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

[Sunshine52]

Yes, they did. But I don't think they can add anyone's DNA to the FBI database until they've become felons. I could be wrong.

Yes, that's why after the fraud trial they said something about the blood test...Casey will have to give blood for the DNA so they will log that info into the felony database.

 

[Bittiness39]

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

Not that I originally posted, but working on a link for you. JMO, but IIRC JB never had a formal agreement with DC. Perhaps because he assumed he could "piggyback" on a future agreement with the Anthony's. Judge Strickland already ruled over 2 months ago that he can talk to the SA's office/prosecutors. Therefore, there is no privilege.

Assuming there was an agreement with the SA's office and DC OR assuming the FBI learned of certain dealings with DC through say a legal wire tap or other means (to investigate matters that tangentially involved DC) and they (meaning the FBI) learned that DC was directed to Caylee's body by the defense...while this might not impact on KC's guilt or innocence, at trial, not in the court of public opinion, it would certainly affect her representation.

Just a thought. Not saying I am right or wrong. But a lot of us thought it was very odd that after the judge ruled that the SA's office could depose DC that it took so long to do so, in light of the video of him appearing to stab garbage bags for remains.

Again, just a thought.

 

[kew17]

I'm wondering if this "situation" is of any relation to what Mr. Padilla spoke (or didn't speak of rather) of when he mentioned that he had info that would eventually come out and it would come from the attorney's, and not necessarily 'about' KC. Hummmm.......

 

[Sunshine52]

I'm wondering if this "situation" is of any relation to what Mr. Padilla spoke (or didn't speak of rather) of when he mentioned that he had info that would eventually come out and it would come from the attorney's, and not necessarily 'about' KC. Hummmm.......

Are you saying LP had info that also the defense knew and do you think this info came from the defense at his calendar meeting with the state and the state had an aha moment???

 

[Sunshine52]

Wonder if James Hoover has anything to do with this.???

 

[Sunshine52]

Never did see those psychic's phone records either did we...seems that is all but forgotten...

 

[notthatsmart]

So you are saying that perhaps the defense provided proof to SA that SODDI committed crime and KC is innocent.

SA investigated proof and deemed it factual. They now believe KC is innocent.

So they filed a motion to set up a PRIVATE meeting with Strickland, but do NOT want to invite defense, who has now proven KC innocent ("party for two, please?") in order to come up with a plan on how to "protect KC" (for how long?).

And just for $&^( and giggles, decided to also file a motion for a proposed trial date of May 2​

011 for the defendant that they now know is innocent.

:waitasec::waitasec::waitasec:

HUH?

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

 

[Bittiness39]

You guys gotta admit...this is very interesting. Having said that...uggghhh...yet another clue/non-clue...just when you think we have something to talk about, all of us, no matter what side we come down on, 2011????? I have absolutely no idea what this new material evidence/information is. I was more interested in the classification of information vs. evidence. Evidence could be latents, etc...fbi lab stuff, but information is far more intriguing. JMO.

Again, everyone posting here is awesome...hanging in there...for little crumbs.

 

[mitzi]

What if LE has been tapping GA/CA's phones, and GA or CA has been recorded as admitting some involvement...maybe SA has to investigate just what GA's or CA's involvement is. ???

 

[Sunshine52]

You guys gotta admit...this is very interesting. Having said that...uggghhh...yet another clue/non-clue...just when you think we have something to talk about, all of us, no matter what side we come down on, 2011????? I have absolutely no idea what this new material evidence/information is. I was more interested in the classification of information vs. evidence. Evidence could be latents, etc...fbi lab stuff, but information is far more intriguing. JMO.

Again, everyone posting here is awesome...hanging in there...for little crumbs.

I did not think it was the latent prints only because it said information/evidence from investigators...and if it would be something like latent prints I would think they would have said forensics...

 

[notthatsmart]

I do not believe this has anything to do with Dc. The motion said new material and information obtained by Law Enforcement. There is nothing new with Dc. I disagree with Rh that this could be some new witness that the Sa want to protect from the defense going out and impeaching. Why would the Judge want to get involved with the tit for tat. The defense has every right to impeach witnesses.

I think this is exculpatory information and the Sa wants time to confirm it before turning it over to the defense. Stay tuned for a plea deal coming from the Sa. Moo

 

[Sunshine52]

I got the impression that the SA office had this info and needed more time to explore or analyze this info and did not want to give it to the defense or have it released to the public until they had time to do this....

What would they need more time to explore???

 

[kew17]

Are you saying LP had info that also the defense knew and do you think this info came from the defense at his calendar meeting with the state and the state had an aha moment???

Welcome back Sunshine! No, I'm referring to comments made by Tony Padilla that he made in the Tony Padilla Q & A thread several months ago. He indicated he had info that he couldn't share with us. He also shared that the contract that JB presented in court was not in fact the contract that "he" signed with him. I don't remember this issue ever coming to resolve...does anyone else? Could this be what the pros motion is referring to? hummm

That was an interesting thread of information that he did share with us and a good read when you have a chance.

 

[Bittiness39]

I do not believe this has anything to do with Dc. The motion said new material and information obtained by Law Enforcement. There is nothing new with Dc. I disagree with Rh that this could be some new witness that the Sa want to protect from the defense going out and impeaching. Why would the Judge want to get involved with the tit for tat. The defense has every right to impeach witnesses.

I think this is exculpatory information and the Sa wants time to confirm it before turning it over to the defense. Stay tuned for a plea deal coming from the Sa. Moo

The only caveat to that might be that SA might have worked out a deal with him or something similar.

As far as new information, the SA is required by law to turn over any information which may be exculpatory to the defense. Required. No ifs ands or buts. Pardon the buts. But there is one thing that would bother me if I were the SA's office. Sorry if my typing is off...am watching the rerun of Project Runway. Dropped vs. rolled...if anyone can tell me what that means in relation to the figure that the defense has gone after...you get three smilies. Dropped vs. rolled. This is one thing that will bother me.

 

[Sunshine52]

I do not believe this has anything to do with Dc. The motion said new material and information obtained by Law Enforcement. There is nothing new with Dc. I disagree with Rh that this could be some new witness that the Sa want to protect from the defense going out and impeaching. Why would the Judge want to get involved with the tit for tat. The defense has every right to impeach witnesses.

I think this is exculpatory information and the Sa wants time to confirm it before turning it over to the defense. Stay tuned for a plea deal coming from the Sa. Moo

You think the State will offer Casey a plea deal???

IMO...if they really have the goods on Casey...she is the one who after hearing what evidence the state has will be the one asking for a plea deal and the only thing I can see the state giving her is LWOP...

 

[seeing_eye]

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

The motion I saw had a signature -- as well as plenty of meaning, IMO.

 

[Sunshine52]

Welcome back Sunshine! No, I'm referring to comments made by Tony Padilla that he made in the Tony Padilla Q & A thread several months ago. He indicated he had info that he couldn't share with us. He also shared that the contract that JB presented in court was not in fact the contract that "he" signed with him. I don't remember this issue ever coming to resolve...does anyone else? Could this be what the pros motion is referring to? hummm

That was an interesting thread of information that he did share with us and a good read when you have a chance.

Oh, yes I do remember that now...

 

[logicalgirl]

We don't know if DC has even been deposed yet do we???

If not from him...wonder where this new info/evidence came from???

no Sunshine, we don't know yet. - the SA was going to depose him under an investigative supeona, which is held in secret. It should have been done by now but no one knows for sure.

That's what we are all excited about - maybe, just maybe that's what this is about.

 

[TinaD]

I do not believe this has anything to do with Dc. The motion said new material and information obtained by Law Enforcement. There is nothing new with Dc. I disagree with Rh that this could be some new witness that the Sa want to protect from the defense going out and impeaching. Why would the Judge want to get involved with the tit for tat. The defense has every right to impeach witnesses.

I think this is exculpatory information and the Sa wants time to confirm it before turning it over to the defense. Stay tuned for a plea deal coming from the Sa. Moo

I don't see how you can say there is nothing new with DC, when any interview LE may have had with him has not been released (I'm saying interview because I'm too lazy to go back and look up what exactly they were going to do instead of a depo :blushing

 

[logicalgirl]

I don't see how you can say there is nothing new with DC, when any interview LE may have had with him has not been released (I'm saying interview because I'm too lazy to go back and look up what exactly they were going to do instead of a depo :blushing

That's okay Tina D. I answered for you!:blowkiss: