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

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/anthony_case/020310-casey-anthony-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 :biggrin:

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....

TakeNote said:

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/anthony_case/020310-casey-anthony-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 :biggrin:

Click to expand...

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 :twocents: . 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.

Harmony2 said:

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 :twocents: . 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.

Click to expand...

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.....

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.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...er-trial-might-not-begin-before-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?

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.

LambChop said:

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.

Click to expand...

who is JK....my brain is mush.....:blushing:

AZlawyer said:

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.

Click to expand...

oh....i was thinking the same thing....do you think the public will get to read this motion?

TakeNote said:

who is JK....my brain is mush.....:blushing:

Click to expand...

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.

TakeNote said:

who is JK....my brain is mush.....:blushing:

Click to expand...

Jill Kerley - Kronk's ex?

AZlawyer said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.


.

TakeNote said:

oh....i was thinking the same thing....do you think the public will get to read this motion?

Click to expand...

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."

logicalgirl said:

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.

Click to expand...

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



.

LambChop said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is just my opinion, but I really doubt that the Prosecution is giving JK or anything she has to say a second thought.
This sounds like something BIG and quite important.

TakeNote said:

oh....i was thinking the same thing....do you think the public will get to read this motion?

Click to expand...

"News 13 has just obtained a copy of a motion prosecutors filed in the case late Wednesday afternoon."

http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2010/2/3/prosecutors_want_private_hearing_in_casey_case.html

Looks like we will get to see the motion and maybe tonight if they post it.

Tiki said:

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



.

Click to expand...

It sure looks like it - and it's sure starting to sound like it's DC's testimony - and I thought it was going to be boring for awhile!

PS. I hope it's a BIG hammer the SA can use.......

IMO they are investigating someone else and can't release the information because it ties to them. Perhaps the person who told Dom to do something other than call LE if a body is found. Or Cindy! Can't tip them off else they interfere with an investigation.

Or it's the latent prints the FBI has?

??

WESH has an article on this too, along with a comment from our friend rhornsby.

http://www.wesh.com/news/22442934/detail.html