Prosecutors have new material and information that they dont want released to the pub

[PaulaF513]

I just wonder if someone "confessed" to the crime or "came forward" with some tidbit that could prove helpful for KC. The SA will eventually have to disclose to the defense, however, I can see why they would want to thoroughly investigate before doing so. Obviously, any information that creates doubt about KC's guilt is a huge advantage for the defense.

As far as RK goes, I agree, Seagull...he did "hang around" the remain's site and honestly, I think there is a lot more to his "discovery" than has been disclosed.

 

[notthatsmart]

Okay, whats new?

Last hearing:

1. Judge gets the two parties to agree to sit down and go over discovery with each other.

2. Judge allows the deposition of Jk

3. Judge motions the defense to go ahead and get the Fbi counsel and Body farm counsel in here so we can get to the bottom of this discovery not being released.

I believe the new motion has something to do with one of these 3.

1: Both sides sit down and discuss discovery. The defense turns something over to Sa and they realizes they missed something and send Le out to take a look. Very possible that its exculpatory.

2: Le goes out and talks to Jk and discover something very disturbing. Perhaps a new witness.

3: I don't believe this has anything to do with missing discovery. I think it has to do with Ocso learning something new from the defense and following up.

My opinion: We will have to wait and see if the defense objects to this motion. I noted that the Sa did not object to the Jk motion. I think this has something to do with them sitting down and going over discovery together. Perhaps Sa and Le learned something that they had missed. It may have been in their own docs all along as the defense has said. Anyway, that is my opinion based on what is new recently. The only other thing I can think of is perhaps Tes turned over all the docs and they discovered a new witness. Moo

 

[Mendara]

It must be DC finally coming forward and telling law enforcement that CA told him to go get the body from where KC told them it was and to call them first in order to dispose of it.

I am convinced this happened. ALL MY OPINION.

 

[Intermezzo]

The quote says, "new", "from investigators" and, "don't disclose to public".

This doesn't sound like results from the FBI or other labs unless use of the word investigators is a ruse -- so no fingerprints or forensics. IMO.

So either someone has come forward or, something has turned up from LE or, there is a DC connection.

I would think that for not disclosing to public, if it helps KC then it would go to the Defense and they'd be able to use it, obviously.

However, if it goes against KC then the Defense will still discover but the Prosecution don't want the public to know since it would taint any Jury if it still goes to trial.

I would discount it helping KC since the Defense would use that either way both at trial and before .... it does sound like bad news for KC as well as maybe one of the A's. Intriguing.

BBM
I agree cyberborg

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFil...Case Motion For Incamera Ex Parte Hearing.pdf

Point 1 of the motion
"Certain materials and information have come into the possession of Law Enforcement"

They have received physical evidence of some sort and information from a source that they did not have before.

Yes it does sound intriguing.

 

[hroark2112]

I don't believe for a second that it is anything that came from the defense. I also don't believe that the prosecution and defense have even sat down to exchange any more information.

IMO, this information is coming from someone who has had an attack of conscience and has come forward with the truth, or some information has come from a tip. I can't see them wanting to hide any actual physical evidence from discovery, unless it was some kind of photograph. It's either a person who feels they need their identity protected or someone who is for some reason afraid to come forward.

This can't be something that came from the defense (since hiding it from the defense is kind of worthless!!) or from RK (who I don't believe has been depositioned by either side as of yet).

I could be wrong, it has happened before

 

[Just Jayla]

Thank you TakeNote- you beat me to it, I was just going to start a new thread about this info.

I am focusing on the key phrase *new material and information from investigators*. Whatever the info is, it appears it was not garnered from experts or examiners like the FBI. That is my :twocents: . I am interested to read what others speculate the evidence could be.

I also wonder if it could be something of a sexual nature, thus the desire to keep it under wraps from the public.

Just getting started reading this thread, so pardon if this has been noted...but we have had quite a few theories here on this forum that fit in with some evidence that we really have not seen much on yet. If I could give you example I would, but if you read through the various threads here, there have been some good connections and thoughts recently, the kind that make you tell the theorist to contact LE with the info....so maybe LE has been looking here and finding stuff that they can follow-up on

IOW, we may not have to look far to figure out what they could be onto, it might be something that has come up here....

 

[TotallyObsessed]

Maybe LA finally told the truth.....that his sister told him what happened......

 

[Just Jayla]

I would love to see this motion. I bet we could pick up some hints from the language used to justify (1) not releasing the information to the public and (2) not having the defense attorneys involved in the meeting with the judge.

If it were a meeting with both sets of attorneys and the judge, I would say it was information that could be extremely prejudicial if released to the public prior to trial. But something like that wouldn't justify excluding defense counsel.

Could they be excluding defense counsel because it is an interview, rather than tangible evidence?
For instance, if it is a minor, maybe they would not want the child's name released, but they still have to investigate/interview and are not ready to release to defense or add to the witness list, yet they want to have that caviat in place before they hand it over? Sorry if this is a bad example, hope my gist is burried in there somewhere.....
Maybe a better example would be that it is an interview done with a federal undercover/narc and they don't want the name released, not even to defense counsel?

 

[strawberry]

Okay, whats new?

Last hearing:

1. Judge gets the two parties to agree to sit down and go over discovery with each other.

2. Judge allows the deposition of Jk

3. Judge motions the defense to go ahead and get the Fbi counsel and Body farm counsel in here so we can get to the bottom of this discovery not being released.

I believe the new motion has something to do with one of these 3.

1: Both sides sit down and discuss discovery. The defense turns something over to Sa and they realizes they missed something and send Le out to take a look. Very possible that its exculpatory. .........

My recollection is that they were to sit down and figure out a schedule releasing discovery information, not to go over discovery. I may be mistaken though as that is only from memory.

 

[strawberry]

Maybe LA finally told the truth.....that his sister told him what happened......

Orrrrr....wasn't Mallory deposed in the last couple of months? Told some things that she is afraid will not be taken well by the A's?? Pure Speculation only

 

[Just Jayla]

I would think so, although it's probably worded very very vaguely.

Until I actually see it, I won't assume that the reports are correct that the State has asked to withhold information from the defense as well as from the public. But if those reports are correct, here are some possibly applicable portions of the disclosure rules:

(1) "If the court determines, in camera, that any police or investigative report contains irrelevant, sensitive information or information interrelated with other crimes or criminal activities and the disclosure of the contents of the police report may seriously impair law enforcement or jeopardize the investigation of those other crimes or activities, the court may prohibit or partially restrict the disclosure." However, the court may also "prohibit the state from introducing into evidence any of the foregoing
material not disclosed, so as to secure and maintain fairness in the just determination of the cause."

(2) "The court on its own initiative or on motion of counsel shall deny or
partially restrict disclosures authorized by this rule if it finds there is a substantial risk to any person of physical harm, intimidation, bribery, economic reprisals, or unnecessary annoyance or embarrassment resulting from the disclosure, that outweighs any usefulness of the disclosure to either party."

(3) "On a showing of good cause, the
court shall at any time order that specified disclosures be restricted, deferred, or exempted from discovery, that certain matters not be inquired into, that the scope of the deposition be limited to certain matters, that a deposition be sealed and after being sealed be opened only by order of the court, or make such other order as is appropriate to protect a witness from harassment, unnecessary inconvenience, or invasion of privacy, including prohibiting the taking of a deposition. All material and information to which a party is entitled, however, must be disclosed in time to permit the party to make beneficial use of it."

BBM-Perhaps DC spoke about an intimate relationship (I'll leave it at that)? But why not include defense?

 

[cecybeans]

that's interesting, it would be freaky if it's ZFG or something!

(p.s. I just have to disagree with your comment there about the defense supposedly defaming RK! The defense isn't responsible for RK hanging around the remains site or the fact his ex-wife says he used to restrain her with duct tape! I don't think RK can blame the defense for those things.....
With the degree of defamation of Casey and her family that has gone on, I just have to laugh at the defense being accused of defaming anyone in this case! There's no comparison. IMO.)

And I need to respectfully disagree with you. The information about RK that was released in December did not come out as it would in normal discovery, as a transcribed deposition. The inflammatory allegations JK made were in a heavily edited video interview that was not presented as sworn statement. It went almost directly to the press instead of going to the state first. Additionally, the state was not only not given the interview as discovery and allowed to interview the witness themselves or investigate her claims further, it was prevented from any access to the information about the witness until the day before the check fraud hearing when LDB announced she had finally gotten an email regarding her contact info.

The state has never presented any potentially slanderous material about any witness directly to the public - all of the defamation that has gone on has either been in the press itself or from the general public, and I think that's an important distinction. The press and the public are free to draw conclusions based on the evidence and the reliability of the witness or source, regardless of if it is negative or not.

For people like us, who are involved in investigative forums, it was easy to research the credibility of JK as a source and find her lacking. Her own criminal record, obvious agenda and abrupt reversal toward RK makes her claims suspicious.

So my beef about the defamation has more to do with the way it was directly presented to the public and the circumvention of discovery protocol than it has to do with what JK said. That was not only unprofessional in my view, it was unethical.

(Sorry JB, did not read your comment until too late, but I still feel my point about discovery method is valid)

 

[logicalgirl]

As I read your post, if the information is in regards to a witness and information that witness has, the one person who came to mind is DC.

Yes, I think so also! If ever someone was reluctant to come forward it's been DC.
Question: Could the SA be considered part of law enforcement? I know my first thought is police but.....

 

[chefmom]

Yes, I think so also! If ever someone was reluctant to come forward it's been DC.
Question: Could the SA be considered part of law enforcement? I know my first thought is police but.....

Yes! DC was definately dragging his feet about talking to LE. I can't help but wonder if he may have told them not only what he was looking for in those woods that day, but also what he was looking for at that abandoned house. IMO, they are clearly 2 different things. He was SOOOOO close to Caylee's remains in those woods that it is a stretch to think he didn't know they were there, having been told by someone. So, what was he digging for at the house? If you assume he knew the remains were "in the woods", to borrow a phrase from CA, then he must have been looking for something else at that house. Maybe he has admitted to finding something. MOO.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

AZ or one of our Legal Eagles:
From the motion: "Certain materials and information have come into the possession of Law Enforcement"
-----------> What is the legal meaning of the word "materials" in this usage? IE: it seems it means something tangible vs material facts, etc. So, if it does, then something like the missing diary pages, maybe kid finders folks found the roll of duct tape used to hang the flyers, but it seems to me it is tangible.

Second: From FRCP: 8(i) www.scribd.com/doc/4844375/FL-Rules-of-Crim-Pro
page 87-88 (thanks Cecybeans for the link!) -- Could it be that the reason the state has requested the meeting without defense there is they have come into possession of say a letter, or "material" showing that the defense has asked or instructed say DC or someone not to talk to prosecutors or "showing opposing counsel any relevant material"??????

Also of note, is the use of the word: "NEW"

Back to reading the rules of criminal procedure! (sure wish the increase size button worked :-(( )

 

[Kimster]

For some reason, I think it is about knowing who Caylee's father really was and I think they don't want it released because they don't feel it has anything to do with her murder.

JMOO

 

[sunsetbeach]

BBM
I agree cyberborg

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFil...Case Motion For Incamera Ex Parte Hearing.pdf

Point 1 of the motion
"Certain materials and information have come into the possession of Law Enforcement"

They have received physical evidence of some sort and information from a source that they did not have before.

Yes it does sound intriguing.

Do you think that maybe after all this time someone was going over security video from back in the day and spotted KC and turned it over to LE? I know that's a looooog shot but I guess it could happen. How long do companies keep security tapes?

 

[kaRN]

My first thought was about a drug investigation and they found out KC was buying the zanny pills from someone who is still under investigation and if it leaks, they wouldn't be able to continue. Maybe a little supplier was busted and they are waiting to get to the main distributor. I am probably way off base but that was what I first thought.

Imagine if they tied Caylees disappearance to Haleighs? :shocked2:

 

[notthatsmart]

Do you think that maybe after all this time someone was going over security video from back in the day and spotted KC and turned it over to LE? I know that's a looooog shot but I guess it could happen. How long do companies keep security tapes?

I work for a school district and we keep them forever so far. In digital format. Moo

 

[Harmony 2]

The full doc of FL Rules of Criminal Procedure is

www.scribd.com/doc/4844375/FL-Rules-of-Crim-Pro

p. 88 references 3.220k that JA mentions in the motion.

What is interesting to me is that the very next section deals with protection of a witness from undue harrassment and also mentions an in camera meeting to determine the outcome. Perhaps LE has acquired a new witness and the state does not want this witness subject to the same defamatory actions that the defense has taken against RK?

It appears the State is seeking a delay in turning over discovery for 'good cause':

3.220k