much on the right page as far as disclosure to the public after release through discovery. My interest has been in the mechanisms which might delay that release.

I had suspected that in camera actions would leave some tracks, but I don't know enough about procedure to be certain.

So the gist that I am gathering is that the unreleased juicy, "Blockbuster", "send 'er to the needle" evidence that we want to be there is hopefully in pending forensic reports.

Any thoughts on how long the SA would take to turn final reports over to defense once they received them?

Not suggesting any prosecutorial hanky-panky, but is there any influence that the SA can have concerning the amount of time that the study of evidence can take before it reaches whatever mystic state requires it to be disclosed?

 

[AZlawyer]

Okay. Appreciate the help.

I was pretty much on the right page as far as disclosure to the public after release through discovery. My interest has been in the mechanisms which might delay that release.

I had suspected that in camera actions would leave some tracks, but I don't know enough about procedure to be certain.

So the gist that I am gathering is that the unreleased juicy, "Blockbuster", "send 'er to the needle" evidence that we want to be there is hopefully in pending forensic reports.

Any thoughts on how long the SA would take to turn final reports over to defense once they received them?

Not suggesting any prosecutorial hanky-panky, but is there any influence that the SA can have concerning the amount of time that the study of evidence can take before it reaches whatever mystic state requires it to be disclosed?

All I can say is that, without any nefarious motives whatsoever, many of my disclosures are made significantly later than the rules technically require. As we get closer to trial, I would expect the State to start paying more attention to disclosure, especially of "good" evidence, in order to ensure that the evidence is not excluded at trial.

 

[fortytwo]

All I can say is that, without any nefarious motives whatsoever, many of my disclosures are made significantly later than the rules technically require. As we get closer to trial, I would expect the State to start paying more attention to disclosure, especially of "good" evidence, in order to ensure that the evidence is not excluded at trial.

Thanks again for your help.

ETA: So. To bring this around full circle, where do we stand on the original question?

Originally Posted by carrie
Can we bust the myth that LE/SA can hold back evidence until the trial?

(snip)

Absent the "until the trial" part, is it fair to say that they can?

 

[carrie]

What i'm saying though, is this, I keep hearing people say they hope this or that blockbuster news/eveidence will come out during the trial. Ans, though we may not have seen the yet, we will see it before the trial because of the Sunshine laws.

Other than questions they might ask a witness on the stand and their answers to said questions, we will pretty much see it all before the trial.

Anyway, maybe it's not a good idea for a mythbuster. I just see people always talking about how LE?/SA is holding back this or that evidence until the trial. Maybe not a good idea.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks again for your help.

ETA: So. To bring this around full circle, where do we stand on the original question?

(snip)

Absent the "until the trial" part, is it fair to say that they can?

No. They can't hold back the evidence. But they can't disclose things they don't have yet from the FBI, and they don't necessarily disclose things in a timely manner even if they "have to." But they are not holding things back from the defense in hopes that the defense will not have time to effectively respond by the time it is disclosed, because the judge will never let that happen. If they try to bring in something new at trial, it will be excluded. If they try to bring in something new too close to trial, the judge will reschedule the trial.