S.A. Concerned Defense will Sell Pics of Caylee's Remains

[SeriouslySearching]

Originally posted by Bev: Sixth, there is zero evidence to support the claim by the prosecution that any photos were sold by the defense or anyone else for that matter. There has to be some basis for making an extraodinary motion to prevent something that may happen in the future without providing evidence that it happened in the past and will happen in the future. The prosecutor may suspect that it has been done, but the state needs more than suspicion with which to establish a precedent in the restriction of evidence or placing undue burdens and responsiblities on the defense which they themselves do not share.

And how do you know they don't have evidence and added that into their motion simply on a "suspicion"?

 

[countzero]

This is a waste of time trying to explain this, but I'm going to try one more time -

First, read the motion.
Second, I did not claim that the prosecution is making a motion to withhold evidence, in fact, I said just the opposite.
Third, what this motion is doing in effect, is placing undue restrictions and a burden on the defense to prepare a proper defense for their client. In the real world, both defense and prosecution send reports and copies of reports to agencies to seek expert opinion. This happens every single day of the week. Evidence in this case was sent to various outside entities to seek expert opinion. This evidence is still being evaluated by outside entities and reports written. By restricting the right of the defense in any way in seeking expert advice, reports or evaluation is to set a precedent that the state is entitled to dictate to the defense who he can call as a witness, who he can claim is an expert witness and how he can disseminate that information to those expert witnesses. Now I'm not making this up, this is a constitutional matter which has established a body of rulings establishing this right. The confrontation clause of the 6th amd. has been interpreted broadly by the USSC to include physical evidence and the right of the defendant to a zealous defense.
Fourth, this isn't anything remotely like protecting the identity of the victim as they do in sex abuse cases and/or . The victim's identity is known. The release of the photos to the public may be distasteful, but it doesn't meet the exception rule of protection of the victim's identity.
Fifth, the burden is placed inordinately on the defense to protect the restrictions on this evidence - it could be just as easily passed from the prosecution to the press or others by their dissemination of evidence and information. The defense has no ability to protect this evidence when it is in the possession of others, including prosecution witnesses.
Sixth, there is zero evidence to support the claim by the prosecution that any photos were sold by the defense or anyone else for that matter. There has to be some basis for making an extraodinary motion to prevent something that may happen in the future without providing evidence that it happened in the past and will happen in the future. The prosecutor may suspect that it has been done, but the state needs more than suspicion with which to establish a precedent in the restriction of evidence or placing undue burdens and responsiblities on the defense which they themselves do not share.

Now I know that you hate KC, you hate Jose Baez, you hate the As, you hate the P.I. or anyone else for that matter who happens to be connected in any way, shape or form with the defense, but this is the reality of our system - we are ALL entitled to the best defense and in the centuries of common law, constitutional and legislative law we are all entitled to the same zealous defense on behalf of the client that the defendant would do for himself. This has been our common law since the Greek states and the days of the Roman empire. If one person's rights are abridged, that means that a precedent has been set that allows the state to abridge ALL our rights. This is the true reality of the law.

Bev, I may not like or agree with many of your postings, but with the majority of this post, I totally agree with your final paragraph.

We just happen to disagree about the motion and the reason behind it. I no longer wish to speculate about it because it will be ruled on within days and that will be that.

People also have to realize that the Judge has many options open to him and sanctions to hand out to both sides if he feels either side isn't playing fairly. Ultimately the judge knows what can and can't be done and since I have no power to tell him otherwise, I will defer to his decisions.

 

[Paintr]

If it helps any, I totally understand and agree.

If they did the exam today then the experts must have been present so no restriction of defendents rights, eh? If no experts, WHO did the exam?

 

[doogiesgirl]

Yes, I am saying that this isn't "routinely done". The state cannot withhold evidence from the defense. The state and the defense can agree that certain evidence not be made public, but the defense cannot have the added burden of responsiblity for the inadvertant release of such evidence. It is unconstitutional, it is unlawful to restrict the defendant's right to confrontation of witnesses.

If the intent was to prohibit the Anthonys from viewing the autopsy report, which they have every right to see, it would have specifically asked the court to prohibit the Anthonys from seeing the autopsy report. In Florida, the autopsy report is a matter of public record.

Wait, doesn't your second sentence say "The state cannot withhold evidence from the defense" ? So in essence you did say that the state was withholding evidence from the defense?

BTW, I understood the point you were trying to make, I just don't see it the way you do. I am fine with agreeing to disagree. OK friend? (Said in my best NG impression )

 

[LeLe1953]

I am beginning to think she has given Baez her POA and the Anthonys are cut out of the loop. I bet they are livid.

I agree & I have also been asking if KC really has turned over Caylee for her parents to bury.

 

[Bev]

It does help, Chilly, thanks.

 

[SuziQ]

According to the cnn/nancy grace website the second "autopsy" has been completed today.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/nancy.grace/

Thank god! And I guess the defense didn't really need those pics after all.

 

[tangerinemoon]

All of a sudden, the second examination of the remains has been completed. :waitasec:
Tomorrow's hearing should be an interesting one.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

NG's staff better hope they are right or they will have hell to pay over this one.

 

[elfie]

I wish I knew how to create one of those videos where an image suddenly jumps out and scares the pants off the person who's studying it. I could have made even more friends on this forum :crazy:

lol

 

[tangerinemoon]

NG's staff better hope they are right or they will have hell to pay over this one.

I know!!!. Wonder how in the world they got hold of this info?. I mean, none of the Florida stations have reported this, that I am aware of.

 

[Bev]

They are in effect holding evidence from the defense, because they are not releasing the autopsy report in a timely manner and are putting restrictions upon that release of evidence. There's a bigger picture here.

 

[Carrington]

NG's staff better hope they are right or they will have hell to pay over this one.

It doesn't make any sense. Bet their wrong....
IMO

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

snipped....

Now I know that you hate KC, you hate Jose Baez, you hate the As, you hate the P.I. or anyone else for that matter who happens to be connected in any way, shape or form with the defense, but this is the reality of our system - we are ALL entitled to the best defense and in the centuries of common law, constitutional and legislative law we are all entitled to the same zealous defense on behalf of the client that the defendant would do for himself. This has been our common law since the Greek states and the days of the Roman empire. If one person's rights are abridged, that means that a precedent has been set that allows the state to abridge ALL our rights. This is the true reality of the law.

I don't hate any of them and certainly agree that she's entitled to competent defence counsel. What we are discussing on this thread, is the appropriateness of people making money from selling pics of dead babies. You contend they are being denied the pics altogether, I think it's blatantly obvious that that is not the case and I would think the mother of any dead child would be very happy to consent to this in order to ensure her child's pics don't wind up in the press.

 

[LeLe1953]

Boy, I'd hate to know what everyone thinks about the fact that my husband's remains were in a plastic bag inside a plastic box for 7 months until I dispersed his ashes up in the mountains! Casey is being told that the defense believes a second autopsy MUST be done, and before that autopsy can be done, the defense MUST get the prosecutions' information.

Posturing by lawyers toward a 22 year old facing unimaginable legal issues seems to me directly set upon the lawyers, and not the 22 year old. Casey is not holding Caylee hostage. She COULD release the remains to her parents. But her lawyer has motioned IN COURT that they need the prosecution's info.

Please, someone tell me who, outside of her lawyers, Casey has had contact with in order for her to understand she could go against these people. I don't believe she's being victimized necessarily. I just think, in isolation, she is being limited in terms of what's going on "outside."

"Casey, sign this document that gives us a chance to get a second autopsy. It's the best thing we can do right now for your case." "Casey, here's the release form for the ME to give the remains to the funeral home. We can't have a funeral just yet because we can't have the autopsy until we get xyz...."

I'm just saying......as a 22 year old, and this particular 22 year old whose demonstrated personality seems to be driven by the people in her life, this particular 22 year old whose whole purpose in HER life has been to please the ones showing her concern, is doing what she's told because that's what she's been told to do.

I said something similar a month or so ago. I have no love lost for KC or her family but I am a little worried that she is cut off from the out side world except for JB. I do not think he is a good man. I think even less of his lawyering skills. I would hate to see someone claim KC was brain washed by JB while in jail.

 

[doogiesgirl]

This sounds awful fishy to me. How come all of a sudden they were able to get it done? I don't like this one bit. MOO

 

[elfie]

Conway said this issues of the photos is holding up Caylee being laid to rest? Why? What do her remains have to do with the photos?

For comparison during 2nd autopsy I'd guess.

 

[BonKai]

This is a waste of time trying to explain this, but I'm going to try one more time -

First, read the motion.
Second, I did not claim that the prosecution is making a motion to withhold evidence, in fact, I said just the opposite.
Third, what this motion is doing in effect, is placing undue restrictions and a burden on the defense to prepare a proper defense for their client. In the real world, both defense and prosecution send reports and copies of reports to agencies to seek expert opinion. This happens every single day of the week. Evidence in this case was sent to various outside entities to seek expert opinion. This evidence is still being evaluated by outside entities and reports written. By restricting the right of the defense in any way in seeking expert advice, reports or evaluation is to set a precedent that the state is entitled to dictate to the defense who he can call as a witness, who he can claim is an expert witness and how he can disseminate that information to those expert witnesses. Now I'm not making this up, this is a constitutional matter which has established a body of rulings establishing this right. The confrontation clause of the 6th amd. has been interpreted broadly by the USSC to include physical evidence and the right of the defendant to a zealous defense.
Fourth, this isn't anything remotely like protecting the identity of the victim as they do in sex abuse cases and/or . The victim's identity is known. The release of the photos to the public may be distasteful, but it doesn't meet the exception rule of protection of the victim's identity.
Fifth, the burden is placed inordinately on the defense to protect the restrictions on this evidence - it could be just as easily passed from the prosecution to the press or others by their dissemination of evidence and information. The defense has no ability to protect this evidence when it is in the possession of others, including prosecution witnesses.
Sixth, there is zero evidence to support the claim by the prosecution that any photos were sold by the defense or anyone else for that matter. There has to be some basis for making an extraodinary motion to prevent something that may happen in the future without providing evidence that it happened in the past and will happen in the future. The prosecutor may suspect that it has been done, but the state needs more than suspicion with which to establish a precedent in the restriction of evidence or placing undue burdens and responsiblities on the defense which they themselves do not share.

Now I know that you hate KC, you hate Jose Baez, you hate the As, you hate the P.I. or anyone else for that matter who happens to be connected in any way, shape or form with the defense, but this is the reality of our system - we are ALL entitled to the best defense and in the centuries of common law, constitutional and legislative law we are all entitled to the same zealous defense on behalf of the client that the defendant would do for himself. This has been our common law since the Greek states and the days of the Roman empire. If one person's rights are abridged, that means that a precedent has been set that allows the state to abridge ALL our rights. This is the true reality of the law.

When I read the post below I took that to mean you believe the SA's office is trying to withhold evidence.

Snipped by me:

This is ridiculous. The state cannot withhold evidence from the defense. If the state is actually trying to set up grounds for an appeal, this is exactly the way to do it.

 

[MADJGNLAW]

I am thinking the anonymous donor is directly or indirectly the As, and that they got the money either directly or indirectly from selling photos of Caylee.

If I recall correctly. The second time that Casey was bonded out there were two company's that paid half of the bond. But then I had read somewhere that Cindy and George had put up the house, but nothing else was reported on that. I had found that odd knowing that they had claimed to be broke in a big financial mess due to Casey. But then all of the sudden Casey comes home, and everybody takes off of work, and the only one that was said to go back to work was Lee just recently. How are they paying their bills? They stay at a pricey hotel, eat at pricey restaurants and have car payments, have P.I.'s and pay for an attorney. I assume and nobody is working? Never made sense to me.
I do know of people that have created different types of corporations, it can have a fictitious name and they can each own as little 1%, but actually own the corporation. Not sure if I am explaining it right, but there are ways to hide money and a business.

Another reason the SA has filed this motion is due to Sources close to the Anthonys told Eyewitness News a $2 million contract with the Lifetime Movie Network has been signed. Read article: http://www.wftv.com/news/17550330/detail.html

Just a thought.

 

[BonKai]

But! But! But! How could they possibly do the exam without the info from the M.E.? JB said they couldn't!

My head is going to explode! :bang: