Has anyone seen the motion from the defense, re: Strike the State's motion to show cause. It befuddles me that he would enter such a motion at this late date when it's already on the docket for a hearing. My thoughts, he is upset because in his e-mail to Judge Perry's judicial assistant, he asked if they could meet in chambers to clear up any confusion. Really, what could he say in his motion.
It's posted now in the motions and news threads. Basically, he says that since he couldn't think of any basis in the rules for the judge to enter such an order, he couldn't understand it when he (allegedly) read it. BTW the judge doesn't need any specific rule to allow him to say, "Look. No one can really understand your motions, JB. Give us a simple list of issues with none of your usual chit-chat."
When the state says "no witnesses or exhibits" what do they mean? Is it that the defense hasn't presented any witnesses or exhibits and that is the reason for the filing or does it mean the State doesn't have anything more to add?
It means that there are no new facts to be proved relating to that motion--just argument based on case law and the facts that are already known.
ICA had no reaction to the bag of bones found in the Little Econ River but she had quite a reaction to the remains found at Suburban...
Wasn't this taped in a common area of the jail? How was the jail to know she'd have that reaction?
Consciousness of guilt, always shines through, IMO...but I agree with keeping it sealed, if only to preserve appellate issues, which is what the State is also saying. They have tons more against her and the hardest burden for her will be the 31 days of not reporting,the smell of death in the car, the partying done that entire month, her outragous lies, the tatt...her frame of mind will be one of not caring or worrying...
Has the jailhouse visit where ICA looses her cool with her parents in as well as her being told of Caylee's reward and ICA saying, wow, that's half my bond? Are those in??? JMHO
Justice for Caylee
First of all, we have no idea what her reaction was to the bits of plastic or whatever were found at the Little Econ River. There was a rumor that she didn't think much of it, but an innocent mother might have felt the same way. I mean, no one was saying "a skull was found."
The reaction video was not just captured in a common area. It was set up on purpose by LE, using jail employees, to see what her reaction would be and to get it on video.
But most importantly, it doesn't sound like she reacted in any way that would particularly help the jury figure out if she was guilty or innocent, so it's just irrelevant.
The jailhouse visits are the subject of a motion regarding whether or not GA and CA were acting as "agents of the state" trying to get her to talk during those visits. IMO this is just silly and the motion should be denied.
KC had a radio in her cell and according to the jailer who brought her down to medical she was aware they found something and questioned the jailer about it. She was placed outside of medical where there was a TV monitor so she could see the news. Now if the TV is permanently affixed and was not just placed would KC viewing the news be appropriate under these conditions? While I agree the video should not be released because her attorney was not present and this involved a medical issue because KC was brought down to be seen by a medical professional. So could this be the real reason SA has chosen not to use it?
There's no problem having her view the news. The problem was, she did not ask to see the news--the jailers were asked by LE to BRING HER to see the news and to make sure the cameras were pointing at her, and to take notes as to what she said.
I think the main reason the SA has chosen not to use the video is that it sounds like it is not too helpful to their case. The defense team could easily "spin" it as an innocent mother who was being forced by her jailers to see the news of her child's body being found so they could laugh at her, and who reacted with devastation followed by denial.
I just have one more question regarding the video. The reports say that SA does not "intend" to use the video so does that mean they may still use it if defense brings something up which will open the door for the video? Pretty much the state saying we won't bring it up but if you head in that direction in it comes?
If the defense "opens the door," things could change. This is very unlikely to happen, however. Perhaps if Casey took the stand and said, "When I found out Caylee's body was found, I collapsed to the floor, curled up in a fetal position, and sobbed for hours," then the SA would be allowed to show the video.
