Prosecutors have new material and information that they dont want released to the pub

[kaRN]

Wait a sec, something's not right here. If this is about DC, and he got his info from CA about Caylee's location, then whatever he was told was bound to contain a few "mistruths."

More likely is Lee found the body, and informed CA. Since they couldn't have family finding the body, CA cooked up some story to tell DC to get him to do the search, fully expecting him to find Caylee. Perhaps she told him she got her info from JB who got it from KC , and also told DC that JB wanted to know before LE was called--so DC was to inform her if he found the body so she could relay that info to JB. Perhaps as soon as DC heard that, he knew he would somehow get thrown under the bus himself, and decided not to find Caylee so as not to incriminate himself, ya know?

Wait another sec. I'll bet CA was going to try to incriminate the people who formerly lived at the vacant house on Hopespring Dr. She may have even had Lee plant something there of Caylee's for DC to discover--again which he didn't discover.

I'll bet someone's in deep, and it isn't JB or DC.

'Lee knows what he's done'

 

[justthinkin]

Perhaps some Anthonys are now looking for some foreign country to visit that doesn't extradite.

 

[ynotdivein]

Bold mine.

Actually we know that Cindy sent someone out there, I don't think she actually named DC. For all we know, she might have sent Joy W. there...

Respectfully SBM...

Could that "someone" have been Lee?

(If this has already been suggested I apologize; quick-posted while frantically trying to catch up with awesome posts here--and GMTA to you!)

 

[BeenaBobba]

My brain is fried tonight....Did we ever see DC's phone logs? At least the phone he was using the day he was searching in the woods?

I'm wondering the same thing. I've read through this entire thread, and I agree that there's a possibility that this whole thing involves DC in some way. Just thinking out loud here, but perhaps the SA already questioned DC. Perhaps the "new materials" referenced in the motion refer to DC's phone records. That would certainly warrant further investigation, wouldn't it?

 

[rbrnmw2]

Maybe GA came clean to LE with a million little truths behind Cindy's back.

maybe she mouthed I love you to him and he ignored her If any of them were to come clean it would be George IMO I think he is taking Caylee's death the hardest of them all Then there is the Tracey M interview where she states GA confronted KC and he avoided her the rest of the time she was out on bail.
I think GA is sick of the games CA plays IMO

 

[Kentjbkent]

Bolded by me. Is there a link for this? I was under the understanding that Dc broke his contract with Jb on October 1st. He never did break his contract with Kc. Also, isn't he still bound to secrecy until after trial? Moo

Yes, there are plenty of links as well as the hearing transcript. Shouldn't be hard for you to find.

It is my understanding that the contract DC had with Baez was a contract on behalf of KC, as a representative (attorney) for KC.

Yes, I believe DC would be bound to secrecy about certain conversations and information during the short period of time he was under contract with KC/Baez, but only in regards to those things covered by privilege during that short period of time, NOT any conversations he may have had with Baez after he ended the contract due to non-payment and filing his complaint with the BAR against Baez.

 

[Kentjbkent]

What was the hearing where his lawyer put him on the stand and didn't he make it sound like he was still under contract with all of them...JB, KC, Cindy and George???

I believe that was the hearing for the civil case?

 

[Kentjbkent]

Yeah the one I looked at wasn't signed . That is motion not signed by either Sa or the Judge. What is that???? A piece of paper with no meaning. Mooo

So you are saying that the motion that is filed on the court docket is no good?? It was filed by the courts by mistake?

 

[truckengirl]

Do you think there is any chance that since JB missed the Feb 1 deadline and did not turn over his evidence or witness list, that SA was able to proceed with DC's deposition because they received nothing stating he was a witness for JB.

 

[Kentjbkent]

My brain is fried tonight....Did we ever see DC's phone logs? At least the phone he was using the day he was searching in the woods?

I don't believe we have seen anything from SA concerning DC at this point, so am wondering if they have been holding all this (phone records, etc) from release to defense until they were able to sit down and depo DC, but of course, defense has been fighting that every step of the way.

I suspect that an investigative subpoena was issued, SA has met with DC and now has his statement to include with the other evidence they were holding/investigating, and now have some of the missing pieces they were looking for in investigation, but if it involves one of the defense team, they want to consult with JS on how to proceed.

I have a feeling we will eventually see all this...including the phone records and confirmation of WHO DC was talking to on phone while rifling through Suburban Drive, and I think we are going to be SHOCKED....or are we? :waitasec:

 

[Kentjbkent]

Bold mine.

Actually we know that Cindy sent someone out there, I don't think she actually named DC. For all we know, she might have sent Joy W. there...after all, JW was there, in the area of Caylee's body, lots of times, and who best to use as her patsy than an already "Baker Acted" person.

But wasn't that back in August of 2008 (that JW states she was at eventual discovery site)???

 

[LambChop]

BBM.. WHY would JB allow the prosecution to go ahead and serve DC with an investigative subpoena KNOWING full well that if he went that route he (JB) couldn't be present at the depo???[/B]

I am wondering the same thing beach2yall. What could the reason be?

First JB can't stop SA from investigating. Second there is no witness list. If JB were to have submitted it in December there is a high likelihood that DC would have been the only name on it. Defense is not prepared to released their witness list yet. JMO

 

[Intermezzo]

That may be what this is all about. Perhaps the defense did indeed provide that information and upon checking it out, Le discovered it was true. Perhaps they need to protect Kc. Just speculating. Moo

BBM
The Defense did not. And this I realize this of O/T fftopic: on this thread but wished to answer.
The Feb. 1 2010 deadline ruled by Judge S to the Defense team passed and just to refresh my memory NTS, you were posting on that thread

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95000"]Casey Anthony’s Defense Misses Deadline-Blames prosecution - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]


First Motion from SA filed on Sept 10, 2009
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/10/08/reciprocal.to.compel1.pdf

Defense Response to motion filed on Sept 17, 2009
http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2009/1007/21230892.pdf

During the Hearing held on October 16, 2009
http://www.examiner.com/x-1168-Crim...l-date-set-in-fraud-case-murder-charges-stand
"Casey’s legal team was also given additional time to provide proof that someone else—besides Casey—placed 2-year-old Caylee Anthony’s body in the wooded area where her remains were discovered in Dec. 2008. Defense attorney Jose Baez said of the evidence, “There will be something. There definitely will be something.” The information must be given to the court by Feb. 1, 2010."

http://wdbo.com/localnews/2009/10/state-defense-spar-during-case.html
"The Judge Stand Strickland ruled that the defense has to produce evidence specific to the claim made by Macaluso. They'll have until February 1st to do so, or explain why they can't.|

Second Motion Filed by the SA filed on Dec 9, 2009
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/10/second.motion.to.compel.reciprocal.discovery.pdf


Casey Anthony Defense Team Misses Deadline
http://www.wftv.com/news/22415041/detail.html


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...sey-anthony-deadline-20100202,0,2529495.story
"Prosecutors did not receive any paperwork from Casey Anthony's defense team that backed up one of her attorney's comments in court that someone else left the body of Anthony's daughter in the woods, according to the State Attorney's Office.
Four months ago, Orange Circuit Judge Stan Strickland told the defense team they had until Feb. 1 to provide information.
The attorneys involved are working out a schedule for the release of discovery. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTS,
If I missed the information showing that the Defense did indeed comply with the Judge's order please provide the LINK nline: to me and it can be posted on the appropriate thread http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95000&page=2.
I would be very interested in reading it. :read: Thanks.

 

[Kentjbkent]

I think the biggest "mystery" about this motion is NOT the "WHO" (is being investigated) but more of the "WHY" is SA requesting that the defense NOT be present!

To date, there have been no allegations (apart from a few bloggers) that the prosecution has operated in an underhanded method, has purposely withheld or hidden evidence from the defense, has "leaked" information to the media, or any other unsavory behavior. They have shown to be very experienced, dotting every I, crossing every T.

Filed with this motion was a motion for discovery schedule, etc and in this proposal, which I believe JS will grant since it was he who requested that the SA and defense meet and set up a schedule, all discovery is to be exchanged at the earliest by August.

SO....

If SA is still investigating this "new material and information" and are not required to pass the info to the defense until the investigation is complete, and if granted, have until at least August 2010 to do so, why are they wanting to go before JS to ask his permission?????? And why do they not want the defense to witness this? Makes absolutely no sense that SA has now decided to be sneaky and underhanded...

IF this "new material and information" is related to only DC, CA/GA, Lee, or any other witness, why would SA be opposed to the defense hearing the following...

"JS....we have recently received new material and information from LE that we believe is very important to the case and warrants further investigation. We would like your permission to refrain from releasing this information to the defense until it is fully investigated." If pushed, why couldn't the defense hear..."We are currently investigating DC (or GA/CA/Lee)..."

I just don't get why SA would find it so important that defense team not be privy to this conversation (re: stating "who" they are investigating but not the "why")

HOWEVER...

If the conversation were similar to the following....

"JS....we have recently received new material and information from LE that we believe is very important to the case and warrants further investigation. We would like your permission to refrain from releasing this information to the defense until it is fully investigated. We have evidence that the defense team has (or may have) been involved in impeding the investigation into the recovery of Caylee's remains and would like your opinion on how to proceed."

Now I CAN understand why they would not want the defense privy to this conversation....

So again...question to me is not the "WHO" but the "WHY"

 

[Intermezzo]

I haven't read this entire thread yet, so don't know if anyone has mentioned a possibility that has occurred to me. When Casey was convicted of a felony, her DNA was taken and placed in the FBI database. Could it be that her DNA was a match with an unsolved crime - and possibly even a crime that might have a connection to Caylee's murder? This would be new material and new evidence coming from LE. JMO

Good one! :applause:

 

[Intermezzo]

Haven't been on in quite a while...but have followed this case from the beginning...hope you all welcome me back...

IMO...I don't think so...George gets exasperated with Cindy, but where is he going to go...she controls the purse strings and neither of them work...they have Lee living with them and I am sure he contributes to the household...I just don't know what he would do without Cindy...she is the controlling factor and he is a follower...

BBM
:Welcome-12-june: BACK

 

[Aedrys]

Kentjbkent, I think it's because of what happened with Kronk. I think the SA is irked with how that went, and don't want to immediately subject this new info to that just yet. I think they were unprepared for what happened with Kronk and don't want that to happen again without being prepared more this time. I think they are going to be even more thorough this time.

 

[beach]

I think the biggest "mystery" about this motion is NOT the "WHO" (is being investigated) but more of the "WHY" is SA requesting that the defense NOT be present!

To date, there have been no allegations (apart from a few bloggers) that the prosecution has operated in an underhanded method, has purposely withheld or hidden evidence from the defense, has "leaked" information to the media, or any other unsavory behavior. They have shown to be very experienced, dotting every I, crossing every T.

Filed with this motion was a motion for discovery schedule, etc and in this proposal, which I believe JS will grant since it was he who requested that the SA and defense meet and set up a schedule, all discovery is to be exchanged at the earliest by August.

SO....

If SA is still investigating this "new material and information" and are not required to pass the info to the defense until the investigation is complete, and if granted, have until at least August 2010 to do so, why are they wanting to go before JS to ask his permission?????? And why do they not want the defense to witness this? Makes absolutely no sense that SA has now decided to be sneaky and underhanded...

IF this "new material and information" is related to only DC, CA/GA, Lee, or any other witness, why would SA be opposed to the defense hearing the following...

"JS....we have recently received new material and information from LE that we believe is very important to the case and warrants further investigation. We would like your permission to refrain from releasing this information to the defense until it is fully investigated." If pushed, why couldn't the defense hear..."We are currently investigating DC (or GA/CA/Lee)..."

I just don't get why SA would find it so important that defense team not be privy to this conversation (re: stating "who" they are investigating but not the "why")

HOWEVER...

If the conversation were similar to the following....

"JS....we have recently received new material and information from LE that we believe is very important to the case and warrants further investigation. We would like your permission to refrain from releasing this information to the defense until it is fully investigated. We have evidence that the defense team has (or may have) been involved in impeding the investigation into the recovery of Caylee's remains and would like your opinion on how to proceed."

Now I CAN understand why they would not want the defense privy to this conversation....

So again...question to me is not the "WHO" but the "WHY"

I totally agree! I got dereailed with the DC/JB theory. I'm not married to the theory that JB is involved.

I do lean heavily toward this as the legal basis for requesting the ex parte hearing ---snipped by me, pg. 1

(1) "If the court determines, in camera, that any police or investigative report contains irrelevant, sensitive information or information interrelated with other crimes or criminal activities and the disclosure of the contents of the police report may seriously impair law enforcement or jeopardize the investigation of those other crimes or activities, the court may prohibit or partially restrict the disclosure." However, the court may also "prohibit the state from introducing into evidence any of the foregoing
material not disclosed, so as to secure and maintain fairness in the just determination of the cause."

If I am on the right track, what other crimes...committed by who? There is a whole host of players it could be, imo. Including the entire immediate Anthony family.

 

[beach]

..since DC's name has come up a bit in this thread..

.."Sosad" made a comment on b. sheaffer's blog, noting that dominic is moving his office ( no forwarding address) ,(a "temporary" ph. number)...

http://dgator.com/contactus.aspx
To better serve our Client's D&A is currently relocating its office. Our Telephone/Fax services are being transferred/changed they will be down during this period, please use email or our temporary number, we apologize for any inconvenience . . .!

..could mean he's simply moving,(?) but it seems a strange way to conduct a business.

uh...timely, huh?

 

[Intermezzo]

Yeah the one I looked at wasn't signed . That is motion not signed by either Sa or the Judge. What is that???? A piece of paper with no meaning. Mooo

NTS
What motion?
I would like you to provide a link to the motion you mention above that is not signed by either the SA or the Judge, I would like to see and read that motion also.
Thanks