 |
|
05-27-2012, 04:03 AM
|
 |
Verified Attorney
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,873
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzychick
Would someone please tell me why Cindy Anthony could get up on that stand and lie like Casey get rebutted-impeached and then walk like it was not a problem and now profit from her perjury and nothing happnes to her? Why have this law if they dont inforce it? and does this set a precident for future perjurors? Cindy got away with it why cant I??
|
It would absolutely clog up the court system if everyone who lied on the stand were prosecuted for perjury. I can't remember a single trial I've handled in which at least one person didn't commit perjury. 
Famous people and people who are too clever to be caught for the really serious crimes that everyone knows they've committed are generally the only ones prosecuted for perjury.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLmom777
On the current news thread, page 19, there is an article from the Orlando Sentinel that says the attorneys filed a request. I'm not sure what that means.
At the clerk of courts search site, there is a notice of interrogatories. I think that refers to the new questions her attorneys want answered.
|
If it's interrogatories, then they don't even need the court's permission. It has nothing to do with the deposition at all. You can do both.
__________________
"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
|
|
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
|
Aedrys, dizzychick, elementary, FLmom777, Jomo, Justin Tyme, Muzikman, rotterdam, RR0004, Sedona722, Tulessa, Zoe Bogart |
05-31-2012, 06:40 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 359
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZlawyer
I suppose that's true. At least in the US, the accused's right to a fair trial is guaranteed by the US Constitution, while any rights guaranteed to the victim come from, at most, state statutes. Thus the rights of the accused must always take precedence.
|
Thanks AZ. While your answer makes sense to me, the larger question leaves me perplexed. Ahh well, certainly not the only thing that has me banging my head. 
__________________
Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.
Ayn Rand
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to nssherlock For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-05-2012, 06:32 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,006
|
|
|
If FCA moved to Costa Rica and didn't show up to testify in January, what would happen?
Can she be forced to stay in the United States until after the defamation trial and other legal proceedings are done?
Do you think that she is considering Costa Rica for reasons of avoiding any legal actions against her?
(p.s. Thanks again for all of your helpful insights)
__________________
It's the journey, not the destination.
|
|
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Jomo For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-06-2012, 01:24 AM
|
|
Verified Attorney
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,873
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jomo
If FCA moved to Costa Rica and didn't show up to testify in January, what would happen?
Can she be forced to stay in the United States until after the defamation trial and other legal proceedings are done?
Do you think that she is considering Costa Rica for reasons of avoiding any legal actions against her?
(p.s. Thanks again for all of your helpful insights)
|
She could be held in contempt of court. Which doesn't mean much if you're in Costa Rica. 
She isn't under arrest (dang it), so she's free to move about the country (and whatever other countries take felons)--unless she's not done with her probation yet. I haven't kept track.
But seriously, I think the Costa Rica thing is just tabloid blabber.
__________________
"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
|
|
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-11-2012, 09:09 PM
|
|
Verified Attorney
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,873
|
|
I'm so glad you asked. 
It includes exactly the issues I thought would be raised, all of which are good issues that are reasonable to argue on appeal.
The writing and organization leaves something to be desired, however, especially given the length of time his office had to prepare this document (almost a year!).
__________________
"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
|
|
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
|
Aedrys, atthelake, bayouland, Brooke, Elisaa444, IfIMay, logicalgirl, Muzikman, Mystic, Nore, Psmith, RANCH, RR0004, SallyLu, Sedona722, watcher9 |
06-11-2012, 10:34 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,117
|
|
|
So what happens now? Does the state respond to the brief that Mason filed?
__________________
Unless I've provided a link, everything I say is IMO
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Talina For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-12-2012, 01:01 AM
|
|
Verified Attorney
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,873
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talina
So what happens now? Does the state respond to the brief that Mason filed?
|
Yes. The state has 20 days to respond. In theory, anyway. In this court, it seems like extensions are handed out like candy.
__________________
"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
|
|
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
|
Aedrys, atthelake, LCoastMom, logicalgirl, Psmith, RANCH, RR0004, Sedona722, Talina, watcher9, ZsaZsa |
06-12-2012, 02:07 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 249
|
|
|
What is the day CMA will be off probation to be free to roam about?
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to 5stars For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-12-2012, 04:56 PM
|
|
Verified Attorney
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,873
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5stars
What is the day CMA will be off probation to be free to roam about?
|
I'm not sure. She was ordered to serve one year of probation, but since there was some confusion back in July 2011 about whether she'd already served it in jail, I don't think the clock actually started until sometime in August 2011.
__________________
"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
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-12-2012, 05:03 PM
|
 |
My opinion's may not alway's be right but they are mine and mine alone.
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Here There and Everywhere
Posts: 3,265
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZlawyer
I'm not sure. She was ordered to serve one year of probation, but since there was some confusion back in July 2011 about whether she'd already served it in jail, I don't think the clock actually started until sometime in August 2011.
|
I could be wrong but I think it's the 17th of July that she's cut free to scam and murder her way through life again. My Opinion Only!
__________________
A grandchild fills a space in your heart that you never knew was empty....
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to wonders For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-14-2012, 09:02 AM
|
 |
Founding Member of AFKBPOFPOPL
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Polk County, Florida
Posts: 6,474
|
|
Az...this is posted on another thread: http://www.change.org/petitions/lann...-her-daughter#
Is this viable?
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
__________________
<Click on User CP>
Scroll down and on the left
<Click on Edit Ignore List>
In add a Member to your list
<start typing the name of the person you want to ignore>
<Click on OKay>
IF WE COOK IT THEY WILL COME!
|
06-14-2012, 08:13 PM
|
|
Verified Attorney
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,873
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisalei321
|
Nope, it is completely whacko.
__________________
"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
|
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-27-2012, 02:59 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: FLORIDA
Posts: 858
|
|
|
Can a jury be held accountable for failure to do their job? By their own admission they state that they didn't examine any of the evidence and they went by what Jose used as an opening statement. They were more focused on the supposed molestation of FCA by GA then they were of the evidence in the case. The case was supposed to be about a murdered child not about the supposed molestation of FCA. Why even use a jury if they are not required to do their job for which they were assigned? Thank you in advance.
__________________
Why can't they hear the children's voices?
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Justin Tyme For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-27-2012, 11:07 AM
|
|
Verified Attorney
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,873
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Tyme
Can a jury be held accountable for failure to do their job? By their own admission they state that they didn't examine any of the evidence and they went by what Jose used as an opening statement. They were more focused on the supposed molestation of FCA by GA then they were of the evidence in the case. The case was supposed to be about a murdered child not about the supposed molestation of FCA. Why even use a jury if they are not required to do their job for which they were assigned? Thank you in advance.
|
No, a jury cannot be held accountable for failure to do their job.
However, I do not believe any of the jurors have stated that they didn't examine the evidence or were focused on the molestation. Can you give me a link for that? My recollection is that all the jurors who spoke publicly said that they examined the evidence and the jury instructions and felt that they could not convict on anything.
__________________
"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
|
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-27-2012, 01:04 PM
|
 |
Peace Hawk
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 15,755
|
|
|
Is Jose Baez free to accuse GA of anything he feels like in his new "tome" without fear of a lawsuit or any legal repercussions?
Thanks AZ - so glad to see you still hanging in with us as we "angst" away...
__________________
When there is Justice - there is Peace.
|
|
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to logicalgirl For This Useful Post:
|
BigMomma, Brooke, gramcracker, my2sense, okiedokietoo, Psmith, RR0004, ScubaTwinn, watcher9, wonders, zippitydoda |
06-27-2012, 04:25 PM
|
|
Verified Attorney
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,873
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by logicalgirl
Is Jose Baez free to accuse GA of anything he feels like in his new "tome" without fear of a lawsuit or any legal repercussions?
Thanks AZ - so glad to see you still hanging in with us as we "angst" away...
|
No. Depending on what he actually said, he could be at risk for a defamation lawsuit. I refuse to spend any money to buy his "book," so I don't know if he said anything defamatory.
__________________
"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
|
|
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
|
BigMomma, Brooke, gramcracker, Muzikman, my2sense, Mystic, Psmith, RANCH, ScubaTwinn, Sedona722, Straitfan, watcher9, wonders |
06-27-2012, 04:36 PM
|
|
Peace Hawk
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 15,755
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZlawyer
No. Depending on what he actually said, he could be at risk for a defamation lawsuit. I refuse to spend any money to buy his "book," so I don't know if he said anything defamatory.
|
You will be delighted to know you still have time to scrape together all your spare change for a copy because it won't be released until the 3rd of July.
The Associated Press bought an advance copy and are releasing tidbits for us to  over. Jose is promising greater revelations about the (so-called) "molestation" . And details about "what George did" as he also declares her having "serious mental" issues and is a "liar. No doubt I will be back once this rag is actually released.
__________________
When there is Justice - there is Peace.
|
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to logicalgirl For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-27-2012, 04:45 PM
|
|
Verified Attorney
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,873
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by logicalgirl
You will be delighted to know you still have time to scrape together all your spare change for a copy because it won't be released until the 3rd of July.
The Associated Press bought an advance copy and are releasing tidbits for us to over. Jose is promising greater revelations about the (so-called) "molestation" . And details about "what George did" as he also declares her having "serious mental" issues and is a "liar. No doubt I will be back once this rag is actually released. |
Well, I don't trust the AP's spin, so I'll wait to see the direct quotes.
__________________
"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
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-27-2012, 05:47 PM
|
 |
Not to worry, I got the squirrels cornered
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pasadena, california
Posts: 704
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZlawyer
Well, I don't trust the AP's spin, so I'll wait to see the direct quotes.
|
well im betting before long it will be one of amazons free books of the day for the kindle..
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to LEFT-COASTER For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-29-2012, 12:25 PM
|
 |
Let's not ask for the Moon, we have the Stars
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Who Dat Nation
Posts: 4,642
|
|
|
Liars Have First Amendment Rights?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5stars
What is the day CMA will be off probation to be free to roam about?
|
I just read the date is August 21, 2012. I think it was on ABC.com at the end of the story about Baez's book and his recapping of the night she got out of jail.
QUESTIONS:
In light of yesterday's Supreme Court ruling re: the medals of valor and people falsely claiming to be recipients.
The justices said it's not nice to lie, but as long as someone has no malicious intent or not doing something harmful, it's perfectly legal to tell false tales because of First Amendment rights. (totally paraphrased)
So, here are my questions, how does that bode for others who lie about criminal actions: perjury, giving false information, etc. Could people skate on First Amendment rights? "I have freedom of speech, I can say what I want if I'm not harming someone."
Suppose Martha Stewart, or someone in a similar bind, tried this?
Is it now true as Cindy Anthony said, "It's not a crime to lie?"
What about Casey's charges for lying??? Could she win appeal based on the SC decision????
__________________
© My brain is copyright-protected.
Big Brother and the Thought Police 
1984 by George Orwell (1949)
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.Please pardon any typos. I'm a lousy typist and an even worse proofreader.
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Zoe Bogart For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-29-2012, 02:20 PM
|
|
Verified Attorney
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,873
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe Bogart
I just read the date is August 21, 2012. I think it was on ABC.com at the end of the story about Baez's book and his recapping of the night she got out of jail.
QUESTIONS:
In light of yesterday's Supreme Court ruling re: the medals of valor and people falsely claiming to be recipients.
The justices said it's not nice to lie, but as long as someone has no malicious intent or not doing something harmful, it's perfectly legal to tell false tales because of First Amendment rights. (totally paraphrased)
So, here are my questions, how does that bode for others who lie about criminal actions: perjury, giving false information, etc. Could people skate on First Amendment rights? "I have freedom of speech, I can say what I want if I'm not harming someone."
Suppose Martha Stewart, or someone in a similar bind, tried this?
Is it now true as Cindy Anthony said, "It's not a crime to lie?"
What about Casey's charges for lying??? Could she win appeal based on the SC decision????
|
The judges didn't say anything new or surprising. It is and always has been true that it isn't a crime merely to lie. There has to be something more. For example, lying under oath in a court proceeding is a crime (perjury). Giving false information to law enforcement officials trying to find your missing child to throw them off track is a crime. Lying to someone to get them to give you their money to "invest" in a nonexistent fund is a crime.
But just lying isn't a crime. And Congress can't make just lying a crime, because of the First Amendment. Just about every lawyer except the ones in Congress already knew this IMO.
Casey's appeal already includes the argument that the jury should have been required to find that her lies MATTERED somehow to the investigation of the missing child--otherwise, the statute would be unconstitutional. In other words, if you lie to LE but they don't believe you for a second, or the thing you lie about has nothing to do with the missing child, it's probably unconstitutional to prosecute you for that. This was a good argument before the Supreme Court case came out yesterday, and it's still a good argument for the same reasons. The only difference is that this new case will be cited in Casey's Reply brief (or maybe even in a supplemental citation memo filed before then).
Now, let me add that if a hypothetical good jury had been properly instructed that Casey's lies had to make a difference to LE's investigation, I'm sure they would have made that finding as to SOME of the counts of lying. It simply isn't true that LE said "we don't believe you" and ignored her lies. They investigated the heck out of her Zanny Nanny lies, while still pursuing what they thought was the more likely path (that Casey knew exactly what had happened to Caylee). But the jury wasn't asked to make that finding. And the finding probably couldn't have been made as to ALL of the counts of lying to LE. Here were the 4 lies (simplified):
1. "I work at Universal."
2. "I left Caylee with Zanny."
3. "I told Jeff and Juliette about Caylee's kidnapping."
4. "Caylee called me on July 15, 2008."
Lies #2 and 4 were important to the investigation and were investigated. Lies #1 and 3 were probably not important.
__________________
"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
|
|
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-29-2012, 02:38 PM
|
|
Let's not ask for the Moon, we have the Stars
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Who Dat Nation
Posts: 4,642
|
|
Thanks, AZ, but are you saying she may have a chance? 
I'm thinking the courts will see many appeals and other paperwork citing the Supreme Court's recent finding. "My client is a liar, but he had no intention of hurting anyone. The victim was foolish to believe him." In legalese, of course. 
VooDoo in The Graveyard, always fun
__________________
© My brain is copyright-protected.
Big Brother and the Thought Police
1984 by George Orwell (1949)
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.Please pardon any typos. I'm a lousy typist and an even worse proofreader.
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Zoe Bogart For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-29-2012, 03:05 PM
|
|
Verified Attorney
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,873
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe Bogart
Thanks, AZ, but are you saying she may have a chance?
I'm thinking the courts will see many appeals and other paperwork citing the Supreme Court's recent finding. "My client is a liar, but he had no intention of hurting anyone. The victim was foolish to believe him." In legalese, of course.
VooDoo in The Graveyard, always fun |
Yes, yes yes yes, I am and have been for a year saying she has a chance on appeal.
The Supreme Court decision is not about victims being foolish to believe someone, but about lies that are criminalized without any victim whatsoever. It really is not a big-deal decision, as evidenced by the fact that it came out on the same day as the health care decision.
__________________
"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
|
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-29-2012, 07:49 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,129
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZlawyer
The judges didn't say anything new or surprising. It is and always has been true that it isn't a crime merely to lie. There has to be something more. For example, lying under oath in a court proceeding is a crime (perjury). Giving false information to law enforcement officials trying to find your missing child to throw them off track is a crime. Lying to someone to get them to give you their money to "invest" in a nonexistent fund is a crime.
But just lying isn't a crime. And Congress can't make just lying a crime, because of the First Amendment. Just about every lawyer except the ones in Congress already knew this IMO.
Casey's appeal already includes the argument that the jury should have been required to find that her lies MATTERED somehow to the investigation of the missing child--otherwise, the statute would be unconstitutional. In other words, if you lie to LE but they don't believe you for a second, or the thing you lie about has nothing to do with the missing child, it's probably unconstitutional to prosecute you for that. This was a good argument before the Supreme Court case came out yesterday, and it's still a good argument for the same reasons. The only difference is that this new case will be cited in Casey's Reply brief (or maybe even in a supplemental citation memo filed before then).
Now, let me add that if a hypothetical good jury had been properly instructed that Casey's lies had to make a difference to LE's investigation, I'm sure they would have made that finding as to SOME of the counts of lying. It simply isn't true that LE said "we don't believe you" and ignored her lies. They investigated the heck out of her Zanny Nanny lies, while still pursuing what they thought was the more likely path (that Casey knew exactly what had happened to Caylee). But the jury wasn't asked to make that finding. And the finding probably couldn't have been made as to ALL of the counts of lying to LE. Here were the 4 lies (simplified):
1. "I work at Universal."
2. "I left Caylee with Zanny."
3. "I told Jeff and Juliette about Caylee's kidnapping."
4. "Caylee called me on July 15, 2008."
Lies #2 and 4 were important to the investigation and were investigated. Lies #1 and 3 were probably not important.
|
AZ, don't you think that #3 was investigated to corroborate what Casey said about her daughter being missing. Kind of like her saying that her daughter was kidnapped to others gives more credence to the claim?
I do understand what you're saying, but I look at #3 and 4 similarly.
|
06-30-2012, 02:07 AM
|
|
Verified Attorney
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,873
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR0004
AZ, don't you think that #3 was investigated to corroborate what Casey said about her daughter being missing. Kind of like her saying that her daughter was kidnapped to others gives more credence to the claim?
I do understand what you're saying, but I look at #3 and 4 similarly.
|
Yes, I thought about that one (the "I told Jeff and Juliette" lie). It's a close call--I think people can easily have different opinions on that one.
Funny how Casey thinks if she says told other people the same lie, it is more likely to be accepted as true. Remember her jail visits? "Like I even told Jose blah blah blah?"  I guess I'll just have to accept that my brain doesn't work like hers.
__________________
"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
|
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
| © Copyright Websleuths 1999-2012 |
New To Site? |
Need Help? |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:32 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
