944 users online (189 members and 755 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 30 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 443
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,699

    Evidence

    How much of all of these audio and video tapes from the "A's" and KC will be admissible in court? What evidence will be deemed inadmissible?
    Anyone care to educate us on how that may play out?
    I'm concerned that much of all of this will not be heard by the jury after the lawyers get done arguing...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Polk County, Florida
    Posts
    7,216
    And please educate me on the consequences of JB carrying letters/cards between KC and the parents (please?).

    I know in my facility (and we're non-secure) it's a big NO-NO!
    <Click on User CP>
    Scroll down and on the left
    <Click on Edit Ignore List>
    In add a Member to your list
    <start typing the name of the person you want to ignore>
    <Click on OKay>

    IF WE COOK IT THEY WILL COME!


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    275
    They may be admissible, just depends. Could be argued as hearsay (out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted in the statement) BUT there are exceptions to that ... statement against interest, etc., etc.

    I'm thinking they could be used against GA, CA and Lee but not likely against KC, although mostly what GA, CA and Lee do in these tapes is question her and make general statements about things that don't really pertain to the case against KC.
    JMO

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,492
    Quote Originally Posted by manatee View Post
    How much of all of these audio and video tapes from the "A's" and KC will be admissible in court? What evidence will be deemed inadmissible?
    Anyone care to educate us on how that may play out?
    I'm concerned that much of all of this will not be heard by the jury after the lawyers get done arguing...
    According to the lawyers on TV it is all admissible.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    848
    It's admissible if relevant. Not all will be considered relevant.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,042
    Quote Originally Posted by bobodedoo View Post
    They may be admissible, just depends. Could be argued as hearsay (out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted in the statement) BUT there are exceptions to that ... statement against interest, etc., etc.

    I'm thinking they could be used against GA, CA and Lee but not likely against KC, although mostly what GA, CA and Lee do in these tapes is question her and make general statements about things that don't really pertain to the case against KC.
    The tapes would be offered as circumstantial evidence of a laundrey list of items relative to Casey, such as her efforts to assist in locating Caylee, her lack of distress, etc.
    Since offering them as evidence in this manner does not assume the truth of the matter therein,
    that will negate the hearsay argument.
    Statements against her own interest, abound. That will negate the hearsay argument as well.
    In short(because we could create a forum dedicated to hearsay exclusions and arguments):

    Once the tapes are properly authenticated by the prosecution (and they will be) I see no legal basis to exclude them at trial.

    As always, just my humble opinion.

  7. #7
    Yeah, even the defense lawyers on NG last night didn't argue with the admissability of the jail house videos. Like BetsyB said, if anything relevent to the case was discussed in these videos it's admissable in court.

    I think these videos explain why no one in Team Anthony has visited with KC this time around. JB knows how damning these videos could be and he doesn't want any more added to his pile. Instead, they are getting information back-and-forth by "other means" (imo).

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,042
    And quite frankly, if there were any clever tricks or maneuvers to keep even a portion of these otherwise admissable tapes out of evidence, I wouldn't share that here with JB anyway. Who would?
    This is not a reflection on my previous post in this thread, by which I still stand. It's just a little addendum.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,145
    Quote Originally Posted by bobodedoo View Post
    They may be admissible, just depends. Could be argued as hearsay (out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted in the statement) BUT there are exceptions to that ... statement against interest, etc., etc.

    I'm thinking they could be used against GA, CA and Lee but not likely against KC, although mostly what GA, CA and Lee do in these tapes is question her and make general statements about things that don't really pertain to the case against KC.

    There was a judge/lawyer on the Today show this morning - she said that all these released tapes, videos, audios, documents, etc are ALL admissable

    She said that can argue evasivness in Casey's answers, the myraid of strange emotions, etc. The defense can argue that emotions that are out of wack for someone that is mentally challenged, etc.

    So yes everything is admissable

  10. #10
    Coley's Avatar
    Coley is offline You are damned if you do and damned if you don't
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    War Eagle
    Posts
    1,728
    Quote Originally Posted by TURBOTHINK View Post
    According to the lawyers on TV it is all admissible.

    Exactly, this isn't a lie detector test.

    Now whether JB tries to argue for it not to be included is his doing.

    When you get arrested they say this:

    You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?


    The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to be used when informing a suspect of his or her rights. However, the Court did create a set of guidelines which must be followed. The ruling states:
    ...The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says may be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent him or her. "


    KC is in custody still so whatever she says to anyone (except her lawyer) can be used against her.
    Baez Anthony Law Firm 1.888.URA.FOOL

    If you don't like someone or something they are doing why not lend an opinion before making one?


    "I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." -Bertrand Russell


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,699
    I guess my biggest question is about the GA & CA FBI videos? Will those be ruled hearsay? It is not KC talking...

  12. #12
    Coley's Avatar
    Coley is offline You are damned if you do and damned if you don't
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    War Eagle
    Posts
    1,728
    Quote Originally Posted by manatee View Post
    I guess my biggest question is about the GA & CA FBI videos? Will those be ruled hearsay? It is not KC talking...

    This would come into play if CA & GA were called to the stand. More along the lines of credibility or characteristic witness.

    ETA: It's not hearsay. It was a recorded interview. If it weren't on video and not with the FBI then that would be hearsay.
    Baez Anthony Law Firm 1.888.URA.FOOL

    If you don't like someone or something they are doing why not lend an opinion before making one?


    "I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." -Bertrand Russell

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Atlanta GA
    Posts
    7,376
    Could they be used to impeach their testimony?

    Because that would be AWESOME!

    Same question on media interviews.

  14. #14
    Coley's Avatar
    Coley is offline You are damned if you do and damned if you don't
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    War Eagle
    Posts
    1,728
    Quote Originally Posted by angelmom View Post
    Could they be used to impeach their testimony?

    Because that would be AWESOME!

    Same question on media interviews.

    I don't know about impeached but I know that what they have done so far with media and LE interviews has made it to where they will hurt the defense and be great for the prosecution.
    Baez Anthony Law Firm 1.888.URA.FOOL

    If you don't like someone or something they are doing why not lend an opinion before making one?


    "I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." -Bertrand Russell

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    667
    <<Will those be ruled hearsay?>>

    I don't think so. I don't think it's hearsay for a witness to take the stand and describe what a defendant said to them, did or didn't do. I think hearsay would be more like if a witness took the stand and said they had heard the defendant said this or that.

Page 1 of 30 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Scent Evidence ... Reliable Evidence Or Junk Science?
    By Wudge in forum General Information & Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-13-2009, 11:55 AM

Tags for this Thread