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

[RR0004]

I'm not sure what this autistic child has to do with anything...but heck, Casey wasn't in jail when this screaming incident happened...so not sure how this works in her favor.

 

[Kentjbkent]

I don't think "materials" really has a legal meaning. If I used that word in a motion, I would mean something tangible, but other people might use it differently.

SNIPPED

Nope, believe it or not he could just sit on that information and let it eat away at his soul until it finally became too much and he had to check himself into the hospital with a stomach ache.

But, if Casey disclosed to him the location of the body, he couldn't put Casey on the stand to perjure herself about that issue (i.e., "Yes, Jose, I was as stunned and dismayed as anyone to learn that Caylee's body had been discovered on the side of the road.")

AZLawyer,

But would the situation change if Baez urged someone (DC for ex) to notify him and NOT LE if remains were discovered??

 

[JWG]

I'm not seeing this as a tit-for-tat :slap: or anything terribly conspiratorial. :silenced:

Bumping something I wrote several hundred posts ago (yep, yesterday). Look again at the key section of the prosecution's motion:

1. Certain materials and information have come into the possession of Law Enforcement.
   
   (Comment: probably recently, otherwise it would have been released by now. And LE came up with this information. It did not come up as a result of the SA deposing someone, such as DC.)
   
   
2. Those materials and information are discoverable under F.R.C.P. 3.220.
   
   (Comment: they are relevant to the case and the defense is entitled to have them.)
   
   
3. There is good cause to delay disclosure of these materials and information pursuant to F.R.C.P. 3.220(k).
   
   (Comment: while we recognize the defense has a right to have this information, we have a darn good reason not to give it to them just yet and would like to explain this to the judge without the defense present.)

Notice that the prosecution wants to explain their reasoning to the judge without the defense present. This is not about delaying disclosure to the public. If that is all it were they would not mind having the defense there. :hug:

No...something about the materials and information needs (according to the SA) to be withheld from the defense for a period of time. :snooty:

Now, folks might think it is exculpatory evidence or evidence the defense might be able to twist in the media in their favor. :deal: Well, we've seen both a number of times already and, frankly, neither is a good reason to delay its release.

IMO, the reason the SA wants to delay its release to the defense is because it somehow involves the defense team, and they want to finish the investigative thread before tipping off the defense team.

 

[logicalgirl]

I'm not seeing this as a tit-for-tat :slap: or anything terribly conspiratorial. :silenced:

Bumping something I wrote several hundred posts ago (yep, yesterday). Look again at the key section of the prosecution's motion:

1. Certain materials and information have come into the possession of Law Enforcement.
   
   (Comment: probably recently, otherwise it would have been released by now. And LE came up with this information. It did not come up as a result of the SA deposing someone, such as DC.)
   
   
2. Those materials and information are discoverable under F.R.C.P. 3.220.
   
   (Comment: they are relevant to the case and the defense is entitled to have them.)
   
   
3. There is good cause to delay disclosure of these materials and information pursuant to F.R.C.P. 3.220(k).
   
   (Comment: while we recognize the defense has a right to have this information, we have a darn good reason not to give it to them just yet and would like to explain this to the judge without the defense present.)

Notice that the prosecution wants to explain their reasoning to the judge without the defense present. This is not about delaying disclosure to the public. If that is all it were they would not mind having the defense there. :hug:

No...something about the materials and information needs (according to the SA) to be withheld from the defense for a period of time. :snooty:

Now, folks might think it is exculpatory evidence or evidence the defense might be able to twist in the media in their favor. :deal: Well, we've seen both a number of times already and, frankly, neither is a good reason to delay its release.

IMO, the reason the SA wants to delay its release to the defense is because it somehow involves the defense team, and they want to finish the investigative thread before tipping off the defense team.

VERY interesting JWG, thanks for your dissection of this information. This sort of answers one of the questions I asked a million questions ago when I first read these statements, which was are the SA considered part of LE? With DC's secret questioning in the back of my mind being the reason for the question.

So you are thinking it is a "thing" or tangible they are speaking of?

 

[ZsaZsa]

What about Aug 11th and 13th? RK
What about October 9th? Child screaming?
What about Sept 1st? JJ and other searchers
Sept 3rd? New Jersey searcher?
The other two times in Nov when Dc said he went back and searched.
What about the morning of Dec 11th when there were 4 utility employees there before police arrived?
What about JW and all the times she claims to have searched?

Man there are a lot of things I would like to see off bus videos. Yes they have to be a block away before the camera will show a distance, but you can still make out cars. Moo

This also could be new material and information obtained by Le. Just speculating. thanks.

What about the evidence that Macaluso said proved that Caylee was dumped while Casey was already incarcerated. Shoot, if they just produce that they don't need to worry about a lot of the other dates you listed.
Wonder why they don't just tell the Judge what it is and save themselves a trial..?

 

[beach]

I'm not sure what this autistic child has to do with anything...but heck, Casey wasn't in jail when this screaming incident happened...so not sure how this works in her favor.

I agree. Even speculating doesn't make that info "new material and information" that the "prosecutors don't want released to the public".

I hope we can lay that to rest and get back on topic.

 

[RR0004]

I'd like a link to LE using cadavre dogs to investigate the report of a screaming child too while we're at it.

They did bring a K-9 officer...but I don't see it mentioned that he handled a cadaver dog.

http://orlandosentinel.image2.trb.com/orlnews/media/acrobat/2009-12/50978836.pdf

 

[Kentjbkent]

You've made an excellent point! The WHY is the most important aspect of the prosecution's request. I think it pertains directly to the defense team, which is why it's been requested that they not be present. But, I do think the WHO is also important because if it's any of those close to the investigation, ie: DC, CA, GA, or LA, that would be a particularly sensitive investigation, which the defense could exploit. The new material and information may pertain indirectly to the case, a parallel case under investigation, such as withholding of or tampering with evidence.

Oh, and I completely agree with you! I think the WHY is the most important question, followed closely by the WHO!! :dance:

 

[Kentjbkent]

With the Sunshine Laws, if the Defense had submitted a witness list to the SA, we would have it. They have submitted nothing, including insisting they had evidence Caylee's body was not there before Casey was incarcerated. They missed their Feb 1st deadline given to them by JS.

Their motion regarding TES was simply smoke and mirrors, IMO. Why would they need additional TES names if they already have the evidence to prove it, as TM declared in court.

I also believe it would be reflected in an updated court record, which Angel Who Cares has been diligent in reporting in her Current News threads.

 

[beach]

I'm not seeing this as a tit-for-tat :slap: or anything terribly conspiratorial. :silenced:

Bumping something I wrote several hundred posts ago (yep, yesterday). Look again at the key section of the prosecution's motion:

1. Certain materials and information have come into the possession of Law Enforcement.
   
   (Comment: probably recently, otherwise it would have been released by now. And LE came up with this information. It did not come up as a result of the SA deposing someone, such as DC.)
   
   
2. Those materials and information are discoverable under F.R.C.P. 3.220.
   
   (Comment: they are relevant to the case and the defense is entitled to have them.)
   
   
3. There is good cause to delay disclosure of these materials and information pursuant to F.R.C.P. 3.220(k).
   
   (Comment: while we recognize the defense has a right to have this information, we have a darn good reason not to give it to them just yet and would like to explain this to the judge without the defense present.)

Notice that the prosecution wants to explain their reasoning to the judge without the defense present. This is not about delaying disclosure to the public. If that is all it were they would not mind having the defense there. :hug:

No...something about the materials and information needs (according to the SA) to be withheld from the defense for a period of time. :snooty:

Now, folks might think it is exculpatory evidence or evidence the defense might be able to twist in the media in their favor. :deal: Well, we've seen both a number of times already and, frankly, neither is a good reason to delay its release.

IMO, the reason the SA wants to delay its release to the defense is because it somehow involves the defense team, and they want to finish the investigative thread before tipping off the defense team[/I].

---red emphasis mine

Thanks so much for your input, JWG.

Thinking out loud here, but suppose....

SA held their investigative interview of DC and it was revealed in the process of that interview, that a crime (obstruction of justice, maybe?) had been committed. Wouldn't this info need to be referred by the SA to LE so they could follow up and investigate? And, couldn't it include a family member as well a member of the defense team. (THIS IS ALL SPECULATION ON MY PART, just curious if it couldn't also include damaging info on a family member as well as a member of the defense team)

 

[Kentjbkent]

I'm not seeing this as a tit-for-tat :slap: or anything terribly conspiratorial. :silenced:

Bumping something I wrote several hundred posts ago (yep, yesterday). Look again at the key section of the prosecution's motion:

1. Certain materials and information have come into the possession of Law Enforcement.
   
   (Comment: probably recently, otherwise it would have been released by now. And LE came up with this information. It did not come up as a result of the SA deposing someone, such as DC.)
   

1. Those materials and information are discoverable under F.R.C.P. 3.220.
   
   (Comment: they are relevant to the case and the defense is entitled to have them.)
   
   
2. There is good cause to delay disclosure of these materials and information pursuant to F.R.C.P. 3.220(k).
   
   (Comment: while we recognize the defense has a right to have this information, we have a darn good reason not to give it to them just yet and would like to explain this to the judge without the defense present.)

Notice that the prosecution wants to explain their reasoning to the judge without the defense present. This is not about delaying disclosure to the public. If that is all it were they would not mind having the defense there. :hug:

No...something about the materials and information needs (according to the SA) to be withheld from the defense for a period of time. :snooty:

Now, folks might think it is exculpatory evidence or evidence the defense might be able to twist in the media in their favor. :deal: Well, we've seen both a number of times already and, frankly, neither is a good reason to delay its release.

IMO, the reason the SA wants to delay its release to the defense is because it somehow involves the defense team, and they want to finish the investigative thread before tipping off the defense team.

JWG,

In reference to the bolded above, do you agree that it could at least be possible that this "materials and information" that have come into possession of LE could be something that DC could have revealed to SA while telling his story that he was holding (such as maps, notes, recordings, perhaps something that could be evidence in the murder case, etc) during a recent **depo and immediately following the meeting with SA, he agreed to turn over to LE?

**BTW, when an investigative subpoena is issued, what term is used to refer to a meeting with SA in accordance to the subpoena? "interview"? "deposition"?

 

[kaRN]

All I can find is this: http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/...hear_caylee_anthony39s_body_being_dumped.html
But, call me a hard nose, I want to see the police report stating just where they pointed EXACTLY (not a general area and a video would be cause for me to not post for a week! ) and what if anything they did with cadavre dogs on that day.

I would go look at the doc's relased that day, but I feel as if I am in a hearsay word war, not a discussion with facts backed up and therefore am gonna go find that ignore feature! (Not you, btw! I am not always the best with my words, so want to make sure you know I don't mean you!)

I don't think you'll find that report. I also think that cfnews was attempting to sensationalize with their gripping headline that had nothing whatsoever with the story they then go on to report. They don't even refer to the second call to police in that article.
But here lie the seeds of the entire defense. LOL!! No wonder they couldn't make the Feb 01 deadline.

I know exactly what you mean by the way!

 

[Kentjbkent]

---red emphasis mine

Thanks so much for your input, JWG.

Thinking out loud here, but suppose....

SA held their investigative interview of DC and it was revealed in the process of that interview, that a crime (obstruction of justice, maybe?) had been committed. Wouldn't this info need to be referred by the SA to LE so they could follow up and investigate? And, couldn't it include a family member as well a member of the defense team. (THIS IS ALL SPECULATION ON MY PART, just curious if it couldn't also include damaging info on a family member as well as a member of the defense team)

Good point....or to further expound on theory, could DC have been in possession of a particular item that is/could be evidence in the murder investigation at the request of CA or Lee, and has now come clean and turned it over to LE?

 

[beach]

JWG,

In reference to the bolded above, do you agree that it could at least be possible that this "materials and information" that have come into possession of LE could be something that DC could have revealed to SA while telling his story that he was holding (such as maps, notes, recordings, perhaps something that could be evidence in the murder case, etc) during a recent **depo and immediately following the meeting with SA, he agreed to turn over to LE?

**BTW, when an investigative subpoena is issued, what term is used to refer to a meeting with SA in accordance to the subpoena? "interview"? "deposition"?

We asked almost exactly the same question.

As for the bolded part, I watched the tape of that particular hearing today. It is really a question of semantics, as LDB and even JB said - "interview, depo, whatever you want to call it". Bottom line is - Baez didn't get an invite to attend.

 

[beach]

FWIW - I found this earlier today and hestitated to post it because I know nothing about the site, but just to put the DC investigative interview date in context --- http://kreuzer33.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/casey-anthony-dominic-casey-deposition-moved-to-december/

if anyone knows anything about the integrity of this site, please advise. the last thing i want to do is post anything that is not reliable.

 

[JWG]

JWG,

In reference to the bolded above, do you agree that it could at least be possible that this "materials and information" that have come into possession of LE could be something that DC could have revealed to SA while telling his story that he was holding (such as maps, notes, recordings, perhaps something that could be evidence in the murder case, etc) during a recent **depo and immediately following the meeting with SA, he agreed to turn over to LE?

**BTW, when an investigative subpoena is issued, what term is used to refer to a meeting with SA in accordance to the subpoena? "interview"? "deposition"?

If you want my opinion - and not saying that you do - I think it might be connected to the recent (and lame) activity on the zenaida myspace page.

But then again it could be almost anything. :crazy:

 

[skygirl]

I remember the people who were searchers, not associated with TES, who did the drive-by down Suburban. They were from Ohio and initially searched the area near the Orlando Airport. They came back to Orlando for a second search in September or early October and it was then that they drove down Suburban and one of their dogs reacted. But, they didn't get out of the car and do a foot search.

I found the video. They DID get out of the van, and walked the area. The lady with the white dog was out in the vegetation/overgrowth and said she couldn't go any further into the woods because there was water.

Actually seeing this area off Suburban during that summer, it is easy to see how difficult it would have been to find - what was - Caylee.

http://.com/blinddrive/

 

[Kentjbkent]

Just had lightbulbs explode in my head after reading a comment from our own DaughterAlice on another thread about DC!!

SNIPPED FROM HER POST (QUOTE RESPECT!):

I can't imagine what he would have done with the remains, had he found them. Is it possible that he DID find it? Is it possible that he DID remove SOMETHING from the scene already? Saaayyyy . . . . something that investigators might consider "new evidence?"

Whoa!

Could it be possible that SA learned from DC that during his taped searches he DID find Caylee's remains, and as directed, he reported back to CA (and possibly JB)? Could DC have been under the impression that he was legally bound to keep confidence with CA/GA due to his contract with them?

When did Nejame resign again?

(EDIT: November 20, 2008...interesting.....)

Is it possible that maybe he DID remove "something" to substantiate to them that he had indeed found her remains, and has now turned this, as well as all his video, phone records, etc, over to LE and that is what the "material and information received by LE" is???

This would make sense that SA would like to keep this "confession" from DC away from the defense for right now while LE continues to investigate this new information?

If DaughterAlice is on to something, and this will prove that CA/GA/JB knew that Caylee's remains were on Suburban, all he77 is going to break loose!!!

 

[beach]

If you want my opinion - and not saying that you do - I think it might be connected to the recent (and lame) activity on the zenaida myspace page.

But then again it could be almost anything. :crazy:

where is the info on the zenaida myspace page? TIA if you can you link me?

 

[Kentjbkent]

If you want my opinion - and not saying that you do - I think it might be connected to the recent (and lame) activity on the zenaida myspace page.

But then again it could be almost anything. :crazy:

Of course I want your opinion! (YOU do not make me want to pull my hair out in clumps!!)!!

Trying to speculate your idea of the Zenaida myspace page.....it it could be that, why do you think SA wants to delay turning over to defense (especially since it is certainly all over the internet?)

Not debating with you....just wanting you to expound on your idea :dance: