2009.05.28 Motions Hearing

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Searchfortruth said:
Wow, I slow motioned the ending and must agree w/ you, it was sad. They, Cindy and George, were practically holding their breath waiting for some acknowledgement from Casey...how cruel she is.
Click to expand...

but you know...what do they expect? If they were to wake up and smell the roses and face reality, and admit it wasn't rotten pizza, I think they would be a lot better off. I don't have sympathy for them looking all sad........they need to wake up. They aren't there for Caylee, they could give a flying whoot as to who killed her. The fact that they are there shows that.

[[not snapping at you Searchfortruth]]
 
The World According said:
Praise the Lord and Thank You Jesus for a real parent, Mr. Grund. Now this is one person stepping up being a good man protecting his child that I can respect. Jesse lives and works out of state now, so his dad came in his stead. Good for him. I cannot even imagine that family having to defend their son from the Anthonys accusing him of this murder, not financially or emotionally....I cannot imagine the injustice of it. They were probably the best for Casey and Caylee, they had accepted her as their granddaughter and would have loved her her entire life. Casey's life could have went the other way with them and her starting to go to church. Damn straight he is there protecting his son, I know I would be there front and center if I were him. Thanks for your eyewitness courtroom accounts.
Click to expand...

Good for Rev. Grund. Although I have to wonder WHY he has to protect his son. Oh yeah, cuz the defense and the Anthony family don't play by the rules honest people live by. jmo
 
Dear Prudence said:
I don't understand why Brad would be there period. This hearing had nothing to do with his clients right?
Click to expand...

The judge did ask if he had anything to say and he said no, but I'm with you...no reason at all for him to be there. Just sucking up the spolight again.
 
The link above doesn't lead to the right video, the video I was trying to link to is titled, Cindy, George A. arrive at court house on WESH.
 
ziggy said:
Help me out here lawyers:

KC's atty from CA said the primary reason they want the tape sealed is to protect her privacy with regards to medical records citing HIPPA among others.


He then goes on to explain that KC was taken to the medical office to receive medical care, but that the plan was to put her in front of the TV for 30 -45 minutes and that...

" SHE WAS RENDERED NO MEDICAL CARE, WHATSOEVER."

So my question is... if she did not receive any medical care, treatment, diagnosis etc. how can her privacy with regards to medical information possibly be violated????
Click to expand...

I think that argument was all over the board and not clear to me. I see that they are married to the idea that this was an amendment rights violation when they could have just as easily argued that the "prejudice" concept (that the video is more prejudical than probative and could taint the jury pool).

Perhaps they are trying to open a window for an appeal later on with some kind of 2nd, 5th, 8th, etc. Amendment violation. Who knows...

The problem lies in that seemingly the State has no interest to use the video at trial. If so, and if the video is not entered into evidence at trial and never even mentioned then I think it might be harder to shoehorn an appeal over it. So, why go that route?

If I was Casey's counsel, I would have just argued that the video prejudiced the client and could taint the jury pool, and that since it wasn't being entered into evidence by the State that it should remain sealed. The State will concur with the defense since they have no "dog in the fight". Media will want it released but the Judge will deny it as prejudicial. End of Story.

But instead, the defense went on the record talking about how this video would not be positive or negative either way (why cut off that avenue of prejudice?) and that instead is a hornets nest of human rights violations (heh).

It's funny that he wanted to bring up all these depos that the State took AND those depos that the defense later did (which were supposedly so contradictory), and lay a big foundation of a story about the videotape. If it is true that the State has not intentions to use the videotape, then they won't use those depos about the tape, and so why put all these stories out there and taint the jury pool some more? See the irony? We are getting a "story" about something for which the jury may never see. And ironically, the video itself is only images, no sound. So, essentially, the video should speak for itself if it is shown and would not need a lot of "scaffolding" to explain what was going on. [I'm sure I'm not explaining myself well.]

Regarding Casey's rights being violated...I have real doubts about what privacy Casey has in jail to what a camera monitor can see. Are her conversations with nurses about medical treatment private? They should be. Are the conversations with her attorney private? Yes, they should be. Her confessor/priest? Yep. But, for the sake of safety the camera's eye has to be on the inmates! She truly does not have privacy over her reactions captured on a video camera in jail (as far as I know).
 
Gaia713 said:
Good for Rev. Grund. Although I have to wonder WHY he has to protect his son. Oh yeah, cuz the defense and the Anthony family don't play by the rules honest people live by. jmo
Click to expand...

And for what it's worth it looks like they all are chomping at the bit to see his phone records and texts released...
 
Theonly1 said:
I think that argument was all over the board and not clear to me. I see that they are married to the idea that this was an amendment rights violation when they could have just as easily argued that the "prejudice" concept (that the video is more prejudical than probative and could taint the jury pool).

Perhaps they are trying to open a window for an appeal later on with some kind of 2nd, 5th, 8th, etc. Amendment violation. Who knows...

The problem lies in that seemingly the State has no interest to use the video at trial. If so, and if the video is not entered into evidence at trial and never even mentioned then I think it might be harder to shoehorn an appeal over it. So, why go that route?

If I was Casey's counsel, I would have just argued that the video prejudiced the client and could taint the jury pool, and that since it wasn't being entered into evidence by the State that it should remain sealed. The State will concur with the defense since they have no "dog in the fight". Media will want it released but the Judge will deny it as prejudicial. End of Story.

But instead, the defense went on the record talking about how this video would not be positive or negative either way (why cut off that avenue of prejudice?) and that instead is a hornets nest of human rights violations (heh).

It's funny that he wanted to bring up all these depos that the State took AND those depos that the defense later did (which were supposedly so contradictory), and lay a big foundation of a story about the videotape. If it is true that the State has not intentions to use the videotape, then they won't use those depos about the tape, and so why put all these stories out there and taint the jury pool some more? See the irony? We are getting a "story" about something for which the jury may never see. And ironically, the video itself is only images, no sound. So, essentially, the video should speak for itself if it is shown and would not need a lot of "scaffolding" to explain what was going on. [I'm sure I'm not explaining myself well.]

Regarding Casey's rights being violated...I have real doubts about what privacy Casey has in jail to what a camera monitor can see. Are her conversations with nurses about medical treatment private? They should be. Are the conversations with her attorney private? Yes, they should be. Her confessor/priest? Yep. But, for the sake of safety the camera's eye has to be on the inmates! She truly does not have privacy over her reactions captured on a video camera in jail (as far as I know).
Click to expand...

For one thing, prisoners do NOT have rights. Those go bye bye when you are in jail. Secondly, her attorney knows this and chooses to ignore it. I think there is something else on that video that Baez does not want the public to see.

Also, what is this crapola that LKB is saying about the jail denying her rights to her atty. Nothing has been mentioned about that.

The best argument for not allowing the tape is the prejudicial vs the probative, but Baez was too stupid to figure that out. How could this tape have been toget her reaction when she already had a radio in her cell and surely already heard about this.

Baez is truly an idiot. A double idiot if he thinks that filing an amendment to a motion at 6pm the night before will get him his way. Obviously there would be no time for anyone to respond to it.
 
SailorMoon said:
but you know...what do they expect? If they were to wake up and smell the roses and face reality, and admit it wasn't rotten pizza, I think they would be a lot better off. I don't have sympathy for them looking all sad........they need to wake up. They aren't there for Caylee, they could give a flying whoot as to who killed her. The fact that they are there shows that.

[[not snapping at you Searchfortruth]]
Click to expand...
Yep, you are right, sometimes I get swayed...but, it's clear who's side they are sitting on !
 
Being in the courtroom, while exciting, lends gravitas to the situation.

I suppose some of my reflections have either been deleted or moved to the parking lot (about superficial descriptions).

Almost everyone was texting (many of the media) away but in a subtle manner. I saw one gum chewer being told to spit out his gum (and was handed a paper towel by the bailiff).

I would get there were less than 10 people there who were not either counsel, media, witnesses or attorneys for witnesses. There were some empty spaces to sit for more people, if necessary.
 
CarolinaMoon said:
I agree insofar as the tape itself is concerned. We won't be seeing it unless it's used as evidence in the trial. Only if the media attorney can make a good case for its release, that is.

I think that the big problem here is that the tape has become a jumping-off point for the defense to publicize all sorts of other issues. In his original motion, Baez didn't really mention the tape specifically and wanted hearings on HOW the tapes came to be saved or edited. Then, in his last-minute motion, he throws out all sorts of accusations against OCSO and jail officials based on the depositions given by Richardson and Uncer (and Uncer's is incomplete right now). He's also going off about recording of meetings with counsel. He's insinuation that there is a big conspiracy plot out there to deny Casey her rights to privacy, rights to attorney-client privilege, yadda, yadda, yadda. At this point, the tape is the least of it!
Click to expand...

Bold mine.

ITA. Just another reason to delay, stall and posture for the cameras too.
 
:confused:I am still confused and I think I will continue to be confused when it comes to this case. Thank Goodness for the wonderful members here with the right answers. Thank You all so much. :blowkiss:

Now, here I go again with questions. Baez is claiming Casey's medical privacy is being invaded. Now, did I misunderstand something? Did I not hear they said there is no sound to this audio that the media wants to release? If there is no sound then I would not think that Casey's medical privacy is at stake. Also, Was this audio not outside of the clinic? There was no doctor there, no one would know she received medical attention unless he said so, which he did. So in essence he violated her medical right to privacy by bringing it up today I would assume.
 
Searchfortruth said:
This video shows C & G (and BC) entering the court house, Cindy and George look like they have both been crying.

http://www.wesh.com/video/19591595/index.html
Click to expand...

I didn't get to watch the hearing this morning and am catching up on the day's events in this thread.

Even though the above video isn't the one of G and C arriving, it's interesting to note that as KC got up to leave the courtroom, she didn't acknowledge her parents........didn't even look in their direction. Did she acknowledge them at any time today?
 
I think that the defense is making a huge mistake by protesting the release of the video!

Preventing the public from seeing what actually happened only leads to grand conjecture. It is human nature that when we do not know the facts our imagination fills in the blanks ... and also human nature that we tend to imagine the worst. So, even if KC's actions portrayed on the video might be interpreted by some as consciousness of guilt ... it would only be an interpretation and the defense would have an opportunity to counter it with their own explanation. They can't counter speculation!!
 
Leila said:
I didn't get to watch the hearing this morning and am catching up on the day's events in this thread.

Even though the above video isn't the one of G and C arriving, it's interesting to note that as KC got up to leave the courtroom, she didn't acknowledge her parents........didn't even look in their direction. Did she acknowledge them at any time today?
Click to expand...
I am hearing she did not.
 
Theonly1 said:
If you see them in person you might feel/see their grief a bit more. Their grief was pretty palpable.
Click to expand...
Oh, I am sure that if I was there I would have felt more sympathy for the A's...I can see how being there in person would lend much more weight to the situation. I am so glad you were there to give us these much needed comments, The Only 1 !
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 165 more.
Total: 3,999 (members: 166, guests: 3,833)

Online statistics

Members online
166
Guests online
3,833
Total visitors
3,999
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
595,556
Messages
18,026,507
Members
229,685
Latest member
quioxte221
Back
Top