1167 users online (223 members and 944 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 37 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 550
  1. #1
    TakeNote's Avatar
    TakeNote is offline Mother to little post it my boy wonder & Founding Member of AFKBPOFPOPL
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    chasing a super hero
    Posts
    6,187

    Prosecutors have new material and information that they dont want released to the pub

    http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news...ony-trial-date (thank you to angelwhocares )

    *Prosecutors also filed a new motion asking the judge for a private closed-door meeting without the defense attorneys. Prosecutors say they have new material and information from investigators regarding the case that they don’t want to go be disclosed to the public.*


    what do you think this could be? any ideas?

    do we know what kind of info prosecutors are allowed to with hold?

    i found this very interesting

    one thought i had was that KC was involed in some other *hinky* matter that involved someone else....and they are still investigating that crime....
    Last edited by TakeNote; 02-03-2010 at 08:28 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    9,462
    Quote Originally Posted by TakeNote View Post
    http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news...ony-trial-date (thank you to angelwhocares )

    *Prosecutors also filed a new motion asking the judge for a private closed-door meeting without the defense attorneys. Prosecutors say they have new material and information from investigators regarding the case that they don’t want to go be disclosed to the public.*


    what do you think this could be? any ideas?

    do we know what kind of info prosecutors are allowed to with hold?

    i found this very interesting
    Thank you TakeNote- you beat me to it, I was just going to start a new thread about this info.

    I am focusing on the key phrase *new material and information from investigators*. Whatever the info is, it appears it was not garnered from experts or examiners like the FBI. That is my . I am interested to read what others speculate the evidence could be.

    I also wonder if it could be something of a sexual nature, thus the desire to keep it under wraps from the public.
    Last edited by Harmony 2; 02-03-2010 at 08:35 PM.

  3. #3
    TakeNote's Avatar
    TakeNote is offline Mother to little post it my boy wonder & Founding Member of AFKBPOFPOPL
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    chasing a super hero
    Posts
    6,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Harmony2 View Post
    Thank you TakeNote- you beat me to it, I was just going to start a new thread about this info.

    I am focusing on the key phrase *new material and information from investigators*. Whatever the info is, it appears it was not garnered from experts or examiners like the FBI. That is my . I am interested to read what others speculate the evidence could be.

    I also wonder if it could be something of a sexual nature, thus the desire to keep it under wraps from the public.
    i was curious about the investigators....do they mean LE investigators?

    only thing i can think of ....is there is some type of ongoing case....that could involve KC some how.....

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    CT/NC
    Posts
    21,160
    Maybe they found not so good information on JK? Or they may have interview the searcher who taped the conversation with the defense PI. If he wanted to complain about the way defense conducted his statement, an investigator may have been sent to take their own statement from him.

    Sounds more like a complaint against defense to me. Why else would they want to keep it private? If it is evidence SA would have to turn it over. If it is a complaint from a witness for the defense against defense I would think they would have to make the judge aware of it. I'm guessing and just my 2 cents.

  5. #5
    TakeNote's Avatar
    TakeNote is offline Mother to little post it my boy wonder & Founding Member of AFKBPOFPOPL
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    chasing a super hero
    Posts
    6,187
    http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/ent...-may-2011.html

    *The prosecution in the Casey Anthony murder case has asked the judge’s permission to hold back information from the defense, WFTV-Channel 9 reported tonight.*

    *What information? It might be federal investigators’ evidence, which the defense has repeatedly sought, WFTV anchor Martie Salt speculated.*

    does anyone know what kind of federal investigation info they would want to keep....that the defense would be asking for?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    I would love to see this motion. I bet we could pick up some hints from the language used to justify (1) not releasing the information to the public and (2) not having the defense attorneys involved in the meeting with the judge.

    If it were a meeting with both sets of attorneys and the judge, I would say it was information that could be extremely prejudicial if released to the public prior to trial. But something like that wouldn't justify excluding defense counsel.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  7. #7
    TakeNote's Avatar
    TakeNote is offline Mother to little post it my boy wonder & Founding Member of AFKBPOFPOPL
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    chasing a super hero
    Posts
    6,187
    Quote Originally Posted by LambChop View Post
    Maybe they found not so good information on JK? Or they may have interview the searcher who taped the conversation with the defense PI. If he wanted to complain about the way defense conducted his statement, an investigator may have been sent to take their own statement from him.

    Sounds more like a complaint against defense to me. Why else would they want to keep it private? If it is evidence SA would have to turn it over. If it is a complaint from a witness for the defense against defense I would think they would have to make the judge aware of it. I'm guessing and just my 2 cents.
    who is JK....my brain is mush.....

  8. #8
    TakeNote's Avatar
    TakeNote is offline Mother to little post it my boy wonder & Founding Member of AFKBPOFPOPL
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    chasing a super hero
    Posts
    6,187
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    I would love to see this motion. I bet we could pick up some hints from the language used to justify (1) not releasing the information to the public and (2) not having the defense attorneys involved in the meeting with the judge.

    If it were a meeting with both sets of attorneys and the judge, I would say it was information that could be extremely prejudicial if released to the public prior to trial. But something like that wouldn't justify excluding defense counsel.
    oh....i was thinking the same thing....do you think the public will get to read this motion?
    Last edited by TakeNote; 02-03-2010 at 08:56 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    CT/NC
    Posts
    21,160
    Quote Originally Posted by TakeNote View Post
    who is JK....my brain is mush.....
    The ex Mrs. Kronk, early 1990's vintage. If she reported to one of her friends that she would get even with RK, would not make her look too good and I would think there goes her statement right out the window.
    Last edited by LambChop; 02-03-2010 at 09:02 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    16,024
    Quote Originally Posted by TakeNote View Post
    who is JK....my brain is mush.....
    Jill Kerley - Kronk's ex?


  11. #11
    Phumi's Avatar
    Phumi is offline Founding Member of AFKBPOFPOPL and Mulch Princess
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    At the Rink
    Posts
    4,709
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    I would love to see this motion. I bet we could pick up some hints from the language used to justify (1) not releasing the information to the public and (2) not having the defense attorneys involved in the meeting with the judge.

    If it were a meeting with both sets of attorneys and the judge, I would say it was information that could be extremely prejudicial if released to the public prior to trial. But something like that wouldn't justify excluding defense counsel.

    AZ, can you give us an idea of what kind of thing might justify excluding defense counsel? Just curious. Thanks in advance!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    16,024

    An Anthony Family Scandal?

    I wonder if it has something to do with a member of the Anthony family, something hinky about George, not involving him in the murder though, or maybe it is Dom's testimony including something about Cindy they aren't ready to release to the public. If it is material against the defense/Casey, they may want the approval of the judge to hold it back from the public before releasing it to the defense team..

    Hmmm. This is interesting.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,742
    Could the *new material and information from investigators* refer to DC?
    Could the SA have deposed him in private or got some info from him some other way?
    I'm wondering if they found info on GA, CA and/or LA that they want to keep secret.


    .
    ---------


    Best Friends Animal Society

    A better world through kindness to animals

    [I]Please help BestFriends help us.

    https://www.bestfriends.org/donate/index.cfm?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by TakeNote View Post
    oh....i was thinking the same thing....do you think the public will get to read this motion?
    I would think so, although it's probably worded very very vaguely.

    Until I actually see it, I won't assume that the reports are correct that the State has asked to withhold information from the defense as well as from the public. But if those reports are correct, here are some possibly applicable portions of the disclosure rules:

    (1) "If the court determines, in camera, that any police or investigative report contains irrelevant, sensitive information or information interrelated with other crimes or criminal activities and the disclosure of the contents of the police report may seriously impair law enforcement or jeopardize the investigation of those other crimes or activities, the court may prohibit or partially restrict the disclosure." However, the court may also "prohibit the state from introducing into evidence any of the foregoing
    material not disclosed, so as to secure and maintain fairness in the just determination of the cause."

    (2) "The court on its own initiative or on motion of counsel shall deny or
    partially restrict disclosures authorized by this rule if it finds there is a substantial risk to any person of physical harm, intimidation, bribery, economic reprisals, or unnecessary annoyance or embarrassment resulting from the disclosure, that outweighs any usefulness of the disclosure to either party."

    (3) "On a showing of good cause, the
    court shall at any time order that specified disclosures be restricted, deferred, or exempted from discovery, that certain matters not be inquired into, that the scope of the deposition be limited to certain matters, that a deposition be sealed and after being sealed be opened only by order of the court, or make such other order as is appropriate to protect a witness from harassment, unnecessary inconvenience, or invasion of privacy, including prohibiting the taking of a deposition. All material and information to which a party is entitled, however, must be disclosed in time to permit the party to make beneficial use of it."

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,742
    Quote Originally Posted by logicalgirl View Post
    I wonder if it has something to do with a member of the Anthony family, something hinky about George, not involving him in the murder though, or maybe it is Dom's testimony including something about Cindy they aren't ready to release to the public. If it is material against the defense/Casey, they may want the approval of the judge to hold it back from the public before releasing it to the defense team..

    Hmmm. This is interesting.
    Hey logicalgirl - typed my post as you were posting.
    seems we think alike!



    .
    ---------


    Best Friends Animal Society

    A better world through kindness to animals

    [I]Please help BestFriends help us.

    https://www.bestfriends.org/donate/index.cfm?

Page 1 of 37 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Omissions from Document Dumps or released information
    By ablins in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: 02-03-2009, 01:48 AM
  2. Replies: 38
    Last Post: 10-01-2008, 09:35 AM