Todd Malcuso on Best Defense with Jamie Floyd 8/21/09

Ok, my friends, I had to post a thread about this. It sort of has to do with the KC's hearing but not really. Ok, after the hearing this afternoon, TM goes on BD with JF, right? Well, he goes on there and I could NOT believe the bunk he was putting out there. He stated these things boldly.

1. There was no decomposition in the trunk of KC's car. NONE!

2. There were NO fingerprints of ANYONE! (We know there is at least one print, of who, we do not know yet). However, there is at least one.

3. The ground where Caylee was found in Dec was absolutely positively completely dry, not under water.

Darn, I'm forgetting...there were two more at least. If I remember I;ll come back.

Anyway, was anyone else surprised by his interview today? If you saw it, I mean. I just was shocked a lawyer could go on and just BOLDY lie like that. I could see not addressing it or calling it junk science, (which he also did) but he was bold in these statements. The combination of all he was saying I KNEW I had seen the opposite in the discovery. He sure was just trying to get those uncorrect facts out to the potential jury pool, I guess. Anyway, I was fuming and surprised.

Snaz wrote:Todd Macaluso on truTV after the hearing:

Snaz,

Can you do me a huge favor? Will you add this to the thread I made about this interview? I wanted to discuss it more. However, I don't want to take over this thread with it. I'd do it myself but for some reason, I can't view video now on my computer. I don't know what happened. I used to be able to. Guess I'm going back to the computer help thread, lol!

Thanks Snaz for the video.
Now here's my problem with this clip. As I listed above, TM says there is NO decomp and NO fingerprints. Come on, this is an outright, bold faced LIE. It does NOT say that. IF, Mr. Macaluso, if it says there are NO fingerprints, please do show us. And WHY is there a singular page with ONE fingerprint that has no identification on it or where it was collected?
I also want to know he complains the defense sent the state two letters asking WHY, they are re seeking the DP. Does the state have to answer that? Is this a big deal? I really do want to know if the state has to respond to any WHY are they doing anything, kind of questions.
I'm also irritated the defense keeps saying the state is leaking stuff. What have they leaked? The things we know came from discovery from the sunshine law, yes? Is there anything someone knows that was leaked by the state? I can't think of one thing.

The defense is doing what defenses do...... they spin things to try to make their guilty clients look 'innocent'. Both TM and BC have said there were no fingerprints found on the duct tape. Not true. The only thing discovery has shown was that there were no fingerprints found belonging to CA, GA & LA..... they said nothing about prints belonging to KC. The rest of the stuff he said... well... he is simply just postulating. He figures if he states it's as 'truth', maybe someone will actually believe it is true.

The thing about the State changing their mind at some point AFTER they had already said they would not be seeking the DP. Well, any semi-bright person can figure out that before they found the remains, they felt they could not go after the DP.... but finding Caylee's remains told a completely different story. This is part of the reason I feel so strongly that the State must have some pretty darn good evidence to prove it was, indeed, KC who killed her..... such as a print, along with other things that point to ONLY KC. I think the defense is actually pretty dumb to keep saying that the State changed their minds 4 months after they said they wouldn't go after the DP. I guess they forget that during that time, that little detail called the "remains" was found. The defense isn't helping their case by screaming about the the State changing their minds.

And, lastly, the State hasn't leaked anything. Again the defense is postulating when they say that. They all know about the Sunshine Law and they know how liberal the release of documents/discovery is under that law. They do, however, want potential jurors to believe that the State has leaked information which gives the defendant an unfair chance at trial.

It's all just defense attorney B.S. Happens in every trial.