1443 users online (306 members and 1137 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 120
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    401

    Why is Tim Miller as a Material Witness "significant"?

    Cfnews13 says, "A judge in the Casey Anthony murder case has issued two significant orders - one named Texas EquuSearch founder Tim Miller as a material witness". Why is that a big deal, and how does it affect the request for search records?

    link: http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2009/8/27/tim_miller_material_witness_in_casey_case.html

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    918
    It's a big deal because Tim can testify that the place where Caylee was eventually found was immersed in water and a proper search was not conducted at the time, which negates the claims by the defense that Caylee wasn't there beforehand (ex. Dominic Casey footage), and was placed there at a later date while KC was in jail. Therefore exonerating KC.

    Is that what you're asking?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    443
    Quote Originally Posted by Reagan View Post
    It's a big deal because Tim can testify that the place where Caylee was eventually found was immersed in water and a proper search was not conducted at the time, which negates the claims by the defense that Caylee wasn't there beforehand (ex. Dominic Casey footage), and was placed there at a later date while KC was in jail. Therefore exonerating KC.

    Is that what you're asking?
    Not quite following your meaning here. If the testimony in question negates the defense's claims, how could that exonerate KC?
    "When we are born we cry that we are come
    To this great stage of fools."
    Will Shakespeare

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,859
    Quote Originally Posted by absolut_alexis View Post
    Cfnews13 says, "A judge in the Casey Anthony murder case has issued two significant orders - one named Texas EquuSearch founder Tim Miller as a material witness". Why is that a big deal, and how does it affect the request for search records?

    link: http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2009/8/27/tim_miller_material_witness_in_casey_case.html
    I don't know he is considered that big of a deal on this issue for the defense.

    However, the Defense requested it. And as an alternative, given rights to all his papers, video,etc.. of the search for Caylee in the area she was found in. Here is the motion.

    http://www.wftv.com/pdf/20344194/detail.html
    Just my opinion.....
    Finally found a reason for the Ignore feature!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,859
    Quote Originally Posted by carrie View Post
    Not quite following your meaning here. If the testimony in question negates the defense's claims, how could that exonerate KC?
    That's the million dollar question. LOL!

    If he makes it to the trial as a witness.. Just think of all the things he can talk about. Like how helpful the family was in the search for Caylee.
    Just my opinion.....
    Finally found a reason for the Ignore feature!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,582
    Quote Originally Posted by absolut_alexis View Post
    Cfnews13 says, "A judge in the Casey Anthony murder case has issued two significant orders - one named Texas EquuSearch founder Tim Miller as a material witness". Why is that a big deal, and how does it affect the request for search records?

    link: http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2009/8/27/tim_miller_material_witness_in_casey_case.html
    (clip from the ORDER)
    ORDERED AND ADJUDGED
    1. That the attorney for Timothy Miller and Texas Equusearch, Mark E NeJame, has agreed to present Timothy Miller as a representative of Texas Equusearch (TES) for deposition in Orlando, Florida. The Court does not address the issue as to whether Timothy Miller will need to be deemed a material witness and said issue is rendered moot;

    The actual ORDER that Judge S. issued does NOT name Tim Miller as a "material witness". The issue is moot because Nejame offered to have Miller come from Texas and be present in Orlando for a deposition conducted by the Defense team. The Defense wanted to certify TM as a "material witness" because it would give the Orlando Judge more jurisdiction to order TM to come from Texas for depositions and the trial. Without TM's voluntary agreement to submit to a depo IN Orlando ....... Judge S. had absolutely no power to make a TEXAS resident do anything in FLORIDA.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by carrie View Post
    Not quite following your meaning here. If the testimony in question negates the defense's claims, how could that exonerate KC?
    The reason JB wants to question the searchers is that JB hopes to find people to testify that they were in the area but did not see a body, and thus will make the case that if they did not find the body, it was not there. For example say he gets a searcher to testify – the testimony could go like this.

    JB: You state that you have helped TM with 7 searches now and that you might have walked within 2 feet of where the body was found back in August , but did not see a body is that true?
    Witness John Smith: Yes sir, you see the water …
    JB: Just answer the question!

    Then in his closing arguments JB could argue:
    “You heard from John Smith, who is a veteran searcher that he searched the area within just a few inches of where the body was found and saw nothing. He saw nothing because there was no body”.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by kushka View Post
    The reason JB wants to question the searchers is that JB hopes to find people to testify that they were in the area but did not see a body, and thus will make the case that if they did not find the body, it was not there. For example say he gets a searcher to testify – the testimony could go like this.

    JB: You state that you have helped TM with 7 searches now and that you might have walked within 2 feet of where the body was found back in August , but did not see a body is that true?
    Witness John Smith: Yes sir, you see the water …
    JB: Just answer the question!


    Then in his closing arguments JB could argue:
    “You heard from John Smith, who is a veteran searcher that he searched the area within just a few inches of where the body was found and saw nothing. He saw nothing because there was no body”.


    Objection to the bolded by me...Leading.

    If Tim is a defense witness Baez may not ask a leading question which implies, suggests or prompts the witness to give a particular answer

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,174
    Hmmm...this is interesting.

    I theorize that it's going to be brought up that Tim Miller went on national TV during the search (I think it was Nancy Grace) and said that most parents who kill their child, leave the child within a few miles of home. I theorize that the defense will argue that Tim Miller's statement to this effect on National TV inadvertently gave the SOD "instructions" on where to dump Caylee in order to "frame" Casey. Based on this theory, the defense would hold that the SOD put Caylee in one place which was about to be searched, but after the SOD heard Tim Miller's remark, SOD moved her to Suburban knowing the search there was done or called off - all this after Casey was in jail. I believe the areas being searched were publicized to the general public and televised enough that locals would know where the searches took place - but I could be wrong.

    The article also states that the defense wants to interview searchers. I theorize that the defense interviews of searchers could be about these things:

    1. Do the searchers know anyone in Casey's orbit or the orbit of whoever the defense is going to claim was the SOD? (Since we know this is a SODDI defense - that would be a logical question to ask.)

    2. What did the searchers see at the Suburban Drive site when they searched there? I imagine the defense wants the searchers to say the trash bags were not where they were found in December.

    3. Was the area flooded or dry when they searched?

    4. Was anyone observing the search?

    5. Was anything found anywhere else that was searched that could tie back to the stuff found on Suburban. For example, stuff they could ask searchers about:
    a. Caylee's shoes - which were not found with Caylee, so, were any of Caylee's shoes missing and were they found elsewhere?
    b. The little plastic pony found with Caylee which came in a 3-pak - so did any searcher find a mate for it during any part of the search - this being in question ONLY IF the police did not find the 2 other little plastic pony's at the Anthony house.
    c. Maybe even asking searchers if they found heart shaped stickers anywhere else.

    Anyway, this is just my thoughts and theories on the matter.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Between the beach and the river
    Posts
    6,552
    I thought it had something to do with allowing the defense to go to Texas and ask a judge there to court order TM to turn over the records they were requesting.If he was certified by a judge as a material witness in FL it would bear more weight with the courts in Texas.
    Always ,just my opinion





    *****************************************
    We never saw it coming .Please talk to your teen even if you don't think you need to !
    Far more teens commit impulsive suicide without chronic depression
    Miss U James


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Orlando, FL, USA
    Posts
    771
    Quote Originally Posted by kushka View Post
    The reason JB wants to question the searchers is that JB hopes to find people to testify that they were in the area but did not see a body, and thus will make the case that if they did not find the body, it was not there. For example say he gets a searcher to testify – the testimony could go like this.

    JB: You state that you have helped TM with 7 searches now and that you might have walked within 2 feet of where the body was found back in August , but did not see a body is that true?
    Witness John Smith: Yes sir, you see the water …
    JB: Just answer the question!

    Then in his closing arguments JB could argue:
    “You heard from John Smith, who is a veteran searcher that he searched the area within just a few inches of where the body was found and saw nothing. He saw nothing because there was no body”.
    cross-exam

    SA: Why do you think you couldn't see the body back in August
    Witness John Smith: Well, sir, I was knee deep in murky water and mud so I couldn't see anything

    So the State could say in their closing "Even a veteran searcher like Mr. Smith wouldn't have been able to find the remains in the major floods caused by tropical storm Faye that same month."

    Isn't that how that would work?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by Omachka View Post
    cross-exam

    SA: Why do you think you couldn't see the body back in August
    Witness John Smith: Well, sir, I was knee deep in murky water and mud so I couldn't see anything

    So the State could say in their closing "Even a veteran searcher like Mr. Smith wouldn't have been able to find the remains in the major floods caused by tropical storm Faye that same month."

    Isn't that how that would work?
    Yes, of course, if the SA is at all on the ball. I was trying to answer the question of what JB was hoping to get out of the list of searchers - by answering with one thing he may be hoping to get from them as witnesses - I do not at all think that it will really work.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    In the sweet Carolina pines
    Posts
    3,724
    I understand that TM has agreed to be deposed by JB, but what about the 32 searchers? If they live in another state they can't be forced to go to FLA and answer JB's questions can they?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Orlando, FL, USA
    Posts
    771
    Quote Originally Posted by kushka View Post
    Yes, of course, if the SA is at all on the ball. I was trying to answer the question of what JB was hoping to get out of the list of searchers - by answering with one thing he may be hoping to get from them as witnesses - I do not at all think that it will really work.
    I see what you were saying. I'm sure that's that JB is hoping but I'm also sure the SA is on the ball and will be able to stop that from being successful. She's a pretty sharp cookie... whereas JB is devoid of any sharp corners at all. lol

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Princess Rose View Post
    Hmmm...this is interesting.

    I theorize that it's going to be brought up that Tim Miller went on national TV during the search (I think it was Nancy Grace) and said that most parents who kill their child, leave the child within a few miles of home. I theorize that the defense will argue that Tim Miller's statement to this effect on National TV inadvertently gave the SOD "instructions" on where to dump Caylee in order to "frame" Casey. Based on this theory, the defense would hold that the SOD put Caylee in one place which was about to be searched, but after the SOD heard Tim Miller's remark, SOD moved her to Suburban knowing the search there was done or called off - all this after Casey was in jail. I believe the areas being searched were publicized to the general public and televised enough that locals would know where the searches took place - but I could be wrong.

    The article also states that the defense wants to interview searchers. I theorize that the defense interviews of searchers could be about these things:

    1. Do the searchers know anyone in Casey's orbit or the orbit of whoever the defense is going to claim was the SOD? (Since we know this is a SODDI defense - that would be a logical question to ask.)

    2. What did the searchers see at the Suburban Drive site when they searched there? I imagine the defense wants the searchers to say the trash bags were not where they were found in December.

    3. Was the area flooded or dry when they searched?

    4. Was anyone observing the search?

    5. Was anything found anywhere else that was searched that could tie back to the stuff found on Suburban. For example, stuff they could ask searchers about:
    a. Caylee's shoes - which were not found with Caylee, so, were any of Caylee's shoes missing and were they found elsewhere?
    b. The little plastic pony found with Caylee which came in a 3-pak - so did any searcher find a mate for it during any part of the search - this being in question ONLY IF the police did not find the 2 other little plastic pony's at the Anthony house.
    c. Maybe even asking searchers if they found heart shaped stickers anywhere else.

    Anyway, this is just my thoughts and theories on the matter.
    The defense can theorize this all it desires, however, since Casey did not go to jail until October 14th and the botanists will testify (and have already stated) that Caylee was there AT LEAST (that means at a minimum) four months...well, that puts the ball squarely back in Casey's court so to speak.

    ABC provided $200,000.00 to
    Casey 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.

Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 47
    Last Post: 08-10-2012, 01:39 PM
  2. Replies: 66
    Last Post: 11-06-2011, 02:11 AM
  3. MD~Matthew Sluss chastised other child porn traders about "stale" material
    By Missizzy in forum Crimes-Spotlight on Children
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-13-2011, 01:46 PM
  4. Defense Witness List-where's the "full story"?
    By SoCalSleuth in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 01-25-2009, 03:34 PM