2009.09.30 Baez Motions-the missing Memos of Law/Exhibits

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Muzikman

Muzikman

ROCKIN!
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
2,032
Reaction score
-1,725
Website
stores.ebay.com
Two motions filed by Baez this week, looks like they were written by Andrea & students. The media put up the actual motions, but did not put up the Memorandums Of Law and Exhibits that were attached with the motions. I got them from the Clerk's office and thought they were interesting and worth discussion.

Motion to Preclude DP
http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2009/0930/21164317.pdf

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defense Motion to Preclude DP Procedures (note that Page 9 is missing - either left out by Baez when filing, or lost at the Clerk's office - your guess as to which :) )

http://www.filedropper.com/093009motionprecludedpmemooflaw

Near the end is a Table of Exhibits, documents which we already have. I hand-wrote the page numbers so they could be found and included for discussion. I also attached the interview excerpts of Amy H, Sean D and Jonathan D to make it easier, and also the snarky letter from Baez to LDB.



Motion to Dismiss Counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment Against CMA
http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2009/0930/21163681.pdf


Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss Counts 1 and 2
http://www.filedropper.com/093009motiondismisscts1and2memooflaw

The last page of this has a summary of Exhibits. I did not get copies of all of these, as they've mostly already been released. I hand wrote SA page numbers so they could be looked at (exhibit G is 6440-6450, my bad writing) and discussed.

Exhibit K is the FBI Lab Report released by Brad Conway this week. Missing from his release was page 9586, which I have included here.

http://www.filedropper.com/093009fbilabreportexhibitkmotiondismisscts1and2


To download from Filedropper: click the link above, click the "Download This File" button, enter a few Captcha letters/numbers and voila! it downloads to your computer. You do NOT need to sign up.

Here's what it looks like:
picture.php


Enjoy! I'll be gone for a few days... :)
 
Dang you work fast. Have a safe trip to where ever you are traveling. Thanks again. Another job well done :clap::clap::clap:
 
Musikman, you just totally rock - thanks again for going the extra mile!
 
Wha,wha,wha !
Sounds like whining
I know it's their job,but give me a break! So, will the State have to show their additional evidence to answer this motion?
 
First, thank you so much for providing this.

Second, the state doesn't have much in forensics.

This reports leaves no wiggle room on the duct tape on the skull compared to the duct tape on the gas can. They absolutely state they didn't come from the same roll.
 
Muzikman: Thank you (again!) :blowkiss:for all of your dedication and time (well spent, might I add :blushing:). I have read the docs, well, with the exception of page 9 (duuuuuuhhhhhhhh JB), and have the same five words to say:


Jose & Linda: Do the words
Unwitting overdose of a sedative
ring any bells?:waitasec:
 
Okay I'm not getting why page 9 would be missing...a little hint?
 
Question: the last 2 pages of the FBI evidence docs states that as per convo with Jeff A (was it??) that the vacuums and carpet cleaners taken from the A's residence post discovery of Caylee's remains were not tested??? Or just tested visually??? Am I way wrong on this? I cannot imagine why the vacuum and carpet cleaner would not be in little bitty pieces right now:waitasec:
 
Valhall said:
First, thank you so much for providing this.

Second, the state doesn't have much in forensics.

This reports leaves no wiggle room on the duct tape on the skull compared to the duct tape on the gas can. They absolutely state they didn't come from the same roll.
Click to expand...

BBM
Do you have a link for this? I thought the adhesive was the same.
 
Caylee wasn't particularly vulnerable due to her familial relationship (p. 10)? With what we know now? You've got to be kidding me? She may have been safe with her grandparents...but considering no one knows what Casey did when she was alone on a daily basis with Caylee (with perhaps the exception that she talked A LOT or texted A LOT on the phone)...and the one time she is away with the child she "disappears"...I think it can be established that the child was no doubt vulnerable with her mother. I also have a strong suspicion that Caylee had been "lost" before.
 
RR0004 said:
Caylee wasn't particularly vulnerable due to her familial relationship (p. 10)? With what we know now? You've got to be kidding me? She may have been safe with her grandparents...but considering no one knows what Casey did when she was alone on a daily basis with Caylee (with perhaps the exception that she talked A LOT or texted A LOT on the phone)...and the one time she is away with the child she "disappears"...I think it can be established that the child was no doubt vulnerable with her mother. I also have a strong suspicion that Caylee had been "lost" before.
Click to expand...

Like in the mall or something LOL..I agree.
 
I need to go back and reread the 40 pages but FWIW, IMO, with AL citing specific cases showing aggravating circumstances during the murder ( a mother beating child with bat, another case with defensive wounds showing the victim was aware they were being killed) and referencing the dp not being proposed in those cases it feels like the next page would cite cases that may be similar to what they may try to present in court (accidental death in some manner) as their explanation of what happened. Hiring Todd Macaluso was a big hint. He is an accident reconstruction expert. IMO page 9 references cases with accidental death. I could be off my rocker but I read the motion once and have NOT analyzed every bit. This is my first impression.



Came back in with my other thought. OR...page 9 could demonstrate the first written evidence we will see where they throw the A family under the bus.
 
[ Hiring Todd Macaluso was a big hint. He is an accident reconstruction expert. IMO page 9 references cases with accidental death.

SOS: respectfully snipped :blushing:

Thanks for that little tidbit that I hadn't read before now. It kinda gives me back the little glimmers of hope that I keep feeling, only to have the defence try to miscredit them. Thanks!
 
Valhall said:
First, thank you so much for providing this.

Second, the state doesn't have much in forensics.

This reports leaves no wiggle room on the duct tape on the skull compared to the duct tape on the gas can. They absolutely state they didn't come from the same roll.
Click to expand...

This worries me too. I think it's too much of a coincidence for the tape not to be from the same roll giving the rare Henkel brand, but the FBI report on the fabric sure throws some reasonable doubt in there. Especially when I consider the fabric testing was done second, so might possibly be the FBI's last word on the tape. If you look at the report from Dec. 19, 2008 starting on p. 3793 here http://www.wftv.com/pdf/18740657/detail.html after they state the tapes are comparable, you will see it states under the remarks section:
"Tape specimens Q64 and Q66 remain under active examination in the Trace Evidence Unit to determine if any difference exist between the fabric reinforcement component of these tapes."
So then later the report comes out with these results you can read here on p. 9588 http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21161111/detail.html.
"The fabric portion of specimens Q62 through Q64 and Q104 are microscopically dissimilar in fiber composition to the fiber composition to Q66. Accordingly they are not consistent with originating from the same source as Q66."
So the reports are conflicting. Which one holds more weight? I'm sure we'll hear about this at trial from an FBI tech as a witness. But could the second test be enough to give one juror a little reasonable doubt?
I don't think there's any way Baez's motions to dismiss will work but things like the above will sure be part of his defense strategy. In fact, I think his whole strategy is to tear apart the physical evidence and hope one juror will be a hold out on voting guilty.
 
countzero said:
Dang you work fast. Have a safe trip to where ever you are traveling. Thanks again. Another job well done :clap::clap::clap:
Click to expand...

Muzikman going on a trip? :Bicicleta:What the? Don't tell me....you're off to Puerto Rico :detective:to help Cindy look for Caylee and ZFG. Ohhhhh, the lengths that you will go to for Caylee's sake! LOL:biglaugh:

:rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::takeoff:
 
Dear Prudence said:
This worries me too. I think it's too much of a coincidence for the tape not to be from the same roll giving the rare Henkel brand, but the FBI report on the fabric sure throws some reasonable doubt in there. Especially when I consider the fabric testing was done second, so might possibly be the FBI's last word on the tape. If you look at the report from Dec. 19, 2008 starting on p. 3793 here http://www.wftv.com/pdf/18740657/detail.html after they state the tapes are comparable, you will see it states under the remarks section:
"Tape specimens Q64 and Q66 remain under active examination in the Trace Evidence Unit to determine if any difference exist between the fabric reinforcement component of these tapes."
So then later the report comes out with these results you can read here on p. 9588 http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21161111/detail.html.
"The fabric portion of specimens Q62 through Q64 and Q104 are microscopically dissimilar in fiber composition to the fiber composition to Q66. Accordingly they are not consistent with originating from the same source as Q66."
So the reports are conflicting. Which one holds more weight? I'm sure we'll hear about this at trial from an FBI tech as a witness. But could the second test be enough to give one juror a little reasonable doubt?
I don't think there's any way Baez's motions to dismiss will work but things like the above will sure be part of his defense strategy. In fact, I think his whole strategy is to tear apart the physical evidence and hope one juror will be a hold out on voting guilty.
Click to expand...


Please see JWG's post in the duct tape match thread...respectfully copied, JWG

When ace reporter Tony Pipitone aired a report on the rarity of the duct tape, he noted that the chances of finding two pieces of this tape linked to the Anthony case is 1 in 250,000. With this latest revelation, that linkage becomes (drum roll please):

1 in 125 million

Would be nice if another news outlet can find a fourth piece on a different poster to bring the odds to 1 in 63 billion, just for fun.

BTW...I finished watching the video news report on this latest find, and noticed that the poster with the duct tape was hung outside. It occurred to me that it is likely that GA / CA used the duct tape in situations where posters were exposed to wind and the elements, but that they did not use the duct tape to hang posters on their doors. Just tossing that out there.
 
The motions from the defense are a push for the prosecutors to show their hand and further explain their theory of the case.
 
and here's another one by Essies, also respectfully copied::blushing:
Snipped from article:
WFTV legal analyst Bill Scheaffer asked: "What are the statistical chances that those three pieces of duct tape did not come from the same source roll, that roll belonging to the Anthonys?"

Sheaffer said those similarities will be obvious to a jury. This evening, Belich reported that the defense "would not respond to anything that hasn't been entered as evidence in the case."
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...wftv-wesh-rebut-defense-team-on-evidence.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 204 more.
Total: 2,197 (members: 205, guests: 1,992)

Online statistics

Members online
205
Guests online
1,992
Total visitors
2,197
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,812
Messages
17,959,253
Members
228,610
Latest member
Melissawilkinson44
Back
Top