Caylee Marie Anthony #99 1/26/09 - 1/28/09

[crazybabyborg]

Since you logged out, I'll just say, Bye, Cute!!

Your Welcome! 


Those two pics side by side, really do look remarkably similar.

I've always been able to see a little resemblance to Cindy in Caylee's face, too. Particularly when Caylee was "serious or intent".

[TURBOTHINK]

The situation with Lee and immunity is something I am trying to wrap my mind around.
Is his lawyer saying that if Lee testifies and tells the truth ( HA ) he can be charged ?
And he needs immunity because the truth might land him up on charges ?
I am Canadian, please forgive my ignorance on FL laws.
So, therefore, Lee is guilty of what he wants immunity from ... aiding and abetting was what his lawyer said.
So, his lawyer tells us Lee is guilty ?
Under this system, everyone should take the fifth or ask for immunity ?
Might shorten up the trial if everyone says takes the fifth.
..
We don't have this in Canada
 

Kat, I believe if he testifies truthfully, he may have to admit he either knowingly or not tampered with evidence, witnesses and even lied (what a shocker, huh?) If he gets immunity, he doesnt have to fear prosecution for admitting to any of these deeds. I hope this helps

So, they can't give him blanket immunity, else he could take the blame and all the ANTS go home. They would have to give him specific immunity. It's quite the catch-22 for Lee.
Did they make a deal with Tony L for the dope dealing and possession ? Because what type of atmosphere, etc and the activities they all engaged in over there might be criminal ?   

I don't think there is going to be ANY immunity for any of them. I am betting it is TOO LATE NOW..............

[crazybabyborg]

The specific immunity (there's another name for it that I can't think of) would mean that nothing Lee says can be held against him. His words cannot incriminate himself. However, IF there is independent evidence of something he has done illegally, and they have enough evidence to bring charges against him without using his testimony, they can still charge him. If it went to trial, his former testimony could not be part of the case, even if he had confessed on the stand prior.

Does that make sense?

[Kat_Gram]

Goon night all, see you tomorrow, same time, same place.
Pray for fingerprints on duct tape and for reason and sanity for all parties involved in this case. 
And justice for a baby lamb who deserved better from her loved ones.
 

[peanut]

The specific immunity (there's another name for it that I can't think of) would mean that nothing Lee says can be held against him. His words cannot incriminate himself. However, IF there is independent evidence of something he has done illegally, and they have enough evidence to bring charges against him without using his testimony, they can still charge him. If it went to trial, his former testimony could not be part of the case, even if he had confessed on the stand prior.

Does that make sense?

you always make sense.

[Kat_Gram]

The specific immunity (there's another name for it that I can't think of) would mean that nothing Lee says can be held against him. His words cannot incriminate himself. However, IF there is independent evidence of something he has done illegally, and they have enough evidence to bring charges against him without using his testimony, they can still charge him. If it went to trial, his former testimony could not be part of the case, even if he had confessed on the stand prior.

Does that make sense?

Yes, but I always have to think it over real hard as it is a concept I am unfamiliar with.
Oh, we must have something like this, just must be called something else.
Immunity.ca, eh ?  or something, LOL 
Dana would know.

[darla]

The situation with Lee and immunity is something I am trying to wrap my mind around.
Is his lawyer saying that if Lee testifies and tells the truth ( HA ) he can be charged ?
And he needs immunity because the truth might land him up on charges ?
I am Canadian, please forgive my ignorance on FL laws.
So, therefore, Lee is guilty of what he wants immunity from ... aiding and abetting was what his lawyer said.
So, his lawyer tells us Lee is guilty ?
Under this system, everyone should take the fifth or ask for immunity ?
Might shorten up the trial if everyone says takes the fifth.
..
We don't have this in Canada
 

Kat, I believe if he testifies truthfully, he may have to admit he either knowingly or not tampered with evidence, witnesses and even lied (what a shocker, huh?) If he gets immunity, he doesnt have to fear prosecution for admitting to any of these deeds. I hope this helps

So, they can't give him blanket immunity, else he could take the blame and all the ANTS go home. They would have to give him specific immunity. It's quite the catch-22 for Lee.
Did they make a deal with Tony L for the dope dealing and possession ? Because what type of atmosphere, etc and the activities they all engaged in over there might be criminal ?   

I don't think there is going to be ANY immunity for any of them. I am betting it is TOO LATE NOW..............

I just wish LE would arrest him already. Get it done. I do hope we get the rest of the Docs. this week.

[peanut]

The specific immunity (there's another name for it that I can't think of) would mean that nothing Lee says can be held against him. His words cannot incriminate himself. However, IF there is independent evidence of something he has done illegally, and they have enough evidence to bring charges against him without using his testimony, they can still charge him. If it went to trial, his former testimony could not be part of the case, even if he had confessed on the stand prior.

Does that make sense?

you always make sense.

ok here it is, its use immunity as opposed to blanket immunity:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0901/14/ng.01.html

[crazybabyborg]

Goon night all, see you tomorrow, same time, same place.
Pray for fingerprints on duct tape and for reason and sanity for all parties involved in this case. 
And justice for a baby lamb who deserved better from her loved ones.
 

AMEN to all that!!! Night Kat. Sleep Well!

[islandmonkey]

The specific immunity (there's another name for it that I can't think of) would mean that nothing Lee says can be held against him. His words cannot incriminate himself. However, IF there is independent evidence of something he has done illegally, and they have enough evidence to bring charges against him without using his testimony, they can still charge him. If it went to trial, his former testimony could not be part of the case, even if he had confessed on the stand prior.

Does that make sense?

Use immunity vs transactional immunity:

Use and derivative use" immunity only prevents the prosecution from using the witness' own testimony, or any evidence derived from the testimony, against him. However, should the prosecutor acquire evidence substantiating the supposed crime -- independent of the witness's testimony -- the witness may then be prosecuted for same.

Transactional immunity known as "blanket" or  immunity completely protects the witness from future prosecution for crimes related to his or her testimony.
Does this help????

[O4Bull]

Quote from: O4Bull on Today at 05:51:57 PM
okay, who posted my post "verbatim" over on TOPIX?  I found my post when googling trying to find more info on this Jaime with Showbiz Productions.



 

Did the post at Topix say some person with an avatar of a Rhino wearing a thong said...........

Klass, I had to bring this over.

Nope, nobody gave me any credit.  My post wasn't that brilliant, but it was weird seeing her post it and not even say "hey look what I found at SM's".  There were actually several posts that did say that.  She just took credit for mine without the disclaimer.   

I guess I'm too sexy for my shirt TOPIX.  LMAO 

[crazybabyborg]

The specific immunity (there's another name for it that I can't think of) would mean that nothing Lee says can be held against him. His words cannot incriminate himself. However, IF there is independent evidence of something he has done illegally, and they have enough evidence to bring charges against him without using his testimony, they can still charge him. If it went to trial, his former testimony could not be part of the case, even if he had confessed on the stand prior.

Does that make sense?

you always make sense.

ok here it is, its use immunity as opposed to blanket immunity:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0901/14/ng.01.html

THANK YOU, Peanut!!! I could not remember the term "use" immunity!

[klaasend]

Quote from: O4Bull on Today at 05:51:57 PM
okay, who posted my post "verbatim" over on TOPIX?  I found my post when googling trying to find more info on this Jaime with Showbiz Productions.



 

Did the post at Topix say some person with an avatar of a Rhino wearing a thong said...........

Klass, I had to bring this over.

Nope, nobody gave me any credit.  My post wasn't that brilliant, but it was weird seeing her post it and not even say "hey look what I found at SM's".  There were actually several posts that did say that.  She just took credit for mine without the disclaimer.   

I guess I'm too sexy for my shirt TOPIX.  LMAO 

Some people just have zero internet etiquette. 

[O4Bull]

The specific immunity (there's another name for it that I can't think of) would mean that nothing Lee says can be held against him. His words cannot incriminate himself. However, IF there is independent evidence of something he has done illegally, and they have enough evidence to bring charges against him without using his testimony, they can still charge him. If it went to trial, his former testimony could not be part of the case, even if he had confessed on the stand prior.

Does that make sense?

Hmmm... so if he says "I unwittingly and/or unknowingly destroyed evidence when I ....." he can't be prosecuted for that?  On the other hand, if his prints are on the duct tape, they can get him with that as it would be "hard evidence"?

[flamom]

Everyone has been very witty tonite, thanks for the great company!
bedtime for me, I have to get the kids up at 5:30 for school. 
I dont like it at all..
btw.. its too late for immunity for anyone.. they have so much evidence it's ridiculous..

[rmcalo]

  I had severe monkey withdrawal today. I just started back at my old job full-time after being away for a year and two months. It was nice to be back with some old co-worker buddies, but I missed reading my monkey pals' posts and adding my two cents in here and there. And I also haven't got a clue what the latest in the Caylee case is today, so I am going to have a lot of reading to do!   

[darla]

CBB..I need to ask a question...On the day that LE and DR.G had the pressor saying it was Caylee that was found, Dr. G said just about every bone had been found. Then a little later in the afternoon there was breaking news on one of the Fla. stations that said more remains had been found? Do you know anything about that.

[islandmonkey]

I had severe monkey withdrawal today. I just started back at my old job full-time after being away for a year and two months. It was nice to be back with some old co-worker buddies, but I missed reading my monkey pals' posts and adding my two cents in here and there. And I also haven't got a clue what the latest in the Caylee case is today, so I am going to have a lot of reading to do!   

How was your daughter's first day at daycare? I am thrilled for you that the daycare is next door to your office~makes it easy to peek in on them every now and then.

[crazybabyborg]

The specific immunity (there's another name for it that I can't think of) would mean that nothing Lee says can be held against him. His words cannot incriminate himself. However, IF there is independent evidence of something he has done illegally, and they have enough evidence to bring charges against him without using his testimony, they can still charge him. If it went to trial, his former testimony could not be part of the case, even if he had confessed on the stand prior.

Does that make sense?

Hmmm... so if he says "I unwittingly and/or unknowingly destroyed evidence when I ....." he can't be prosecuted for that?  On the other hand, if his prints are on the duct tape, they can get him with that as it would be "hard evidence"?

Yes, that's it. Let's say he testifies to throwing away a roll of duct tape because Casey asked him to. With use immunity, the jury would hear that the duct tape had been disposed of, but LE couldn't charge Lee even though he had obstructed justice. However, if LE has a witness to Lee throwing away a roll of duct tape, and LE finds it in a landfill and it matches that found with Caylee, Lee is toast and can be charged and convicted. The only thing LE couldn't use in Lee's trial is his admission in the former court proceeding.

[rmcalo]

I had severe monkey withdrawal today. I just started back at my old job full-time after being away for a year and two months. It was nice to be back with some old co-worker buddies, but I missed reading my monkey pals' posts and adding my two cents in here and there. And I also haven't got a clue what the latest in the Caylee case is today, so I am going to have a lot of reading to do!   

How was your daughter's first day at daycare? I am thrilled for you that the daycare is next door to your office~makes it easy to peek in on them every now and then.

Oh, thanks for asking! She seemed to enjoy it, which made me feel much better. She likes her primary caregiver there a lot. The woman is older and seems like a total natural with babies. My daughter just clung to her! I popped in at lunchtime, and she was napping in a swing. I wanted to be able to pick her up and kiss her, but I couldn't disturb her like that. At least I got to see how she was doing, though. Gosh, it is hard to leave your baby like that. I was definitely more upset than she was, it seemed! I guess that is good for her.