Motion to Compel Reciprocal Discovery - What is the Defense Trying to Hide??

Status
Not open for further replies.

hroark2112

Goalier than thou!!
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
215
Reaction score
0
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/22313211/detail.html

Apart from the obvious, not disclosing the contact information of the "witnesses" from TES who claim they didn't find a body in September, what else are they hiding? I just get the gut feeling that the defense is trying to get away with not disclosing information and surprising the prosecution at trial.

I call shenanigans on that!! :D
 
I don't think they have anything TO disclose. JMO.
 
I thought the judge had given the defense until February 1 to disclose the "evidence" that they had uncovered that KC is innocent. I haven't seen any of that disclosed yet!!
 
That they have no money and are not preparing a defense but are focused on keeping KC from a sentence of death after her conviction.
 
Ineffective assistance of counsel.......by not conforming to the criminal procedures necessary to have a "fair" trial, and to void the waiver of appeal she will get when she agrees to a plea deal.

Either that, or they don't plan on putting on any defense other than calling Casey Anthony to the stand to tell her "truth", about what happened to Caylee.
 
I thought the judge had given the defense until February 1 to disclose the "evidence" that they had uncovered that KC is innocent. I haven't seen any of that disclosed yet!!

What the letters to Judge Strickland are not considered evidence that KC is innocent.. I think that was what the defense was referring to.:dance:
 
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/22313211/detail.html

Apart from the obvious, not disclosing the contact information of the "witnesses" from TES who claim they didn't find a body in September, what else are they hiding? I just get the gut feeling that the defense is trying to get away with not disclosing information and surprising the prosecution at trial.

I call shenanigans on that!! :D

Or could it be the Defense just wanted their claims out there for
the public (jury) but are unable to back it up and they may no longer
have experts to further strengthen their case.
As you posted, maybe they were attempting not to disclose info.
in hopes of getting away with it till trial.

The Motion was so well written and should solve the problem.
I have faith in JS
 
Ineffective assistance of counsel.......by not conforming to the criminal procedures necessary to have a "fair" trial, and to void the waiver of appeal she will get when she agrees to a plea deal.

Either that, or they don't plan on putting on any defense other than calling Casey Anthony to the stand to tell her "truth", about what happened to Caylee.

And then we will all go : Now I understand ..
 
What the letters to Judge Strickland are not considered evidence that KC is innocent.. I think that was what the defense was referring to.:dance:

If you are referring to the JS giving the defense time to submit their witness list that was sometime last year before the letters were received. Interestingly, TM said in court that someone put the body in the woods while KC was in jail and JS gave them until February 1st to prove it and all of a sudden, out of the blue, JS gets these two letters last month. Amazing, just in the nick of time, except defense can't use them unless they ask for more time because of the letters. My guess is they have no witnesses they can use effectively. Not even KC's parents. JMO
 
In order to use those letters in court at trial wouldn't the people who wrote them have to be there so the Pros can question them?
 
Ineffective assistance of counsel.......by not conforming to the criminal procedures necessary to have a "fair" trial, and to void the waiver of appeal she will get when she agrees to a plea deal.Either that, or they don't plan on putting on any defense other than calling Casey Anthony to the stand to tell her "truth", about what happened to Caylee.

BBM Can you say more about the waiver of appeal? Is a right to appeal what she will want the most?

Defense certainly does look like they may not make any attempt to put on a defense. What would happen if Casey got up on the stand and gave another story with no base in reality?
 
I think the defense has nothing to work with and nobody willing to work with them. AL said it herself in her interview with MV, how hard it was to investigate and how people are afraid to come forward.
Gee wonder why?

I'd think AL would have a hard time getting any ethical medical expert on board with her antics. Notice the ones they boasted they had are silent and we're still waiting for discovery from them. Tick Tock.
 
BBM Can you say more about the waiver of appeal? Is a right to appeal what she will want the most?

Defense certainly does look like they may not make any attempt to put on a defense. What would happen if Casey got up on the stand and gave another story with no base in reality?


It is my understanding that when a guilty plea is given, it usually requires a waiver of her right to appeal, but if in fact an "ineffectiveness of counsel" is proven, that waiver can be voided and she can then appeal.

If the best the defense can do is to try to keep her from getting the death penalty, then setting her up for a plea to get life, plus an appeal issue....might seem like a WIN for them, given the circumstances they have to deal with, being a lying, obstinate client, and a "tainted" jury pool. Maybe trying her a second time, years later, could level the playing field in the jury pool area.

I'm just hypothesizing here, but, I don't think the defense is gonna spend any more MONEY on her defense, only on the mitigation.
 
In order to use those letters in court at trial wouldn't the people who wrote them have to be there so the Pros can question them?

Ideally they would have signed their letters and provided their contact information so they could be contacted, but alas. Apparently researcher/scientist/biologist types aren't aware of common communication protocols.

I can just see the author of the concerned citizen letter attempting to counter the evidence of the FBI, ME, Body Farm etc. Wouldn't that be a hoot?? LOL!!
 
In response to one of the "witnesses" LB who supposedly searched the area, I found this: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/billclintondiary/111090259401664830/
If you scroll to the bottom there are numerous posts by a LB from the same town. Judging by her terrible grammar and incessant posts to former President Clinton (on a random message board) asking him to e-mail her so she can send him pictures, she doesn't seem very credible to me. Where do they find these nutcases!?
 
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/22313211/detail.html

Apart from the obvious, not disclosing the contact information of the "witnesses" from TES who claim they didn't find a body in September, what else are they hiding? I just get the gut feeling that the defense is trying to get away with not disclosing information and surprising the prosecution at trial.

I call shenanigans on that!! :D

DC must have a really compelling story to warrant all this drama to discredit TES. You'd almost think TM had hired his volunteers and vetted their complete histories and psych profiles before allowing them to search the underbrush for a missing toddler.
If the defense releases the contact information of the volunteers who used TES to do their own searches, photographing, videotaping and breaching the childs confidentiality all the while, wouldn'd TES have a case against all of these 'witnesses'? I think he does.
My guess is the witnesses have more impressive psych histories than the defendant in this case. Not a good start IMO. :angel:
 
It is my understanding that when a guilty plea is given, it usually requires a waiver of her right to appeal, but if in fact an "ineffectiveness of counsel" is proven, that waiver can be voided and she can then appeal.

If the best the defense can do is to try to keep her from getting the death penalty, then setting her up for a plea to get life, plus an appeal issue....might seem like a WIN for them, given the circumstances they have to deal with, being a lying, obstinate client, and a "tainted" jury pool. Maybe trying her a second time, years later, could level the playing field in the jury pool area.

I'm just hypothesizing here, but, I don't think the defense is gonna spend any more MONEY on her defense, only on the mitigation.

Thanks, tweety933. I think you have a good grasp on what's going on.

I see, then later down the road Casey may still be able to claim she had "ineffectiveness of counsel", if proven, and now her team can make it seem so for a later appeal. Am I thinking in the right direction? Suppose it back fires though, and the "ineffective" is determined to be "willful abuse of the legal system by the counsel"?

What do you think Casey understands about the chances they are taking? Do you think she really is going to plea on the fraud charges? Will she feel like she won if she doesn't get the DP, and can appeal later? Just very curious to understand what is going on.
 
The SA has called their bluff. It's time for the defense to stop re-arranging chairs on the "S.S. Anthonyantic"

I mean everyone else has figured it out and they jumped into the life boats and apparently aren't looking or going back .......Kobi,H.Lee,the fawning networks,Mac,......

:help:

Jmho
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
69
Guests online
827
Total visitors
896

Forum statistics

Threads
589,923
Messages
17,927,712
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top