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.