Sleuthing Cindy's Depo & Baez Objections to Sealed Items - Page 3

ExpectingUnicorns · #51 10-17-2009, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valhall

OMG! You're right. Caylee shouldn't have lost any teeth yet. O_O

My tummy is giving me some bad signals. Please let it be wrong.

McSev · #52 10-17-2009, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThoughtElf

You guys are on the right track here.

Yep. And I might point out that the defense, after the travesty of a motion they filed and the outcome yesterday, has a huges issues in the evidentary arena:

Baez was not laughing when he was ordered to turn over evidence his team claims to have proving someone else dumped Caylee's body in the woods last year. The deadline is February 1.

Screwed is the word that comes to mind, initially anyway.

robotdog · #53 10-17-2009, 01:53 PM

the nanny hit her in the mouth

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

<insert> puke icon

ThoughtElf · #54 10-17-2009, 02:00 PM

I'm off my rocker. To me, both the items listed on exhibit #22 and the photos/funding are related. Excellent sleuthing, but, I am of the opinion that whatever is sealed is NOT displayed on the list on exhibit #22. They would have already issued a retraction since the doc dump yesterday if it was. They can't show sealed items, IMO.

I *think*, but I am not sure that it either relates to the photo that was sealed, or again, that the one document shows Casey gave items (like photos/videos) to JB for him to sell - items which did not later show up on Exhibit #22 list. i.e. JB kept them to sell and finance the defense.

I think it isn't what is on that list - it is a document proving JB has more than what he turned over to the FBI. What ISN'T on that list is crucial?

McSev · #55 10-17-2009, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThoughtElf

I'm off my rocker. To me, both the items listed on exhibit #22 and the photos/funding are related. Excellent sleuthing, but, I am of the opinion that whatever is sealed is NOT displayed on exhibit #22. They would have already issued a retraction since the doc dump yesterday if it was. They can't show sealed items, IMO.

I *think*, but I am not sure that it either relates to the photo that was sealed, or again, that the one document shows Casey gave items (like photos/videos) to JB for him to sell - items which did not later show up on Exhibit #22. i.e. JB kept them to sell and finance the defense.

I think it isn't what is on that list - it is a document proving JB has more than what he turned over to the FBI. What ISN'T on that list is crucial?

I agree with you. One thing that I think people don't know is that while the defense has to share the evidence they have with the State it has to be revealed before the trial and that's a long way away. If the State wants it right away, they can compell the defense by filing in court for specific pieces of evidence to mandate a specific time for the defense to deliver to the State. The defense, BTW, has already done this several times with evidence they wanted from the State right away, such as the tip information the State had.

As far as what others are saying about the tooth: IIFC, bone fragments from the body were spread out all over the place. They didn't have a complete skeleton when they were done to begin with, so I think it's possible the tooth was lost over time in that area as many of the other bone fragments were.

ExpectingUnicorns · #56 10-17-2009, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThoughtElf

I'm off my rocker. To me, both the items listed on exhibit #22 and the photos/funding are related. Excellent sleuthing, but, I am of the opinion that whatever is sealed is NOT displayed on the list on exhibit #22. They would have already issued a retraction since the doc dump yesterday if it was. They can't show sealed items, IMO.

I *think*, but I am not sure that it either relates to the photo that was sealed, or again, that the one document shows Casey gave items (like photos/videos) to JB for him to sell - items which did not later show up on Exhibit #22 list. i.e. JB kept them to sell and finance the defense.

I think it isn't what is on that list - it is a document proving JB has more than what he turned over to the FBI. What ISN'T on that list is crucial?

Yes, I hope so. And the more I look at exhibit #22 the more it looks like the list on the left is what was actually taken to JB. The list on the right may just be a suggestion of the type of things that Casey should gather from within the house. The writer, whose handwriting is not familiar to us, may not have realized that Caylee was too young to have lost any of her teeth.

countzero · #57 10-17-2009, 02:22 PM

Just popping in folks, but my first thought of this was the diary.

texaslb218 · #58 10-17-2009, 02:24 PM

I totally forgot about the diary!! Guess that puts me NOT in the "good sleuth" category.

ExpectingUnicorns · #59 10-17-2009, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by countzero

Just popping in folks, but my first thought of this was the diary.

Seems like I remember BC telling Cindy (during an interview) that he was in possession of the diary. But my brain cells are degenerating faster than they're being replaced anymore so I may very well be wrong. Anyone else remember this?

whiteangora · #60 10-17-2009, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McSev

Yep. And I might point out that the defense, after the travesty of a motion they filed and the outcome yesterday, has a huges issues in the evidentary arena:

Baez was not laughing when he was ordered to turn over evidence his team claims to have proving someone else dumped Caylee's body in the woods last year. The deadline is February 1.

Screwed is the word that comes to mind, initially anyway.

I put this up in the current news thread earlier, could this be what Kathi B is asking about, re: Bombshell?
Kathi Belich Asks JB About Bombshell in February
http://www.wftv.com/video/21311710/index.html
Kathi asks JB repeatedly about his Bombshell for February, gets no answer. Andrea L gives Kathi snotty response about who files the motions.

countzero · #61 10-17-2009, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExpectingUnicorns

Seems like I remember BC telling Cindy (during an interview) that he was in possession of the diary. But my brain cells are degenerating faster than they're being replaced anymore so I may very well be wrong. Anyone else remember this?

That is correct. The LAST we heard, BC had the diary. Doesn't prevent him from sharing with JB and the SAO is aware of it. If BC had not involved himself in that part of the objection I wouldn't have thought about it. But he did.

What ever it is, it's damming for KC or at least JB thinks so.

Muzikman · #62 10-17-2009, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExpectingUnicorns

Seems like I remember BC telling Cindy (during an interview) that he was in possession of the diary. But my brain cells are degenerating faster than they're being replaced anymore so I may very well be wrong. Anyone else remember this?

You are correct, EC.

I was a little surprised that LE didn't want the whole thing, just a pic of those 2 pages.

Speculating: Or maybe there are pics of other pages and they are sealed for some reason?

McSev · #63 10-17-2009, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whiteangora

I put this up in the current news thread earlier, could this be what Kathi B is asking about, re: Bombshell?
Kathi Belich Asks JB About Bombshell in February
http://www.wftv.com/video/21311710/index.html
Kathi asks JB repeatedly about his Bombshell for February, gets no answer. Andrea L gives Kathi snotty response about who files the motions.

Yep I saw that on the other thread. Hence why "screwed" looks like the word of the day in describing the defense. A "theory" doesn't translate to "evidence and proof", something that I think Baez and even his crew doesn't always remember. Their strategy looks to me to be for the short term, not a longer term one for trial.

To me it's apparent they're trying to cast as much doubt, both in court and out of it, prior to trial and this latest motion to toss all the charges appeared to me to be ill-formed. The State was right in their response to strike - I don't know who wrote the defense's motion but they didn't have a chance in hell and if Baez didn't forget where his lawyerin' books were, he had to know that. He also should have been advised by his team of crack attorneys that he was opening himself to a can of whoop *** in having to prove what he was filing about, because there is not a motion filed that doesn't have an equal and opposite action on the other side.

Trapshooter · #64 10-17-2009, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valhall

Yeah, I believe it's the day she blew out her flip-top...stepped on a pop top, cut her heel, head to cruise on back...wait, that's a song.

"head to cruise on back home....but there's booze in the blender and soon it will render that frozen concoction that helps me hang on!"

LOL My favorite song of all time Valhall!

Sorry to go OT.

Trapshooter · #65 10-17-2009, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macushla

One more thing before I have to go back to 'real life'. IF the exhibit objected to was a photo (isn't one of the things on the list that Valhall posted "Mom and Baby") that the public has not seen yet, could it be because it was 'sold exclusively' to someone for either an article, book, TV show, etc. etc. If that photo was introduced into this depo, once the depo was released the photo would no longer be exclusive? I know that is a long and convoluted sentence so have patience with me. If an article, book or TV show comes out with that previously unreleased photo in it - that would pretty much seal the deal that someone had done a $$$$ deal for photos - and from CA's reaction, it was not her!

I agree Macushla! I think that photo will come out and the "proceeds" will go straight to JB!

Trapshooter · #66 10-17-2009, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExpectingUnicorns

Yes, I hope so. And the more I look at exhibit #22 the more it looks like the list on the left is what was actually taken to JB. The list on the right may just be a suggestion of the type of things that Casey should gather from within the house. The writer, whose handwriting is not familiar to us, may not have realized that Caylee was too young to have lost any of her teeth.

Could the writer be JB and he was not bright enough to realize that Caylee was too young to have lost any teeth? Legally, if JB did give KC a list of things to bring from the house, couldn't he be "interfering" in the investigation?

Muzikman · #67 10-17-2009, 03:02 PM

OK, on the OCSO property form for what Baez gave to FBI/OCSO, there is a white Fedex box listed. It looks to me that it is separate than the brown bag with all of the items? Did it have something not listed inside it? Or was the bag in the box?

Makes me curious as to the wording.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/13357630/Baez_OCSOpackage

static · #68 10-17-2009, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McSev

I agree with you. One thing that I think people don't know is that while the defense has to share the evidence they have with the State it has to be revealed before the trial and that's a long way away. If the State wants it right away, they can compell the defense by filing in court for specific pieces of evidence to mandate a specific time for the defense to deliver to the State. The defense, BTW, has already done this several times with evidence they wanted from the State right away, such as the tip information the State had.

As far as what others are saying about the tooth: IIFC, bone fragments from the body were spread out all over the place. They didn't have a complete skeleton when they were done to begin with, so I think it's possible the tooth was lost over time in that area as many of the other bone fragments were.

That could very well be...Just thinking out loud here that with the tape still on the skull though, shouldn't that have protected the teeth?

Horace Finklestein · #69 10-17-2009, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McSev

Yep. And I might point out that the defense, after the travesty of a motion they filed and the outcome yesterday, has a huges issues in the evidentary arena:

Baez was not laughing when he was ordered to turn over evidence his team claims to have proving someone else dumped Caylee's body in the woods last year. The deadline is February 1.

Screwed is the word that comes to mind, initially anyway.

I still don't understand why they have over 4 months to turn this supposed 'evidence' over. Their client is in jail...if they have anything that would free her, why not turn it over? Why does nothing make sense here?? I think if I remember correctly, that Jose looked like he had nothing other than their 'reasonable conclusions' from examining the state's evidence. WHat is this all about?

Tiki · #70 10-17-2009, 03:07 PM

Warning: Gruesome

Is it possible that one of Caylee's teeth fell out in the trunk while she was decomposing there and KC or the As found it?
I think it would really take longer for that to happen, but . . . anyone know?
Off to Google decomp and teeth - well, maybe later :-(

.

Macushla · #71 10-17-2009, 03:11 PM

As far as I know, the only 'sealed' testimony so far was the in camera discussion about how the defense was being funded. Judge Strickland sealed the video tape of KC at the jail the day Caylee was found, but that doesn't seem to be in play here. Ergo (I love using that word) the exhibit that freaked JB out to the point of being nasty to CA has to be related in some way to the defense funding. So, for right now I am sticking to my theory. However, if that one does not pan out, I would go with the theory posted that JB did not turn over everything when he was ordered to. Oh wouldn't that be loverly if it could be proven?

Tiki · #72 10-17-2009, 03:13 PM

never mind - answered my own question by remembering teeth still intact on mummies . . .

McSev · #73 10-17-2009, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by static

That could very well be...Just thinking out loud here that with the tape still on the skull though, shouldn't that have protected the teeth?

Maybe. But I think I read that the tape, while layered, was loose. The skin it was attached to was gone.

Good question though

McSev · #74 10-17-2009, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horace Finklestein

I still don't understand why they have over 4 months to turn this supposed 'evidence' over. Their client is in jail...if they have anything that would free her, why not turn it over? Why does nothing make sense here?? I think if I remember correctly, that Jose looked like he had nothing other than their 'reasonable conclusions' from examining the state's evidence. WHat is this all about?

Exactly. They don't have appear to have any evidence to prove what they're saying, do they? Many of the talk show/cable news pundits comment that it's grandstanding, and indeed it may be.

What I tend to think it is is what I stated before: a strategy to try to put as much doubt as possible out into the public eye so they can combat the overwhelming number of lies that their client, the accused, is on record as stating when they go to trial. It's going to be extremely difficult to get past that their client didn't report her daughter missing for 31 days, that she lied about her wherabouts to her parents during that time, that she lied to detectives about where she worked to the point of taking them to the facility and then having to recant to them. Those statements are fact and won't be able to be disputed by the defense.

ExpectingUnicorns · #75 10-17-2009, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muzikman

OK, on the OCSO property form for what Baez gave to FBI/OCSO, there is a white Fedex box listed. It looks to me that it is separate than the brown bag with all of the items? Did it have something not listed inside it? Or was the bag in the box?

Makes me curious as to the wording.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/13357630/Baez_OCSOpackage

It looked like to me that the bag was inside the Fedex box. The only thing that Casey wrote on the left list on exhibit #22 that was not received by OCSO is the first thing on her list: "Caylee Hair Samples - Bed." Could that be significant?