A Second look at Joseph Jordan

Val, I am going to comment on this, but I want to check a few things out first, like Ibison’s statements, if they are available, because I’ve heard that he is saying the area was unsearchable as it was UNDER WATER! Do we have any transcripts on Ibison?

Anyway, I’ve a bit to say on the hearing today. I wasn’t able to watch it until this evening. But for now, this thing with Jordan’s getting to me!

Hangin’ in and hangin’ on,
willow

Willow,

I do not know of any written statements from Ibison. If you locate them, PLEASE SHARE!

what I don’t get is this, why would this guy do something like this and who was he wanting to impress by doing such a thing? something just don’t sound right about this. I kind of think the defense was behind this.

My take on this is that it does not appear that Mr. Jordan or Ms. Buchanan were searching the crime scene area at the time claimed under the auspices of TES and, even if they did, the only thing they can attest to is that they did not find Caylee’s body or remains or any insects or strong odors. While this could mean that Caylee’s remains were not there, it could also mean her remains were there but simply undetected by them. The absence of any insects or strong odors is insignificant inasmuch as, by the time they conducted their searches, Caylee’s body had already been skeletonized and her bones disarticulated, widely scattered and chewed by carnivorous animals.

In Iowa it is legal to record a person without their knowledge as long as the person doing the recording is actually a participant in the conversation. It is not legal for a third party not engaged in the conversation to record it however. That’s really interesting as I guess I just assumed that was the way it was everywhere. What is okay to do in Iowa would make a person a felon in Florida. o.O

Cant work out this guy motives, accept that he seems to have injected himself into this case from day one and by all accounts he wants to REMAIN invloved.

As for his written statement, it didnt actually corroborate what was in the defence motion. He gave them an ambiguous statement about being in the general area with others and two cadaver dogs, but he never offered an opinion, at least in his written statment, as to whether Caylee was there or not. Or more accurately should that be whether he saw a suitable bag containing only part of her remains? Also, neither of the witnesses named in the motion describe the presence of other bags/rubbish in the area. Whereas Kronk and his workmates do.

“The bone thrown and eagerly accepted by the defence was simply that Jordan was in the perceived area/hotspot and had ” reduced to writing” to TES an account of his activity that day.

I doubt Jordan’s statement or recent antics will help the defence in getting Strickland to hand over all of TES records. I think rather than betray the trust of several thousand volunteers, Strickland would be more likely to review all the records himself.

I think Jordan, like Joy Wray will fade away when the final witness lists are drawn up on both sides. This pair seem huge liablilities. Neither of them can claim any credability or it seems neutrality.

One only has to look at Joy’s Youtube efforts by her three ID’s to see that this lady is not all there and is desperate for attention, good, bad or indifferent.

We shall have to wait till the 1st February to see if the dream team have any more potential witnesses or if as I suspect it was all hot air.

Wouldn’t we expect their botanist and entymologist reports to have featured in either the TES or other motion for Dismissal??

I think a conclusion can be drawn that these experts have no bombshells with which to advance Casey’s innocence.

Hollybrook,

And so are you of a mind to believe that Lyons might be pushing Casey into a plea? Might this also be the reasoning behind the motions for private (non-recorded) visits between Casey and her family, as well as Baez? And what do you think of Ashton’s first comments, regarding Lyons’ hatred of death penalty jurists? Did not Lyon’s open the door for him to make such a comment when she, herself, just moments earlier used the word “kill” in referring to the same jurors? Seems to me this is how the trial will pretty much go: Defense will open big fat mouth, and Prosecution will stick the defense’s own foot into their big fat mouths. You’d think, for all of the hullabaloo regarding Lyon’s lectures on death penalty juries, she would have known better than to use the words jury and kill all in the same sentence, wouldn’t you?

As for the Anthony’s having left the courtroom — I’m a bit mixed on this one. If this was the truth of the matter knocking them upside their thick skulls and resonating throughout, then I can understand why they would have run out. As it stands, it just seems to me, that were they THAT convinced of their daughter’s innocence, nothing Aston could have said would have driven them out. They’d have stayed had he said Casey held a gun to Caylee’s head, if for the sake of appearances. JMO, anyway.

Willow

Willow

From what Ive seen and heard about Lyon, I think its clear this woman has a HUGE ego.
Her so called record and the accolades she feels it brings her are what make her tick imo. If the DP wasnt on the table and the case wasnt attracting so much publicity, then Lyon like so many others just wouldn’t be involved.

It seems her forte is not arguing a person’s innocence but arguing the immorality of the death penalty. Frankly, like Kenny Baden and Macaluso I dont think she gives a toss about Casey Anthony, only what the case can give her, career wise, a career which of late seems more into writing books and making mini doumentaries with her sister.

If Casey Anthony had been a crackhead from the wrong side of the tracks would the media have latched on to the case. Just look at the contrast with this case and little Haleigh Cummings who’s still unaccounted for. And without the publicity would any of these lawyers be invlolved. They are all in it for self grandisement, its the ultimate in amblulance chasing.

As she herself said she only wins an important motion about once every ten years and imo there was absolutely no merit in asking OC Jail to change its policy for one prisoner, regardless of her noteriety.

To me Lyon is already resigned to a guilty verdict being imposed and the punishment phase beginning. Then she can shine.

However, as much as we berate the defence, I think Casey Anthony is still driving this show. She WON’T plea and since Lennamin departed I dont think anyone in that crew has sat her down and told her how unlikely an acquittal is. This girl lived in a fantasy world and it would seem Baez put the notion of mistrial in her head from early on.

Right now at only 23 years of age and her apparent total lack of wrong doing or remorse, a mandatory life sentence to her would not be seen as any concession. She still dreams of her “Bella Vita.” She and Baez may in time both live to regret not taking that limited immunity deal. No doubt if a guilty verdict is returned, the pundits will remind Baez of that missed opportunity and all his tactical blunders. Hindsight will suddenly give all the talking heads 20/20…..lol

When Lyon stood up in Court the other day and fought the motions, she bored the pants off her audience. Im sure she was told at her first public speaking course that you must consider, the subject at hand, the attention span of your audience and stick to the salient points. she was NOT at a seminar, but she continued in( her own words) “Professorial mode. And Why? Because she IS a legend in her own mind and is not one to miss an opportunity to stock her own archives with footage of the great woman at work. lol

She was imo “performing” and to an audience her cases so far have never attracted.
Mindful of the recent outing she substituted “KILLERS” for “the State want to KILL my client. “KILLERS” was supposed to be used off the record, exclusive for the lecture circuit when referring to DP qualified jurors.

But its clear she likes the word “KILL” It’s an emotive word that she believes resonates with Judges and Juries and actually, if kept in the context of STATE punishment, I can’t fault her for using it. A lawyer can use vocabluary to advance their case but slagging of the jury is a no no.

As for Cindy and George walking out of the Court room, it had to be hard to hear Ashton’s words, that mental picture he painted, must have filled their mindseye,as it did for everyone who heard him, but I agree with you the walkout was done for the benefit of the cameras. The spectacle actually continued when the proceedings were over. Cindy cried outside in the elevator area as rotweiller, Kathy Bellich pursued her. Her friends formed a protective group hug and as ever centre stage was JOY WRAY which made the whole scene more circus like.. That woman seems to scent a camera at 1000 paces.

But we’ve seen it so many times from the Anthony’s. No crying when there should have been, Lee’s weird coded but tearless snilffles to CMA at the memorial,George’s uncalled for and over the top attack on the civil lawyer about getting the finger and using the word “remains”, the staging of the home as some sort of shrine, death certificate pride of place and photos galore of the little victim AND her killer, George’s alledged suicide attempt,(coughs))…..

And I suspect there’s much more drama to come.

Willow

Re the motion to stop video taping visits…….will never happen but the Judge may well seal them till after the trial. I think that would be sensible and morally right in terms of her getting a fair trial.

I think the defence and the family realise how bad it looks that no-one has visited Casey for over a year. They are eager to sop the speculation as to who’ is actually preventing these visits. They want to display a united front.

It is minimally invasive to allow the defense to contact these volunteers to try and determine if Mr. Jordan did in fact search the area in question with 5 or 6 others and some dogs. This is something which could be handled by the court and a form letter – or even by the Texas EquuSearch inc. staff under court supervision.

Weigh this against the fact that Casey Anthony faces the DEATH PENALTY.

The facts involved here are not the sort of thing that any of the searchers would have a legitimate privacy expectation on. The only piece of information sought is to see if there is confirmation that this area was thoroughly searched PRIOR to December 11th when Kronk claims to have found the remains of Caylee.

It appears to me they are doing just that in that they are questioning the people who were with Joseph Jordan on September 1st. I do not see why any searchers outside the group Joseph Jordan and the group Laura Buchanan were with should be questioned.

Any volunteer searcher who did not find something of material value does, in fact, have an expectation of privacy – especially when the requester of the information has already demonstrated no ethics in what they will do that information.

In weighing their right to privacy against the Casey facing the DEATH PENALTY – I find that the constitution allows us the right against unreasonable searches (4th amendment). I don’t see a clause in that amendment that allows some one who will not cooperate with law enforcement in solving the murder of their child being allowed to trump that constitutionally backed right.

In fact, if you would like to know how the Supreme Court has ruled on this very issue, visit http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=480&invol=39 Pennsylvania v. Ritchie.

Criminal defendants have the right under the Compulsory Process Clause to the government’s assistance in compelling the attendance of favorable witnesses at trial and the right to put before a jury evidence that might influence the determination of guilt. However, this Court has never held that the Clause guarantees the right to discover the identity of witnesses, or to require the government to produce exculpatory evidence.

Under due process principles, the government has the obligation to turn over evidence in its possession that is both favorable to the accused and material to guilt or punishment. Evidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Although the public interest in protecting sensitive information such as that in CYS records is strong, this interest does not necessarily prevent disclosure in all circumstances. Because the Pennsylvania Legislature contemplated some use of CYS records in judicial proceedings, there is no reason to believe that relevant information would not be disclosed when a court of competent jurisdiction determined that the information was “material” to the accused’s defense. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court thus properly ordered a remand for further proceedings. Respondent is entitled to have the CYS file reviewed by the trial court to determine whether it contains information that probably would have changed the outcome of his trial. If it does, he must be given a new trial. If the CYS file contains no such information, or if the nondisclosure is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the trial court will be free to reinstate the prior conviction.

A defendant’s right to discover exculpatory evidence does not include the unsupervised authority to search the State’s files and make the determination as to the materiality of the information. Both respondent’s and the State’s interests in ensuring a fair trial can be protected fully by requiring that the CYS files be submitted only to the trial court for in camera review. To allow full disclosure to defense counsel in this type of case would sacrifice unnecessarily the State’s compelling interest in protecting its child abuse information.

The Death Penalty possibility in a murder trial does not give Casey more rights than the average citizen. Using it as a mantra for why she should be allowed special priveleges, or why her defense team should be allow to act with a lack of ethics – as they have done in the Roy Kronk case – is an attempt to play on some one’s (I don’t know whose – definitely not mine, I assure you) sympathy and nothing more.

I thought that I had covered this argument with the fact that the Court could supervise the contacting of these persons by TES. Only the people who came out of that process with having contacted TES would be contacted by the court or the defense. At that point, it is more likely than not that they would have some form of probative evidence to contribute to the case. Nor is it unreasonable for TES to contact these people once more since they willingly gave TES the contact information for exactly this sort of thing originally.

I do not see how the right to privacy, assuming that such a right can be truly said to exist in the constitution (which many Supreme Court justices find highly suspect), of these searchers comes into play at all under this scheme. The only time that they are involved with someone other than a TES employee is once it becomes more likely than not that they have probative evidence about the location or absence of Caylee’s remains at the dump site.

I agree that anyone that THE COURT deems has exculpatory or inculpatory information forfeits their right to privacy in order to fulfill Casey’s right to due process. So we’re in agreement on anybody THE COURT finds in the TES documents that meet the above conditions.

I believe the defense is asking for all the records, right?

The Defense has asked for many things which they will not be granted. I am talking about the thing which will bring as close to a just result here as possible. If there is evidence that Joe was searching with others at this location, then it should be ferreted out in as privacy sensitive manner as possible. And, Yes, I am aware that the State has no obligation to search for exculpatory evidence for the defendant. Still, the question remains whether the Court can create a method of determining these facts which will not invade anyones privacy and I think that the answer is yes. That is all that I am saying. It could be done and it does no harm, so why not do it?

William,

We are in violent agreement. I believe that the documents associated with the groups that Joseph Jordan and Laura Buchanan state they searched the area with should be reviewed by the court and any exculpatory (or inculpatory) evidence turned over to the defense and the state if found. I absolutely agree with that.

Don’t you think that is probably what is going to come of this? I do.

Yes. Or at least I hope so.

Valhall-

You are correct. Joe Jordan created a mess, but essentially for himself. He is also connected to that whole Gale St. John/Wyatt Locke fiasco.

Ibison’s interview has not been released, but as I covered last week, he has said the area was under water, and so did the unamed deputy.

This is part and parcel of what has been going on by the defense since Baez was retained for the non-existant 1400 bucks. Defending your Client by maligning others is the strategy here, it’s wrong, and I predict it will backfire.

B

Hi Val, I’m a little late to join in the discussion. I just found your site and I’m impressed with your insight. I’m hoping you can answer this question. If Roy Kronk found Caylee’s remains in mid-August 2008, why didn’t Tim Miller’s searchers find her remains on September3, 2008.

As I’m backtracking the outlandish finding of Caylee’s remains 11 houses from her home, 5 1/2 months after she “disappeared”, I came across this article.
http://wdbo.com/localnews/2009/11/casey-anthony-defense-equusear.html
This was the last paragraph:
Another Equusearch volunteer named Joseph Jordan told the Anthony defense that he searched the area on September 1, 2008 with five to six volunteers and two dogs. He was also not on the list of 32 searchers but didn’t comment on whether he noticed anything out of the ordinary.
Note: “two dogs”!! This is the first time I’ve heard of dogs searching the area. Roy Kronk found Caylee initially August 11th, (alone, one man) and six other people and 2 dogs can’t find her on September 1st?? This is preposterous!
Even if you don’t believe Laura Buchanan and Joseph Jordan, what about Tim Miller’s 32 signed-up searchers?? They didn’t find her either. What do you think is going on? Is someone lying?

JBmission,

If you’ll do some reading here you’ll find “the dogs” are not new news to us, nor are the “32 searchers” that have been discussed by the defense and Mark N. for several months now.

» TheJBmission said:

Hi Val, I’m a little late to join in the discussion. I just found your site and I’m impressed with your insight. I’m hoping you can answer this question. If Roy Kronk found Caylee’s remains in mid-August 2008, why didn’t Tim Miller’s searchers find her remains on September3, 2008.

Because by September 1 the remains were from partially to completely submerged in swamp water and completely skeletonized.