Search results

The best way to get some advanced insight into how the defense might attack the State's forensic evidence would be by letting Kobe speak. The two point are unrelated; one does not excuse the other. Lastly, although I have not addressed the following point, I will now: I don't see the wisdom...

Sure. We should all look away from this unprofessional tv host, so that she shouldn't ever be criticized. Very insightful response.

Don't see what you're seeing. Besides, Kobe was barely given the courtesy of being allowed to finish even one sentence. So how could he have made a fool of himself? I see a biased TV host who behaves as if it's guilty until proven innocent, and who would prefer that Casey be convicted right...

And even if she did, so what? With all the legitimate things to criticize about this family, I wouldn't make a big deal about that supposed slip. Speaking in public isn't as easy as it appears, especially with national tv cameras in your face. With all that there is, I never ever doubted...

I saw yeterday's NG show and for a change, enjoyed it. The discussions were interesting and in no small part, because NG wasn't there. She's the worst. I don't think her comments are interesting at all, or biting. When Nancy is there, it seems as if the Casey Anthony case is secondary to...

That's exactly what I said. Re-read my post, including the parentheses!

The defense only needs one juror, not all twelve. Just one. It is the State that needs all 12 jurors for a conviction. Anything less is either an acquital (no jurors for the defense) or a hung jury (one thru 11 jurors for the defense).

I kind of agree with this. Perhaps Casey really convinced herself that she would get away with this. Perhaps she was convinced back then that without a body, she was immune from criminal responsibility. If this was her state of mind on the day that Cindy intervened, Casey must have been very...

Exactly right! The owner of the car is the person whose name is on the registration. Anyone not on the registration needs permission to use the vehicle. Cindy would've said that Casey did not have permission to use the car and knowingly took the car without the owner's consent. Ironically...

What conversation with Amy? If the conversation you refer to did not involve Cindy herself, Cindy would not be allowed to testify to the truth of that conversation. It would be considered hearsay. There are exceptions to this rule, but too numerous and complicated to go into within the context...

Maybe not. Every State has different laws, but in general, there is a thing called a Missing Witness charge and it goes something like this: If a witness on the witness list of a particular side is not called to testify, the jury would be permitted to infer that the testimony of the missing...

This is one of the oddest motions I've ever heard of. So odd, in fact, that I wouldn't be surprised if Casey herself thought it up and was able to bully or otherwise coerce her lawyer to file it. Another point was made, here and also on the Nancy Grace show, that even if this motion were...

I happen to agree with you entirely. I believe that the family knows that Caylee is dead. This business about kidnappers and Mexico is a total act on the family's part. They themselves don't really believe what they say.

How are the parents sacrificing Caylee? (I presume you refer to Caylee as the sacrificial lamb. Please correct me if I am mistaken.) Caylee's already dead. She's not coming back. It's safe to assume that the parents are not responsible for causing Caylee's death. Where's the sacrifice?

While you certainly have the right to ask these questions ... to what point? Unless you're suggesting some bizarre conspiracy where Baez was involved in the actual commission of a crime against Caylee, what would be the relevance of any of your questions? Why would the source of payment matter...

Two points to make here: One -- Baez's statement doesn't imply that Casey disposed of Caylee's body. Everyone, especially everyone on this thread, is simply assuming this. Baez's statement is really vague enough that it could technically mean anything. Two -- It's obvious to anyone that...

And the practical effect of all of this will be ... nothing! And it isn't a big deal. It's the truth. Maybe an uncomfortable truth, but a truth nevertheless. Baez isn't supposed to help the State to convict his own client. It's the State's burden and all that jazz. This is really, really...

There's not a thing in the world LE is gonna be able to do with that statement. It'll never come into a Courtroom. It's a big non-issue. Much ado here about nothing. By the way, Baez's statement is dead on, as far as sentiment. Contrary to what a person would believe just from reading these...

It's still not hard to understand. Once Casey establishes that she's maintaining her innocence, she has to go all the way. She's not very well going to maintain her innocence while simultaneously acknowledging that Caylee's dead. Whether or not Casey's story, as supported by her family...

I've read most of this thread and disagree with a lot of the premises. I would never ever have publicly said what Baez said (and is a central focus of this thread). If nothing else, the comment is in poor state, and lacks the professionalism that Baez should be reflecting whenever he comments...