Procedure and legal questions

Status
Not open for further replies.

butwhatif?

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
3,598
Reaction score
39
I dont know about anyone else but I have a lot of questions about law and procedure.Can our legal eagles help?

1. Why are there so many interviews where LE has spoken off tape first, and metioned things that they dont want on tape. Shouldnt it all be recorded? Is it normal procedure to have a casual chat detailing all events, and only recording certain parts of that info?

2.Would the issues discussed in the chat, and not recorded be included in a statement that we havent yet seen? would there be any official record of the statements made, or is it good enough that the officer heard it?

3. Are the FBI and OSCO seperate entities? I kept hearing about the hairbrush issue and people saying CA lied to a fedral officier, but from what i understand she gave the items to OSCO, not FBI. so does this mean that once FBI are involved anything said to OSCO becomes a fedral issue?

4. Does OSCO share all of their information regarding the case with FBI, and vice versa? For example if a witness contacted FBI and spoke with them, would they share that with OSCO?
5. I know that LE can legally lie to a suspect to try to get to the truth, but can they legally do the same with a witness? what are the boundaries of this?

6.If a statement or other document is not signed, or has errors is it admissable in court?
(ETA) 7. why would the case have been referred to the sex crimes unit?

OK, i have heaps of other questions, but thats probably enough for now.
TIA to anyone answering my questions.:blowkiss:
 
I've got another one that might sound dumb....but who cares, right?

Are the documents that have been released, copies of the actual originals? Is what we are seeing the same as what the jury will see at trial?
 
I have a question also. Since Cindy and george told different sotires on some things, can they be forced to come in and shown the lies and make them tell the truth or say why they lied? One example, cindy lied when she said they went to a lawyer about getting custody of caylee if something happend to casey and the father Erice wouldnt have custody. When LE checked with the lawyer he had no clue what they were talking about. Could they force cindy to show them the paperwork or have her there with the lawyer and then say "ok Cindy now what do yo have to say"?
 
I have a question also. Since Cindy and george told different sotires on some things, can they be forced to come in and shown the lies and make them tell the truth or say why they lied? One example, cindy lied when she said they went to a lawyer about getting custody of caylee if something happend to casey and the father Erice wouldnt have custody. When LE checked with the lawyer he had no clue what they were talking about. Could they force cindy to show them the paperwork or have her there with the lawyer and then say "ok Cindy now what do yo have to say"?

If they are witnesses and say something totally different to wht they said in taped intrview, their credibility can be called into account in the form of perjury. If the witness lies about material evidence, the jury is free to ignore anything they say - which could make Cindy's testimony useless for the defense. People forget things, but whene they say something totally opposite of their original official statements, that's considered perjury IF they are called on it. Anyathing they say in any TV interview can also be used against them. The lies that Scott Peterson told to the media helped convict him.
 
I tried a search and couldn't find anything. If there is a thread please link it for me. tia

I want to know more about the DA's office. What is there experience with murder charges and their win/loss ratio.

Also the jury selection; will JB have a jury selection specialist on his defense team.

What type of juror will both sides be looking to select.
 
I have a couple of questions about the trial - I guess I will include them here.

1. Is the trial actually set to begin on January 5? I keep hearing that date but then I hear people speculate as to why JB didnt ask for a speedy trial. That seems pretty speedy to me.

2. Do we know yet if it will be televised?
 
I've got another one that might sound dumb....but who cares, right?

Are the documents that have been released, copies of the actual originals? Is what we are seeing the same as what the jury will see at trial?
Yes.

Moo
 
I have a couple of questions about the trial - I guess I will include them here.

1. Is the trial actually set to begin on January 5? I keep hearing that date but then I hear people speculate as to why JB didnt ask for a speedy trial. That seems pretty speedy to me.

2. Do we know yet if it will be televised?

1. That is what it is scheduled for now. But JB is asking for a continuance. The date will be moved back. Stupid on JB's part.

2. No we will not know that. I'm assuming Yes but we all know what happens when we ASSume.
 
I tried a search and couldn't find anything. If there is a thread please link it for me. tia

I want to know more about the DA's office. What is there experience with murder charges and their win/loss ratio.

Also the jury selection; will JB have a jury selection specialist on his defense team.

What type of juror will both sides be looking to select.

Just like LLL stated they are SA instead of DA's.

If JB is smart (insert joke here lol) he will have a specialist.
 
I have a question also. Since Cindy and george told different sotires on some things, can they be forced to come in and shown the lies and make them tell the truth or say why they lied? One example, cindy lied when she said they went to a lawyer about getting custody of caylee if something happend to casey and the father Erice wouldnt have custody. When LE checked with the lawyer he had no clue what they were talking about. Could they force cindy to show them the paperwork or have her there with the lawyer and then say "ok Cindy now what do yo have to say"?

They will def not be able to be character witness'. IMO, Cindy will be in spin class during the trial. Nothing will change with the A's.
 
I have a question also. Since Cindy and george told different sotires on some things, can they be forced to come in and shown the lies and make them tell the truth or say why they lied? One example, cindy lied when she said they went to a lawyer about getting custody of caylee if something happend to casey and the father Erice wouldnt have custody. When LE checked with the lawyer he had no clue what they were talking about. Could they force cindy to show them the paperwork or have her there with the lawyer and then say "ok Cindy now what do yo have to say"?

I have been wondering if that is why they keep putting off the additional FBI interviews they agreed to do.
 
I have been wondering if that is why they keep putting off the additional FBI interviews they agreed to do.


IMO, The A's believe they can local LE. Maybe they figured they can't FBI?
 
1. Why are there so many interviews where LE has spoken off tape first, and metioned things that they dont want on tape. Shouldnt it all be recorded? Is it normal procedure to have a casual chat detailing all events, and only recording certain parts of that info?

LE talked to most of the witnesses over the phone or in person before they were asked to come into the station to give a recorded statement. The officers interviewing these folks would write a report about the conversations and the reports become part of the investigation file. And yes, there may have been times when they talked off the record about their previous conversations and then began recording when they reached discussions on new information. You will see in the official report that there are many summarizations of LE's conversations with witnesses and not all of the oringinal reports are included in the doc. dump. (Annie Dowlling for example).

2.Would the issues discussed in the chat, and not recorded be included in a statement that we havent yet seen? would there be any official record of the statements made, or is it good enough that the officer heard it?

He or she would have to have included it in a report somewhere. Otherwise it is not considered reliable.

3. Are the FBI and OSCO seperate entities? I kept hearing about the hairbrush issue and people saying CA lied to a fedral officier, but from what i understand she gave the items to OSCO, not FBI. so does this mean that once FBI are involved anything said to OSCO becomes a fedral issue?

Yes FBI aned OSCO are completely seperate entities. I heard the same thing, that OSCO obtained the hairbrush, not the FBI. Seems this was talking head nonsenss. No, just because OSCO is getting assistance from the FBI, lies to OSCO do not become Federal offenses.

4. Does OSCO share all of their information regarding the case with FBI, and vice versa? For example if a witness contacted FBI and spoke with them, would they share that with OSCO?

The FBI would share any and all information they obtained with OSCO. OSCO would share information pertinent to the FBI's part in the investigation.

6.If a statement or other document is not signed, or has errors is it admissable in court?

If the witness did not sign the statement, it is not reliable and the witness can deny saying it. Errors like typos have no effect on admissability. Errors in the information in the statement likewise have no effect on admissability.

(ETA) 7. why would the case have been referred to the sex crimes unit?

I didn't know it was.

Are the documents that have been released, copies of the actual originals? Is what we are seeing the same as what the jury will see at trial?

They may be copies of originals or copies of copies, or just prints from a computer. But, the jury will see the originals, not copies of copies. If it goes into evidence, the jury is entitled to see it.

1. Is the trial actually set to begin on January 5? I keep hearing that date but then I hear people speculate as to why JB didnt ask for a speedy trial. That seems pretty speedy to me.

Yes this is still the trial date. Since the court gave the parties such a quick trial date, there was no need to demand a speedy trial. It seems amazingly speedy to me as well.

2. Do we know yet if it will be televised?

It has not been stated yet, but since the hearings have been live, I think we can expect the trial to be as well.

IMHOO I think they do not want to tangle with the FBI again because lying to a Federal Agent is prison time. They also think that the FBI ambushed them. If the FBI wants to talk to them again, all they have to do is request the meeting or go to the house. The A's can refuse to talk to them and apparently have already by not doing follow up interviews. They don't want to see their interviews on tv.

Any statements made by any witness which they then later contradict can and will be used against them at trial. You have all heard the old "were you lying then or are you lying now?" kinda thing on tv. Stories which can not be corroborated at all (fabrications) are used to simply decapitate the witness on the stand. Jurors do not like liars and once caught in a lie, they tend to disregard everything that witness has stated. In fact the judge will instruct them that if they find that any statement made by a witness was shown to be a lie, that they may disregard all of that witness's statements, if they want. (They do not have to decipher when the witness is telling the truth once they are caught in a lie - but they can if they want. Example: witness lies about their own criminal background because it is embarassing, but it has no relevance to the case at hand, so the jury can disregard the lie and believe the rest.)
 
FBI and Orange Co. law enforcement are cooperating fully even though they are yes, separate entities, one federal and one county operating under the rubric of the State of Florida in its governance of the health, safety & welfare of the people of FL. You may remember FBI ag't emphasising to CA the cooperation and also vouching for the OCSO. Scott Bolin has a district he covers but that can slop over state lines. In fact FBI comes in when a crime is suspected of interstate crossing and activity in more than one state. Otherwise, law enforcement comes under the purview and jurisdiction of the state where the crime occurs. Not only has FBI and local LE been sharing information and evidence but the FBI labs have done a lot of the testing.

When a witness is interviewed, he or she is not coached but as the witness will be attesting to the statement under sworn oath, there may be advance conversation about what is expected and what is pertinent.

The copies of a document, including a witness statement, are examined to see if they are satisfactory representations of the original and if they pass that test they are good for all purposes. If a statement were missing a signature, this would be corrected before circulation and use. Any other omissions or errors would similarly be corrected.

It is the State of Florida prosecuting the charged crimes and in the case of the hairbrush short of the one demanded, its agency, Orange County LE asked for and rec'd the wrong hairbrush and its agency, the Orange County LE would be the one to act on that obstruction of justice in concert with the prosecution.

The discrepancy over the lawyer's memory of what the A's wanted in terms of future legal protection for Caylee is not a form of perjury on the part of CA or GA. Their questions may well have been posed but as questions may not have been recorded or remembered. Of course, it's also possible their concerns were not even well understood. In any case, their concerns were reasonable and when CA repeats her thoughts on this, they are believable.
 
The discrepancy over the lawyer's memory of what the A's wanted in terms of future legal protection for Caylee is not a form of perjury on the part of CA or GA. Their questions may well have been posed but as questions may not have been recorded or remembered. Of course, it's also possible their concerns were not even well understood. In any case, their concerns were reasonable and when CA repeats her thoughts on this, they are believable.

Tuba, you did an excellent job of explaining OSCO, FBI, etc. Thank you.

As to the above, I am less inclined to agree....Absolutely CA talking about the lawyer meeting can't be perjury. She wasn't on trial, just an interview with LE.

As for the meeting itself, I was less sure than you that it actually took place. If CA seemed to think she had assurance of the outcome as she said, there would be documents as to guardianship, etc. CA talked about "drawing up papers." I'd say it's an understatement that her concerns weren't understood since those papers never came to fruition.

Further, "Eric" or whomever the biological father may be has taken on an invisible-nanny quality to his existence. No one has seen him or has a telephone number for him. There "may" be an obituary saved on a computer...or not. He may (as CA said on Greta) have been from out-of-state and married, but no one can verify the story.

Part of the problem, I think, is jurisdictional in the sense that I don't believe the family was entitled to draw up such papers without consent of the biological father in the first place. Jesse's DNA test disproved his paternity...has anyone come forward to prove theirs?

I don't imagine a lawyer could draw up such papers based on the say so of the grandparents. If that were the case, a lot of single moms would be able to cut biological dads from their children's lives with the stroke of a pen. This sounds neither reasonable nor believable to me.

**I don't have any children so I could have this all wrong, but I don't think CA was just confused about that meeting. Wouldn't the father have to relinquish custody?**
 
Yes, if the father can be determined. But, there was none on the birth certificate.

The law is pretty tricky that way. If you don't claim paternity, you have few rights. I don't see anyone coming forward to see if Caylee was theirs. Why not? Even if there was the widow of "Eric" with whom KC spoke after his death, wouldn't she call OSCO and say, "yes - my deceased husband was told that Caylee was his child". Someone should step up to the plate and claim her. Who wouldn't want to know?

If a kidnapper had told KC that she was being taught a lesson and to behave herself, then her behavioral response was a huge fu right back. She went wild right at the end there. Spiraling down. Spinning further out of control knowing she was running out of time before all of her past started to catch up with her.
 
If they are witnesses and say something totally different to wht they said in taped intrview, their credibility can be called into account in the form of perjury. If the witness lies about material evidence, the jury is free to ignore anything they say - which could make Cindy's testimony useless for the defense. People forget things, but whene they say something totally opposite of their original official statements, that's considered perjury IF they are called on it. Anyathing they say in any TV interview can also be used against them. The lies that Scott Peterson told to the media helped convict him.

The Anthonys are not on trial, nor have they been charged with anything to date. To be honest, I don't believe a lot of things they have said will be held against them unless it directly interfered with the investigation, such as deliberately holding back information which would locate the body or which would keep LE from fact-finding. If you think about it... a lot of things they told LE in these interviews are things they believed to be true, things they were told by Casey. They cannot be faulted for believing her.
As long as they testify truthfully as to their own knowledge... I don't believe they will be prosecuted or held in contempt of court.
As for deliberately withholding evidence... or tampering with evidence, it's possible that they just don't care, they might put it down to the Anthonys wanting to protect Casey to a degree or not knowing correct protocol. And if the hairbrush did yield both Casey's and Caylee's hair... it does not matter in the grand scheme of things. If Cindy had given them George's hairbrush... that would be a different story.
LE understands that this is a family going through a horrible time... and unless they had some proof that the A's were directly involved in Caylee's death or covered it up somehow... I could see them merely looking over it and not initiating charges against them. They've given them some leeway simply because it's their granddaughter who is missing and now presumed dead. Most LE agencies are really not as 'trigger-happy' towards families of victims as a lot of posters seem to be. Putting George and Cindy in jail would not really help their case at this point.
 
What has struck me about reading all the transcripts and documents is how much is based on hearsay.
Is all hearsay inadmissable in court, or are there exceptions to the rule? TIA:blowkiss:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
192
Guests online
2,315
Total visitors
2,507

Forum statistics

Threads
589,953
Messages
17,928,213
Members
228,016
Latest member
ignoreme123
Back
Top