Websleuths
Go Back   Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community > Featured Case Discussion > Caylee Anthony 2 years old

Notices

Caylee Anthony 2 years old Not reported missing for a month after she was last seen.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1551  
Old 05-27-2012, 04:03 AM
AZlawyer's Avatar
AZlawyer AZlawyer is offline
Verified Attorney
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzychick View Post
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 View Post
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
Reply With Quote
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
  #1552  
Old 05-31-2012, 06:40 PM
nssherlock's Avatar
nssherlock nssherlock is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
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
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to nssherlock For This Useful Post:
  #1553  
Old 06-05-2012, 06:32 PM
Jomo's Avatar
Jomo Jomo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,030
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.
Reply With Quote
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Jomo For This Useful Post:
  #1554  
Old 06-06-2012, 01:24 AM
AZlawyer's Avatar
AZlawyer AZlawyer is offline
Verified Attorney
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jomo View Post
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
Reply With Quote
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
  #1555  
Old 06-11-2012, 09:09 PM
AZlawyer's Avatar
AZlawyer AZlawyer is offline
Verified Attorney
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,942
Quote:
Question by AZlawyer:
So, AZlawyer, what do you think of Cheney Mason's appellate brief on the lying convictions?
http://www.cfnews13.com/content/dam/...ppeal-0611.pdf
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
Reply With Quote
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
  #1556  
Old 06-11-2012, 10:34 PM
Talina Talina is offline
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
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Talina For This Useful Post:
  #1557  
Old 06-12-2012, 01:01 AM
AZlawyer's Avatar
AZlawyer AZlawyer is offline
Verified Attorney
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talina View Post
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
Reply With Quote
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
  #1558  
Old 06-12-2012, 02:07 PM
5stars 5stars is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 249
What is the day CMA will be off probation to be free to roam about?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to 5stars For This Useful Post:
  #1559  
Old 06-12-2012, 04:56 PM
AZlawyer's Avatar
AZlawyer AZlawyer is offline
Verified Attorney
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5stars View Post
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
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
  #1560  
Old 06-12-2012, 05:03 PM
wonders's Avatar
wonders wonders is offline
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: 3,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
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....
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to wonders For This Useful Post:
  #1561  
Old 06-14-2012, 09:02 AM
lisalei321's Avatar
lisalei321 lisalei321 is offline
Founding Member of AFKBPOFPOPL
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Polk County, Florida
Posts: 6,960
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!

Reply With Quote
  #1562  
Old 06-14-2012, 08:13 PM
AZlawyer's Avatar
AZlawyer AZlawyer is offline
Verified Attorney
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisalei321 View Post
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
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
Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
  #1563  
Old 06-27-2012, 02:59 AM
Justin Tyme Justin Tyme is offline
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?
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Justin Tyme For This Useful Post:
  #1564  
Old 06-27-2012, 11:07 AM
AZlawyer's Avatar
AZlawyer AZlawyer is offline
Verified Attorney
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Tyme View Post
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
Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
  #1565  
Old 06-27-2012, 01:04 PM
logicalgirl's Avatar
logicalgirl logicalgirl is offline
Peace Hawk
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,006
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.
Reply With Quote
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to logicalgirl For This Useful Post:
  #1566  
Old 06-27-2012, 04:25 PM
AZlawyer's Avatar
AZlawyer AZlawyer is offline
Verified Attorney
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by logicalgirl View Post
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
Reply With Quote
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
  #1567  
Old 06-27-2012, 04:36 PM
logicalgirl's Avatar
logicalgirl logicalgirl is offline
Peace Hawk
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to logicalgirl For This Useful Post:
  #1568  
Old 06-27-2012, 04:45 PM
AZlawyer's Avatar
AZlawyer AZlawyer is offline
Verified Attorney
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by logicalgirl View Post
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
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
  #1569  
Old 06-27-2012, 05:47 PM
LEFT-COASTER's Avatar
LEFT-COASTER LEFT-COASTER is offline
Not to worry, I got the squirrels cornered
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pasadena, california
Posts: 704
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
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..
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to LEFT-COASTER For This Useful Post:
  #1570  
Old 06-29-2012, 12:25 PM
Zoe Bogart's Avatar
Zoe Bogart Zoe Bogart is offline
Let's not ask for the Moon, we have the Stars
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Who Dat Nation
Posts: 4,865
Liars Have First Amendment Rights?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 5stars View Post
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.
Please pardon any typos. I'm a lousy typist and an even worse proofreader.


Big Brother and the Thought Police have arrived
1984 by George Orwell (1949)

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Zoe Bogart For This Useful Post:
  #1571  
Old 06-29-2012, 02:20 PM
AZlawyer's Avatar
AZlawyer AZlawyer is offline
Verified Attorney
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe Bogart View Post
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
Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
  #1572  
Old 06-29-2012, 02:38 PM
Zoe Bogart's Avatar
Zoe Bogart Zoe Bogart is offline
Let's not ask for the Moon, we have the Stars
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Who Dat Nation
Posts: 4,865
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.
Please pardon any typos. I'm a lousy typist and an even worse proofreader.


Big Brother and the Thought Police have arrived
1984 by George Orwell (1949)

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Zoe Bogart For This Useful Post:
  #1573  
Old 06-29-2012, 03:05 PM
AZlawyer's Avatar
AZlawyer AZlawyer is offline
Verified Attorney
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe Bogart View Post
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
Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
  #1574  
Old 06-29-2012, 07:49 PM
RR0004's Avatar
RR0004 RR0004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1575  
Old 06-30-2012, 02:07 AM
AZlawyer's Avatar
AZlawyer AZlawyer is offline
Verified Attorney
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by RR0004 View Post
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
Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Questions for our VERIFIED LAWYERS*~*~*NO DISCUSSIONS*~*~* Kimster Zahra Clare Baker 69 07-20-2011 04:04 PM
Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3 beach Caylee Anthony 2 years old 1282 06-20-2011 07:34 PM
Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2 BondJamesBond Caylee Anthony 2 years old 1610 05-09-2011 09:28 PM
Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1 The World According Caylee Anthony 2 years old 1697 01-14-2011 01:17 AM
Legal questions for our VERIFIED lawyers on the board Capri Haleigh Cummings 53 09-12-2010 04:36 PM


© Copyright Websleuths 1999-2012 New To Site? Need Help?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:54 PM.

Advertisements

Pre-Order Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony today!