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

[seekingjustice**]

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?

BBM - I wonder about this as well. Maybe DC did find something (ie. tiffany ring) and gave it to Cindy.

 

[strawberry]

I'm sooooooooo confused. If these witnesses heard a noise that indeed were Caylee being killed or her poor body dumped, and the witness pointed to EXACTLY that spot, wouldn't her body have been found that day?

 

[AZlawyer]

AZLawyer,

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

If DC were no longer working for Baez, Baez would have no right to ask him to keep secrets about the location of the remains.

---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)

JWG's explanation of the type of evidence that is being referenced in the motion is excellent. I agree, however, that the information could implicate a member of the A. family rather than (or in addition to) a member of the defense team. Or it might involve an investigation that doesn't implicate any of these people, but with which these people might be tempted to interfere (for example, if the investigation involves objects, places or witnesses that would be accessible to the A. family).

 

[AZlawyer]

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:

OK, I don't think it has to do with the Z Myspace page, mostly because (as I explained on that thread), I think I have identified a minor child in Miami who is likely the actual owner of that page.

But this would be a good example of something that you would want to keep secret from the defense during the course of investigation, in case KC really did create that page and gets someone on her "team" or family to interfere with the investigation. For example, there might be sudden logon activity from New York or Puerto Rico. :angel:

 

[believe09]

I wonder if Mn disclosed records to Le to head off the defense at the pass. Perhaps there were records at Tes. Perhaps someone wrote down information during search and filled it out on a tes card. Perhaps they wrote down Disney bag or something close to the body, but did not see a body.

I did note that Mn fired back at the defense last night saying the motion is wrong and the defense is wrong. He talked a big game last time too, until he got in front of the Judge, then he said of course your honor, we will turn over the 32 records.

There were indeed people that searched that area and were Tes volunteers and did fill out Tes info cards. Perhaps they took pictures. I think it is possible that a new witness is one of the searchers. Mooo

What?? Wow I have missed something really big if TES is conceding they searched an area that was substantially underwater....May I have a link to this? TIA

 

[beach]

BBM - I wonder about this as well. Maybe DC did find something (ie. tiffany ring) and gave it to Cindy.

oooh! great point!

 

[believe09]

What puzzles me about the speculation:

Why would LE have to turn anything over to the defense if it was in the early stages of being verified? For example, what if they received an anonymous video tape of someone with a name tag of Zenaida kidnapping Caylee.

Why would they even turn that over to the defense prior to verifying the authenticity of the tape? Just for example....at some point they would need to turn it over, but that would be like arresting me for something and giving my attorney evidence as it was being processed by the state....makes no sense.

 

[impatientredhead]

Could you please provide the links.

The lawyer's duty of disclosure does not extend to situations which involve the observation of incriminating evidence as the result of a lawyer-client representation or communication. Disclosure by the lawyer without the client's consent may subject the lawyer to disciplinary action.

In People v. Belge, 50 A.D.2d 1088, 376 N.Y.S.2d 771 (1975), the lawyer was indicted for failure to disclose the existence and location of a body he found as the result of a client communication. The indictment was dismissed because the attorney-client privilege prohibited disclosure. See also, State v. Douglass, 20 W.Va. 770 (1882), where the court held that lawyer's observations of the location of his client's pistol were protected by the attorney-client privilege. N.Y. Ethics Op. 479 (1978). In Belge, supra, photographs of the body taken by the lawyer were also protected and not subject to voluntary disclosure. It is only when the lawyer takes possession of incriminating physical evidence from its present location that the duty of voluntary disclosure arises.

http://www.cobar.org/index.cfm/ID/386/subID/1781/CETH/Ethics-Opinion-60:-Duty-with-Respect-to-Client%27s-Incriminating-Physical-Evidence,-07/24/82/

ETA- I am not saying DC falls under privilege because he was working for the Anthony's and not JB at the time of the video. But if he got that info while working for JB that would make things interesting

 

[beach]

Question for AZ (or any verified attorney) ---
What do you make of it that the defense has not filed an objection to the ex parte hearing...or at least responded in any way? Or am I reading too much in re. the deafening silence from the defense? I realize it was just filed yesterday, but aren't those type of hearings granted (or denied) swiftly?

Bumping for AZ

 

[The World According]

I wonder how long after Casey's arrest the tap and trace remained on the Anthony's phones if at all. I cannot locate the post but someone was asking why in the world Baez didn't supply his witness list , and add Dom to it.

Richard Hornsby says:
December 29, 2009 at 10:38 am

snippet

."..the problem an expert witness list creates for Baez is two-fold.

1. It requires your experts to finally give their opinion – and an opinion is no good unless is supports your theory. If their opinion does not support your theory, you don’t list them.

2. It allows the State to inquire into how they are getting paid, by whom, and financial arrangements they have made, and media rights they have negotiated, etc. And if the experts are doing this “pro bono” the State can then go into ulterior reasons they agreed to work on the case – books that are coming out, etc.

3. Finally, when the State deposes an expert (or any attorney deposes the other sides’ expert) the opponent has to pay the expert what the expert charges the hiring attorney. So if these experts are not charging Baez, they are not allowed to charge the State.

Basically the witness list opens Pandora’s Financial Box for Mr. Baez."

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2009/...time/#comments

What if the state was given a copy of a media deal, that Baez and Casey denied?

 

[believe09]

Thanks, World-this makes far more sense to me...it may be the money trail that has been uncovered.

 

[ZsaZsa]

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!!!

According to the Orlando Sentinel Mark NeJame quit the Anthonys on November 21, 2008. He stated that he could not help them if they were not willing to take his advice...

 

[strawberry]

I wanted to find NTS original post that someone else quoted but couldn't find it. Specifically: "I did note that Mn fired back at the defense last night saying the motion is wrong and the defense is wrong. He talked a big game last time too, until he got in front of the Judge, then he said of course your honor, we will turn over the 32 records."

I assume MN is the A's exlawyer? Where was he talking about this motion? Was it NG? Just wondering in case I'm able to catch a rerun this weekend..

 

[beach]

I wonder how long after Casey's arrest the tap and trace remained on the Anthony's phones if at all. I cannot locate the post but someone was asking why in the world Baez didn't supply his witness list , and add Dom to it.

Richard Hornsby says:
December 29, 2009 at 10:38 am

snippet

."..the problem an expert witness list creates for Baez is two-fold.

1. It requires your experts to finally give their opinion – and an opinion is no good unless is supports your theory. If their opinion does not support your theory, you don’t list them.

2. It allows the State to inquire into how they are getting paid, by whom, and financial arrangements they have made, and media rights they have negotiated, etc. And if the experts are doing this “pro bono” the State can then go into ulterior reasons they agreed to work on the case – books that are coming out, etc.

3. Finally, when the State deposes an expert (or any attorney deposes the other sides’ expert) the opponent has to pay the expert what the expert charges the hiring attorney. So if these experts are not charging Baez, they are not allowed to charge the State.

Basically the witness list opens Pandora’s Financial Box for Mr. Baez."

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2009/...time/#comments

What if the state was given a copy of a media deal, that Baez and Casey denied?

Thanks! But, would DC be considered an 'expert witness'??

 

[Kentjbkent]

According to the Orlando Sentinel Mark NeJame quit the Anthonys on November 21, 2008. He stated that he could not help them if they were not willing to take his advice...

Conflicting media sources again (LOL!)

WFTV states: The following is a statement released by Mark NeJame on November 20, 2008

Link to Actual Statement and Reasons why resigning...


http://www.wftv.com/news/18025838/detail.html

 

[ZsaZsa]

Conflicting media sources again (LOL!)

WFTV states: The following is a statement released by Mark NeJame on November 20, 2008

Link to Actual Statement and Reasons why resigning...


http://www.wftv.com/news/18025838/detail.html

Yes, here is the article I quoted from:-
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-nejame2108nov21,0,7372410.story

 

[AZlawyer]

Bumping for AZ

Thanks for the bump

Quote:
Originally Posted by beach2yall
Question for AZ (or any verified attorney) ---
What do you make of it that the defense has not filed an objection to the ex parte hearing...or at least responded in any way? Or am I reading too much in re. the deafening silence from the defense? I realize it was just filed yesterday, but aren't those type of hearings granted (or denied) swiftly?

Unless the prosecutor asked for an expedited hearing, I don't think there would be any rush to respond. I don't know what the rule is in that court--they might have 5 days after the motion is filed, or 10 days after, or 3days before the hearing on the motion (once it's set)--there are all kinds of variations. Normally, ex parte in camera hearings happen to be about things that are emergencies, so they are expedited. But here, there doesn't seem to be any big emergency.

 

[Just Jayla]

If DC were no longer working for Baez, Baez would have no right to ask him to keep secrets about the location of the remains.



JWG's explanation of the type of evidence that is being referenced in the motion is excellent. I agree, however, that the information could implicate a member of the A. family rather than (or in addition to) a member of the defense team. Or it might involve an investigation that doesn't implicate any of these people, but with which these people might be tempted to interfere (for example, if the investigation involves objects, places or witnesses that would be accessible to the A. family).

Has to involve the defense directly or has to be material/information passed by someone that is scared of JB or the public, or the A's. Based on what the attys here have written, and what I take from the rule, there would be no reason to prevent JB from seeing anything else. Many of the theories here are great, but that caviat, it being ex parte, breaks down a lot of what we are thinking. Unless we can connect it back to a very very very strong reason not to invite JB.

The ZFG Myspace might be traced back to JB's office, thereby involving JB. Maybe on-going or possible tampering is happening, involving the A's or JB.

I don't believe this is a game of keep-away on the state's part, they have not played games in the past with releasing information in a timely manner-Even pretty centerpieces of would-be evidence, including her lying liar interviews with them and her own parents saying they smelled death in the car. TL wore a wire on LA and THAT was released.

 

[seeing_eye]

You know, I didn't think of that. Perhaps that is what this motion is all about. Thanks for pointing that out. Perhaps the defense did provide the witness list this week and the Sa discovered a new witness that they were not aware of.

This is the tit for tat that I do not believe the Judge is happy with. The defense holds out their witness list until the Sa comes full disclosure with discovery. I don't know if that is a typical strategy or normal or what. Perhaps a good question for one of the Lawyers.

Do they really expect the defense to give up a witness list until the Sa gives up all discovery? I do not know the answer to that. I do know that the defense has no intentions of giving up their strategy, nor are they required to.

I have thought about who would be on the witness list for the defense. Perhaps Hl , Dr Baden, Dc, JJ, various experts. Most of the witnesses are already on the States list, so the defense can use them in cross.

I am frustrated at the system. Both sides appear to be playing a tit for tat game over discovery and somebody's life hangs in the balance. I wish they would just get all the information on the table and lets move on to trial. Moo

BBM to address.
The motion the SA filed was referencing new evidence from LE and LE is not the defense team, I don't believe.

 

[The World According]

Thanks! But, would DC be considered an 'expert witness'??

Only in his imagination. LOL!!
I think it would be frowned upon if the defense submitted a list with just Dom on it. They already had one witness list they submitted stricken, ( the one they took from the state and wrote ditto on* , LOL!) . So.... I guess we are hoping they will file a legitimate, comprehensive list with all of the folks they know (as of now) they are going to call. Theoretically, that would include at least some of their experts. We do not know that for certain, since we have not heard from Dr. Lee since he went to lunch and never returned to examine the car, who knows how many if any experts remain. We know it is not a financial matter with Dr. Lee; because, he said publicly that he was on this case pro bono. Just because the defense contracts with an expert does not mean that their findings are going to be helpful and they may or may not be used at trial to opine. I still have the church giggles over Baez saying some of their experts are technologically challenged. One of our members here, Sleutherontheside, posted a link to many of Andrea's lectures. In them she tells her strategies, one as you may have guessed is file motion after motion, the other is delay, delay , delay and the one I found interesting is hire the greatest experts just so the other side cannot, pay them a hundred bucks and they are yours whether you have any intention of ever using them in the case, or not. That may be irrelevant to this discussion, except that I trust there is a reason Andrea (who is first chair now) has decided not to give the list yet. I don't think Baez is even aware of the things Mr. Hornsby sets out, but I do think Andrea knows.

*
I cannot get a link that works to the Motion to Strike Defense's Witness List, but here is some of what it said.

Taken from the doc:

On November 20, 2008, the defendant filed a doc : Defense Witness List listing three witnesses under Category A and otherwise incorporating "The entire State's Witness List by reference."

The defendant's "incorporation by reference" is an even less conscientious effort to name only those witnesses she expects to call at trail as it makes no reference to any particular filing and makes no accounting for amended or supplemental witness lists filed by the state.



www.cfnews13.com , search here for State of Florida's Motion to Strike Defense Witness List Jan 22, 2009