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

[notthatsmart]

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

 

[TinaD]

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

lol thanks!!:gift:

 

[RR0004]

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

IINM...privileged would be between him and Baez. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

ETA: sorry...I see that this has been answered.

 

[Sunshine52]

Carry on peeps...I gotta hit the hay...peacefuls to you all...

Please figure this out before tomorrow...LOL

 

[RR0004]

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

...and we get to speculate for months and months and months. LOL

 

[RR0004]

This isn't about Attorney client priviledge, its about a contract. Moo

I think you mentioned the word "secret" NTS. That may be where the confusion lies.

ETA: sorry...you used "secrecy"

 

[cyberborg]

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

Huh? :waitasec: The timing is right given the delay on the original DC depo and the proposal to do an investigative subpoena. Enough time has passed to get that done, especially since Judge S was pressing to get the trial scheduled.

It makes a LOT of sense to me that this is DC and given the players that could be investigated as a result of that, some time and secrecy would be warranted before sharing and tipping ones hand.

This makes a LOT of sense since the SA are so proactive and on the ball as professionals. Lets face it, the Defense never ever returned from lunch to complete the examination of KC's car trunk and have done nothing in that area since.

Once again, this isn't so much about turning it over to the Defense since it is identified as discoverable but more about preventing its disclosure to the media and public.

If it was exculpatory then the Defense would leak it either way since it helps KC, as previously stated many times on this thread --- it is very damaging to KC so they want to seal it until trial.

We can all dream ... eh? The Defense don't have too many more straws to clutch at.

 

[logicalgirl]

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

I think you are talking about two different motions.
The defense wanted all records of all searchers who were looking for Caylee. TES and NeJame were willing to turn over records of searchers who were in the area where Caylee's body was found. There were 32. NeJame also offered to have the defense look at the searcher records in NeJame's office but not to take that information out of his office.

The motion we are talking about is for a private meeting between JS and SA, to consider the SA's request to hold back a specific piece of NEW evidence from the public, and to hold it back temporarily from the defense while they further investigate this particular piece of evidence. I'm not seeing where you are linking these two motions at all. IMO

 

[Bittiness39]

...and we get to speculate for months and months and months. LOL

Or beyond. Or not. At least, I hope a few months. To speculate, I mean. All I come down on, is the word "information" vs evidence. That to me, is far more telling than if it came from the FBI lab. MOO.

 

[ZsaZsa]

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

It is signed by Jeff Ashton -
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/22464506/detail.html

 

[logicalgirl]

Or beyond. Or not. At least, I hope a few months. To speculate, I mean. All I come down on, is the word "information" vs evidence. That to me, is far more telling than if it came from the FBI lab. MOO.

Well I know and can tell you one thing for sure - if this was coming from the defense - we'd know! They would have leaked it by now.

 

[RR0004]

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.......

Well then...it's about time!!

 

[notthatsmart]

Huh? :waitasec: The timing is right given the delay on the original DC depo and the proposal to do an investigative subpoena. Enough time has passed to get that done, especially since Judge S was pressing to get the trial scheduled.

It makes a LOT of sense to me that this is DC and given the players that could be investigated as a result of that, some time and secrecy would be warranted before sharing and tipping ones hand.

This makes a LOT of sense since the SA are so proactive and on the ball as professionals. Lets face it, the Defense never ever returned from lunch to complete the examination of KC's car trunk and have done nothing in that area since.

Once again, this isn't so much about turning it over to the Defense since it is identified as discoverable but more about preventing its disclosure to the media and public.

If it was exculpatory then the Defense would leak it either way since it helps KC, as previously stated many times on this thread --- it is very damaging to KC so they want to seal it until trial.

We can all dream ... eh? The Defense don't have too many more straws to clutch at.

Say did they indeed request an investigative subpoena? How would they go about that. Would that be in a motion? I know they talked about it in court, but I have not seen this request or proposal. Moo

 

[mitzi]

I also think it has to do with Dominic Casey finally telling all he knows. I can only imagine the extremes that Cindy Anthony went to in order to protect her "mother of the year" daughter in an attempt to preserve the "perfect family" image she had deluded herself into believing.

I don't even know if I would want to know all the disturbing details of what this family has done or would do.

We know Cindy sent Dominic out there. Lee admitted that his mother knew Dominic Casey was out there looking for Caylee before her remains were found... even though Cindy lied about that in her deposition.

I don't even want to think about Cindy going as far as telling Dominic to make sure Caylee was never found. It makes my blood boil thinking about it. Sadly, I wouldn't put it past her or GA and LA.

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.

 

[cyberborg]

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

Maybe you saw the draft copy sent to the Defense before the SA formally signed and filed it?

 

[notthatsmart]

It is signed by Jeff Ashton -
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/22464506/detail.html

I was referring to the trial date schedule proposal.

 

[Bittiness39]

Well I know and can tell you one thing for sure - if this was coming from the defense - we'd know! They would have leaked it by now.

I guess "exactly" would be an understatement. :woohoo: There are too many smilies at our disposal. I would suggest reading this post #168 by AZ Lawyer on the Legal Questions for our veryified attorneys on the Board thread. That should answer it. Wish I was less pitiful at the cut and paste. But those would be the three reasons to withhold information from the defense. Doesn't mean the Judge will agree to their motion or withhold the evidence. Just outlines the best possible reasons. None of which looks good for the defense. JMO.

 

[logicalgirl]

Say did they indeed request an investigative subpoena? How would they go about that. Would that be in a motion? I know they talked about it in court, but I have not seen this request or proposal. Moo

It was an investigative subpoena - that means it was done in SECRET - that's why we don't know when it was done or if it's been done.

 

[notthatsmart]

I think you are talking about two different motions.
The defense wanted all records of all searchers who were looking for Caylee. TES and NeJame were willing to turn over records of searchers who were in the area where Caylee's body was found. There were 32. NeJame also offered to have the defense look at the searcher records in NeJame's office but not to take that information out of his office.

The motion we are talking about if for a private meeting between JS and SA, to consider the SA's request to hold back a specific piece of NEW evidence from the public, and to hold it back temporarily from the defense while they further investigate this particular piece of evidence. I'm not seeing where you are linking these two motions at all. IMO

I was not linking the two motions. I was just speculating that this new motion may have something to do with material and information obtained by Le from Tes or a volunteer. Moo

 

[RR0004]

Huh? :waitasec: The timing is right given the delay on the original DC depo and the proposal to do an investigative subpoena. Enough time has passed to get that done, especially since Judge S was pressing to get the trial scheduled.

It makes a LOT of sense to me that this is DC and given the players that could be investigated as a result of that, some time and secrecy would be warranted before sharing and tipping ones hand.

This makes a LOT of sense since the SA are so proactive and on the ball as professionals. Lets face it, the Defense never ever returned from lunch to complete the examination of KC's car trunk and have done nothing in that area since.

Once again, this isn't so much about turning it over to the Defense since it is identified as discoverable but more about preventing its disclosure to the media and public.

If it was exculpatory then the Defense would leak it either way since it helps KC, as previously stated many times on this thread --- it is very damaging to KC so they want to seal it until trial.

We can all dream ... eh? The Defense don't have too many more straws to clutch at.

...and it goes to figure that after the deposition (if said deposition has happened) that "investigators" would investigate any and all claims/statements that DC made. It really does fit!!