Defense document - KC swears she didn't report.......

[ZsaZsa]

Maybe they are just trying to exasperate Judge Strickland.....
these are devious liars, so there is a ulterior motive.

 

[cyberborg]

Although I’m seeing this dream team as a nightmare, these lawyers (omit 1) have a decent background.

I don't quite get the strategy on these imo 'insulting' motions. With the media blitzes’' I've come to a vague idea they have pre-determined criteria of the type of 'juror' they want... and seemingly it entails saturating media to eliminate those they don't. As well... maybe their testing theories & hope for one to take?

But the motions, I'm stumped? AL said she was going to put out a lot of motions and I'm just not impressed with her work, it just appears so substandard moo I do understand they are boxed in by discovery and their client, but wouldn’t the best choice be to submit fewer yet professionally completed motions? Just sayin

The only thing I could think of was that they wanted to cash in on the duct tape hype and contamination and use that to spring off with a motion to dismiss -- as well as observe due-diligence.

However, not only is this premature from all accounts, in that not all of the discovery is in but also you'd think they'd do a better job and provide something more likely to fly.

It seems to me they are doing this more for the media impact to pollute the future Jury more than expect this to have any traction.

I do remember someone connected to the dream team was a media savvy guy who was noted for getting out to the media in advance of any news, with something/anything and specializes in propaganda and playing these out in public. He advocates grabbing the sound bites and confuse/cloud.

Maybe this next discovery is VERY damaging from entymology etc?

 

[magic-cat]

I think I noticed on the actual motion it was Ms. Lyons who was listed first, as in by her attorneys, Andrea then Jose, but on the addendum? Jose took top billing...so maybe there is a bit of a battle of wills there as well...I mean, she is in Chicago right? So he is going to take the front seat whenever and wherever he can I would imagine...and did anyone dig that signature that KC has adopted since she was indicted and assumed her "lawyer" identity? It makes me laugh each and every time I see it...That girl has some very real issues, and hopefully a long stretch in the prison system will help her to resolve some of them...

 

[capps]

Hey! Great idea! Maybe we could also steal money, spend it shopping, and compete in a Hot Body contest!

GREAT!! Will that be before or after we get our "Beautiful Life" tattoo?

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I think they said that to get her to bite and admit it, but I am not sure if they actually do have a video of KC not dropping Caylee off.
There is NO way they can go to trial with the nanny story without putting KC on the stand. I think KC would just lie as normal during cross examination and in her mind think the Jury buys it all because she is pretty (NOT).

BBM above - I tend to think the same thing, but I have always had one sticky point on this....at that time they were all operating off of the 6/9 date. So did they only pull tapes from Sawgrass for that date? Or did they go back later and get tapes for the 6/15 date when it was discovered that was the true date that Caylee was "lost"?

ETA: Great point about KC having to testify about the nanny story. Seriously, am I just tired or how CAN they mount a defense on the nanny story without direct testimony from KC? They only have CA, GA to say that they heard the name ZFG. That's it....nobody to tell the story of dropping off Caylee at the staircase, nobody to talk about the call from Caylee to KC, nobody to talk about any of the lies EXCEPT the liar herself. So that whole defense strategy seems to be out the window. If she goes with the BP defense, nobody to testify about that except KC, GA and CA. That's it, nada. Me thinks JB and AL better get very busy trying to get their client to accept a plea deal....

 

[Sammiejam]

Ok, lemme see if I have this straight. In the addendum to the motion the perp states she cannot swear to the facts and findings set out by LE and OCME.

Well does that not mean then that SHE HAS NO BASIS FOR FILING THE MOTION AT ALL?

Doesnt the law state that she must be able to agree to those facts but those facts dont meet the standard to charge her with capital murder etc?

Oh dear oh dear. JoseBGood, WOW. There are just no words to describe the job you are doing on this case...

ETA- actually, there are words. I just cant use them cos I dont want a life-time ban from my favouritest site

 

[Nore]

What about the conversation with her brother and mother where she admitted her child had been missing for 31 days..? That was what prompted the first 911 call.

-----------------------------
I just went back to July 27th2008 index page,looked up KC's first call home.On page 133 there is a copy ( forgot who put it on but thank you).I read it and was reminded of much I had forgot. I'm sure now she isnt seeing c. and g because she doesnt want to.It's an interesting read!

 

[tragco]

It was unbelievable to me that Casey's defense team would even waste the time trying to have the case dismissed! Now we have two statements from the defendant that seem, to me anyway, only to add to the assumption of guilt: she waited 31 days and then had to be forced to report her daughter missing, and she's also still sticking with the Zenaida story?! I was really thinking they were going to go down the "accident" path.

As far as these innumerable ridiculous motions go, maybe this excerpt from A.Lyon's "Defending the Life or Death Case" may explain it. Full transcript can be found at:
http://www.wisspd.org/html/training/ProgMaterials/Conf2006/DDEFE.pdf

If you do not object to improper evidence or
trial conduct, it will almost certainly be waived for appellate
purposes. Worse yet, if you don’t object in the right way, you
almost certainly will have insulated the error from federal
review.

This is especially true in a capital case because there is no
way to anticipate what motion or objection, thus far deemed a
“loser” by the courts, may ultimately become a winner. For
example, for many years, lawyers representing capital defendants
filed motions asking for the right to “reverse
Witherspoon” capital juries. These lawyers figured that, if
under Witherspoon v. United States, 391 U.S. 510 (1968), the
prosecution had the right to identify and strike for cause all
potential jurors who would be unable to impose the death
penalty under any circumstances, lawyers for the defense
should be able to identify and strike those who would never
consider anything else. Courts denied these motions time and
again in Illinois, and the denials routinely were affirmed by the
Illinois Supreme Court.

Then, the U.S. Supreme Court decided
Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (1992), and agreed with
the “reverse Witherspoon” advocates.

If the trial lawyers representing
Derrick Morgan had not made their record—had not
been willing to hear the word “denied” one more time—this
right would not exist.

 

[okiedokietoo]

isn't she just saying the "didn't report for "x" days" and "dropped Caylee of with ZFG"? I don't think the Sawgrass Apartments is included in that statement.
Ah, the Defense is not playing at stupid with all the wrong motions. They know exactly what they are doing. Al defends against the DP, this is what she does, what she breathes, why she gets up in the morning.

 

[ThoughtElf]

-----------------------------
I just went back to July 27th2008 index page,looked up KC's first call home.On page 133 there is a copy ( forgot who put it on but thank you).I read it and was reminded of much I had forgot. I'm sure now she isnt seeing c. and g because she doesnt want to.It's an interesting read!

Here is the link: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68030"]Casey's first phone call home from jail - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

Excellent idea to resurface that post today!

I was just reading that transcript again last night, too. That one always breaks my heart because Christina is so upset and all KC cared about was getting Tony's number. For me, it has always seemed as if Christina had the most natural, realistic reaction to finding out that Caylee was missing than any other 'player' we've encountered then or since.

Interesting that we're reading this now on the heels of KC swearing in this latest motion addendum to the fact that she told LE that very same day that she'd dropped Caylee off with Zanny.

We've come full circle and are faced full-on in that first call home with KC's lack of fear, remorse, concern or desire to help find her daughter. Kind of casts this motion in an even more positive light. Should the jury hear that first call, I'm of the belief they'll start off doubting Casey - not the rest of the evidence.

 

[mysteriew]

isn't she just saying the "didn't report for "x" days" and "dropped Caylee of with ZFG"? I don't think the Sawgrass Apartments is included in that statement.
Ah, the Defense is not playing at stupid with all the wrong motions. They know exactly what they are doing. Al defends against the DP, this is what she does, what she breathes, why she gets up in the morning.

If I am reading that correctly I don't think she is saying she dropped Caylee off with ZFG. All she is saying is that she told LE that she dropped Caylee off with ZFG. It is worded very weirdly.

 

[TakeNote]

Agreed, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't KC tell LE that she hadn't seen Caylee since the 9th? They later determined she was alive and well, with CA, on the 15th? Why did KC pick the 9th? She doesn't even know when she "lost" Caylee. Red flag for the jury.

I think KC picked the 9th because it was one week early then the 15th

both those weeks CA I believe went to see papa, and they were both on the same day of the week.....and casey knew that.... so she picked the 9th first......until they relized that caylee was filmed with papa on fathers day.....and changed it.....casey knew she was lying...but needed a day that she remembered was the day after her mom went to see papa....and so the 9th poped into her head....the one thing that also caught her in that lie ......was she had told her brother she hadnt seen caylee for 31 days.....

i think she was caught off gaurd when her mom found her at tonE's that day....she scrambled to come up with the right day.....

 

[essies]

If I am reading that correctly I don't think she is saying she dropped Caylee off with ZFG. All she is saying is that she told LE that she dropped Caylee off with ZFG. It is worded very weirdly.

I'd say it is crafted very carefully to allow wiggle room! KC was never called on her lies by her parents, so she embellished them with lots of detail to make them seem credible. Those details are her undoing!! Now, her lawyers are probably telling her to use the KISS method of telling lies-Keep It Simple Stupid!! Too late for that!!:dance:

 

[milliac]

I think I noticed on the actual motion it was Ms. Lyons who was listed first, as in by her attorneys, Andrea then Jose, but on the addendum? Jose took top billing...so maybe there is a bit of a battle of wills there as well...I mean, she is in Chicago right? So he is going to take the front seat whenever and wherever he can I would imagine...and did anyone dig that signature that KC has adopted since she was indicted and assumed her "lawyer" identity? It makes me laugh each and every time I see it...That girl has some very real issues, and hopefully a long stretch in the prison system will help her to resolve some of them...

I also caught her sig. The only way I can describe it, is that it was a big explanation point to her statement. Do we have earlier sigs from her?

 

[MD MOMMY]

Okay this "scheme team" cannot seem to put together an intelligent sentence. KC's #2 honestly made me laugh.

 

[MD MOMMY]

I also caught her sig. The only way I can describe it, is that it was a big explanation point to her statement. Do we have earlier sigs from her?

Yes, her signature on the stolen checks are actually legible.:waitasec:

 

[Elphaba]

Me's think the defense is playing the "if we can't win, then lets distract and confuse as much as possible".

 

[LetJusticePrevail]

Thought I knew every detail of this case!

I'm sure everyone wants to attack me now...thinking I hate those peeps that think they know it all. So I'll admit, I cannot keep the details of Caylee's disappearance straight. And now the addendum to the motion to dismiss has me REALLY doubting myself. I'm going to try my hardest to give myself the gift of a "get out of jail free card" if you will because afterall, I'm not the family. Only they would be able to rattle the details off in their sleep.

Just a few things that I needed to bring up though. So, we have this doc :butthead: sign's...I do hearby swear (granted, line above says to the best of my knowledge so we should give her some leeway):
- I did not report my daughter missing until my mother called on 7/15/08
Shouldn't this say 'My daughter wasn't reported missing until my mom reported she'd been missing for 31 days on 7/15?
- I did tell LE that I had dropped off my child with a person named ZFG when being questioned by LE
And is this sentence complete? Shouldn't it continue to say 'but I was confused cause I really meant, I was dropped to the ground at JBP when my daughter was taken and I was told she'd be returned to me in 55 days.

In part 5 of 11 in the 7/30/08 CA/FBI interview, CA says:
KC had just changed her password. Her new password is timer55 and we have no clue what timer55 is but she told LA the other day, timer55 means she has 55 days. That she’s being taught that lesson that I told you. Remember when I said that person put her down on the ground and said I’m gonna teach you a lesson. She has 55 days (this was significant cause Caylee would be home for her b-day...well, in Z's mind. Ahhh, but the A's must have been laughing all the way to the bank before they remembered she was really taken on the 14/15th thinking...HELLO, 6/9 to 8/9 is not 55 days. You may be a 10 but you can't count).
And then CA goes on in the interview to say...OK, if we count from June 14 to 8/9, which is Caylee’s birthday, that’s 55 days. Who knows if anything’s gonna change now because no one knew that the police was gonna be pulled into it. Who knew that KC’s mom was gonna involve the police. Maybe they all thought…maybe this person thought that KC could keep a secret for that long (oh, she can keep secrets even longer)...
So, a few comments on this statement:
1. I'm very concerned for CA/GA's safety since Z's still out there (hopefully CA and DC will find Caylee is too) and that means, since KC screwed up they're still in danger! Since they weren't able to change their locks/put security in - likely cause GA had just started back to work when this all happened...Z could have gotten in so easy with her key. And they most certainly don't have any money now since their not working because their grieving over losing Caylee, they won't be able to secure the home.
2. They will never be able to get those moments from the 9th to the 14th/15th back - how sad that their trauma and terror necessitated their pre-dating Caylee's disappearance so it wouldn't seem like such a fresh wound. KC lost the 9th to somewhere between 9A-1P on the 15th and CA, from 9th to 14th. They differ on their dates here too cause it was simply just TOO unbearable.

 

[believe09]

The amendment to the motion has just been posted in the NEWS THREAD:

http://www.wftv.com/news/21231754/ http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21231942/detail.html

It seems the defense says that the motion is based on ME report that cannot give cause of death. They also whine that the information they base their motion on was only given to them recently...

My favorite part is the one which says:

4. The State of Florida is correct that Rule 3.190?(4) requires that the motion be sworn to; however the entire motion is based on Law Enforement (sic) lab results as well as finding by the Orange County Medicl Examiner. Miss Anthony cannot legally swear to the findings of the aforementioned individuals; therefore, in order to comply with the letter of the rule and still set forth its basis, Miss Anthony submits the following in support thereof.

That's telling the court she's just tossed those statements in to make the motion legit!

I don't think that will work. In addition, while the ME didn't know cause of death, she DID rule it homicide.

Also, could one of our legal eagles tell me if the defense can just give a general statement that the motion is based on test results provided by the State, or shouldn't they have to give specifics?

Now I would think if Casey swore to the fact that her daughter was murdered, it would be just a little bit self incriminating. I can see where the defense had some trouble picking and choosing what she would "swear to" that might qualify as a material fact....for me the question is whether or not she is entitled to pick and choose which facts she wants to swear to...or if she has to make statements regarding the facts in their entirety. As another poster pointed out, there appears to be nothing about the actual material facts of the case that supports her request that the charges be dismissed.

She would have to swear to the fact that she accidentally killed Caylee in order to have the DP taken off the table, correct? And then she could not shut that barn door I would think.

I think she is nicely boxed in at the moment and Judge Strickland is going to have about a 15 minute hearing on this....JMO.

 

[aafromaa]

I think the reason for the added info to the motion to dismiss charges I & II is that the SA responded to the original motion that it was legally flawed and should not even be considered for that reason.

In this clip http://www.clickorlando.com/video/21210525/index.html, it says the motion to dismiss can only be considered in very limited circumstances and it fails to include sworn statements by the defendant which is required. "Must swear to any or all material facts" that would prove her innocence and the state would have to agree to those facts. As to circumstantial evidence, the state says they have to wait until it is presented to a jury to decide to dismiss, as reported by clickorlando.
I think the added sworn statements by kc to the motion is an attempt to satisfy the requirements to dismiss as outlined in the clip.

I'm playing catch up here and have barely begun to read the posts in this thread so this may be addressed and I just haven't got there yet so if it's rehashed, please forgive me.

I agree that it may be JB's intent to present this sworn statement in response to the SA motion that one is required with the motion to dismiss, but I don't see any way that this could be construed to "prove her innocence" so I think once again JB & Company are "throwing the spaghetti against the wall" desperately hoping something will stick.

Also, I don't think anything can be concluded regarding the defense's strategy and what the story will be when this goes to trial from this sworn statement (if it has been reported accurately) because KC didn't sware that she dropped Caylee off with Zanny but that she TOLD LE that's what she did. As others have said, we already know what she told LE in the beginning and we know that there is another story that Caylee was taken from her at JBP instead of dropped off at Sawgrass - although I have yet to see anywhere that KC ever communicated that to LE - so this sworn statement is only addressing events of July 15th - and gives us no indication of what story will be told at trial regarding events of June 16th and surrounding dates.

I'd like to see the statement myself to see the wording and to see if there is any context to it that JB could be trying to stretch to fit the criteria of a sworn statement to "prove" innocence but at the moment it looks like spaghetti to me.