Baez files yet another motion re: Video of Casey's reaction to remains found

[SuziQ]

Geeze, and I thought it was just me. I tried reading that motion and found it to be very convoluted. I was going, "huh"? throughout it. Even thought, "I rub the bass, let's flute the day!"

I guess, as Jose himself has said, he's just doing the best he can.

I was thinking the same thing last night. I'm obviously not an attorney, but was soooo confused after reading just part of the motion, I clicked out of the page in frustration.

Thanks to the legal eagles here for making me feel like I wasn't entirely dense! lol. :blowkiss:

 

[SuziQ]

Hypothetical question for all of us: If she had reacted the same way to the Suburban find as she had to the Blanchard Park find - how would we all feel about that? My reaction would have been - "KC is one cold hearted you know what, she doesn't care, she is so over this whole thing". I am actually more surprised that she DID react then if she hadn't reacted.

(your post respectfully snipped)

We've heard she was upset and hyperventilated when she sought medical help. But was she sad or angry? Did she throw a temper tantrum like she did when her parents were visiting? Or did she show grief?

JB's protests sure make me wonder. I mean, if that particular vid painted his client in a positive light, then why fight the release?

 

[Dejablue]

If these were reviewed and NOT recorded over, there may have been a reason, wouldn't you think? Something probative, of value for the judge to at least see in order to evaluate whether Casey is receiving APPROPRIATE council?

I agree with you, and I want to see them too!!! He really really really doesn't want them released, and is playing the "treat her like the others" card, while he offers NO proof that she isn't being treated the same.

 

[Macushla]

(your post respectfully snipped)

We've heard she was upset and hyperventilated when she sought medical help. But was she sad or angry? Did she throw a temper tantrum like she did when her parents were visiting? Or did she show grief?

JB's protests sure make me wonder. I mean, if that particular vid painted his client in a positive light, then why fight the release?

I agree, JB's protests are interesting to say the least. I don't know what her reaction was, anger or sorrow, or frustration or shock. I am still surprised that she showed any reaction at all. I think she is a sociopath (No, I am not a Shrink, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn once) so for her to react at all was, for me, unusual. Of course, she might, just might, have been smart enough to realize that she HAD to at least look like she was upset. I guess maybe that is why so many of us want to see the video - so we can make up our own minds as to what emotion she is exhibiting - and if JB picked up on the fact that she was not showing the 'correct' emotion, I can understand him wanting that tape surpressed. When the motion to surpress this particular video is heard, it is going to be very, very interesting. I can't wait for the discussion that follows here on WS. We have so many brilliant minds here, and so many different opinions.

 

[Lanie]

believe09: I said this. Despite the fact that official identification was over a week away, I doubt there was anyone connected with this case who did not know that the remains were Caylee's. I think 99.9% of the public knew it to. By 4 pm on 12/11 - I don't think there was anyone who had any knowledge of this case at all who didn't know it was Caylee. Now, might they wanted to have visual evidence of her reaction, sure, but they KNEW she knew - if I can say that.

Hypothetical question for all of us: If she had reacted the same way to the Suburban find as she had to the Blanchard Park find - how would we all feel about that? My reaction would have been - "KC is one cold hearted you know what, she doesn't care, she is so over this whole thing". I am actually more surprised that she DID react then if she hadn't reacted.

I almost agree with you, except probably 99.8% of the public were already thinking Casey killed her back on June 16th, carried her around in the trunk of her car for a few days, then dumped her body.
According to Casey's story, Caylee was taken by the nanny to teach her a lesson, she was supposed to follow a script for 30? days, and Caylee was going to be returned on her birthday, August 9. This is the same nanny who loved Caylee so much she was nannying for free, in addition to buying Caylee everything she could possibly need or want with her own money. When a child's skeletal remains were found, while 99.8% of us expected it, it makes no sense for Casey to think this wonderful loving nanny who had been taking care of Caylee for almost 2 years would do such a thing to her. Does it?
Lanie

 

[Elphaba]

Baez is turning into his own ocean: filing motion after motion, in an attempt to make enough waves to save Casey's sinking ship. Sorry dude... your little lady is going down faster than the Titanic. (Can't help but think that Baez thinks Linda Baden is his Molly Brown... hah, talking about bad stunt casting. Shhhh... can you hear it? the orchestra is playing Nearer God To Thee.)

 

[JSR]

Yes, the jail monitors everything... but that does not mean the media and the public has the right to see it all. I believe this is what he's trying to prevent.
NG is wrong on so many counts. Just because the video cameras are recording everything does not mean the public has the right to see everything.

You are correct regarding MOST states. I'm not sure that applies in FL with the Sunshine Laws.

 

[Sundance]

I'm becoming strangely fascinated by the inner workings of JB's mind. I think I'm slowly beginning to understand him haha. :martini:

Oh no, say it ain't so Nancy Botwin, say it ain't so!



Sundance

 

[trixi491]

What's going on with this? I thought JB had 15 days to view the video then file another motion and I'm pretty sure it's been way after that deadline.

 

[sua_sponte]

What's going on with this? I thought JB had 15 days to view the video then file another motion and I'm pretty sure it's been way after that deadline.

I think he had 15 days from the date he viewed it. I am not sure when, or even if, he has viewed it yet.
Does anybody have any soundbites or articles that indicate he has in fact seen it?

 

[SoSueMe]

Regardless of the laws in the State of Florida, the question still is, does this violate KC's constitutional rights? I don't think these videos are necessary in prosecuting KC for the murder of her child. Yes, we'd all like to see them, but if there is a question as to the way they were obtained and her constitutional rights, I'd rather see them thrown out.

We don't want to win the battle, but lose the war. JMO

 

[LancelotLink]

I think he had 15 days from the date he viewed it. I am not sure when, or even if, he has viewed it yet.
Does anybody have any soundbites or articles that indicate he has in fact seen it?

I thought this was the motion he filed after viewing the video. If not, I am more confused than I was yesterday, which is a distinct possibility! :doh: When will Strickland rule?

 

[cecybeans]

Although any attorney with half a brain would not want another one of Ms. Anthony's snits on public view like her little "blue bricks" fit she had with her parents in their August 14 visit, I can't help but secretly hope there is something else behind this.

What if his client, in her "frushtration" said something we could overhear like "You PROMISED this was never gonna happen!!" or something equally condemning?

 

[dax]

I think he had 15 days from the date he viewed it. I am not sure when, or even if, he has viewed it yet.
Does anybody have any soundbites or articles that indicate he has in fact seen it?

I was under the impression that JB had 15 days AFTER HE PICKED UP THE VIDEO to file his motion.

IIRC, he picked the video up on the Friday after the hearing. The hearing was on Mar 13..?* Going by that he would need to be filing a motion by Tuesday/Weds......I think.

Does that sound right? (i ask the brilliant minds out there)

ETA: * I went back to check the date of the hearing and it was March 2. So if JB picked up the tape on Friday, Mar 6, why haven't we heard anything about it being released or a motion filed?...

 

[lonetraveler]

believe09: I said this. Despite the fact that official identification was over a week away, I doubt there was anyone connected with this case who did not know that the remains were Caylee's. I think 99.9% of the public knew it to. By 4 pm on 12/11 - I don't think there was anyone who had any knowledge of this case at all who didn't know it was Caylee. Now, might they wanted to have visual evidence of her reaction, sure, but they KNEW she knew - if I can say that.

Hypothetical question for all of us: If she had reacted the same way to the Suburban find as she had to the Blanchard Park find - how would we all feel about that? My reaction would have been - "KC is one cold hearted you know what, she doesn't care, she is so over this whole thing". I am actually more surprised that she DID react then if she hadn't reacted.

---
I'm more intrigued because she did not react to the Blanchard Park find the same as she reacted to the Surburban find. IMO, she as a grieving mother who has lost her daughter to a "kidnapper"??? would hope upon hope that her little girl was still alive and that there was a chance she would be home again. When she learned about the "find" at Blanchard Park (the very same park that Caylee was abducted from, in her words, second story, not the first story), She should have been hysterical and asking for drugs. She wasn't. IMO, it is because she already knew that Caylee was not in the water at Blanchard Park. However, when she learned about the Surburban "find", she played either the part of a horrified and surprised mother or she really flipped out because she knew that she had been caught. Also, since there are several stories about how the PI may have been tipped off by her or one of her family members, on where Caylee's body was, she was expecting the "find" and acted as she assumed that she should act upon "learning" about the find.

 

[Debbie3223]

dont know if i can start this...


but what ever did happen to having the reaction video released?

we WANT TO SEE ITTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!! :clap:

 

[Shear22]

dont know if i can start this...


but what ever did happen to having the reaction video released?

we WANT TO SEE ITTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!! :clap:

Strickland ruled it was too inflammatory and wouldn't be released. Oh well. We'll have to use our imagination.

 

[LaLaw2000]

The autopsy report had a much more inflamatory effect on me than any video of Casey could have. I really don't give a flip how Casey reacts to anything. LOL. I would have looked at it but it could not have more influenced the fact that I already believed she had killed Caylee.

What I am waiting to see is the look on her face when the virdict is read!

 

[Gaia713]

The autopsy report had a much more inflamatory effect on me than any video of Casey could have. I really don't give a flip how Casey reacts to anything. LOL. I would have looked at it but it could not have more influenced the fact that I already believed she had killed Caylee.

What I am waiting to see is the look on her face when the virdict is read!

I don't care about hr reaction eithre, but I DO THINK it's important evidence. Why this reaction? This time and only this time? I think it shows tremendous consciousness of guilt on her part.

 

[Sundance]

I don't care about hr reaction eithre, but I DO THINK it's important evidence. Why this reaction? This time and only this time? I think it shows tremendous consciousness of guilt on her part.

I think that Strickland's comments regarding that video say so much that we don't need to worry about anyone seeing it. JMO MOO yada yada yada:

"Being duly advised in the premises, the defendant's Motion to Seal the Jail Videotape in question is granted. In taking this unusual step the Court has read and considered the pleadings of all parties, and personally viewed the videotape in question.

While the Court is loathe to shield any public record, an argument can certainly be made that the contents of the video are highly inflammatory."

<snip>

"Given the nature and scope of the pretrial publicity, it is not unreasonable to assume that many persons in the potential jury pool might view this video and develop a "hardened" attitude in reference to the defendant's guilt."