02-27-2009, 12:48 AM #1Registered User
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
JB alleging leaks by law enforcement
I've seen JB on tv, and even in court accusing law enforcement of leaking information to the media. Now today, he files this motion: http://cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/St...20Feb%2026.pdf
Again, in paragraph 5 he accuses law enforcement of leaking images all throughout the case. We all know that those images were in her open photobucket account and easily accessible to anyone with an internet connection. How can JB state such an accusation in an official court document without some sort of evidence to back it up? Does LE have any recourse against him for such statements?
For you lawyers out there, is it common for the defense attorney to throw such accusations against LE in standard pretrial motions?
Also... this is a separate issue, but why oh why does JB always reference some news article in his motions? Does he really think he is going to change the mind of the court on an issue of law based on what some media outlet is reporting??
02-27-2009, 12:51 AM #2
Another motion huh?? JB has too much time on his hands, he should be getting ready for trial instead of filing nonsense motionsMy Beautiful Precious , I miss you so much!
02-27-2009, 01:03 AM #3
Hey JB, the no clothes party pictures didn't come from the police. I can't believe he bases that motion on the flag Casey doll on ebay.
The aforementioned discs contains hundreds, if not thousands of images,
many of which are irrelevant to the case
Hmmm, he must be worried about those "bad" pictures getting out. LOL
So, since he got this discs yesterday does that mean a new doc dump soon?
02-27-2009, 01:05 AM #4
It sounds like JB might need to read Fla. law. It isn't uncommon for defense attorneys to complain about LE alleged "leaks." Esp. when those alleged leaks reflect badly on their client. But it is my understanding that once the prosecution gives something to the defense then according to their Fla. law it is also made available to the media. So that wouldn't be a "leak" that would be following the law.
As far as the pics of KC partying, I don't think those were LE leaks. Those photos were in the public domain of the WWW. Available to anyone who knew how to search them out. And I believe someone did. If LE had leaked the photos I am sure we would have seen more of them since it has been said there were many more out there.
As far as the alleged leaks, I haven't really seen many of those in this case. There have been a few, but usually they came out just before the news picked them up anyway. Usually other people were involved in those alleged leaks, which means that the alleged leaks could very well have been leaked by the other people who were involved. As an example when CA's brother gave out info on the web, then later the media picked it up.
As a defense attorney, I am sure that JB would much prefer that no announcement had been made of a missing Caylee, the finding of Caylee's remains and anything else that might reflect badly on his client. But certain info the public has a right to know. For the rest of it, if it is in the public domain..... too bad.
02-27-2009, 01:18 AM #5Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
This annoys me. He shouldn't have even told Casey people are making dolls of her due to the fact that now her head will grow even bigger. She is probably LOVING it.
02-27-2009, 01:21 AM #6
02-27-2009, 01:21 AM #7
How can JB go ask a judge to change the law just because his client might be embarrassed? She wasn't embarrassed when they were on public display on Photobucket.
02-27-2009, 01:24 AM #8
Generally speaking the court will always side with the First Amendment. I say the photo's will be released to the public. The video of KC in the jail hospital may be sealed until trial, but if it is a part of discovery by the prosecution then it will get released.
02-27-2009, 01:24 AM #9
I can't seem to get the link to work. Anyone else? or is it JUST me?
ABC provided $200,000.00 toCasey Anthonys defense!The MURDERED should not be USED to pay for the MURDERERS DEFENSE!
American Tragedy: The defense of Casey Anthony.
Juror No. 11 somehow made the journey from Casey is the one on trial to George may be a murderer, based on how George acted on the stand? 3 years of evidence against Casey and he throws George under the bus. Makes sense?What evidence indicated that George might be a murderer? Anyone?Weren't they to ONLY consider EVIDENCE?This NOT GUILTY verdict throws Caylee right back into the swamp she decomposed in. Thanks to this "impartial" jury.
02-27-2009, 01:25 AM #10
02-27-2009, 01:25 AM #11
Is he for real? I think he is trying to see what prosecution will be bringing in the way of visuals at trial.
I hope Judge Strickland slaps him a new one.
02-27-2009, 01:27 AM #12
02-27-2009, 01:27 AM #13
02-27-2009, 01:28 AM #14
02-27-2009, 01:28 AM #15
I also think he is confusing Sunshine Law with LE leaks.
By capoly in forum MassachusettsReplies: 8Last Post: 02-17-2013, 01:02 AM
By imamaze in forum IndianaReplies: 8Last Post: 02-17-2013, 12:56 AM
By RCOOKE in forum Missing ArchivesReplies: 0Last Post: 04-11-2008, 08:33 AM
By Kelly in forum Missing ArchivesReplies: 6Last Post: 08-20-2006, 01:31 PM
By BigAppleDetective in forum JonBenet RamseyReplies: 34Last Post: 10-21-2004, 12:19 AM