760 users online (199 members and 561 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 148
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    NW Oregon Coast
    Posts
    1,821

    If Miranda argument is upheld

    I can't see that it's gonna make a big deal anyway. Surely she was read prior to being jailed. The in Session th's focused on the fact that it was then that she told the Zanny lie and that those statements would be inadmissable but she said the same stuff after being jailed. That's her story and it hasn't changed, so what's the big deal? Course the audacity of the Universal fiasco wouln't be presented, but it's noti like she would get a pass on the Zanny story if the motion is upheld. Zanny did it Is still the " story" and what else could it be even if the motion carries?
    Agree?
    IF I PUT IT HERE ITS MY OPINION. apparently i have no idea when i need to say that in a post, so this should cover it....IN MY OPINION anyways,

    welcome to the gates of hell JVDS.




    Jose Baez: “I sincerely believe that when we have finally spoken, everyone, and I mean everyone, will sit back and say, ‘Now, I understand. That explains it.’”



    Jose Baez to da judge :

    ".....that type of testing is unique. we requested that they be allowed to test items and that of course was objected to by the state and and uh the state uh granted or sustained their objection, denied our opportunity to have him test these items due to a very specialized field, subfield, of dna that he is one of the pioneers of uh in the alternative of we were granted the ability to test certain items by an outside lab...."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North of 49th Parallel
    Posts
    3,989
    Quote Originally Posted by costalpilot View Post
    I can't see that it's gonna make a big deal anyway. Surely she was read prior to being jailed. The in Session th's focused on the fact that it was then that she told the Zanny lie and that those statements would be inadmissable but she said the same stuff after being jailed. That's her story and it hasn't changed, so what's the big deal? Course the audacity of the Universal fiasco wouln't be presented, but it's noti like she would get a pass on the Zanny story if the motion is upheld. Zanny did it Is still the " story" and what else could it be even if the motion carries?
    Agree?
    Sorry costapilot..there isnt a snowballs chance in H3 double hockey sticks that this will happen..This Judge (Perry) knows full well that most handcuffed individuals ( especially only for few minutes) are detention/detained only..NOT Arrested necessarily...Course Jose wouldnt acknowledge that....unless it could be used to HELP his defendent....

    My experience in watching cases, both reality TV and other places..That Miranda is read when apprehending someone when a WARRANT is issued, or when the questioning gets stopped by perp when requests attourney, or when arrest is about to happen and miranda warning given, read and signed by interviewed person...

    This whole motion is a bunch of waste of time ( Jose should know that ) and to delay delay delay....Casey must love her living conditions to allow the putting off of this trial..Maybe she dreads the thought of "Real Prison Life"

    I guess you get my opinion on this motion to supress statements by Casey...Hee Hee..Yepper, She was a cooperating witness, ( Gag myself with a spoon) trying to help or explain this whole drama...Yep..Cindy's drama trying to take away her baby ( )..and nothing more than a domestic dispute....again

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The beautiful roundabout of Context, Veracity, and JUSTICE
    Posts
    11,424
    It will be interesting to see how HHJP rules on this. If HHJP wants to be ultra-cautious, he may rule that nothing is admissible after she was (oh so very briefly) handcuffed (at the request--nay, DEMAND--of her mother) by the rookie cop.

    IMO, even if that happens, I don't think it will be a problem. KC's lies are such an integral part of who she is and how she operates that it will be easy for the SA to expose them without her own statements. Cue the 911 tapes. Cue the texts from TL. Cue the Universal security guard who stood at the gate when she took YM and JA there. Cue LE's own internal records of the investigation showing what happened.

    IMO the worst that would come from this is that HHJP will disallow everything post-handcuffing, the defense will gloat in a most unattractive manner, and the jury will still convict ICA of murdering her child.
    You can hold back from the suffering of the world. You have free permission to do so and it is in accordance with your nature.
    But perhaps this very holding back is the one suffering you could have avoided.
    Franz Kafka

    Be not simply good. Be good for something.
    HDT

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    2,102
    Can someone clarify this for me?

    In the confusing, spiraling out of control events of that night... the police arrived because what? A missing child?

    Or was it that Cindy wanted KC arrested for stealing their car? Was she put into handcuffs (for 5 min) for this reason?

    If she was supposed to be Mirandized (and wasn't) Would it have been for stealing a car?

    If she hadn't been Mirandized for stealing a car (and no one that night could have possibly realized what they were stepping into)....wouldn' t Miranda just cover the car situation?

    So should they have advised her that they were arresting for her stealing a car, but since they didn't anything that was said about car stealing would be thrown out? Right?

    So as events escalated and she was let out of the police car...anything said about a missing child could be admitted, right? Because she was just now a mom with a missing child. Right?

    (i hope i am making sense)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Way up Yonder
    Posts
    736
    Quote Originally Posted by Pattymarie View Post
    Can someone clarify this for me?

    In the confusing, spiraling out of control events of that night... the police arrived because what? A missing child?

    Or was it that Cindy wanted KC arrested for stealing their car? Was she put into handcuffs (for 5 min) for this reason?

    If she was supposed to be Mirandized (and wasn't) Would it have been for stealing a car?

    If she hadn't been Mirandized for stealing a car (and no one that night could have possibly realized what they were stepping into)....wouldn' t Miranda just cover the car situation?

    So should they have advised her that they were arresting for her stealing a car, but since they didn't anything that was said about car stealing would be thrown out? Right?

    So as events escalated and she was let out of the police car...anything said about a missing child could be admitted, right? Because she was just now a mom with a missing child. Right?

    (i hope i am making sense)
    That is exactly what I am thinking. I sure hope HHJP has a timeline of the events for July 15 and 16. It's too bad that young cop didn't know exactly when the cuffs were put on.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Pattymarie View Post
    Can someone clarify this for me?

    In the confusing, spiraling out of control events of that night... the police arrived because what? A missing child?

    Or was it that Cindy wanted KC arrested for stealing their car? Was she put into handcuffs (for 5 min) for this reason?

    If she was supposed to be Mirandized (and wasn't) Would it have been for stealing a car?

    If she hadn't been Mirandized for stealing a car (and no one that night could have possibly realized what they were stepping into)....wouldn' t Miranda just cover the car situation?

    So should they have advised her that they were arresting for her stealing a car, but since they didn't anything that was said about car stealing would be thrown out? Right?

    So as events escalated and she was let out of the police car...anything said about a missing child could be admitted, right? Because she was just now a mom with a missing child. Right?

    (i hope i am making sense)
    No, for Miranda purposes it doesn't matter for which crime she was "in custody," or for which crime she was Mirandized.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    N.E. Ohio
    Posts
    591
    This whole tactic makes me sick. I got so mad watching JVM Friday night when they were talking about this I turned it off. Casey slept in her own bed that night, how could she have been under arrest? She was cuffed for a few minutes and then uncuffed. Being cuffed does not equal arrested. So what Baez is saying about his innocent client is that if they mirandized her she would not have talked to or "helped" the police find her daughter? It's totally ridiculous.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    5,593
    Quote Originally Posted by ynotdivein View Post
    It will be interesting to see how HHJP rules on this. If HHJP wants to be ultra-cautious, he may rule that nothing is admissible after she was (oh so very briefly) handcuffed (at the request--nay, DEMAND--of her mother) by the rookie cop.

    IMO, even if that happens, I don't think it will be a problem. KC's lies are such an integral part of who she is and how she operates that it will be easy for the SA to expose them without her own statements. Cue the 911 tapes. Cue the texts from TL. Cue the Universal security guard who stood at the gate when she took YM and JA there. Cue LE's own internal records of the investigation showing what happened.

    IMO the worst that would come from this is that HHJP will disallow everything post-handcuffing, the defense will gloat in a most unattractive manner, and the jury will still convict ICA of murdering her child.
    And no case for ineffective counsel with a nice pretty bow.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    46,814
    I don't believe it will ALL be thrown out. I think the judge will do a SOLOMON and divide it up. Perhaps the stuff she said while in the security room at Universal will be kept out but not the statement at her home. IDK

    But the 911 call has Zanny the Nanny introduced into the equation already. She spells out the name for the dispatcher and even tells her she and Caylee called the previous afternoon, and Caylee talked about her storybook. So Zanny is coming in.

    And the 31 day gap is in the 911 call as well. Big hurdle for the defense right there imo.
    “Every day that they don’t find something is good for me.“ Billie Dunn

  10. #10
    When YM said he never read her Miranda rights, i just figured he meant HE didn't read them to her, that Appy or John Allen did. I know someone there did.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    46,814
    Quote Originally Posted by LancelotLink View Post
    When YM said he never read her Miranda rights, i just figured he meant HE didn't read them to her, that Appy or John Allen did. I know someone there did.
    I hope so. I am sure they did or we would know that already.
    “Every day that they don’t find something is good for me.“ Billie Dunn

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    357
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    No, for Miranda purposes it doesn't matter for which crime she was "in custody," or for which crime she was Mirandized.
    Hey AZ, thanks for all your insight. I still want to fall back on the "reasonable suspicion" initial detainment. The first officers acted on a report of a stolen car/stolen money. They had a reasonable suspicion that that crime had been commited/in the process of being committed. They could then question her about the car/money without Miranda. Correct? (Not sure if this falls under US v Terry)

    The situation/crime then CHANGED at the behest of the complainant(Cindy) and she was un-detained. The New situation was a missing child, NOT a new crime but now a new victim (Casey & Caylee). The questions then focused on the missing child of which she was not yet believed to have been an active participant in her disappearence.

    Thoughts?

    Sorry to ramble, hard to get all those words out in a way that makes sense...lol
    -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
    Dec 2008
    Location
    NW Oregon Coast
    Posts
    1,821
    I don't know whAt the standard is. One of the IS talking heads said iwhat mattered was what the perp THOUGHT but that seems unlikely to me. I mean who knows when anyone might make that judgement. But a couple of them
    entioned whether or not the perp felt free to leave and ghat seems weak to me too. Shouldn't it be when the judge determines what a reasonable person would feel under the circumstances? Ok I'm in handcuffs? Why? Because my mom fingered me for a thief, but then since the cops un cuffed me, I'm free to go, no need to read her writes. But if HHJP thinks she might have seen the cuffing a response to the missing child, then it could applly,

    but the commentators big deal about the Initial Zanny lies being thrown out is overown to me, cause I,m sure they read her b4 they put her in jail. And Zanny was still the villain after that.
    IF I PUT IT HERE ITS MY OPINION. apparently i have no idea when i need to say that in a post, so this should cover it....IN MY OPINION anyways,

    welcome to the gates of hell JVDS.




    Jose Baez: “I sincerely believe that when we have finally spoken, everyone, and I mean everyone, will sit back and say, ‘Now, I understand. That explains it.’”



    Jose Baez to da judge :

    ".....that type of testing is unique. we requested that they be allowed to test items and that of course was objected to by the state and and uh the state uh granted or sustained their objection, denied our opportunity to have him test these items due to a very specialized field, subfield, of dna that he is one of the pioneers of uh in the alternative of we were granted the ability to test certain items by an outside lab...."

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,328
    Quote Originally Posted by katydid23 View Post
    I don't believe it will ALL be thrown out. I think the judge will do a SOLOMON and divide it up. Perhaps the stuff she said while in the security room at Universal will be kept out but not the statement at her home. IDK

    But the 911 call has Zanny the Nanny introduced into the equation already. She spells out the name for the dispatcher and even tells her she and Caylee called the previous afternoon, and Caylee talked about her storybook. So Zanny is coming in.

    And the 31 day gap is in the 911 call as well. Big hurdle for the defense right there imo.
    After watching the entire hearing for 2.5 days, I have to say that I think the Universal Studios questioning will be tossed to the curb. She had lied to cops at that point, and could have been easily arresed for OOJ. She wasn't. Instead, she was escorted to a conference room (which would give me the impression that I couldn't leave). ICA knew she was in deep-doo-doo.

    I wish they would have mirandized her then -- the whole right to remain silent.

    Other than that, I think the reporting night events will come into play. And her written statement as well where she talks about z-t-n.

    In any case, I don't think we'll lose much. I trust the judge may throw each side a bone and split it -- but JB isn't going to get everything he wants tossed - tossed.

    MOO

    Mel

  15. #15
    ecs5298's Avatar
    ecs5298 is offline Founding Member of AFKBPOFPOPL & Hardwood Mulch King & Bacon Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    United States of Bacon
    Posts
    9,296
    Quote Originally Posted by mgardner View Post
    After watching the entire hearing for 2.5 days, I have to say that I think the Universal Studios questioning will be tossed to the curb. She had lied to cops at that point, and could have been easily arresed for OOJ. She wasn't. Instead, she was escorted to a conference room (which would give me the impression that I couldn't leave). ICA knew she was in deep-doo-doo.

    I wish they would have mirandized her then -- the whole right to remain silent.

    Other than that, I think the reporting night events will come into play. And her written statement as well where she talks about z-t-n.

    In any case, I don't think we'll lose much. I trust the judge may throw each side a bone and split it -- but JB isn't going to get everything he wants tossed - tossed.

    MOO

    Mel
    BBM:

    Exactly! I know they were afraid that she would clam up and they wouldn't get anymore info on the whereabouts of Caylee but in hindsight we all know that ICA would have continued to talk and talk and talk and lie and lie and lie. The Miranda warning wouldn't have stopped her from talking. She's not bright enough to realize that on her own. Now, once she lawyered up and was told to not to talk to LE, that's a different story.

    In the long run, I don't think it will matter if the Universal interview gets tossed. What's going to convict her is the 31 days. There's no getting that thrown out!
    "When it all goes down the crapper, don't come crying to me. You were warned" - ecs5298, November 6, 2012

Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. MO Appeals Court Upheld Conviction of William Clinch
    By UdbCrzy2 in forum Past Trial Discussion Threads
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-23-2011, 03:38 PM
  2. Term limits upheld for CO DA's
    By candy in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-27-2004, 06:58 AM