Casey's Reaction to Found Remains was Video Taped

nancy botwin · Feb 27, 2009

Spangle said:
If that was so, then they would not be able to use the taped conversations with her and her parents, and other visitors. Yet, we see that they can and have released them to the public.

Casey can not even go to the bathroom in private. aghm.. Which in the out side world would be considered lewd behavior and can get you jail time. <shrug> Oh, and registered as a sex offender.

Things are different in the slammer. She knows there are cameras everywhere. They are not hidden. They are recording both pictures and voice.

It's going to be interesting, for sure.

The jail visitations are standard procedure, initiated by the inmate, not the jail. It's always the same-- it's always taped and it's always for a set amount of time, etc. Random cameras positioned everywhere are also part of standard procedure.

This is about a deviation from standard procedure. We all know Casey only gets one hour of free time outside of her cell a day. She can watch, at most, one hour of tv if that's how she chooses to use her hour of free time. It was a LE-initiated deviation from standard procedure to take Casey to another separate area where she could privately watch the ongoing media coverage. That's why it's suspect and that's why it can-- and likely will-- be construed as a deliberate move by LE to unfairly elicit incriminating evidence from Casey Anthony.

one_hooah_wife · Feb 27, 2009

nancy botwin said:
The jail visitations are standard procedure, initiated by the inmate, not the jail. It's always the same-- it's always taped and it's always for a set amount of time, etc. Random cameras positioned everywhere are also part of standard procedure.

This is about a deviation from standard procedure. We all know Casey only gets one hour of free time outside of her cell a day. She can watch, at most, one hour of tv if that's how she chooses to use her hour of free time. It was a LE-initiated deviation from standard procedure to take Casey to another separate area where she could privately watch the ongoing media coverage. That's why it's suspect and that's why it can-- and likely will-- be construed as a deliberate move by LE to unfairly elicit incriminating evidence from Casey Anthony.

I don't think that even her "one hour of free time" is covered under reasonable expectation of privacy ... in jail she is monitored 24-7 ... even on her "free time"... what if she decided to use her "free time" to slit her wrists in the yard ... the jail would be liable for not monitoring!! They may have said 'we are taking you to a private area to watch this video' ... knowing "private" was a subjective term ... the only time that an inmate is guaranteed true .... without exception - privacy ... is when they are in conference with their attorney ... period!

*lore621* · Feb 27, 2009

one_hooah_wife said:
I have to agree NB ... however, you have to concede that a motion made on the basis of crap is only crap ... (Shouting indignantly, "I object!!!," without stating why ... just isn't done, except on Mattlock). He should have cited cases that bolster his client's position whether, 6th amendment, 8th amendment or the HIPAA Ruling ... the "Honorable Court" no matter how Casey "prays", cannot consider action against the 1st amendment without greater cause AND PRECEDENCE!!

Great post OHW!

BTW, Emma is beautiful.

jjgram · Feb 27, 2009

I say KC Deserves the same R * I * G * H * T * S ~~~ as she
gave little Angel Caylee !

we Know what those were
:furious::furious::furious:

JMO
jjgram

* * * SEEKING JUSTICE FOR LITTLE ANGEL CAYLEE ! ! !

Short_Stuff · Feb 27, 2009

Yeah too bad if LE taping KC was cruel. Look what KC did to Caylee And a zillion other people! You can't get much more cruel than that JB!

aprilshowers · Feb 27, 2009

Sorry, haven't read all posts but: Are we going to get to see her reaction?

Chezhire · Feb 27, 2009

SoCalSleuth said:
The judge will definitely let it in if the prosecution seeks to introduce it. The law is pretty clear that just because something is incriminating doesn't mean it is unduly prejudicial. Unduly prejudicial speaks more to matters which could or are designed to invoke the sympathy of the jury toward the victim or inflame the jury. The evidence shows a consciousness of guilt because the remains had not been identified. The defense, of course, will be free to argue that it shows normal human emotion under the circumstances. My guess is that the defense will try to keep it out but when it gets in they will paint it red.

ITA - and what's more, even if her non-reaction to the earlier findings of bones, child's toys, etc., at JBP was not taped, but was witnessed by jail staff, it would not be unusual for them to testify as fact witnesses to her lack of reaction/emotions. It will all come in should the SA determine it helpful to their case against Casey.

Chezhire · Feb 27, 2009

cocowiley said:
i wouldn't think they could record anything when she's with her lawyer, dunno though.

As many other posters have said: there is NO expectation of privacy in a jail, and this boils down to the practical point that if the jail officials desired to videotape an inmate 24/7, they could do so. Tsk, tsk, JB, if you failed to advise Casey of this. Conversations with her lawyer are not allowed to be taped, but these meetings may/may not take place in rooms with windows so the jail officials can still view inside but not hear. (Jail where I practice has some attorney-client rooms with windows and some without, and I haven't been in any of the FL jails, so...)

Chezhire · Feb 27, 2009

nancy botwin said:
The male defense atty on JVM right now might be aggravating, but he's right. I mentioned this last night-- if Casey was deliberately seated so that she could watch the unfolding news coverage, for the purpose of eliciting her reaction, that's inappropriate. I bet the SA is actually not pleased about this tape or the fact that the tape is being discussed on tv.

Like the defense atty said on JVM, this is tantamount to a "backdoor interrogation" -- she's indicted and she has invoked her right to silence and counsel. This set-up, if there was a set-up, is a violation of those fundamental rights.

"interrogation" includes "any words or action on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect."

The attorney you are quoting is wrong. Since there could even be a hidden videocamera in each and every ceiling/floor tile of a jail, as there is NO expectation of privacy within said jail, there is no basis for arguing that because Casey was taken to a specific area of the jail where there was a camera and allowed to watch the news if she cared to do so, which is the key here, I might add, since no one forced her to do so, it amounts to entrapment. As long as the jail officials did not ask her a single thing or speak to her at all about what was on the tv screen, there's not a darn thing wrong with what they did and, should the SA determine this video will be helpful to their case, they will be able to introduce it into evidence. JB will not be able to object to this one.

Chezhire · Feb 27, 2009

FootballMom said:
As much as I hate to agree with JB's motion to not release KC's videotaped reaction... I do in part.... video taping her in common areas is fine but taping her in the clinic/medical facility comes dangerously close to if not totally crossing the line. I understand that she is a prisoner and for all intents and purposes has lost her right to privacy but when we dance on the edge of violating federal laws (Protected Health Information includes images under HIPAA) then that puts all of us as risk by setting a precedent. Like it or not just because KC is in jail her civil rights are still protected (and as much as I hate to say it as this is KC we are talking about - they should be).

Casey had not asked to receive medical treatment that we're aware of, nor had she received any medical treatment that we're aware of and, therefore, this has nothing to do with the point of the HIPAA laws and regulations, which were designed to prevent the release of a person's medical-related information. She was there to see the tv, not to receive medical treatment of any kind - and she could have chosen NOT to watch the tv, but she didn't. Not so smart, that one.

Chezhire · Feb 27, 2009

FootballMom said:
I respectfully disagree... for two reasons: 1.) as soon as she stepped through those clinic doors the right to privacy was enacted; 2.) she was brought there because she requested treatment.

She was not taken there because she requested medical treatment.

Moreover, merely stepping through doors of a medical facility does NOT automatically mean that the HIPAA rules and regs apply.

If that were the case, then the HIPAA laws and regs would also prevent disclosure of, for example, the fact that people accompanying those getting medical treatment (as in people who give others a ride to and from the doctor's office) "stepped foot through the doors" of the facility, and I don't think one needs be an attorney to understand that failed logic.

Chezhire · Feb 27, 2009

:clap:

Never4GetCaylee said:
I understand what you are saying, but I don't think HIPPA applies to this. HIPPA is to protect a person's medical information. Casey's reaction is not a medical condition. ER waiting rooms often have cameras in them and I have seen film from them on the news for different things, that wouldn't happen if showing someone in a waiting room violated HIPPA.

:clap:
You are correct, Never4GetCaylee. Nice post with real, practical information.

Chezhire · Feb 28, 2009

:clap:

one_hooah_wife said:
It depends on if the person she asked for the sedative were bound by HIPAA laws ... if she asked a nurse or a doctor or clinic worker then yes, probably ... but if she asked a guard or attendant ... then probably not. If you are going to the doctor and mention to say, your babysitter, that you are going to ask the doctor for medication ... or have a particular medical condition the babysitter is not bound by HIPAA to keep this information private ... whereas anyone involved in your medical care or care of your medical records are.

:clap:
Another great, practical and CORRECT post.

Chezhire · Feb 28, 2009

nancy botwin said:
SNIPPED: "... this is a motion JB should have made and it's a motion he's reasonably likely to win. . . ."

He's going to lose the motion. For starters, his client wasn't forced to watch anything and she wasn't receiving medical treatment nor, prior to seeing the news that she CHOSE to watch, had she requested anything even slightly resembling medical treatment...and I'm also betting Park Place here that, as other posters have already mentioned, Casey made her meds request to some random guard/prison employee, NOT any medical doctor or nurse. :doh:

p.s. If JB really thought that these tapes violated his clients' Constitutional rights, he'd have (1) asked for an in camera (eg, private: judge and counsel only) review of them by the judge to determine same and (2) argued that they be SUPPRESSED, neither of which did he do. Criminal attorneys don't play the "waiting game" on evidence they believe should be suppressed-they file IMMEDIATELY upon believing they can support a motion to suppress. (Of course, all of this assumes JB knows how to do same, which, as all of my previous posts reflect, I don't believe to be the case.)

Psmith · Feb 28, 2009

Chezhire said:
:clap:

:clap:
Another great, practical and CORRECT post.

I understand what Baez, most esteemed attorney, is doing. But it could also be said jail was looking to KC welfare just in case. I am sure someone has noted before, vid is everywhere to protect patient and client.

Nice try Baez.

Related:

a) what is up with trying to show that clients pix on facebook or myspace is not allowed because too inflammatory then shows pic of KC doll in flag? If facebook or myspace = pulished info, correct?

b) why do certain attys think waving the "flag card" is going to help child missing or murder charges? See also BC on blah blah blah Iraq. Totally mystifies me.

Among other reactions.

Any insight?

Chezhire · Feb 28, 2009

nancy botwin said:
The jail visitations are standard procedure, initiated by the inmate, not the jail. It's always the same-- it's always taped and it's always for a set amount of time, etc. Random cameras positioned everywhere are also part of standard procedure.

This is about a deviation from standard procedure. We all know Casey only gets one hour of free time outside of her cell a day. She can watch, at most, one hour of tv if that's how she chooses to use her hour of free time. It was a LE-initiated deviation from standard procedure to take Casey to another separate area where she could privately watch the ongoing media coverage. That's why it's suspect and that's why it can-- and likely will-- be construed as a deliberate move by LE to unfairly elicit incriminating evidence from Casey Anthony.

That would only be true re: deviation from standard procedure if they only taped this particular moment when she was allowed tv time outside of her jail cell. As numerous other posters in this thread have pointed out, she cannot be placed with the general population and, therefore, is always by herself when viewing the tv. Betcha she's always been videotaped when they allow her the private tv time she gets...
BTW - I see one_hooah_wife referring to you in an above post, #308, here: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3383000#post3383000
as a lawyer - do you claim to be a lawyer?

nancy botwin · Feb 28, 2009

Chezhire said:
That would only be true re: deviation from standard procedure if they only taped this particular moment when she was allowed tv time outside of her jail cell. As numerous other posters in this thread have pointed out, she cannot be placed with the general population and, therefore, is always by herself when viewing the tv. Betcha she's always been videotaped when they allow her the private tv time she gets...
BTW - I see one_hooah_wife referring to you in an above post, #308, here: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3383000#post3383000
as a lawyer - do you claim to be a lawyer?

Im envisioning a situation in which Casey is positioned in front of a television; the television is very close to her; powered on; and tuned in to the developing coverage of the remains discovery. Im envisioning a situation in which she had no choice but to watch and listen to the coverage the entire time she was sitting in the room she was taken to by jail staff. We dont know the exact circumstances surrounding how she came to be in that room and watching the coverage we dont know who was there, who was not there, who said what, how long she was there, if she could leave, etc.

But, as I personally process the limited information we have received about the alleged event and its taping, I personally envision a situation which to me resonates as a deviation from the standard operations within the jail. The event, as I see it, seems to have been engineered for the purpose of eliciting an incriminating response from Casey Anthony. As with all matters of perspective and opinion, I can understand and respect how someone else might be visualizing and contemplating the situation differently than I do.

As for the 6th amendment issue, I think theres an argument to be made and I dont think Im incorrect. You see things differently and I respect that. Theres more than one way to envision and contemplate a fact pattern and theres more than one way to interpret the law. I think its reasonably likely that Baez will prevail in this motion I might be wrong. You think Baez is going to lose you might be right.

I agree with you re: the procedure Baez should have undertaken re: suppression. However, as you pointed out, Baez generally fails to follow the appropriate procedure i.e. Filing a counterclaim against ZFG when he should have filed a motion to dismiss. Etc. etc.

Also I dont claim to be a lawyer --
I have a BA in political science and psychology. I have a JD from an ABA accredited law school. I have passed the Bar Exam in the state where I attended law school. I do not currently practice law in any state, nor have I ever individually represented clients nor have I ever claimed to be currently practicing law or representing clients. Years ago I worked as a paralegal and Ive also worked within the legal/court system in a non-advocate capacity. I am currently working on a graduate degree in clinical/forensic psychology. I do not feel that Ive misrepresented myself within these forums, nor do I make express claims in my signature or posts. If you are interested in knowing more about me personally, please PM me.

Chezhire · Feb 28, 2009

nancy botwin said:
I’m envisioning a situation in which Casey is positioned in front of a television; the television is very close to her; powered on; and tuned in to the developing coverage of the remains discovery. I’m envisioning a situation in which she had no choice but to watch and listen to the coverage the entire time she was sitting in the room she was taken to by jail staff. We don’t know the exact circumstances surrounding how she came to be in that room and watching the coverage— we don’t know who was there, who was not there, who said what, how long she was there, if she could leave, etc.

But, as I personally process the limited information we have received about the alleged event and its taping, I personally envision a situation which — to me— resonates as a deviation from the standard operations within the jail. The event, as I see it, seems to have been engineered for the purpose of eliciting an incriminating response from Casey Anthony. As with all matters of perspective and opinion, I can understand and respect how someone else might be visualizing and contemplating the situation differently than I do.

As for the 6th amendment issue, I think there’s an argument to be made and I don’t think I’m incorrect. You see things differently and I respect that. There’s more than one way to envision and contemplate a fact pattern and there’s more than one way to interpret the law. I think it’s reasonably likely that Baez will prevail in this motion— I might be wrong. You think Baez is going to lose— you might be right.

I agree with you re: the procedure Baez should have undertaken re: suppression. However, as you pointed out, Baez generally fails to follow the appropriate procedure— i.e. Filing a counterclaim against ZFG when he should have filed a motion to dismiss. Etc. etc.

Also I don’t “claim to be a lawyer” --
I have a BA in political science and psychology. I have a JD from an ABA accredited law school. I have passed the Bar Exam in the state where I attended law school. I do not currently practice law in any state, nor have I ever individually represented clients— nor have I ever claimed to be currently practicing law or representing clients. Years ago I worked as a paralegal and I’ve also worked within the legal/court system in a non-advocate capacity. I am currently working on a graduate degree in clinical/forensic psychology. I do not feel that I’ve misrepresented myself within these forums, nor do I make express claims in my signature or posts. If you are interested in knowing more about me personally, please PM me.

You have a great imagination, nancy botwin. I always enjoy your posts - I've especially liked the ones regarding the photobucket accounts. I suppose what you "envision" could turn out to be the case, though I'm not holding my breath. I agree with posters debs and socalsleuth this time.

Moreover, Judge Strickland will not "convert" what JBaez filed into a motion to suppress - which you and I both agree is what should have been filed by JBaez had what you described above been true. However, JBaez' motion does not even mention the word suppress and Judge Strickland has proven already that he will not entertain motions that aren't properly filed and briefed. I love watching Judge Strickland rendering rulings - he's a great judge. :gavel:

FYI - Whether or not one makes "express claims in their signature or posts," if one holds themselves out, for example, as possessing a JD and having passed their state's bar examination, as you do, and then goes on to post about one's opinion of the legal aspects of cases on WS, as you do, one can expect to receive certain, er, inquiries regarding these credentials one claims to possess. So don't say I didn't warn you.

CarolinaMoon · Feb 28, 2009

After listening to Lee's deposition today and paying close attention to the new abduction story at J. Blanchard Park (well, the Sawgrass one didn't work), I think the comparison of her reactions will be damning evidence.

If the possible findings at the park did not move her at all AND that was the last place she saw Caylee, she should have gone psycho then as well as the finding of remains on Suburban Drive.

twitterpated · Feb 28, 2009

CarolinaMoon said:
After listening to Lee's deposition today and paying close attention to the new abduction story at J. Blanchard Park (well, the Sawgrass one didn't work), I think the comparison of her reactions will be damning evidence.

If the possible findings at the park did not move her at all AND that was the last place she saw Caylee, she should have gone psycho then as well as the finding of remains on Suburban Drive.

You took the words right out of my mouth, CarolinaMoon.

Casey's Reaction to Found Remains was Video Taped

Verified Expert

Loving Colorado!

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Inactive

Inactive

Inactive

Inactive

Inactive

Inactive

Inactive

Inactive

New Member

Inactive

Verified Expert

Inactive

Well-Known Member

Living to Learn and Learning to Live

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics