2010.12.21 Stream of Motions - General Discussion

12/21/2010 Motion In Limine
Regarding Speculation as to Defendant's Knowledge

uhhh......yeeeahhh

Ok, ok it's probably something legit...sorry for the snark.

As to the sex - I'd say that goes to motive; the lying to the cover up


yes, the sex, fun-times were all about her priorities and... you know her neutral place to go, really can't see how they can not allow that in???
 
just skimming but, typo, page 5, "... there is no evidence which links the knife to the commission of the any of the charges."
 
I cannot wait to read these - I'm very intrigued as to why these particular "items" were included - which leads me to ponder what was not included...

Seriously what's up with the knife? I'm really interested in why that's important. I know it had a jolt of shock value back in the beginning, but if you shook my car goodness knows what would fall out.

wonderin if she used the knife to slice/cut the duct tape?
 
bbm

My brain is all fuzzy Tonight, what map are they referring to above? TIA

The Map that Tim Miller wanted Casey to put the location to search for Caylee on and she refused, and then her mother threw Tim Miller out? That's the only Map I can think of unless they're talking about a cellular ping map?
 
Got all the motions, will get them scanned and up on the Motions sticky thread shortly - Some JUICY reading here. heh
MM :rocker:

.

...though it may go without saying, it must be said:

Musicman rocks SO HARD the USGS has assigned him his own magnitude on the Richter Scale!:yourock:
 
From the article:

"....dig up a bamboo root that she’s been tripping over,” as the neighbor recalls Casey saying".


That's not true, that came from Cindy, not a neighbor.
Cindy said this in an interview.

Yeah, that interview where Cindy goes on and on about bamboo, the lock on the shed and where they kept the key. This was probably the first example of Cindy giving an answer when the question hadn't been asked. I love when CA does that. It was way before we knew about gas cans and a broken lock.
 
just skimming but, typo, page 5, "... there is no evidence which links the knife to the commission of the any of the charges."

Looks like a cruddy ole cut n paste error. Although I hate to see them too, I think I'm going to have to give this a pass. I can only imagine Mason was working so fast that sparks were flying out of his computer like some Trans-Siberian Orchestra laser show.

On second thought - reading the next and hitting some less "let-goable" errors...
 
..that's my question as well.

..in the 2nd amended order setting discovery, motion and hearing deadlines:

http://tinyurl.com/28ptmuj


September 2, 2010

6. Order as to all other Motions:

Non-forensic/scientific legal Motions requiring no testimony before the Court shall be filed and heard no later than December 31, 2010.

thanks...I think these motions were going to be filed on 12/31/10.JB is, IMO, filing a gaggle of motions and hopes to possibly overwhelm JP and hopes JP will rule favorably on a couple of them. Sounds like Mason might be behind this play. Mason knows every slimy trick in the book and more than likely, wrote several chapters of that book. :twocents:
 

Here's another - Trying to preclude Anthony L's testimony about sexual relations. Heh

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6772109...ents-of-Anthony-Lazaro-about-Sexual-Relations

So far, WS is the only place these are available. Some other dude was there at 4:55 PM getting them too, not sure who he was....

:rocker:

:yourock:
 
thanks...I think these motions were going to be filed on 12/31/10. Now JB is IMO filing a gaggle of motions and hopes to possibly overwhelm JP and JP will rule favorably, since he has so little time this week. Sounds like Mason might be behind this play. Mason knows every slimy trick in the book and more than likely, wrote several chapters of that book. :twocents:

All of these motions are signed by Cheney. Baez didn't even sign off on them, tho there is a line for him.
 
question re the motion about sex with tony lazarro: JB says throughout the motion that he wants Perry to exclude "prior sexual relations" "past sexual relations" "previous sexual relationship" between tony and casey, does he mean prior to caylee going missing? It's weird and makes no sense. If he means that he wants to exclude any mention of the fact that they ever had sex, including after june 16th, good luck.
 
Here's another - Trying to preclude Anthony L's testimony about sexual relations. Heh

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6772109...ents-of-Anthony-Lazaro-about-Sexual-Relations

So far, WS is the only place these are available. Some other dude was there at 4:55 PM getting them too, not sure who he was....

:rocker:

Thank you, Thank you Muzikman! I can't wait for this hearing and for J Ashton to explain why Casey's sex drive was more important than her daughter's well being.....well actually, more important than her daughter's life. I hope JB brings lots of pens to click.
 
OK and WTF??? The fact that she did or did not have sexual relations with that man are the least of her problems.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
89
Guests online
3,252
Total visitors
3,341

Forum statistics

Threads
592,557
Messages
17,970,940
Members
228,807
Latest member
Buffalosleuther
Back
Top