772 users online (106 members and 666 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. Buddha
    Posts
    22,099

    Has Baez been denied TES docs? Why did George and Cindy's lawyer see the TES docs?

    There are thousands of people like me who know the case but don't know all the ins and outs and twists and turns and that is why you guys are the best. You know this case better than attorney's involved in the case I bet.

    Please clear up some things about TES and Jose Baez.

    After watching the interview with Cindy and George Anthony's attorney, Brad Conway, I need some clarification.

    The report I watched made it sound like Casey's attorney Jose Baez has been refused access to Texas Equasearch records in regards to where TES volunteers searched while looking for Caylee.

    Hasn't Jose Baez had several chances to view the records of TES?

    Brad Conway had to resign as George and Cindy's lawyer because he said he may be a defense witness now because he (Brad Conway) HAD viewed the records of TES. Although he was not allowed to make copies of anything but he did see them.

    What am I not understanding here? Why won't Jose Baez go look at the TES documents like Brad Conway did? Rather than call Mr. Conway as a witness based on what he read in the TES documents wouldn't it make more sense if he looked at the TES docs himself?

    Has TES denied Baez access to the documents?

    What is the story?

    Thank you so much for taking the time to explain this.

    Tricia Griffith
    Owner/Websleuths.com
    Websleuths is TEMPORARILY accepting donations.

    CLICK HERE
    to visit our GoFundMe page

    OR










  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    722
    Yep, you summed up my confusion perfectly Tricia!

    JB has NOT been denied access! He CHOSE not to go so why all the fuss about nothing? He had as much access as BC had but it was his choice not to exercise his right to view them!

    And since TES owns the records, don't they have the right to show them to anyone they like? Including BC or any other lawyer?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,862
    While I have no facts, I would suspect Baez knows there is nothing to be gained, no surprises by looking at all the TES docs. As someone who has searched with TES & a current member, when u go to a search, u sign in with your name & other basic information, like who to ctc in an event of an emergency. I would suspect that is what the majority of the documents are. I doubt Baez has really been denied access as I don't see the accusation being made in court that he had plenty of chances, even set appts he cancelled to view them.
    I don't see why BC resigned. I think the best way to get to the bottom of all this is to have a hearing & call Tim Miller under oath. Just a couple simple questions: Have all the documents been turned over; did he personally search the area in which Caylee was found; did any person, searcher or not, make him aware they had found something in that area & ask that he send a team of LE in; if searched as directed by TES at any time, give testimony re: who, what, when, where & written reports from that.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Atlanta GA
    Posts
    7,376
    Thank you.

    I am also confused. I feel so dumb after watching the TODAY show video. To me it sounded like he was saying MN and TES were lying - that he hadn't been given access to the documents. But then he says he did look at them...

    And I'm all

    So who is he saying is lying? If it's MN, then what is JB's problem? Why would that mean BC had to resign?


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,721
    The report I watched made it sound like Casey's attorney Jose Baez has been refused access to Texas Equasearch records in regards to where TES volunteers searched while looking for Caylee.

    Hasn't Jose Baez had several chances to view the records of TES?

    YES!

    Brad Conway had to resign as George and Cindy's lawyer because he said he may be a defense witness now because he (Brad Conway) HAD viewed the records of TES. Although he was not allowed to make copies of anything but he did see them.

    I believe Brad was being accused of conspiring with MN (by his own client backstabbing BC, badmouthing BC to MN, IMO). Allegedly, If MN gets BC to get the As to sign this conflict waver, MN will allow BC to view the records...

    What am I not understanding here? Why won't Jose Baez go look at the TES documents like Brad Conway did? Rather than call Mr. Conway as a witness based on what he read in the TES documents wouldn't it make more sense if he looked at the TES docs himself?

    Has TES denied Baez access to the documents?

    What is the story?

    Maybe laziness, maybe money, maybe Baez just doesn't see the need to. He's already backtracked on the Joe Jordan tape, since JJ thought about it and seemed to remember, they weren't in the exact location. Suburban swamp is about an acre, also under water for many months...I myself don't see where Baez is going. He's got no defense so he's attacking anything, anyone, all the evidence and more..he's lost for a good defense due to not having a defense, JMHO

    Thank you so much for taking the time to explain this.

    Tricia Griffith

    my answers in purple...You're welcome...all just my humble opinion and belief..

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,721
    Tricia, check this thread, maybe it will unconfuse you...LOL


    [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111903"]Brad Conway resigns - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,959
    Quote Originally Posted by Tricia View Post
    There are thousands of people like me who know the case but don't know all the ins and outs and twists and turns and that is why you guys are the best. You know this case better than attorney's involved in the case I bet.

    Please clear up some things about TES and Jose Baez.

    After watching the interview with Cindy and George Anthony's attorney, Brad Conway, I need some clarification.

    The report I watched made it sound like Casey's attorney Jose Baez has been refused access to Texas Equasearch records in regards to where TES volunteers searched while looking for Caylee.

    Hasn't Jose Baez had several chances to view the records of TES?

    Brad Conway had to resign as George and Cindy's lawyer because he said he may be a defense witness now because he (Brad Conway) HAD viewed the records of TES. Although he was not allowed to make copies of anything but he did see them.

    What am I not understanding here? Why won't Jose Baez go look at the TES documents like Brad Conway did? Rather than call Mr. Conway as a witness based on what he read in the TES documents wouldn't it make more sense if he looked at the TES docs himself?

    Has TES denied Baez access to the documents?

    What is the story?

    Thank you so much for taking the time to explain this.

    Tricia Griffith
    Owner/Websleuths.com
    Oh boy, this is a complicated question to answer but in a nutshell, TES according to MN has not denied them viewing all the documents. JS ruled last year that defense would be allowed to view all the documents in MN's office but not copy or take notes etc. They were allowed to tab whatever was interesting or relevant information and that would be allowed to be released to them.
    Defense did not show up according to MN.
    MN allowed BC to view the documents as well as the state.
    Defense kept filing motions to be allowed to view and have access to the documents but the irony is they were allowed to view them, they just didn't show up as MN keeps pointing out. When they did show up (cannot put a date to it but sometime early in 2010) they stayed for about an hour, said the media showed up to watch them go over the documents and also claimed they only got to look into 2 of the 4 boxes , all this is detailed in defense's latest motion).
    My understanding is that MN's argument is that he does not want the privacy of the 4000 searchers violated. Defense's argument is that they released their right to privacy by signing up for a search in the first place and their right to privacy is trumped by kc's right to a fair trial. I think MN is saying this is nothing more than a fishing expedition on the side of defense and therefore they should not be entitled to all the docs, but they do have the right to come and view them as ruled by the judge.
    In this latest development, BC was cited in the defense's latest motion and BC now says he must resign as counsel for his clients because he has witnessed an unfounded statement made by defense to the court.
    This is all further complicated by the statement CM made outside of court one day where MN claims he (CM) says TES did not search the area) and therefore MN says this is an act of bad faith because they continue to look for evidence that someone from TES searched that area back then.

    Anyone jump in here and correct anything I may have gotten wrong or left out.
    The above is my understanding of the situation of defense and TES and I could be wrong. It is a very complicated and confusing issue.
    Last edited by QB.; 08-16-2010 at 11:35 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    803
    I
    Quote Originally Posted by QB. View Post
    Oh boy, this is a complicated question to answer but in a nutshell, TES according to MN has not denied them viewing all the documents. JS ruled last year that defense would be allowed to view all the documents in MN's office but not copy or take notes etc. They were allowed to tab whatever was interesting or relevant information and that would be allowed to be released to them.
    Defense did not show up according to MN.
    MN allowed BC to view the documents as well as the state.
    Defense kept filing motions to be allowed to view and have access to the documents but the irony is they were allowed to view them, they just didn't show up as MN keeps pointing out. When they did show up (cannot put a date to it but sometime early in 2010) they stayed for about an hour, said the media showed up to watch them go over the documents and also claimed they only got to look into 2 of the 4 boxes , all this is detailed in defense's latest motion).
    My understanding is that MN's argument is that he does not want the privacy of the 4000 searchers violated. Defense's argument is that they released their right to privacy by signing up for a search in the first place and their right to privacy is trumped by kc's right to a fair trial. I think MN is saying this is nothing more than a fishing expedition on the side of defense and therefore they should not be entitled to all the docs, but they do have the right to come and view them as ruled by the judge.
    In this latest development, BC was cited in the defense's latest motion and BC now says he must resign as counsel for his clients because he has witnessed an unfounded statement made by defense to the court.
    This is all further complicated by the statement CM made outside of court one day where MN claims he (CM) says TES did not search the area) and therefore MN says this is an act of bad faith because they continue to look for evidence that someone from TES searched that area back then.

    Anyone jump in here and correct anything I may have gotten wrong or left out.
    The above is my understanding of the situation of defense and TES and I could be wrong. It is a very complicated and confusing issue.
    I thought in the beginning JS ordered MN to turn over the 32 searchers to JB. Then JB never went to MN's office to look at the information on these searchers. JB filed another motion to look at all 4000 searchers which JP agreed too. Between JS motion and JP motion BC went to MN office and reviewed all 4000 searchers. Could the problem be that BC over stepped his bounds by getting the A's to sign a waiver to look at all those documents basically stepping on the toes of JB? This whole TES situation is way ut of control, and hopefully JP will put an end to it once and for all.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    109
    IMO
    Great answer OB.
    I would add that Baez wants the info on all 4000 searchers so that the defense can interview them. The current ruling allowed for only those 32 that searched within a certain distance from the site. The defense has had many months to go and tag any searcher records that they felt relevent beyond the 32 that were tagged by MN, TM, SA and BC.
    The reason for this big battle over the records is just smoke and mirrors and a stall/delay on the defense's part.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    109
    The waiver was done around Jan. 2009. This post from Beach covers the hearing where the waiver was discussed:
    [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5514168&postcount=1196"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers[/ame]
    Thanks Beach
    Last edited by merker; 08-16-2010 at 12:27 PM.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,959
    Quote Originally Posted by merker View Post
    IMO
    Great answer OB.
    I would add that Baez wants the info on all 4000 searchers so that the defense can interview them. The current ruling allowed for only those 32 that searched within a certain distance from the site. The defense has had many months to go and tag any searcher records that they felt relevent beyond the 32 that were tagged by MN, TM, SA and BC.
    The reason for this big battle over the records is just smoke and mirrors and a stall/delay on the defense's part.
    Yes, that's right. I knew I would leave out important details like that.
    Its gone on for so long and there has been so much confusion that it is hard to remember what the latest judge's ruling has been on it. But they do have the right to look at all the documents and access to the 32 that were in the area.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Great Northland
    Posts
    778
    If I understand this correctly, Baez had as much right to access the files as Brad C. Brad read only the 32 pulled/tagged files. Baez failed to show up when he was supposed to view the files. He just can not blame anyone for that but himself.

    Baez is making a stink now, I'm theorizing for 3 reasons, 1) to distract

    2) to drag this out and 3) to gain sympathy . . by muddying the waters.

    What I'm wondering is if the actual 32 files Brad saw were returned to the 4,ooo whatever "untagged,"?? Thus making it necessary for Baez to do his own "searching", (through all of the 4,000 files ) and God knows, he's not one to want to do any work. But also, he realy probably knows there will be no exact file there that will help him. He is gasping at straws, because they have nothing, nada, zilch.

    If he can come up with just one file that says someone was at this specific spot where the remains were found, he then can say someone else put the remains there after Casey was locked up. Even if that were so, that still does not take away all of the forensic & other evidence against her.

    Thank God for Roy Kronk. Just too bad LE did not follow up when he first called them, because there may have been more of a " body" to examine for evidence. Hard to know.
    Last edited by celticthyme; 08-16-2010 at 12:01 PM. Reason: spelling

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,285
    Basically the defense has wanted full unrestricted access to every single piece of paper that TES has on anything and anyone. In their first attempt to "view" the documents, instead of going themselves, they sent a professional document copying company to come and grab them full copies of everything so they could sift it for scapegoats at their convenience. This was expressly against the judges orders. They were supposed to go there themselves, they had been given 32 names and records of searchers who were clearly in the area near Caylee's remains. They would then have to go, look through the records, tab any that they though relevant, and get the judge to approve their release. The Prosecution has the same standard and spent several hours there doing just this. MN also opened it up to the Parents as a courtesy, and BC spent several hours doing this. Both did their searches early in the process. The defense refused to show up (until KC was indigent and someone else was paying) ytied to bully the staff into violating the judges orders. Tried to copy documents. Tried to get documents that they were not entitled to, and stormed off in a press fueled huff after treating the monitors like absolute garbage. (classless lack of professionalism at its finest). They have made no good faith effort to view the documents that they so loudly cry for. They are just crying and whining constantly in the hopes that someone will finally simply give them the documents so they can go fishing, instead of allowing them to view them, where everyone must be approved and justified.

    And based on todays news, I'm betting Jose has yet another Bar complaint on file.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,285
    Quote Originally Posted by celticthyme View Post
    If I understand this correctly, Baez had as much right to access the files as Brad C. Brad read only the 32 pulled/tagged files. Baez failed to show up when he was supposed to view the files. He just can not blame anyone for that but himself.

    Baez is making a stink now, I'm theorizing for 3 reasons, 1) to distract

    2) to drag this out and 3) to gain sympathy . . by muddying the waters.

    What I'm wondering is if the actual 32 files Brad saw were returned to the 4,ooo whatever "untagged,"?? Thus making it necessary for Baez to do his own "searching", (through all of the 4,000 files ) and God knows, he's not one to want to do any work. But also, he realy probably knows there will be no exact file there that will help him. He is gasping at straws, because they have nothing, nada, zilch.

    If he can come up with just one file that says someone was at this specific spot where the remains were found, he then can say someone else put the remains there after Casey was locked up. Even if that were so, that still does not take away all of the forensic & other evidence against her.

    Thank God for Roy Kronk. Just too bad LE did not follow up when he first called them, because there may have been more of a " body" to examine for evidence. Hard to know.
    JB has those 32 files. All sides have been given copies of the files pertaining to the 32 nearby searchers. What the defense wants to get but has been denied by the judge and TES is the other 4000 searchers who were nowhere near hopespring drive. In that case the defense can come in, view the files, tab those that they think are relevant, and the judge will make a determination in each case as to whether they are and should be released. It's very difficult to "Kronk" 4000 people when you need a judges approval for each one.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,959
    Quote Originally Posted by faefrost View Post
    JB has those 32 files. All sides have been given copies of the files pertaining to the 32 nearby searchers. What the defense wants to get but has been denied by the judge and TES is the other 4000 searchers who were nowhere near hopespring drive. In that case the defense can come in, view the files, tab those that they think are relevant, and the judge will make a determination in each case as to whether they are and should be released. It's very difficult to "Kronk" 4000 people when you need a judges approval for each one.
    If I recall correctly, MN had copies made of those 32 and sent to JB's office.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. George & Cindy: Conflict of interest with one lawyer?
    By mollie in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 08-13-2010, 12:15 AM