2009.08.21 Motions hearing #2

[RR0004]

So is that it for the "motions" hearings? I thought there were still a ton out there waiting to be heard...like the one being challenged by the Orlando Sentinel? The ZFG motions?

 

[The Eunice Burns]

LP is family. It's easy to see where your fam is screwing up, because you are right up close.

The As were on "company behavior." Not acting out, too much, in front of "company."

I can understand it. TP is seeing the situation from a different perspective.

I agree, to a point. I get your point about the different behavior for family and "company", but, that's not it.......I'm not compelled. TP saw the situation from one perspective when the As may have been very nice to him in early days, but since then.......he has to have seen their ridiculous and atrocious behavior in other settings via interviews, etc. And yet, is still somewhat cozy (my word) with them and used glowing words about them. As my Dad would say......"It doesn't compute".

 

[RR0004]

I agree, to a point. I get your point about the different behavior for family and "company", but, that's not it.......I'm not compelled. TP saw the situation from one perspective when the As may have been very nice to him in early days, but since then.......he has to have seen their ridiculous and atrocious behavior in other settings via interviews, etc. And yet, is still somewhat cozy (my word) with them and used glowing words about them. As my Dad would say......"It doesn't compute".

Personally I'd have a tough time reconciling the "nice guy" with the "liar guy".

 

[Lexington]

So is that it for the "motions" hearings? I thought there were still a ton out there waiting to be heard...like the one being challenged by the Orlando Sentinel? The ZFG motions?

And AL hasn't even started to think about the motions she's going to produce.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

Personally I'd have a tough time reconciling the "nice guy" with the "liar guy".

That's it! Precisely it. Those two can't co-exist. I know no one is perfect, but a person with a liar's personality is not a nice, great guy.

 

[RR0004]

And AL hasn't even started to think about the motions she's going to produce.

What the heck was that about a change of venue for the check cashing trial? The way she went on and on and on...she didn't overly impress me today.

 

[RR0004]

That's it! Precisely it. Those two can't co-exist. I know no one is perfect, but a person with a liar's personality is not a nice, great guy.

Especially when the lying was directly about matters pertaining to HIM.

ETA: so is their next convo going to go something like this:

TP: Hi, George! How ya doing?
GA: Hey, Tony! Ok...how's the family?
TP: Great...and yours? Oh, BTW, I saw you in court today. How come you pretended you didn't know why we were at your house?

 

[Kreeblim]

LP is family. It's easy to see where your fam is screwing up, because you are right up close.

The As were on "company behavior." Not acting out, too much, in front of "company."

I can understand it. TP is seeing the situation from a different perspective.

To be honest it is probably also a little bit of reaction to the mood of the site itself. For instance, I love my kids equally, but if somebody is calling my youngest a disrespectful jerk (or something) I would defend that child and list his good qualities...I wouldn't naturally start listing the good qualities of my other kids. The overwhelming opinion here is that the A's are awful people, and since he thinks differently about that, his posts about them ran in a positive defensive direction. On the otherhand, people are generally positive about LP, and though he DID post about LP's positive intentions MANY times, he often only piped up about LPs downsides after someone asked him about LP or posted an "I love LP" post.

I didn't glean anything weird about it, because I saw it as a reaction to this site, and not anymore an idication that he would live and die for the Anthony's than me defending my child who is being attacked indicates I love that child more than the others. I mean, a great many of the posts in this thread are attacking the A's, asking him why he thinks what he does about the A's, telling him he's wrong about the A's, etc. He wouldn't even have elaborated on his feelings about the A's if people hadn't posted about it so prolificly.

 

[RR0004]

To be honest it is probably also a little bit of reaction to the mood of the site itself. For instance, I love my kids equally, but if somebody is calling my youngest a disrespectful jerk (or something) I would defend that child and list his good qualities...I wouldn't naturally start listing the good qualities of my other kids. The overwhelming opinion here is that the A's are awful people, and since he thinks differently about that, his posts about them ran in a positive defensive direction. On the otherhand, people are generally positive about LP, and though he DID post about LP's positive intentions MANY times, he often only piped up about LPs downsides after someone asked him about LP or posted an "I love LP" post.

I didn't glean anything weird about it, because I saw it as a reaction to this site, and not anymore an idication that he would live and die for the Anthony's than me defending my child who is being attacked indicates I love that child more than the others. I mean, a great many of the posts in this thread are attacking the A's, asking him why he thinks what he does about the A's, telling him he's wrong about the A's, etc. He wouldn't even have elaborated on his feelings about the A's if people hadn't posted about it so prolificly.

I don't think there was anyone saying he was "wrong" in his feelings...they are, afterall, his feelings. I saw it as people, including myself, trying to make sense of it. In my world, I'd have a problem with a person, one who I truly care about, go before a court and tell mistruths that are either about me or concern me.

 

[Lexington]

What the heck was that about a change of venue for the check cashing trial? The way she went on and on and on...she didn't overly impress me today.

I kinda sorta zoned out when she went on that spiel so I don't know what she was trying to accomplish. I just want the check cashing trial to start ASAP and hope JS rules that way.

 

[tragco]

Just finished watching, and wanted to comment first. It will be interesting reading to see what everyone else thought about the hearing. What struck me most while watching is this:

I want so much for KC to pay for what she did. I have always been angry and aggravated at her attorneys; partially because I am on the prosecution's side.

What scares me is that when A.Lyon was arguing her motion today, I felt like she was so reasonable and pleasant. She put the case law the prosecution cited in layman's terms and explained why she felt it didn't apply to this situation. She appeared gracious and eager to help.

Also, as much as I want to praise the prosecution, that grey-haired guy who keeps nodding and smirking is bad for the case. He needs to be more professional. His facial acrobats give the appearance of someone who is out to get KC and can't keep an open mind. I hope someone reigns him in before trial.

It's SO important that a jury feels comfortable that the attorney wants a fair trial.

I can only hope that Baez keeps insisting on center stage the majority of the time.

 

[RR0004]

I kinda sorta zoned out when she went on that spiel so I don't know what she was trying to accomplish. I just want the check cashing trial to start ASAP and hope JS rules that way.

...and it can be a nonjury trial...so what's the problem? It's not like she wasn't caught on videotape doing the shopping.

 

[Lexington]

...and it can be a nonjury trial...so what's the problem? It's not like she wasn't caught on videotape doing the shopping.

I guess the defense just doesn't want to defend an already convicted felon in a murder case. There is no way that she won't be convicted on the check cashing charges, everything is on videotape, they have no defense whatsoever. Just like they have no defense in the murder case.

 

[magic-cat]

If there is nothing new and incriminating in what LP might testify to, then why try to block it??:waitasec:

It isn't him they are trying to block...it is Tracy.

Sorry, I'm confused...security to protect the "investment"?

Please forgive me...I'm coming in downstream.

The bond...

Casey is all about Casey. This may seem odd but Casey is a very nice respectful girl. She is also very personable. Probably a little too immature to be a great parent but I get accused of that.

The last thing that Casey IS is a nice respectful girl. A.) You bonded her out on a half a mil...B.) You are a man and she loves her some man now! C) Casey is either a sociopath or she is in training to be one, and the MO of the socio is utter charm and respect...to some...but to others? Like poor Caylee? They get something else less charming and less respectful...

Sociopaths are very charming.

That is what I was going to say so ditto...:blowkiss:

Just speaking about my interaction with her. She was nice to me.

That is what many of the people who lived next door to serial killers have said, they always seemed so nice, they always waved, they were always so friendly, etc...You have to look outside of the bubble that is the treatment you have received and view the broader picture...She wasn't always nice to Caylee. Watch Breakfast with Caylee on You Tube to get an idea of her torture tactics she used on that poor baby...

The records are in Nejame's office. I don't see the big deal why the records can't be copied at his office and given to JB. TM has seen them, MN has seen them, Conway has seen them so guess what - JB gets to see them too. I fear reversible error if the Judge allows Nejame and Conway to decide which documents they must produce.

JB no doubt requested every piece of paper invovled in the search for Caylee. He is entitled to see what was and was not found during that time. If he wants to send a set of Interrogatories to every searcher, he must be allowed to do so.

It's ridiculous to think that the prosecution OR a material witness such as TM should be allowed to determine what is or is not important or exculpatory. Just how bothered would you be to get a set of questions if you had been a searcher? I wouldn't be bothered in the least.

"I wasn't in the area. I didn't search there. I have never been in that area."

Stick on a 44 cent stamp and be done with it. It will cost JB $3K in materials and stamps just to send these out and he'll have to hire a secretary just to type the names and addresses and keep up with who has and has not answered in time. But, he is right. He is duty bound to do this. 4,000 people searched for Caylee and he is entitled to feret out who searched in that area, not to rely on someone else's word - especially from 2 lawyers who don't represent the State or the defendant.

As for the argument that no one could have seen anything in the underbrush even if they were a foot away, so limiting the circle of searchers to those within 200 yards of the dump site is reasonable, runs afoul of Kronk's sighting of a bag/skull/whatever from the street on August 10 - quite a few feet away. Nejame stepped on himself there. (chuckle. faux pas. ) Was KC in jail then?

I am addressing only your last paragraph...The remains were found less than 20 feet from the side of the road. 200 yards is 600 feet...And it was December when Mr. Kronk was finally able to GET to the bag. He himself states it was underwater whenever he first began to report it...

I think that the Anthony's having to live out this very personal tragedy in front of the world has left some people thinking the sound bites and short videos we see of them are EVERYTHING they are about. However, clever editing can, and is regularily done by the media to make people appear to be one-dimensional when in fact that is not who they truly are. I think the Anthony's have suffered from this extensively. They have been cast in the role of "bad parents" and "liars" by the media that is ONLY out to get ratings and make $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ off the back of Caylee. It's pretty tragic, IMO. No wonder the Anthony's are frustrated and lashing out - which of course, the media uses to their advantage to make them look even worse. Yes, the Anthony's have some bad traits and surprise, surprise, they are MORE pronounced when they are under stress and can make them look very bad. The same can be said for MOST people. But I don't believe for a second that the way the media has portrayed them is the entirety of who they are.

All I have to look at to know who and what the A's are of is their "foundation" where everything is based on MISSING not MURDERED children, and where they tell us how wisely they will spend our donations. And I did not discern my opinion of them from news interviews. I watched dozens and dozens of hours of POLICE interviews and FBI interviews and depositions. These were straight out of the horses mouth so to speak and told me all I needed to know.

That could be.

It looks like CA did a lot of bad-mouthing, and no real disciplining. She headed up the cover-ups.

I also think CA slipped KC money, and didn't tell GA.

But, now GA is also covering up. (sigh)

I was just rewatching Cindys deposition with Morgan and Morgan and she emphatically states, "I gave Casey money all the time".

I just want to say that Tony has the right to his own opinion about the Anthony's who he has personally met, whereas most, if not all, of us have NEVER met them.

I've met them...in my nightmares and in the comatose states in which I have found myself after struggling through their mounds of lies in the interviews with Law Enforcement...

 

[Marina2]

...and it can be a nonjury trial...so what's the problem? It's not like she wasn't caught on videotape doing the shopping.

The thing is, KC has a right to a jury trial and she will assert that right rather than be made to choose between a partial jury or a trial by bench. What seems to be a moot point isn't to the defense. To KC and her defense team, it's all about what her rights are so they will seek a change of venue to protect her right to a trial by jury.

 

[magic-cat]

I don't think there was anyone saying he was "wrong" in his feelings...they are, afterall, his feelings. I saw it as people, including myself, trying to make sense of it. In my world, I'd have a problem with a person, one who I truly care about, go before a court and tell mistruths that are either about me or concern me.

Mistruths? I swear I had NEVER heard that word before Cindy invented it and now here we are adopting it...They tell bare faced LIES! Let's call an apple an apple and a lie a LIE.:blowkiss:

I agree with everything you say. What I am having trouble with is TP going on a message board and being very critical of a close family member. I am not an LP fan and I agree with everything TP says about him, but I find it odd that he would so openly call him out.

I do not feel that he is "calling Leonard out, I just feel he is telling us like it is...he REALLY knows LP...It is ok to say a family member is something if they are...family should not be a shield from the truth...

 

[magic-cat]

Ok...wait...Geraldo...the same guy who may have given the defense money? I assume it was for "exclusive' interviews...but I wouldn't believe one word this guy says.

Ditto. His reporting has been, uhm, skewed? to say the least.

 

[Blaise]

LP is family. It's easy to see where your fam is screwing up, because you are right up close.

The As were on "company behavior." Not acting out, too much, in front of "company."

I can understand it. TP is seeing the situation from a different perspective.

I was reminded of Ann Rule saying Ted Bundy was such a gentleman to her. Of course, Ann Rule knew he had that nasty little habit of slaughtering young women . . .

Blaise

 

[Marina2]

GA made silly little faces in an attempt to belittle LDB's questions of him. Evading answers to simple questions like "Did you meet with Padilla and team in a warehouse to discuss the terms of bonding KC out?" "No" "You didn't meet with Padilla prior to KC being bonded out?" "Not in a warehouse." GA says it with a smirk as if he just one up'd the state. He even pulled out the "I don't see the relevancy of that." when he didn't want to answer a particular question. If he's ever in a situation in the courtroom where an attorney wants to bring the worst out in him, it won't be hard to do. He's seething with anger towards the state.

 

[Kreeblim]

I don't think there was anyone saying he was "wrong" in his feelings...they are, afterall, his feelings. I saw it as people, including myself, trying to make sense of it. In my world, I'd have a problem with a person, one who I truly care about, go before a court and tell mistruths that are either about me or concern me.

It's great u came to give your opinion, but your opinion on the "A"s to most of us is wrong..

I see where you're coming from, but my point was just that it's not like the guy was gushing on and on about them from out of the blue...he was put in a defensive position.

Trying to understand others when coming from the outside is very difficult. I have had a falling out with a friend as a group, and then run into the person we had the falling out with, and then slowly gotten to know the person again. Maybe they changed, maybe I did, maybe we just moved past the issue...HOWEVER, it never fails that someone who has not been around this gradual interaction will be all "How can you POSSIBLY be friends with HER? Don't you remember XYZ?" Of course I do, but when it comes down to it, nobody is perfect, and each person's threshhold of what violates their trust enough to overwhelm the good they see in the other is different...and those of us on the outside can be mystified all we want. Would I be the same way in his position? Prolly not, but I still don't see anything fishy about how he feels...and I wasn't there for any of their interaction so I have no idea how he came to his position.