Friday, September 11, 2009

Casey Anthony: Prosecutors tell Baez to Put Up or Shut Up

At the beginning of the August 21 hearing before Judge Stan Strickland, Todd Macaluso, a member of the defense team began his request for TES documents by stating:

As Your Honor knows, the body of Caylee Marie Anthony was found very close to the Anthony home, and the body was found in a wooded area that if one were to search for a missing child, this is the first place you would go search. There is substantial evidence that we’ve discovered, and that’s been set forth in our brief, Your Honor, that the body or the remains of Caylee Anthony were placed there after Casey Anthony was locked up in the Orange County Correctional Facility. There is substantial evidence, and that proves, Your Honor, her innocence. That’s exculpatory evidence, it proves that somebody else placed the remains in the area where it was ultimately found.

The bolded part of his assertion is now the focus of a new motion by the prosecution. Filed in court yesterday, the motion asks the defense team to show them the evidence. Linda Drane-Burdick wrote in regards to this statement:

Mr. Macaluso further suggests that the defense team has spoken to one of the team leaders of Texas Equusearch "some time ago" and were informed "over one-hundred people" searched the area where the body was ultimately found. (#4)

She also indicated that:

On October 15, 2008, the defendant filed her Notice of Intent to Participate in Discovery... (#5)

The motion goes on to indicate the huge amount of discovery that has been supplied to the defense and the minute amount of information given to the prosecution (the witness list). It also mentions that discovery must be turned over within 15 days of when it was received by the defense.

So, the 15 days have passed, and Drane-Burdick want this information because,

Since Counsel has proclaimed that the evidence they have discovered is "exculpatory", it is difficult to imagine that the defendant would not call witnesses to these "facts" at hearing or trial, or that they do not possess statements, reports,, or other tangible papers or objects that support their claim. (#8)

We can only hope that the judge will address this issue in a hearing. I would love to read the depositions, the papers to which Ms. Drane-Burdick refers. I would love to hear Mr. Baez or Mr. Macaluso explain that this major development in the defense case has no documentation. It would surely put an end to defense posturing about the case without facts to back up their assertions.

State's Motion



donchais said...

Macaluso may well have shot the defense team in the foot with his assertions.

They are either referring to the crazy searcher lady Joy or they out-and-out lied in court.

This could be quite a free-for-all!

ritanita said...

Well, in their supporting documentation for the TES information, they had snippets of her interview with LE where she claimed she had worked with TES.

They also included snippets from the LE interviews with Detective Richard Cain, and Keith Williams as well as Dominic Casey.

None of them worked with TES.

Fact is, if the only team leader they talked to was Wray, they have a big problem. Just reading her interview makes my head spin. Most of what she said was disjointed and unsubstantiated by any paperwork. She would not make a good witness, needless to say.

That's what the TES document search is all about, finding someone to back up Wray!

I'm betting the problem with discovery here is they have nothing much to back up Macaluso's claims.

A clear case of open mouth, insert foot in front of the judge.

shari said...

How does one looney's testimony stack up against forensics that show plant and insect evidence to the contrary of the defenses claim??? This is a dumb tactic and if this is going to be their strategy.....Lord help them. They are going to be chewed up and spit out like an old wad of Cindy's gum. Casey, though, by appearances, seems perfectly content. I cannot imagine what goes on in this woman's brain. UGH!

ritanita said...

Shari, this is so frustrating on so many levels!

I must also note that the defense cited Deputy Cain! He was the officer who was fired because he didn't do a thorough enough search when Kronk first called in August.

This is the best they can come up with?

Oh, we'll have to wait for their discover documents which explain it even more! Sarcasm intended.

katfish said...

Go get them Ms. Drane-Burdick! IMO,The state has been quite lenient with the defense shenanigans so far. The stategy seems to be let the defense hang themselves....and it may be working. Do you have a link to Wray's interview? Thanks Ritanita! ;~)

katfish said...

Never mind the link....I commented before I followed the links you already posted.

susan said...

If the defense had solid evidence that someone else did it, they would spring their client from jail. This would be hilarious if it weren’t for Caylee’s murder.