CNN News 1/1/09 (Videos Of Show Included)

[debs]

I think you are probably right manatee. Last night, I laid awake and tossed and turned because I had too much coco-cola yesterday.

So I turned this news over and over in my head. And here is what I thought....(I know it won't be a popular theory, because I had to suspend my anger and emotions to come to this conclusion and it was very hard to do).

1. In the jail house visit that LA had with KC, LA tells her (paraphrasing)...LA goes into detail about the court mail system and how that’s the only way they can have private exchange of info. LA keeps emphasizing that Jose may not be passing things on to them- even if she has asked him to.

2. On 14 AUG 08, KC writes a letter to Sheriff Berry saying she wants to meet with her father, oddly Baez shows up before GA has a chance to speak with her and the meeting is canceled.

3. Okay, IF we assume that KC is writing to her parents and LA (the media hasn't reported anymore visits or calls to family) I am assuming that those letters would be handed off to Baez for delivery.

4. IF KC decided to tell the area where Caylee was dumped. She may have written a letter to a family member. Then she would have handed that letter to Baez.

5. I'm thinking as her defense attorney he would have more than likely read the contents of that or any letter to determine whether or not it was in his or his clients best interest to pass along. (He would have done this because we can only predict someone's behavior by their past behavior and CA isn't know for keeping her mouth shut about anything, so any letter KC wrote CA would be harshly censored by Baez, I am assuming)

6. So let's pretend KC did write a letter to a family member, and that letter was given to Baez and he read it and just about crapped his pants. He got his employees (if, indeed they were his employees at the time) and said go out there and check this out. Baez may have said "We all know that this chick is Coo-Coo and there's no telling if this is true or not so just go out there so we can rule this out and one of her many lies". OR "Go out there and see if you find anything, we need to know for a defense strategy".

7. SO... DC (the PI) and J. Hoover (PI) are out there and Hoover is videotaping and talking with the wife of J. Wray because they assist these guys in whatever it is that PI's do. They kick around the weeds here and there, thinking about snakes and such and call it a day.( This is how it played out in my mind last night in the wee hours of the morning).

Yes I know it's a silly theory but it sounded good to me last night. What I'm saying is I don't think that Baez includes the A's in on much. So, I don't think they knew about this until much afterwards and not before Caylee was found.

Of course this is just my thoughts and theory on what may or may not have happened. <shrugs> What do I know?

Baez is prohibited by law from sharing ANYTHING with the Anthony's.

 

[Kat]

Baez is prohibited by law from sharing ANYTHING with the Anthony's.

Thank you Debs.

 

[Kat]

Baez is prohibited by law from sharing ANYTHING with the Anthony's.

This question is way off topic and I apologize.

Debs, would "If" Baez read a letter intended for a family member of KC's and in that letter she had suggested the general area of where Caylee could be found, what does the law in FL say about a defense attorney's disclosure of such information? In other words, is he by law compelled to tell the LE or are their legal loopholes that would preclude him from doing so?

BTW, my own personal opinion of Baez as an attorney is that he's not going to jeopordize his life's work for this client by doing something that would get him into his own legal troubles. I'm just trying to follow some of his defense moves up to this point. This is the first time that I will have ever followed a trail (when this one comes to trial) I missed the OJ trial coverage because at the time I lived in Europe. Very little to no coverage on the American station there.

 

[warbuckle]

Debs are you a defense attorney in Florida? Just wondering becuase I graduated from Shephard Broad Law school in Fort Lauderdale. By chance did you go there or UM?

 

[Devon]

I'm really beginning to think LP may be full of some valid bombshells.

Maybe I need to start drinking or go to bed or something- but I really don't think he would have dropped Savage's name unless there was a real relationship there.

Bolded by me

I think LP is full of something beginning with b.....!

 

[natsound]

Bolded by me

I think LP is full of something beginning with b.....!

Haha! I'm with ya! :crazy:

 

[essies]

Did she say that? He's not in any database that I've found (unlike Dominic C. & J Hoover, who are licensed). Interesting

Back when we figured out who she was (see rumor thread in Parking Lot) someone found her chatroom. She is absolutely nuts and says the wildest stuff. Yes, she said her husband worked for DC.
She also says crazy stuff like LP (who she hates with a passion) stole stuff from A house. She is supposed to be a very religious woman-yet curses like a drunken sailor. She's a real piece of work! She is definetely a liability to the defense. Yet, they let her be seen and interject herself everywhere.
She may be one of many mistakes that the defense has made-they should have shut her down and shipped her out of Orlando long ago. But, you can't unring a bell and she is everywhere- from BP dive search to Caylee's memorial service to A's house (taking food in) to the crime scene. She has said she is with TES, yet looking for a live Caylee!
It seems no one talks to each other on the Anthony side of this-there is no communication. Probably because they're all in it for their own reasons-and Caylee isn't one of the reasons!

 

[debs]

This question is way off topic and I apologize.

Debs, would "If" Baez read a letter intended for a family member of KC's and in that letter she had suggested the general area of where Caylee could be found, what does the law in FL say about a defense attorney's disclosure of such information? In other words, is he by law compelled to tell the LE or are their legal loopholes that would preclude him from doing so?

BTW, my own personal opinion of Baez as an attorney is that he's not going to jeopordize his life's work for this client by doing something that would get him into his own legal troubles. I'm just trying to follow some of his defense moves up to this point. This is the first time that I will have ever followed a trail (when this one comes to trial) I missed the OJ trial coverage because at the time I lived in Europe. Very little to no coverage on the American station there.

Warbuckle may be better at answering this than I. However, I cannot imagine any attorney reading private mail from his client to her parents and discovering any information that incriminates his client would pass the letter on. That being said, since we know Lee suggested to Casey that Baez may not be passing on any communications she's given him, that she has the authority to fire him as her attorney or instruct him to carry out her wishes to turn the communication over to her family immediately. He would then advise her that as her attorney it is his duty to protect her, even if that means from herself. If she made an utterance of confession in the letter, Baez could never reveal that, not even to the Anthony's, and he would instruct his client that he will not expose her in that fashion, which is good lawyering but puts a bad taste in the mouth of most people who hear that it happens in just this way.

As for Baez having to contact LE with regard to any utterance of confession, he is not compelled by law to do so, being protected by the attorney/client privilege to not incriminate his client, even if she IS guilty. His job is to walk her through the legal proceedings and defend her against the State's case, which does not have to be assisted by his client. All THAT being said, though the Anthony's are now protected by their own attorneys, what they have ever been told by Casey is not protected by any attorney/client privilege, nor is it protected under the 5th amendment which protects them from incriminating themselves. If they had information as to the circumstances of Caylee's death and have chosen to muddy the waters by lies and other obstructing actions, they have no legal leg to stand on to ask for immunity but that which the LE of Orange County will choose to bestow on them. (IF) They were private citizens with knowledge of a homicide or whereabouts of a missing child and they did not reveal that information, they have committed a crime and can be charged.

I hope that cleared it up, and Warbuckle, feel free to correct my armchair assessment.

 

[warbuckle]

Warbuckle may be better at answering this than I. However, I cannot imagine any attorney reading private mail from his client to her parents and discovering any information that incriminates his client would pass the letter on. That being said, since we know Lee suggested to Casey that Baez may not be passing on any communications she's given him, that she has the authority to fire him as her attorney or instruct him to carry out her wishes to turn the communication over to her family immediately. He would then advise her that as her attorney it is his duty to protect her, even if that means from herself. If she made an utterance of confession in the letter, Baez could never reveal that, not even to the Anthony's, and he would instruct his client that he will not expose her in that fashion, which is good lawyering but puts a bad taste in the mouth of most people who hear that it happens in just this way.

As for Baez having to contact LE with regard to any utterance of confession, he is not compelled by law to do so, being protected by the attorney/client privilege to not incriminate his client, even if she IS guilty. His job is to walk her through the legal proceedings and defend her against the State's case, which does not have to be assisted by his client. All THAT being said, though the Anthony's are now protected by their own attorneys, what they have ever been told by Casey is not protected by any attorney/client privilege, nor is it protected under the 5th amendment which protects them from incriminating themselves. If they had information as to the circumstances of Caylee's death and have chosen to muddy the waters by lies and other obstructing actions, they have no legal leg to stand on to ask for immunity but that which the LE of Orange County will choose to bestow on them. (IF) They were private citizens with knowledge of a homicide or whereabouts of a missing child and they did not reveal that information, they have committed a crime and can be charged.

I hope that cleared it up, and Warbuckle, feel free to correct my armchair assessment.

I concur. Well said.

 

[BeanE]

Baez is prohibited by law from sharing ANYTHING with the Anthony's.

Somebody really should tell him...

 

[Boston]

Well, in each scenario, we both have our own opinions. That's all they are. Neither of us knows for sure what is going on. I do not think LP would bring up Nick Savage of the FBI and involve him in this stuff unless he felt sure of his information.

JMO

LP is always throwing Nick Savage's name around & I think he does it to add to his shaky credibility

I think he likes to "Mention Names" because it makes it appear that he's working with LE or that he has some inside connection.

I remember right after the "Econ River Fiasco" LP said that he called Nick Savage & told him to Match the Beads that he found with the Beads in Casey's house. LP was swearing up & down that Caylee was in the Econ & the Beads were put there by KC

The FBI's response was to ask LP to take a Lie Detector test

So once again I'm taking his latest claim with a grain of salt


BOLDED BY BOSTON

 

[natsound]

LP is always throwing Nick Savage's name around & I think he does it to add to his shaky credibility

I think he likes to "Mention Names" because it makes it appear that he's working with LE or that he has some inside connection.

I remember when right after the "Econ River Fiasco" LP said that he called Nick Savage & told him to Match the Beads that he found with the Beads in Casey's house. LP was swearing up & down that Caylee was in the Econ & the Beads were put there by KC

The FBI's response was to ask LP to take a Lie Detector test

So once again I'm taking his latest claim with a grain of salt


BOLDED BY BOSTON

Well put, Boston. Many posters are hanging their hats on his mentioning of NS's name. NS is probably not gonna go on TV to refute it. Even if NS did communicate with LP over the videotaping episode or the Econ River beads episode, he can't be pleased that LP is announcing this information all over the place.

 

[Kat]

Warbuckle may be better at answering this than I. However, I cannot imagine any attorney reading private mail from his client to her parents and discovering any information that incriminates his client would pass the letter on. That being said, since we know Lee suggested to Casey that Baez may not be passing on any communications she's given him, that she has the authority to fire him as her attorney or instruct him to carry out her wishes to turn the communication over to her family immediately. He would then advise her that as her attorney it is his duty to protect her, even if that means from herself. If she made an utterance of confession in the letter, Baez could never reveal that, not even to the Anthony's, and he would instruct his client that he will not expose her in that fashion, which is good lawyering but puts a bad taste in the mouth of most people who hear that it happens in just this way.

As for Baez having to contact LE with regard to any utterance of confession, he is not compelled by law to do so, being protected by the attorney/client privilege to not incriminate his client, even if she IS guilty. His job is to walk her through the legal proceedings and defend her against the State's case, which does not have to be assisted by his client. All THAT being said, though the Anthony's are now protected by their own attorneys, what they have ever been told by Casey is not protected by any attorney/client privilege, nor is it protected under the 5th amendment which protects them from incriminating themselves. If they had information as to the circumstances of Caylee's death and have chosen to muddy the waters by lies and other obstructing actions, they have no legal leg to stand on to ask for immunity but that which the LE of Orange County will choose to bestow on them. (IF) They were private citizens with knowledge of a homicide or whereabouts of a missing child and they did not reveal that information, they have committed a crime and can be charged.

I hope that cleared it up, and Warbuckle, feel free to correct my armchair assessment.

Again thank you Debs, and thank you Warbuckle.

 

[maur33]

Warbuckle may be better at answering this than I. However, I cannot imagine any attorney reading private mail from his client to her parents and discovering any information that incriminates his client would pass the letter on. That being said, since we know Lee suggested to Casey that Baez may not be passing on any communications she's given him, that she has the authority to fire him as her attorney or instruct him to carry out her wishes to turn the communication over to her family immediately. He would then advise her that as her attorney it is his duty to protect her, even if that means from herself. If she made an utterance of confession in the letter, Baez could never reveal that, not even to the Anthony's, and he would instruct his client that he will not expose her in that fashion, which is good lawyering but puts a bad taste in the mouth of most people who hear that it happens in just this way.

As for Baez having to contact LE with regard to any utterance of confession, he is not compelled by law to do so, being protected by the attorney/client privilege to not incriminate his client, even if she IS guilty. His job is to walk her through the legal proceedings and defend her against the State's case, which does not have to be assisted by his client. All THAT being said, though the Anthony's are now protected by their own attorneys, what they have ever been told by Casey is not protected by any attorney/client privilege, nor is it protected under the 5th amendment which protects them from incriminating themselves. If they had information as to the circumstances of Caylee's death and have chosen to muddy the waters by lies and other obstructing actions, they have no legal leg to stand on to ask for immunity but that which the LE of Orange County will choose to bestow on them. (IF) They were private citizens with knowledge of a homicide or whereabouts of a missing child and they did not reveal that information, they have committed a crime and can be charged.
I hope that cleared it up, and Warbuckle, feel free to correct my armchair assessment.

Thank you so much for this information. I just knew that the anthony's had no right to withhold any evidence or confessions about Caylee's whereabouts.

 

[debs]

Debs are you a defense attorney in Florida? Just wondering becuase I graduated from Shephard Broad Law school in Fort Lauderdale. By chance did you go there or UM?

I am not a lawyer.

 

[Kathy1964]

I don't know where to ask this, so I'll ask it here.
If Casey sends a letters out thru the jail mail (as suggested to her by Lee), does that letter go out without being read by jail personnel? That wouldn't make much sense considering how closely they monitor all other communications between inmate and the outside.
What about incoming mail? Is that read? Anyone know?

 

[bessie]

I don't know where to ask this, so I'll ask it here.
If Casey sends a letters out thru the jail mail (as suggested to her by Lee), does that letter go out without being read by jail personnel? That wouldn't make much sense considering how closely they monitor all other communications between inmate and the outside.
What about incoming mail? Is that read? Anyone know?

Kathy, the short answer is no. It's my understanding that incoming and outgoing correspondence is screened. There is a good bit of discussion in the thread linked below. It's #1 of the three threads that discuss her confinement conditions, i.e., mail, visitors, phone calls. Once you get to the thread, go to the Search box at the top and type in "mail" or "letters". Hope this helps.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73508&highlight=confinement

 

[SuziQ]

Did she say that? He's not in any database that I've found (unlike Dominic C. & J Hoover, who are licensed). Interesting

He might an apprentice. I know where I live, to be a PI you have to work under a licensed one for a certain amount of time before you can get your license.

 

[SuziQ]

Bolded by me

I think LP is full of something beginning with b.....!

Lol, it sure seems that way, especially when you hear his theories. But amazingly, he's got some pretty reputable former LE officers that backs him up. I would also have to think that he'd have a good working relationship with the FBI since he's a bounty hunter.

Also, there are pics of Nick S around here somewhere at BP the day before LP started searching there. In fact, Nick S. was the only LE that was at BP and gave LP the ok to proceed with the search.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

he can't be pleased that LP is announcing this information all over the place.

LOL You may be surprised. This sounds like LP was given the "go ahead" to finally bring this to light and he, of course, would be more than happy to oblige.