1258 users online (260 members and 998 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 164
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    385

    Searchers and the Motion Regarding TES

    Last edited by JBean; 11-23-2009 at 10:16 PM. Reason: clarify title

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    In the Woods In Georgia
    Posts
    5,481
    I am assuming this is just Joy Wray..
    She's a supporter..

    I take that back, seems JJ was there..
    Last edited by mydailyopinions; 11-23-2009 at 09:00 PM. Reason: I take that back...ummm
    Justice For Caylee Marie

  3. #3
    Insomnia Momma's Avatar
    Insomnia Momma is offline If not supported by a link it's just what I think!
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    2,049
    Quote Originally Posted by mydailyopinions View Post
    I am assuming this is just Joy Wray..
    She's a supporter..

    I take that back, seems JJ was there..
    I can't believe JJ would swear to having been right in that exact spot and there was no body.

    Me thinks someone wasn't looking very carefully.
    Caylee - WE will NEVER forget. Neither will Karma.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    322
    Thanks for starting the thread, suepitzl.

    From the orlando sentinel article:

    "The motion was filed after Casey Anthony's defense attorneys found two people, not listed in EquuSearch's documents, who stated they searched the exact area where the skeletal remains were found.

    Searcher Joe Jordan claims he searched the area on Sept. 1, 2008 with five or six others, including a dog handler named Danny Ibison and another dog handler from the Panama City Sheriff's Office, court documents show.

    Another woman, Laura Buchanan, of Mendham, N.J., said that on Sept. 3, 2008 she searched "near the privacy fence and worked my way towards and then beyond the spot where the body was found," according to a sworn statement.

    Both Buchanan and Jordan said there was no indication a dead or decaying body was in the area when they searched."

    I skimmed today's motion and at first glance it seems like Mr.Jordan claims to have been about 5 feet from where the body was found, and Buchanan said she was "towards and beyond" the spot. I'm not sure how this means that the body wasn't there, though. Considering the denseness of the woods, it'd be hard to see anything unless you were basically on top of it IMO. As far as there being no smell, I'm not sure there'd still be any smell by the time they were searching. I don't know. I'd be curious as to how Baez got a hold of these people. Did he have a kind of hotline like the "do you have proof that casey is innocent" hotline, a la "did you search the woods and didn't find anything"?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    603
    I don't understand any of this.. it seems like they're trying to prove a negative. There's no way for them to prove that Caylee's body wasn't there (especially with the plant growth info), all they're doing is proving over and over again that the searchers didn't find her.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    322
    Quote Originally Posted by shellsbells View Post
    I don't understand any of this.. it seems like they're trying to prove a negative. There's no way for them to prove that Caylee's body wasn't there (especially with the plant growth info), all they're doing is proving over and over again that the searchers didn't find her.
    ITA shellsbells. The title of the news article is this:

    Witness: Caylee Not In Woods When I Searched
    Defense Team Claims Body Dumped After Jailing


    IMO it should read "Caylee Not in Woods WHERE I Searched"

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,817
    Here's what I don't get....

    if these witnesses are to be believed, what advantage is it to the defense to reveal this information NOW to the PUBLIC through the MEDIA as opposed to saving this information for testimony in a trial?

    If these witnesses were kept in the pocket of the defense (so to speak) until the trial, then ONLY the jury would have an opportunity to try to discredit their testimony through the only means available to them during the trial (any other testimony/evidence entered into record), so at least a shot that these witnesses may be believable (only have to convince 12 people)

    By releasing this "newfound witness story" NOW, before trial, to the PUBLIC through the media, aren't they opening the statements of these witnesses up to a much, much larger group of people with a LOT more resources to discredit them NOW which is a greater risk that any testimony they can offer would be less believable???

    What could possibly be gained by the defense to show their cards (as unbelievably silly as they are) to the PUBLIC and MEDIA now??

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    In the Woods In Georgia
    Posts
    5,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Kentjbkent View Post
    Here's what I don't get....

    if these witnesses are to be believed, what advantage is it to the defense to reveal this information NOW to the PUBLIC through the MEDIA as opposed to saving this information for testimony in a trial?

    If these witnesses were kept in the pocket of the defense (so to speak) until the trial, then ONLY the jury would have an opportunity to try to discredit their testimony through the only means available to them during the trial (any other testimony/evidence entered into record), so at least a shot that these witnesses may be believable (only have to convince 12 people)

    By releasing this "newfound witness story" NOW, before trial, to the PUBLIC through the media, aren't they opening the statements of these witnesses up to a much, much larger group of people with a LOT more resources to discredit them NOW which is a greater risk that any testimony they can offer would be less believable???

    What could possibly be gained by the defense to show their cards (as unbelievably silly as they are) to the PUBLIC and MEDIA now??
    Would I be off base to think that maybe the defense is begging for a plea deal now? They are just doing it in a way that doesn't come right out and say they can't defend this case?
    Justice For Caylee Marie

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    385
    SOJU.....You are welcome. I thought that JJ guy had a lot of posts about a year or so ago.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    In the sunshine.
    Posts
    9,875
    I understand that the defense will call "searchers" to testify that the body wasn't there at that time. They are entitled to present opinions and statement s that support their theory. HOWEVER.....there is NO WAY ON EARTH that is is possible to guarantee that their searches were without flaw or error. Interestingly.....the defense has "proclaimed" their position of withholding any evidence until the trial, where it will all "make sense", yet they have no issue with penning memos regarding Kronk, AND people that state the area was cleared. The dogs utilized by OCSO that "hit" on decomp will be evaluated, handlers discussed and experience analyzed, and credentials combed. Unofficial dog handlers along with their owners who took it upon themselves to search.....will be held to the same standard. I am so NOT concerned with these "searchers" because unless they have received training in search methods or at least formal briefing from credentialed professionals.....their testimony will be nothing more than a "he said / she said". 25 old men with metal detectors could walk a Florida beach looking for jewelry. Just because a few pass by the gold watch doesn't mean it wasn't there as they scanned the sand. Semantics......all it is.......oh and......perspective.
    Last edited by sleutherontheside; 11-23-2009 at 09:53 PM.


  11. #11
    essies's Avatar
    essies is offline "We're all just walking each other home." Ram Dass
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    6,261
    Quote Originally Posted by mydailyopinions View Post
    Would I be off base to think that maybe the defense is begging for a plea deal now? They are just doing it in a way that doesn't come right out and say they can't defend this case?
    You're reading my mind!! But, I don't think the SA will be swayed as the defense looks desperate with a plethora of theories.
    Kronk may have killed Caylee and placed her on Suburban DR. and called LE TWICE!! When Caine doesn't cooperate with following thru and finding her-he moves her! Cause Caylee wasn''t there in Sept. -according to JW and these searchers! Then sometime in Oct. (I guess) Kronk returns Caylee to Suburban Dr. Then waits till Dec. 11th to re-discover her!
    I can't wait till trial!!

    "It's time to tell the story of a little girl named Caylee" Linda Drane Burdick
    The future has many names: for the fearful it's the unknown, for the reckless it's the adventure, for the pessimists it's the unattainable. For the brave, it is opportunity.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,096
    I am just now seeing this....JJ used to post here. We need to search the really really old threads....

    I found this thread with posts made by JJ who goes by another name now evidently. Hope this is not violating TOS..I am not talking about another poster, just referencing. It will be interesting to read back and see what info was posted then regarding the searches he was participating in.

    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...ght=joe+jordan
    Last edited by TotallyObsessed; 11-23-2009 at 10:12 PM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    541
    It appears that the defense is trying to use the statements of two individuals to show that TES was not compliant with the order to provide info of all TES volunteers that searched the area. TES supplied the requested info for 32 searchers, and the defense claims that these two were not listed with the 32. The defense is arguing that since TES was not completely compliant, that info from each and every volunteer should be given to the defense.

    But by her own testimony( http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21703813/detail.html ), Laura B admits that "4. We were not officially assigned to search that area. We went on our own."

    TES had no control over that and should not be held responsible for LB's actions, rendering useless the submission of Laura B's statement by the defense.

    (My own uneducated opinion of course )

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,096
    How creepy is this??? While looking back over the old posts made by JJ....here was a poster who suggested to him on 8/4/08:

    Quote:

    I posted on the main discussion thread last night that I believe when Casey told her father "she's close" that she meant it literally.

    I think they should check the wooded area behind the Anthony home, accessible via the right-of-way which runs directly behind the home, towards the body of water.

    Just a hunch, but I do think she would put Caylee in a place she was familiar with."

    Uhhhh that is really creepy...

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,752
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay D View Post
    It appears that the defense is trying to use the statements of two individuals to show that TES was not compliant with the order to provide info of all TES volunteers that searched the area. TES supplied the requested info for 32 searchers, and the defense claims that these two were not listed with the 32. The defense is arguing that since TES was not completely compliant, that info from each and every volunteer should be given to the defense.

    But by her own testimony( http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21703813/detail.html ), Laura B admits that "4. We were not officially assigned to search that area. We went on our own."

    TES had no control over that and should not be held responsible for LB's actions, rendering useless the submission of Laura B's statement by the defense.

    (My own uneducated opinion of course )
    But we did put a lot of faith in those searchers at the time even though we knew they were searching on their own

Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Dominic Casey: Motion to Strike Notice of Deposition & Motion for Protective Order#2
    By The World According in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 566
    Last Post: 07-10-2011, 07:49 PM
  2. Replies: 108
    Last Post: 04-02-2011, 01:43 AM
  3. Defense files motion to vacate/motion for clarification?
    By yeknomaras in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 03-22-2011, 08:17 PM
  4. Dominic Casey: Motion to Strike Notice of Deposition & Motion for Protective Order#1
    By The World According in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 557
    Last Post: 05-18-2010, 01:57 PM
  5. Nejame Files Motion to Strike for TES/Baez 7/16/09 Motion
    By Drivenon in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 408
    Last Post: 08-21-2009, 09:38 AM

Tags for this Thread