915 users online (159 members and 756 guests)  



Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 28
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    6,719

    Anne Pham and Kasper Jordan...defense witnesses?

    Quote Originally Posted by Intermezzo View Post
    https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B7D...MzcxMjA5&hl=en

    https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B7D...NDU3YTUz&hl=en

    Added to Defense Witness List

    Maya Derkovic (inmate)
    Robyn Adams (inmate)
    Kenneth Drupiewski (high school friend/boyfriend)
    Kathy Belich (WFTV Reporter)
    Anne Pham (TES searcher, LE recorded convo's with Laura Buchanan)
    Marvin Schecter ESQ (NY Lawyer)
    Kasper Jordan (TES Searcher, LE recorded convo's with Laura Buchanan)
    We're already wondering about Kathy Belich, but two more names have caught my eye here. What possible reason could Baez have for wanting to put Anne Pham and Kasper Jordan on the defense witness list? Wouldn't both of these people, who accuse Laura Buchanan of forging their names on a forged TES document only make the defense look worse?

    I am really scratching my head over this one too. Any thoughts?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,817
    Quote Originally Posted by Aedrys View Post
    We're already wondering about Kathy Belich, but two more names have caught my eye here. What possible reason could Baez have for wanting to put Anne Pham and Kasper Jordan on the defense witness list? Wouldn't both of these people, who accuse Laura Buchanan of forging their names on a forged TES document only make the defense look worse?

    I am really scratching my head over this one too. Any thoughts?
    I personally think all this is related and think Baez and Mason are still working out a "strategy" for trying to prove the body was moved to Surburban AFTER KC was jailed...(but won't work imo)

    I am taking into consideration the fact that:

    the defense recently deposed WF of TES among others related to the Laura Buchanon issue, ordered expidited transcriptions of the depos

    placed Kathi Belich on the witness list....remember, Hoover took his video up to WFTV and allowed Kathi to view the video but would not allow her to record the audio....

    And now these other two witnesses...

    Still working on my theory of these events, but I am of the mindset that they are all related...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    11,282
    Quote Originally Posted by Aedrys View Post
    We're already wondering about Kathy Belich, but two more names have caught my eye here. What possible reason could Baez have for wanting to put Anne Pham and Kasper Jordan on the defense witness list? Wouldn't both of these people, who accuse Laura Buchanan of forging their names on a forged TES document only make the defense look worse?

    I am really scratching my head over this one too. Any thoughts?
    So they were among the ones added late along with KB? So weird. If they had been added earlier I would think it was part of their Soddi Shenanigans but now...maybe they are going to say the State coerced them into making those calls to LB?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    6,719
    Quote Originally Posted by strawberry View Post
    So they were among the ones added late along with KB? So weird. If they had been added earlier I would think it was part of their Soddi Shenanigans but now...maybe they are going to say the State coerced them into making those calls to LB?
    I have wondered if the defense is really going to along with the agents of the state thing in the trial, maybe focusing on how unfair this all to Casey and how she can't possibly get a fair trial instead of really defending her in the trial. I guess maybe they're going for the angle that the police never focused on anyone else? That the SA refuses to consider anyone else a suspect? I don't know if that would work, but I can't see any other reason to put two people on the defense list that blew apart the defense's best chance at a TES witness that could say Caylee's body wasn't there. I guess the best they can come up with is stomping their feet and saying "it's not fair!" and "the state is focusing on Casey to the exclusion of anyone else!" the whole trial. And maybe they think it'll cause confusion with the jury? Or make the jury think that this is a grand conspiracy to convict innocent Casey?

    I don't know, though. It seems totally odd that these two people, who have nothing good at all to contribute to the defense in any way would even be considered for being defense witnesses, much less submitted on a list to be added at this late juncture. I don't know what Baez is thinking at this point!

    It does sound like something that Mason would suggest, though. They can put all of their theatrics in this grand conspiracy and unfairness. I can totally see him plotting to make that the focus of their defense now, not actually defending her or showing evidence that she didn't do it, just whining and being dramatic about how not fair this whole ordeal has been to her, and that it's all just a conspiracy to convict an innocent mother whose child was stolen from her. It might actually work in there wasn't a Mt. Everest of evidence against her, and if anyone was willing to say something nice about Casey. At most, what anyone might say is don't kill her. I doubt no one other than Cindy will call her a great mom or mother of the year.
    Last edited by Aedrys; 02-16-2011 at 10:39 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    390
    IMO, this is all part of the 'Conspiracy theory'.....remember JB's added questioning towards the end of Anne Phams' interview? The "you know you are now a target..." BS? Obviously, Kathi Belich is in with the 'conspirators' as well. The defense have been accusing the state for some time, and this is just more paranoid BS.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,096
    I really think they just don't know how to list "defense" witnesses. They just seem to mirror anyone and everyone on the prosecution witness list. Instead of just knowing they can cross examine the witnesses, they list them on their witness list....??? I don't know anymore...I can't second guess stupidity.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,721
    Quote Originally Posted by Aedrys View Post
    I have wondered if the defense is really going to along with the agents of the state thing in the trial, maybe focusing on how unfair this all to Casey and how she can't possibly get a fair trial instead of really defending her in the trial. I guess maybe they're going for the angle that the police never focused on anyone else? That the SA refuses to consider anyone else a suspect? I don't know if that would work, but I can't see any other reason to put two people on the defense list that blew apart the defense's best chance at a TES witness that could say Caylee's body wasn't there. I guess the best they can come up with is stomping their feet and saying "it's not fair!" and "the state is focusing on Casey to the exclusion of anyone else!" the whole trial. And maybe they think it'll cause confusion with the jury? Or make the jury think that this is a grand conspiracy to convict innocent Casey?

    I don't know, though. It seems totally odd that these two people, who have nothing good at all to contribute to the defense in any way would even be considered for being defense witnesses, much less submitted on a list to be added at this late juncture. I don't know what Baez is thinking at this point!

    It does sound like something that Mason would suggest, though. They can put all of their theatrics in this grand conspiracy and unfairness. I can totally see him plotting to make that the focus of their defense now, not actually defending her or showing evidence that she didn't do it, just whining and being dramatic about how not fair this whole ordeal has been to her, and that it's all just a conspiracy to convict an innocent mother whose child was stolen from her. It might actually work in there wasn't a Mt. Everest of evidence against her, and if anyone was willing to say something nice about Casey. At most, what anyone might say is don't kill her. I doubt no one other than Cindy will call her a great mom or mother of the year.
    To create "reasonable doubt" about when/who/how Caylee's remains were placed at Suburban??? It appears they still are going to hound at the fact ICA was in custody when Caylee met her demise so it can't be ICA!

    The authorities did look into ICA's 'friends' at the time Caylee was allegedly missing. Many took LDT's, not one person from the Anthony household did. It appears the friends did more to try and find out what could have happened to Caylee than her own family. Not one word was spoken to them about Caylee other than she was with the nanny. Not one of them saw any concern, worry that Caylee wasn't in her care.

    His Honor is well aware of the tactics/antics the defense is putting out there. Just like the, they will never find an impartial jury....His Honor shot back with, “The jurors are not supposed to be deaf, dumb and totally uninformed.”!

    Baez is way over his head with a case of this magnitude, which BTW he did to himself by publicizing himself on network interviews. Seems that's all he did for the first year or so...He himself tried to taint the jury pool and it will come back and bite him HARDER than he's ever been bitten before. There's no doubt in my mind, Baez is using ICA's case as a spring board to stardom, for becoming DP qualified...I just wonder if ICA can see it or is she so self absorbed she sees his "misrepresentations" are a deliberate act to set her free...JMHO

    Justice for Caylee

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,285
    Quote Originally Posted by Aedrys View Post
    I have wondered if the defense is really going to along with the agents of the state thing in the trial, maybe focusing on how unfair this all to Casey and how she can't possibly get a fair trial instead of really defending her in the trial. I guess maybe they're going for the angle that the police never focused on anyone else? That the SA refuses to consider anyone else a suspect? I don't know if that would work, but I can't see any other reason to put two people on the defense list that blew apart the defense's best chance at a TES witness that could say Caylee's body wasn't there. I guess the best they can come up with is stomping their feet and saying "it's not fair!" and "the state is focusing on Casey to the exclusion of anyone else!" the whole trial. And maybe they think it'll cause confusion with the jury? Or make the jury think that this is a grand conspiracy to convict innocent Casey?

    I don't know, though. It seems totally odd that these two people, who have nothing good at all to contribute to the defense in any way would even be considered for being defense witnesses, much less submitted on a list to be added at this late juncture. I don't know what Baez is thinking at this point!

    It does sound like something that Mason would suggest, though. They can put all of their theatrics in this grand conspiracy and unfairness. I can totally see him plotting to make that the focus of their defense now, not actually defending her or showing evidence that she didn't do it, just whining and being dramatic about how not fair this whole ordeal has been to her, and that it's all just a conspiracy to convict an innocent mother whose child was stolen from her. It might actually work in there wasn't a Mt. Everest of evidence against her, and if anyone was willing to say something nice about Casey. At most, what anyone might say is don't kill her. I doubt no one other than Cindy will call her a great mom or mother of the year.
    I think that the defense is going to try to claim that some of these parties, such as Maya, Robin, Anne and Kasper (and possibly Kathi Belich?) were recruited to be agents of teh state, and as such are part of some vast conspiracy to convict and "murder" their client.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    6,719
    Quote Originally Posted by faefrost View Post
    I think that the defense is going to try to claim that some of these parties, such as Maya, Robin, Anne and Kasper (and possibly Kathi Belich?) were recruited to be agents of teh state, and as such are part of some vast conspiracy to convict and "murder" their client.
    But isn't there going to be hearing on this soon? Why list them as witnesses, along with Kathy B, if a hearing is set to decide who is agents of the state and who isn't? Why not hash this out at the hearing? He couldn't circumvent that hearing by bringing up people later and claiming they're agents of the state, could he? Isn't that hearing supposed to determine once and for all who is and isn't agents of the state (okay, who isn't. No way is anyone going to be determined to be an agent of the state)?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Rochester-ish, NY
    Posts
    647
    I sometimes wonder if some of these additions and motions aren't just grist for the whine mill. They don't think there's a chance they'll go through but they want to able to whine that they weren't.
    on twitter, my blog, and in life I am a "Floormodel", slightly used by age but still in perfectly good condition and worth having around.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    7,032
    This is what it looks like to me... It seems to me that the defense is going into this trial by putting everyone else and anything else on trial and be damned with the fact that this trial is Casey Anthony against the State of Florida in the murder of Caylee Marie Anthony.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    357
    Quote Originally Posted by LolaMoon08 View Post
    This is what it looks like to me... It seems to me that the defense is going into this trial by putting everyone else and anything else on trial and be damned with the fact that this trial is Casey Anthony against the State of Florida in the murder of Caylee Marie Anthony.
    They are going to have a rude awakening when the words "will the defendant please rise" and only ONE person stands up...KC
    -Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    -Senatus Populus Que Romanus

    -Why is it, if you help someone get away with a crime before they are arrested you are an accomplice...but if you help them get away with a crime after they are arrested you are a defense attorney?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by faefrost View Post
    I think that the defense is going to try to claim that some of these parties, such as Maya, Robin, Anne and Kasper (and possibly Kathi Belich?) were recruited to be agents of teh state, and as such are part of some vast conspiracy to convict and "murder" their client.
    You might be right! Cherishtoo posted a docket update today:

    02/16/2011 Motion Amended; to Suppress Statements

    Maybe that's about Anne and Kasper? (IIRC Maya & Robin were already mentioned in the original Defense Motion)

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Culpeper, Virginia
    Posts
    3,188
    Quote Originally Posted by strawberry View Post
    So they were among the ones added late along with KB? So weird. If they had been added earlier I would think it was part of their Soddi Shenanigans but now...maybe they are going to say the State coerced them into making those calls to LB?
    Or maybe, and AZ will elaborate where necessary, the defense would ultimately like to question these witnesses under more hostile circumstances. That's a push, but who knows with these peops...Wouldn't JB get to ask the same types of questions under cross that he could if they were declared hostile, though? Maybe I just answered my own question...

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,285
    Am I wrong in thinking (based on JB's "motion to strike motion to strike the motion to strike the motion...") that JB's latest crop of witnesses (AP, KJ, KB) seem to be more or less targeted at the wrong trial, the wrong crime and the wrong investigation? I mean these are at best witnesses to the witness Tampering investigation or matter. Which quite frankly goes against JB, NOT his client KC. So is he trying to set up witnesses in KC's trial to defend LB (while not being her attorney) or basically try and absolve himself of any hint of witness tampering? and if so is that ethical?

    Because otherwise it makes no sense. The LB matter will not enter into KC's trial unless JB seeks to bring it. The state has no reason to call LB as a witness regarding the death of Caylee Marie Anthony. She is a defense witness, but the state has more than enough ammo to blow her off the stand on rebuttal and then show the tampering. The state will view tha tampering as a separate matter not against KC herself. It will only come in if the defense continues to attempt to use that tainted and tampered with evidence or testimony. And who would be so stupid as to do that? But here we have it. He is calling for more witnesses to rebut the testimony of his own witness or the counters to her testimony that he should be smart enough to never let the jury hear at this point.

    I think tghese witnesses serve some personal agenda for him and not KC.
    Last edited by faefrost; 02-17-2011 at 12:10 PM.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Defense Motion to Add New Witnesses
    By SoCalSleuth in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 03-30-2011, 11:46 PM