2011.04.06 Sidebar Thread

[darnudes]

Thanx for the refresher, your link led me to rewatch this video
http://www.wftv.com/video/16914628/index.html which made me want to see the "Cameo" video that ICA and CA talk about during their first phone call. I don't think I have ever seen it. If anyone has it or knows where to find it.. I would love to hear CA say she has no clue what ICA's involvement is.
PLS & TY

Only audio, you can find it here.

Part One

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RI15oQbAh4[/ame]

 

[Turnadot]

Sorry, been meaning to say this all day. The defense team got what they paid for in Sims and Mason - so far, nothing. lol

Your avatar is hysterical!

 

[Jen38]

May I just say how much I respect the people here on this forum who are willing to watch these hearings and listen to the DT drone on and on (and on and on and on)? I would rather shove red hot needles through my eyes than willingly listen to Baez :crazy:, so I appreciate the play by play of what's going on. I lurk on the Caylee forum more than I post, but I want justice for this sweet angel as much as anyone here. Heaven help us when the trial begins, I think most of us may be ready for the funny farm by the time it's over. I do think Caylee is in good hands with JP and the prosecution though.

 

[NancyA]

May I just say how much I respect the people here on this forum who are willing to watch these hearings and listen to the DT drone on and on (and on and on and on)? I would rather shove red hot needles through my eyes than willingly listen to Baez :crazy:, so I appreciate the play by play of what's going on. I lurk on the Caylee forum more than I post, but I want justice for this sweet angel as much as anyone here. Heaven help us when the trial begins, I think most of us may be ready for the funny farm by the time it's over. I do think Caylee is in good hands with JP and the prosecution though.

Hear hear. Can only add my heartfelt thanks as a longtime and avid Caylee forum lurker to all those who spend so much time transcribing and posting the salient facts, links and observations of the many hearings in this case. The summaries too are SO much appreciated.

I don't post here for the simple reason the threads move so fast and by the time I have my thoughts together enough to post anything worthwhile contributing, someone else has already said it far better and far quicker than I could. Well done all and thanks again.

 

[Novice Seeker]

Great. Thank you for sniffing around. Here is another question, correct me if I am wrong here.

From what i gathered from listening to the exchange between Baez and the judge, the DT originally hired this expert, but are not going to use his expertise in the trial. However, now the prosecution has asked the court to allow THEM to use this expert for their case. And it seemed like the judge was TRYING to give Baez some help in leading him to the proper way to make valid objections to prevent the state from using the expert. Is that correct?

That's the jest of the discussion I got to. What had me stumped was why HHJP asked JA WHY he had not spoke to this expert. JA explained, at least twice, that he couldn't because this expert had been retained by Baez and therefor JA was prohibited from pursuing it.

IIRC, this issue was brought up because Baez had filed a motion to have the PM banding thrown out because he claims that the prosecutor's expert witness for this matter is stating opinion AND there were no other experts that could support the experts opinion about the PM.

JA rebutted and said not true judge. JA explained to the court that one of Baez's own experts could validate this finding but had decided they weren't going to use him although Baez never submitted any report/finding/opinion from this expert. And, JA informed the judge that his hands were tied and couldn't reach out to this expert because Baez would not play nice(my words)

So, JP confronts Baez who starts ducking, accusing, hallucinating ie. pink elephants, lecturing the judge and Mason's hearing becomes worse and starts talking about escalators.

Finally, after JP is able to determine that Baez has no intention of putting this expert on the stand, JP informs the court that he will review the New York case laws involved with this expert's testimony and make his decision about the PM hair banding.

 

[Novice Seeker]

Great. Thank you for sniffing around. Here is another question, correct me if I am wrong here.

From what i gathered from listening to the exchange between Baez and the judge, the DT originally hired this expert, but are not going to use his expertise in the trial. However, now the prosecution has asked the court to allow THEM to use this expert for their case. And it seemed like the judge was TRYING to give Baez some help in leading him to the proper way to make valid objections to prevent the state from using the expert. Is that correct?

Yep!!:cheerful: But I don't think Baez got it.:floorlaugh:

 

[LambChop]

if you all were all there in person and then came home and posted you might see things a slight bit different when you try to type a post. i try to be somewhat private in thoughts , try to not say innocent or guilty as either way i would get attacked by words by some. for those who attend its nice to know not everyone judges US. its not about our typed words. my opinion will not matter on jury day . IT WOULD BE A SHAME IF posting what we see or feel was picked apart. it would make me feel keep my thoughts to myself . yet, i know some do appreciate the posts whether they agree or not. i would hate to have to delete my posts if they cause controversy.

Thank you littlemisslegal, we appreciate you sharing your observations. It is so much different when you are face-to-face with someone because you can actually feel their emotions. Sometimes is it hard to keep in mind that although CA wants to protect her child, lying on the stand will not do it. CA's mistruths are the reason her child is where she is today. I think if CA were more truthful the jury would be more receptive to her pain and it would be less likely they would come back with a DP verdict because they would feel bad for the whole family. When people lie to you it is a personal insult. Although CA is very controlling I think that is just the way she is and has always been. I hope the counseling is helping her, truly. jmo

 

[beach]

Oops! We accidently left the door unlocked on Sidebar last night. :doh:

I'll give you guys a few minutes to gather your belongings then we need to close up.

Look around and take discussion to topical threads or generate new ones as needed.

Thanks everyone!

 

[Turnadot]

Thanks for this thread Mods!

It was fantastic to have a thread for chit-chat during breaks, and maybe a little healthy venting.

 

[LancelotLink]

I finally finished watching Part 25 of the 4/6/11 Frye, it was posted on youtube. Let me warn fellow WSers that when I found the first vid of these there wasn't any problem, but later on the youtube search was bringing up some really nasty x-rated titles of videos...I'm not that skilled to figure how that garbage stuff came up, but I guess someone thinks KC is "hot stuff".
Sorry for getting OT, but how I can avoid running into more of this "X" -in the future?
Bacl to Part 25. JB is making me feel nauseous. He went back to stating "mistruths" again, along with his insults to "Judge" about how hard it must be to deal with all this new technology. HHJP is more intelligent than anyone JB has ever dealt with in a courtroom. Too bad JB doesn't get it. My head is about to explode...and I don't know how the SA's can stand to listen to this bratty infantile nonsense for a whole day.
The SA and HHJP behaved like bright professionals people do, with expertise and no phony clarity. Kudos to them.

Were the other videos part of the users cache or just suggested stuff from other people?

 

[LancelotLink]

Oops! We accidently left the door unlocked on Sidebar last night. :doh:

I'll give you guys a few minutes to gather your belongings then we need to close up.

Look around and take discussion to topical threads or generate new ones as needed.

Thanks everyone!

Well, TY! I for one appreciated having the thread still open as I worked all day, got home around midnight and then had time to catch what I wanted and get some answers from my fellow WS'ers.. I could not ananylize it alone.

 

[LancelotLink]

That's the jest of the discussion I got to. What had me stumped was why HHJP asked JA WHY he had not spoke to this expert. JA explained, at least twice, that he couldn't because this expert had been retained by Baez and therefor JA was prohibited from pursuing it.

IIRC, this issue was brought up because Baez had filed a motion to have the PM banding thrown out because he claims that the prosecutor's expert witness for this matter is stating opinion AND there were no other experts that could support the experts opinion about the PM.

JA rebutted and said not true judge. JA explained to the court that one of Baez's own experts could validate this finding but had decided they weren't going to use him although Baez never submitted any report/finding/opinion from this expert. And, JA informed the judge that his hands were tied and couldn't reach out to this expert because Baez would not play nice(my words)

So, JP confronts Baez who starts ducking, accusing, hallucinating ie. pink elephants, lecturing the judge and Mason's hearing becomes worse and starts talking about escalators.

Finally, after JP is able to determine that Baez has no intention of putting this expert on the stand, JP informs the court that he will review the New York case laws involved with this expert's testimony and make his decision about the PM hair banding.

TY!!!! :great:

 

[Novice Seeker]

I understand HIPAA, that's why I asked this question: Did these psychiatrists actually see her, examine her, render a diagnosis, treat her and or care for her? Was she their patient? Then HIPAA would apply.

Or have they just read about the case and maybe talked to her lawyers and then drew psych conclusions (much like we have here)? If so, I don't see how HIPAA would apply if she wasn't actually a patient.

I am curious as to how HIPAA is applied in a situation where the defense team is trying to get a certain psych evaluation for legal reasons in order to benefit their client in court. I would think (but don't know) that this has got nothing to do with the HIPAA law as it applies to an actual patient in a medical setting receiving care by health care providers.

Does anyone know the answer to this?

You point out 2 excellect questions.

1. When does the physician/individual interaction become a physician/patient relationship? The moment the physician agrees to evaluate the individual. So that means/includes

The moment a person signs the check in log at that doctors office, lab, treatment facility such as physical therapy, diagnostic center, signs for receipt of a medical treatment, ie. pharmacy.

The moment a physician agrees to evaluate an individual, defined when either

*that physician makes an agreement with the referring physician for
any reason either to treat, evaluate or assess
*that physician reviews any medical information of that patient prior to
ever seeing that individual
*if a physician has any form of communication or discussion with an
individual that relates to a medical complaint, discussion,opinion and so
forth


2. What falls under the HIPPA Umbrella?
*Anything that has anything related to anything medical.
*Doesn't matter who initiates the medical request. It still involves a
medical component related to the individual.
*The HIPPA umbrella doesn't cover a medical facility it covers the
individual. Think of it like this...Each of us have been assigned one of
these umbrellas. It follows each of us everywhere. The bathroom,
dinner, vacation, work, in the car, where ever we go, it goes.

 

[LancelotLink]

So, was HHJBP hinting that he would like to have heard from NPatraeco?

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

I wish the Sidebar could stay open............

 

[Turnadot]

I wish the Sidebar could stay open............

Yeah, but the danger in that, IMO, is this thread turning into a general discussion which will make pertinent information a biatch to find come trial time.

I'm sure there will be a sidebar thread for Friday's hearing. I Hope.

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

Yeah, but the danger in that, IMO, is this thread turning into a general discussion which will make pertinent information a biatch to find come trial time.

I'm sure there will be a sidebar thread for Friday's hearing. I Hope.

Yes, you are correct.

 

[ynotdivein]

Turning out the neon "Sidebar" light, folks... you don't have to go home but you can't stay here... I've bumped a thread on Petraco and maybe we can find more on Danziger and the other psychiatrist who are getting depo'ed today.

Beach, thank you for the Sidebar idea! And thanks to all posters who "self-modded" overnight. :blowkiss: