Casey Anthony: More Wrangling over TES Records Ahead

The last two weeks have been a veritable motion-o-rama in the murder trial of Casey Anthony. After the hearing last Tuesday, I succumbed to the good May weather to tend to my garden and clear my head of the case for a while.

It was with some reluctance that I approached the pile of motions stacked on the floor next to my chair for the past week. They needed to be sorted and filed. Some needed to be read and analyzed. I felt that, if it weren’t raining, I’d be far happier digging rocks out of my prospective garden beds.

The case has grown so frustrating with the repetitive motions and the intentions of the defense team to get every piece of paper available from Texas Equusearch so that they can mount a major fishing expedition to find one searcher who surreptitiously searched on Suburban Drive and can state that the area where Caylee’s remains were found was dry as a bone and there were no remains there at the time.

Based on the two plus year quest for these documents, I believe that the defense is hoping to cast reasonable doubt as to the timing of the placement of Caylee’s body. They want very much to prove that Caylee wasn’t on Suburban until after Casey was incarcerated October 14, 2008. All the defense needs is a credible witness.

In a motion filed May 5, entitled Motion To Reconsider Strickland Rulings, the defense has asked Judge Perry to reconsider the following motions:

Please note that some of the documents linked here refer to the above motion as there are copies withing the motion.

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Tape Recorded Statement of Joe Jordan (unavailable) and the Court’s Order on same dated April 7, 2010.

Motion for Production of Grand Jury Testimony of George Anthony by the state of Florida on September 16, 2009 and joined by the defense and the Order of the Court dated October 6, 2009.

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Tips Gathered by Law Enforcement, dated November 4, 2008.

The Order on Defendant’s Motion to Modify the Court’s Order on Defendant’s Application for Subpoena Duces Tecum for Documents in the Possession of Texas Equusearch.

The motion asking Perry to reconsider giving the defense a copy of George Anthony's testimony before the Grand Jury is easy to understand. The State's attorneys were there, the defense wasn't. When Jeff Ashton asked for the testimony, he gave as a reason that he needed it because he believed there were substantial differences in the testimony and other information George had given to LE. The defense came in and basically said, "We want it, too." The judge granted the State's request and never addressed that of the defense.

All the rest of the motions and orders the defense wants to have reconsidered by the new judge (and it is their right to do so as long as they are filed within 20 days of the recusal of the previous judge) circle around the issue of finding someone in the veritable haystack of documents who just might help cast reasonable doubt on the guilt of their client.

Those Pesky TES Documents

At the April 5 hearing on the latest motion from the defense concerning the TES documents, there were verbal fireworks in the courtroom. TES attorney Mark NeJame indicated that the defense team had only made one appointment to view the documents. The appointment was cancelled when he learned that a professional copying company was coming in to duplicate the documents, an obvious violation of the court order. NeJame literally shouted to the defense lawyers, COME TO MY OFFICE!

Judge Stan Strickland agreed with NeJame and told the defense to make an appointment to view the documents as per his previous order.

Now, the defense has gone to NeJame's office and now wants Judge Perry to allow them to copy all the documents. In the motion, Baez goes into detail about his version of his visit to NeJame's office. Here's a brief summary of the motion, penned by defense attorney Cheney Mason.

After agreeing to pay a monitor $12/hour, they went into a conference room and four unlabeled boxes of different sizes were brought in. The boxes weren't labeled or indexed and had no inventories. He went on to claim that they were not permitted to examine the two larger boxes which "apparently contained the very subject matter that the defense was after: identity of searchers who could be questioned as to whether or not they had also searched the relevant area as Ms. Buchanan has stated that she and others did...".

Hmmm... how do they know that if they weren't allowed to examine them?

When Baez and Mason began examining the third box, not indexed and about half full, they found a suspension folder labeled "no Suburban". Wouldn't you know it? The folder revealed that some "...in fact, contain some TES documents revealing searches on Suburban Drive property..."!

Here is one of my favorite parts of the story:

e. At this time, after about two hours, suddenly and mysteriously, news media appeared with a television camera surreptitiously videoing counsel through the glass door of TES lawyer's conference room. Such action completely thwarted the ability of counsel to engage in conversation amongst themselves and point out any documents that might be important.

Mason did state that they had tabbed numerous documents and that there were searchers who were not among the original 32.

I am sure Mark NeJame will be replying to this motion sometime this week, and I can't wait to hear HIS version. I am very sure he will not hold back anything he has to say. In the motion, Mason referred to NeJame as having "inserted" himself into the case.

The defense team wants Judge Perry to "... enter a new Order compelling that all of the Texas Equusearch documents be presented to the defense, without fee or charge to the indigent Defendant, and without restrictions of defense team's ability to take notes and find, thereby, witnesses to investigate. All the defense wants to do is learn the identity of these people so they can be contacted to determine if they, like Jordan and Buchanan, and those whose names could not be "noted" from the prior viewing, actually searched the relevant area or not.".

There it is, folks, an official request for a fishing expedition!

Joe Jordan and Laura Buchanan

I find it fascinating that the entire argument for the TES documents ends up by relying on the original signed statements of Joe Jordan and Laura Buchanan.

The statements can be found at the end of the current motion.

Joe Jordan taped his interview with Mort Smith and his attorney, Kelly Sims. At that time, he apparently signed his statement. The same evening, he was advised by someone to call LE and tell them about it. He spoke to Cpl. Edwards and came in the next day, October 28, 2009, for an interview. The surreptitious tape was one of two main topics. Edwards explained what he needed to do under the circumstances. As a result, both Smith and Sims agreed not to prosecute Jordan concerning the tape.

The second issue was that during the interview with Smith, he had been shown TES documents that he didn't recognize. They had been provided to the defense by Laura Buchanan. Jordan had noticed his name written in femenine handwriting and he did not recall searching with Buchanan.

He also indicated that Laura had called him and represented that she was Kentucky LE and had searched for Caylee with him. She asked him to contact Jose Baez and Jordan refused. A while later, he was approached by Mort Smith, who indicated Laura Buchanan had given him his information.

Jordan did a second interview on November 5, 2009 with Linda Drane Burdick, Cpl. Edwards, Cpl. Melich and his attorney, William McClellan. Jordan had received an investigative subpoena for this interview. He pretty much repeated and expanded on the information he had given in the first interview. He didn't know Buchanan, he didn't recognize her from her Facebook page.

The third issue was an e-mail that Jordan had sent after Caylee's remains were found. In both this and the first interview, Jordan stated that the e-mail had been in error because, at the time, he didn't know the exact location. In the second interview he was quite detailed in the area he had searched and it wasn't where the remains had been located.

Now, we have to look at what Mason wrote in the motion concerning Joe Jordan and Laura Buchanan. Here are a few snippets taken in the order they were written in the motion.

4. The former Judge did not fully consider the facts, overlooking the initial involvent of Mr. Jordan. In fact, Mr. Jordan e-mailed law enforcement on December 13, 2008, tw days after the remains of Caylee were discovered.....he, in fact, had searched the area...and that there were no remains found and the area was dry.

7. ... Accordingly, even if Mr. Jordan surreptitiously recorded the statements, withought the expectation of provacy by both Mr. Smith and Mr. Sims, there is no violation of law.

8. ..law enforcemnt involved in this case, not being pleased with the December 13th e-mail from Mr. Jordan, have intimidated Mr. Jordan about his very valuable and exculpatory evidence...

11. Both Mr. Sims and Mr. Smith have a right to consent to the use of the recording...

As of now, I am having a difficult time understanding how the "discovery" of these two "witnesses" to the fact that the EXACT place Caylee was found was dry and she wasn't there would allow for the defense to have all the TES documents.

Joseph Jordan was honestly concerned that the tape he made could lead to prosecution. He contacted LE about the situation and Cpl. Edwards explained to him what he needed to do to handle the situation. In neither interview did I hear threats or intimidation. The interviews show that the State wanted honest information and aided Jordan in handling his situation by telling him to see an attorney. Jordan gave a very coherent explanation for his e-mail after Caylee was discovered.

Most curious of all, at the hearing on April 5, Jose Baez had stated that he had contacted Joe Jordan's attorney who promised to bring him in to be a witness for the defense in arguing the TES motion of the day. Funny, Jordan never did appear!

As far as Laura Buchanan is concerned, her name has now come up twice. At the April 30 status hearing, State's Attorney Linda Drane Burdick mentioned that some people were "stonewalling" and otherwise blocking attempts to be deposed.

In a recent motion filed by the State, when mentioning these folks by name in the section regarding Roy Kronk, she also brings up the name of LAURA BUCHANAN. Apparently, Ms. Buchanan isn't going to come easily to her deposition!

There is a great deal of good information in this motion I haven't gotten to, but I'm sure you will go back up and read it for yourself.