2010.12.21 Stream of Motions - General Discussion

[LolaMoon08]

I think I remember hearing that he posted here or something. It tickles the back of my brain when I think about it, so I don't think I actually saw posts from him, just heard he was posting here...or maybe I did but at the time they didn't seem all that important to me. I really wish I could remember! It must have been awhile ago that he posted here...and shoot, wasn't Cindy printing off stuff from us a long time ago? I'm surprised she didn't print off his stuff and give it to Baez!

And now we have solid proof that yes, the defense reads here. Defense, don't you have better things to do, like defend your client, than be reading on a crime forum? *waves*

How else are they going to learn how to do things right? We're talking about Websleuths here! A forum where the person is smarter than the average squirrel that crawls up inside a cars engine in Florida! In June!

LOL, I still can't believe she said that!

 

[Kimster]

Message from Tricia:

She is looking into everything and will get back to y'all later on. It may take awhile.

 

[faefrost]

Okay, I have received some direction and approved the posts I had previously "hidden" per Tricia's instructions.

Please understand I was not attempting to censor anyone, this motion just caught me off-guard and I was not quite sure how to handle it until I spoke with the admins. Thank you so much for your patience and understanding as I learn this new mod stuff. It is like being a "newbie" again at times. lol

Resume talking freely and just be mindful of the TOS.

Thank you Beach, and we fully understand and appreciate why you locked them down to research. We talk and chatter about the case and the story here. I don't think any of us truly desire to become a part of the case. And we always appreciate erring on the side of caution to insure that that does not happen.

 

[drip~drop]

Oh Jose...
You are not in Hollywood, in "The Fugitive", or "Secret Agent Man"
or the new not yet made for TV movie, "The Big Bad Bloggers"
This is real life.
Get a Grip

OMGoodness I've never welcomed mr.baez!

Jose.

See, shiney lights good...!:seeya:

 

[Tulessa]

I just wonder if we have been doing his (JB) homework for him all along? :/

 

[Kimster]

Another update: All is good here at WS. There is a blurb in the TOS about possible subpoenas. It's probably a great time to review it so we all know what we can get ourselves into without realizing it!

"Law Enforcement:

Members of Law Enforcement regularly read at WS. Generally they contact WS Admins when they register, but there is no requirement that they do so. Unless they ask us to, we do not publicly identify them, but all posters should be aware that public comments about illegal activity could bring them attention they may not want. WS receives subpoenas on a regular basis from various agencies. WS will comply with all valid subpoenas received." [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65798"]Rules Etiquette & Information - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

Continue on folks! :grouphug:

(Tricia will probably not be updating herself so this is it. )

 

[Macushla]

OT -- On topic fun....

I have a feeling there will be another motion by KC - her favorite words are on the banished list this year and I am sure she will object!

http://www.lssu.edu/banished/current.php

EPIC AND FAIL!!!!!!!!!!! LMAO

Now back to catching up.
Who are the doctors listed here: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331346/detail.html
or where can I read about them?
Major catch up day -- was reading the Jonathan Foster case for days and days. TIA.

Their info has been listed in the Motion to Seal Penalty Phase Discovery documents thread.

 

[logicalgirl]

OMGoodness I've never welcomed mr.baez!

Jose.

See, shiney lights good...!:seeya:

That is too funny!!! ..........:silly:

.............:laugh:

Okay, WSers, welcome Mr. Baez, you remember him don't you kids?.......:back:

Yup, that's the guy.........:razz:

 

[BondJamesBond]

I don't want to go searching for the posts and photographs by JJ out of respect for what is going on (they may not even be available?), but can anyone tell me a little bit more about what JJ was posting here? Was it anything even worth all this trouble? Is there anything really of value to the defense?

Here you go, LolaMoon. Not necessarily what he was posting, but, the nature of what was going on w/ JJ (and many others) here on WS. HTH.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4970111&postcount=48"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 2009.10.28 Joseph Jordan interview[/ame]

Pls remember: Sleuthing other members is against TOS. TIA!

 

[Leila]

Read State's Motion in Limine: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331102/detail.html

Subpoena Duces Tecum: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331241/detail.html

Suppress Court Video: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331298/detail.html

Discovery Response:http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331346/detail.html

Unreliable Evidence: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331397/detail.html

Exclude Tattoo:http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331428/detail.html

More Tattoo:http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331553/detail.html

Suppress Statements: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331430/detail.html

Exclude Canine: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331371/detail.html

Myspace: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331492/detail.html

More Myspace:http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331443/detail.html

Cartoon:http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331448/detail.html

Chloroform: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331516/detail.html

Stain In Car:http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331535/detail.html

Notice of Hearing:http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331400/detail.html

Thanks Nums!

I'm just beginning to read the motions - read the states motion which is pretty straight forward.

I've just read the second motion on the list, which pertains to Joe Jordan, and evidence he has in his possession, which was posted on this forum in the early months of this case.

Subpoena Duces Tecum: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331241/detail.html

I remember that Joe Jordan was searching with a group of people and he found discarded clothing. He took pictures and posted them here at WS, which we then compared to pictures of Casey wearing similar clothing. I think it's these pictures, which Joe Jordan posted here at WS that are in question by the defense.

But Jose Baez is wrong when he says that the items that Joe Jordan photographed were from the site on Suburban Drive. The pictures were taken of items found in or near J. Blanchard Park. Joe Jordan photographed the items and called LE who came and retrieved the items. Joe had pictures of LE putting several bags of things in the back of a police car.

One of the items was shorts and top set that looked very similar to one Casey was wearing in one picture. There was a lengthy thread here at WS on this subject, but in the final analysis, we determined that the shorts and top set was not the same.....only similar.

It would appear that JB is going after "evidence" which has no bearing on the case. What Joe Jordan photographed was discarded clothing in J. Blanchard Park, which is not related to this case.

 

[nums24]

Thanks Nums!

I'm just beginning to read the motions - read the states motion which is pretty straight forward.

I've just read the second motion on the list, which pertains to Joe Jordan, and evidence he has in his possession, which was posted on this forum in the early months of this case.

Subpoena Duces Tecum: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331241/detail.html

I remember that Joe Jordan was searching with a group of people and he found discarded clothing. He took pictures and posted them here at WS, which we then compared to pictures of Casey wearing similar clothing. I think it's these pictures, which Joe Jordan posted here at WS that are in question by the defense.

But Jose Baez is wrong when he says that the items that Joe Jordan photographed were from the site on Suburban Drive. The pictures were taken of items found in or near J. Blanchard Park. Joe Jordan photographed the items and called LE who came and retrieved the items. Joe had pictures of LE putting several bags of things in the back of a police car.

One of the items was shorts and top set that looked very similar to one Casey was wearing in one picture. There was a lengthy thread here at WS on this subject, but in the final analysis, we determined that the shorts and top set was not the same.....only similar.

It would appear that JB is going after "evidence" which has no bearing on the case. What Joe Jordan photographed was discarded clothing in J. Blanchard Park, which is not related to this case.

I Loved the State's Motion! I am so sick of JB's lack of repsect shown to LE & SAO. Praying that this is granted!

I remember reading directly at his sight and the dreams site too.

 

[hannahsnana]

What I find so totally amazing is the big picture! Maybe I just don't understand death penalty cases, but I find it ironic that all these motions concern the penalty phase of the trial, as if a finding of 'guilty' is a foregone conclusion.

 

[Sparky]

Thanks Nums!

I'm just beginning to read the motions - read the states motion which is pretty straight forward.

I've just read the second motion on the list, which pertains to Joe Jordan, and evidence he has in his possession, which was posted on this forum in the early months of this case.

Subpoena Duces Tecum: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331241/detail.html

I remember that Joe Jordan was searching with a group of people and he found discarded clothing. He took pictures and posted them here at WS, which we then compared to pictures of Casey wearing similar clothing. I think it's these pictures, which Joe Jordan posted here at WS that are in question by the defense.

But Jose Baez is wrong when he says that the items that Joe Jordan photographed were from the site on Suburban Drive. The pictures were taken of items found in or near J. Blanchard Park. Joe Jordan photographed the items and called LE who came and retrieved the items. Joe had pictures of LE putting several bags of things in the back of a police car.

One of the items was shorts and top set that looked very similar to one Casey was wearing in one picture. There was a lengthy thread here at WS on this subject, but in the final analysis, we determined that the shorts and top set was not the same.....only similar.

It would appear that JB is going after "evidence" which has no bearing on the case. What Joe Jordan photographed was discarded clothing in J. Blanchard Park, which is not related to this case.

Yes, that is correct Leila. The media was also called in and it was televised on one or more of the stations. Don't remember which one it was. JJ was at J Blanchard Park. There was a Flip-Flop that was discussed also.

 

[Numbers]

OT -- On topic fun....

I have a feeling there will be another motion by KC - her favorite words are on the banished list this year and I am sure she will object!

http://www.lssu.edu/banished/current.php

EPIC AND FAIL!!!!!!!!!!! LMAO

Now back to catching up.
Who are the doctors listed here: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331346/detail.html
or where can I read about them?
Major catch up day -- was reading the Jonathan Foster case for days and days. TIA.

Oh, wow.... "A-ha moment" has been banished, too.

Does this mean we won't get Jose's promised epiphany, or that he will be banished if he has one? :waitasec:

 

[watcher9]

Do we really need experts to testify about the decomposition odor?
The jury can take their own smell test.

 

[Oakley]

I vaguely recall this as well. IIRC nothing JJ found was relevant, or similar to evidence collected at the actual crime site on Suburban Drive. :cow:

 

[LancelotLink]

Notice of Hearing Motion. signed by CM on Dec 30, 2010, he is including request court determine prior bad acts of Mr. Kronk based on motions filed.
What??

 

[Nore]

Geeze, just unlock the cage and let her go on her merry bella vita way.:snooty::ufo::cupcake:ullhair:
:cow:moooooooo

-------------------
Thats the next thing they will ask for.
They should be out looking for the real killer.:floorlaugh:

 

[BondJamesBond]

Thanks Nums!

I'm just beginning to read the motions - read the states motion which is pretty straight forward.

I've just read the second motion on the list, which pertains to Joe Jordan, and evidence he has in his possession, which was posted on this forum in the early months of this case.

Subpoena Duces Tecum: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331241/detail.html

I remember that Joe Jordan was searching with a group of people and he found discarded clothing. He took pictures and posted them here at WS, which we then compared to pictures of Casey wearing similar clothing. I think it's these pictures, which Joe Jordan posted here at WS that are in question by the defense.

But Jose Baez is wrong when he says that the items that Joe Jordan photographed were from the site on Suburban Drive. The pictures were taken of items found in or near J. Blanchard Park. Joe Jordan photographed the items and called LE who came and retrieved the items. Joe had pictures of LE putting several bags of things in the back of a police car.

One of the items was shorts and top set that looked very similar to one Casey was wearing in one picture. There was a lengthy thread here at WS on this subject, but in the final analysis, we determined that the shorts and top set was not the same.....only similar.

It would appear that JB is going after "evidence" which has no bearing on the case. What Joe Jordan photographed was discarded clothing in J. Blanchard Park, which is not related to this case.

*bbm*

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69153"]Here is the thread[/ame] discussing the items found near the soccer field @ JBP discussed above.

• Many of the image links from the original posts are no longer valid
• Second to last page of thread shows you aerial view of the exact location where the items were found
• This is a great example of why we try to keep threads on-topic and available for reference even YEARS later.

HTH

 

[A_News_Junkie]

I am reading all these motions now - but seriously, somebody needs to get counting skills. Is it me?
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331430/detail.html

Page 3
"admission of the statements would be improper on four separate grounds."

Where is the third reason?
1. Right to counsel 5th and 6th
2. (Secondly) due process
3.
4. (Finally) 4th and 5th

So can we make up #3??????? :banghead:

Mostly what I have gotten so far, is the team sure is spending a bunch of time and resources following youtube, WS, bloggers and comment sections. :seeya::seeya: waves to her team! But, as fun as we are :chillout::werk: