Missing pregnant Shannon Watts and her two daughter's bodies found, husband arrested
Join the latest discussion

*UPDATE *INFO CAN BE RELEASED ANY TIME 'Casey Pros Allowed To Keep Evidence Secret

Discussion in 'Caylee Anthony 2 years old' started by Cuddlyrunner, Feb 24, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cuddlyrunner

    Cuddlyrunner New Member

    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. JBean

    JBean Retired WS Administrator

    Messages:
    52,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    let's continue discussion here.
    Please let's stay away from unsubstantiated rumor. That is not the same as speculating upon known facts. Please, this is a timely topic so it should be open for discussion here in the main Caylee forum.

    What do you think the secret information is?
     
  3. Bittiness39

    Bittiness39 New Member

    Messages:
    2,009
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think that whatever the "evidence" is it has to do with people/a person and information rather than things like latent prints or whatever. Hi everyone! JMO. Great thread.
     
  4. spqr

    spqr New Member

    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I believe they have a CI...someone flipped and turned states evidence. Withholding info will negate/prevent any outside influence. Or they have come across via legal channels a new video/audio recording of a person(s) involved on the defense side with some questionable motives and/or involvement.
     
  5. Pattymarie

    Pattymarie New Member

    Messages:
    2,102
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I will always believe that KC acted alone. If anyone else is involved, imo, it is a family member who acted after the fact to cover up. Of the rest of the crazy "cast of characters..." there may be some with questionable motives and those who are opportunistic...but I don't think any of them had anything to do with the murder. The whole motive goes to the KC/CA relationship. No one else was involved.
     
  6. affinity

    affinity New Member

    Messages:
    613
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My speculation is that we will find out who was on the phone with Dominic Casey during his (video) search to find Caylee's body.
     
  7. sleutherontheside

    sleutherontheside Retired WS Staff

    Messages:
    9,875
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    FWIW.....this is my take on it. I base this opinion after observing the behavior of both the defense team AND the SA office, as well as the "temperature" on various crime forums and the theories that are offered in those forums.

    From the beginning of this case I have seen a distinct pattern that emerges when there are immediate pending doc dumps. Obviously, the defense side in any case would love the advantage of a preemptive strike to counter bad news.

    The next best thing, is an opportunity to create distraction and drama related to the case but that does not relate to the actual documents about to be released. Before we, the public, ever see a document....they have already been provided to the defense AND the various media outlets scoop them up to post on their sites and cover at 5PM.

    What has the defense been begging for in court? More personal information relating to TES volunteers (both official and self appointed), permission to use JK statements elicited from a defense investigator, and really free reign over the non-applicable volunteer records in Caylee's search. What has the defense been continually "putting out there" aka as "leaking" (though they publicly oppose leaking info ahem)??

    Now......what do we have?.... We've seen the defense remain eerily silent on (and trust me this has to be torture for them)????????????? Well ladies and gentlemen.....the defense has been eerily quiet on the whole topic of DC, GL, and the entire event surrounding their involvement (I use that word cautiously) in the psychic / crystal ball / dream sequence / staged search / video memorializing of an attempt to "find" Caylee.

    For a man that will offer a soundbite about what he ate for lunch.....JB's restrained tongue says to me......uh oh.

    It's not in what we hear them say.....but more importantly....what they don't. If they don't discuss it, I interpret.. "touchy subject full of landmines and traps to fall into". If they do talk about it......I hear "blah blah blah reasonable doubt".

    That's my take.
     
  8. sleutherontheside

    sleutherontheside Retired WS Staff

    Messages:
    9,875
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Allow me to add a brief OT comment. There are many forums out there with comment sections under news articles and blogs. A field trip around the www every now and then keeps my eyes open, offers entertainment, and reminds me what a great place WS is to visit and post.

    I think the number of guests on a daily basis demonstrates that we have something really special here. I am glad I found it (from a google search about this case). I see many new hats lurking and even long time members that are slowly starting to dip their toes in (or fingers) and post.

    Take a minute to welcome a newbie.....encourage them to join in. We are like one big family here and to newbies it may be a little intimidating (like meeting the in laws). I LOVE fresh eyes, new opinions, and yes even posts that challenge my position.

    It is often a new poster that offers me a new angle to consider. To me....it's like finding that last Christmas package under the tree.

    Back to our thread in progress.
     
  9. ZsaZsa

    ZsaZsa Active Member

    Messages:
    9,552
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Love it!
    Even more ominous is when CA has nothing to say....
     
  10. juicedog23

    juicedog23 New Member

    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Would it be possibe, if say, the defense sent the prosecution new discovery with new "expert" and/or "witness" testimony and is simply investigating first before releasing to the public?
     
  11. nanny2five

    nanny2five Member

    Messages:
    560
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    i wonder about this myself, juicedog23, somebody will correct me if i am wrong, but if the defense sent the info to the prosecution then the defense would know it already leaving no reason to keep it secret from them? jmo i dont know anything about trials but from my understanding the defense hasn't any more idea than we do. in fact, i have a feeling that some of the sleuthers here know more about the case than jb & company!
     
  12. lawlady84

    lawlady84 New Member

    Messages:
    1,185
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The motion is a request to keep something secret from the defense, so it wouldn't be something the defense already has. If the defense had it already, the prosecutor wouldn't have to say anything.
     
  13. nickster

    nickster New Member

    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ITA It seems to me all of the A team GA, CA are so veeeeeeeeery quiet. Something's coming down the pike.....
     
  14. Mystery Mouse

    Mystery Mouse Finding the holes in the cheese

    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know this is probably way, way out there...but I can't help wondering if this has something to do with the TES records.

    Could Donna B. (TES member) from the Misty drug bust have also been involved in searching for Caylee and the records are being held from the defense so as not to interfere in any current investigation of that event?

    I'm just trying to think what else it could be related to, other than DC.
     
  15. butterfly1978

    butterfly1978 New Member

    Messages:
    2,793
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would think probably not, because it was stated that this would hurt Casey, and I can't see how DB searching could hurt Casey or in any way interfere. DB came in so late in the game I would think not, but good for you for thinking out side of the box.
     
  16. notthatsmart

    notthatsmart Former Member

    Messages:
    1,543
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I saw a news article that the press said this "could hurt Casey", but have not seen anything like this coming from the state. So do you have a link where this was said by the state? thanks
     
  17. sleutherontheside

    sleutherontheside Retired WS Staff

    Messages:
    9,875
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think the comment about this "could hurt KC" is a combination of forum comments elsewhere as well as speculation and info gleaned from other references. I think we are ALL best to wait for the docs to assess their impact. I agree NTS.....we don't have a link to that comment.

    Given the range of speculation AND personal convictions related to this "highly anticipated" doc dump.....let's be generous enough to allow room for speculation by all posters while respecting the link standards WS are well known for adhering to.

    We all know those little bowls at cash registers......give a penny ....take a penny. Kind of applies here too.
     
  18. butterfly1978

    butterfly1978 New Member

    Messages:
    2,793
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No I don't have a link, and you very well could be right it may have said "could hurt Casey", but someone did post on the other thread that the only way this could be allowed is if there was a possibility that someone may interfere with the investigation, and any evidence that could exonerate Casey could not be with held from the defense, so I guess I was speculating that it WOULD hurt her. It just makes since to me that it would, and I thought that it was released that the evidence would hurt her but you are probably correct.
     
  19. notthatsmart

    notthatsmart Former Member

    Messages:
    1,543
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Lawyers on the board are indicating that there is no way possible that it is exculpatory and that it has to be inculpatory.

    I don't know what they are basing that on. According to Ng, she has never even heard of such a motion. The defense calls it a rare motion. I don't know if there are enough of these motions out there to make a prediction like that.

    I believe it is possible that this is related to the Tes documents. Tm has just released new documents to the Le that he recently found according to Orlando Sent. Go figure.

    I am curious about the defense silence though. It seems in the past when there has been inculpatory evidence released, they go out on the circuit. I have not seen that this time. I find it hard to believe the the defense does not know what this is. IMO
     
  20. AZlawyer

    AZlawyer Verified Attorney

    Messages:
    7,779
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    NG is an [unusual person]. Such motions are rare, but not unheard of.

    The information has to be something that the defense could reasonably be expected to interfere with, because otherwise the judge would have had no basis for keeping the information from the defense for any period of time. I base my conclusion that the information is inculpatory on the fact that most people will not interfere with evidence that is helpful to them.

    But I did acknowledge last time you asked this question that there is some slight chance that the judge would withhold information for a short time from the defense if the information is inculpatory of someone VERY CLOSE to the defendant, like a family member--someone that the defense team would feel protective toward.

    So...if the information was just exculpatory, the judge would have said, "Of course you can't hold on to this information for 30 days. Tell the defense immediately. They aren't going to interfere with your investigation. Most likely, they'll volunteer to help."

    If the information was inculpatory (of Casey), the judge would have said, "OK, you can hold this back for a little while to investigate."

    If the information was inculpatory of a close family member of Casey, the judge MAYBE would have said, "OK, you can hold this back for a little while to investigate," but he would have been on slightly shakier legal ground.

    If the information was inculpatory of someone else (Jesse, Kronk, ZFG), the judge would have said, "Of course you can't hold on to this information for 30 days. Tell the defense immediately. They aren't going to interfere with your investigation. Most likely, they'll volunteer to help. But let's hold it back from public release until the investigation is complete."
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice