2010.05.06 Budget Hearing

[mitzi]

I am only on page 9, but enjoying this as though I had been watching it live...thank you to all you wonderful WSers for your great posts of this hearing!

:gold_crown: for ya'll!

 

[zoey]

No meds. I think this was inmate Anthonys first full in her face wakeup to the serious of her actions. I think she was having flash backs as well as flash forwards of her life. She knows what the side bar was about. She knows why the A clan wasn't there, she knows what her fate will be.

Also I think she was being self contained with the new rules she was told to follow. She had deep breaths as well as lots of swallowing. It was evident when CM asked that she not have to attend hearings anymore.

She knows ..... I feel a plea coming down the road. ........ bus coming for the A compound residents.

there is also different behavior with mason there and when not there...early on when he wasn't she was a little light laughy--when he came--mood change....

 

[zoey]

I'm way behind, but I just saw JB's interview afterward. Wow...what a big freaking baby...my, my, my isn't he in a foul mood today.

isn't he??? didn't stop good old kathy...perhaps someone chatted with him and the media? You can't criticize what they seek and then offer these little interviews.....

 

[suzihawk]

I'm way behind, but I just saw JB's interview afterward. Wow...what a big freaking baby...my, my, my isn't he in a foul mood today.

Yup... it was quite a bit different from his smiley, giddy self when he first walked into court this morning. :dance:

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Just finished watching. Wow. "pseudo scents", "Cell phone 'experts'" the "dog community", "fishbowls" and "Taphonomy" and comprehensive voire dire questionnaires. You'd think this was a genuinely complex case, which it isn't.

I have so many thoughts...hmm...why were these experts not paid already? What in heavens name was all that 340k spent on? Why the emphasis on mitigation - look out GA CA and Lee! Where was the Anthony 'family'? Very grateful not to see a certain blogger there adding to the circus atmosphere. If ONLY Baez would have been prudent with that fortune he had to play around with, he'd be in a much better position.

I was amazed at the lunacy of having 19 experts from North Carolina, Colorado, Alabama, etc. I wonder what exactly the PIs are investigating? Have they found Zani yet?

This hearing was great - it's as if Baez went and bought a huge Mcmansion, lived in it for two years in great extravagance, then ran out of money and suddenly wants to keep his big house by clipping coupons and taking freebies. So interesting.

I also agree that it's odd that as soon as JP mentioned the 50% number, mysteriously all 'experts' had completed over 50% of their work. This man is as dishonest as a man can possibly be. I hope this case sets some good precedents and gets these defense attorneys in line with common sense. Cheney may not be thinking 200k is 'nothing' in a murder case as he smugly stated before.

It seems like some good is actually prevailing here, and Casey's luck is running out. So many things could have been so much better for her defense if they were prudent and honest.

 

[beach]

This might be OT for this thread, if so please advise or move me! Why do I not see George or Cindy on the InSessions recording I did today? Were they not there, and if so - why or any ideas why?
THANKS!

Nope, they weren't there. Your guess as to why is as good as any of ours. A few of us have speculated through out this thread, but no reason has been given by any of the talking heads in the know. (e.g, Brad Conway, etal)

 

[Anais]

Yup... it was quite a bit different from his smiley, giddy self when he first walked into court this morning. :dance:

Darn it all, I missed it this time!

Shoot I wouldv'e liked to have seen this one. So what was he peeving and whining for today?! :boohoo: The defense (at least I felt) got a great deal today from Judge Perry. He was most certainly pretty generous from where I stood when you look at it. However, Jose Baez et al did explicitly ask for this; they asked good ole Judge Strickland to recuse himself which he promptly did.

So, Jose Baez et al....you're not happy with the results??? :tsktsk: Hmmm what's that you say Baez? So in other words the defense's plan back fired on them. Bummer.....However right about now I am imagining Judge Strickland enjoying a nice dry martini and having a real, good laugh @ Jose Baez et al! :laughitup:

 

[Anais]

Yup... it was quite a bit different from his smiley, giddy self when he first walked into court this morning. :dance:

Darn it all, I missed it this time!

Shoot I would've liked to have seen this one. So what was he peeving and whining for today?! :boohoo: The defense (at least I felt) got a great deal today from Judge Perry. He was most certainly pretty generous from where I stood when you look at it. However, Jose Baez et al did explicitly ask for this; they asked good ole Judge Strickland to recuse himself which he promptly did.

Hmmm what's that you say Baez?

Oh- Jose Baez et al....you're not happy with the results??? :tsktsk: So in other words the defense's plan back fired on them. Bummer.....However right about now I am imagining Judge Strickland enjoying a nice dry martini and having a real, good laugh @ Jose Baez et al! :laughitup:

 

[Intermezzo]

snipped respectfully

I think CM looked a little dazed and confused by JB's behaviour. He seemed to be trying to respectfully answer questions, if I am not mistaken. The funniest part of it all was when JB took CM aside and whispered in his ear, and then they started walking again. Straight from the grade 3 school yard playbook. Poor CM, can't fault him here.

BBM

http://www.wftv.com/video/23475319/index.html
At the beginning of the interview reporters were asking Mason questions and he said they would have speak with with Baez, who was lead counsel.
Maybe he reminded Mr Mason that he, Baez, was lead counsel and would be doing all the talking on his terms. :croc:

 

[manatee]

A few of JP's statements didn't set well with me today. Yes, he did continuously reference this being a death penalty case when ruling. My mouth dropped open when he made the comment about the cell phone testimony. Sorry, but, I don't feel this was appropriate. He also threw the word "extraordinary" around frequently. At one point, I think he said the case was extraordinary because all the evidence is circumstantial. Since when is a circumstantial case considered extraordinary?? :waitasec:

When JS recused himself, it was my opinion the Defense had a good reason for wanting JP to reside over the case. That opinion has not changed.

Now that you say that...I didn't like that JP mentioned a long standing relationship with CM...I think it was when discussing the jury expert. Maybe CM knew that JP would be coming on. I sure hope they are not golfing buddies or something like that :waitasec:

 

[Anais]

Now that you say that...I didn't like that JP mentioned a long standing relationship with CM...I think it was when discussing the jury expert. Maybe CM knew that JP would be coming on. I sure hope they are not golfing buddies or something like that :waitasec:

I disagree because Judge Perry did not state they had a long standing relationship at all. He simply stated that they had worked together on another murder cases and chosen a jury for it in order to make the point as to why no jury consultant would be necessary. He also wanted to point out to Baez that CM would be perfectly fit enough in choosing members of the jury.

 

[Intermezzo]

http://www.wftv.com/video/23475319/index.html

OMG lol! Jose isn't giving an inch to Belich.

RAW INTERVIEW: Jose Baez Talks To WFTV After Budget Hearing

I want the question about the spending/accounting of the money answered by Mr Baez.
IMO It is a Fair question and I, as a Florida Tax Payer, deserve and demand an answer.
Kathi keep asking that question.WE the Florida Tax Payers deserve an truthful answer.

 

[gitana1]

bbm
I have not seen any indication of this, and I certainly hope you are wrong because if true, JP might not be around for very long.
I think he is being very unbiased and thoughtful with his decisions.

I think Logical Girl is right and IMO that is not a sign of prejudice on the part of JP nor does it cause a risk that he will be taken out of the case. Yes, judges are supposed to rule pre-trial with the understanding that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty but that does not mean that they are supposed to leave logic at the door. In fact, if JP was to do so, that could be grounds for an appeal.
In essence, many pre-trial issues specifically necessitate the court making a determination as to what a likely verdict may be, such as, off the top of my head, the decision whether the state will pay for a mitigation expert. What is the likelihood that one will be needed, that one will be so important? The probability of a guilty verdict seems paramount in making that decision.
JP is no idiot. He is very experienced and I agree with Logical that he has assessed the probability of a guilty vs. non guilty verdict. That has nothing to do with his ability to be fair and unbiased which I think he has been.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Nope, they weren't there. Your guess as to why is as good as any of ours. A few of us have speculated through out this thread, but no reason has been given by any of the talking heads in the know. (e.g, Brad Conway, etal)

Thanks Beach2yall -- I will try a search of the thread to catch you guys ideas on why!!!!
I must say, that on the face of it some might feel the defense got a bunch of yeses today, but to me it appeared that this judge was ruling with the future very much in mind and to really, really minimize issues on appeal. I hate that he took JB word for "how much work has already been done" (and he did ask for the hours on the mitigation specialist) but on most "experts" it seemed JB was given respect as an officer of the court. (My personal opinion is he might not deserve this trust!)

 

[Anais]

I want the question about the spending/accounting of the money answered by Mr Baez.
IMO It is a Fair question and I, as a Tax Payer, deserve and demand an answer.

Intermezzo You Go!!!

 

[logicalgirl]

Now that you say that...I didn't like that JP mentioned a long standing relationship with CM...I think it was when discussing the jury expert. Maybe CM knew that JP would be coming on. I sure hope they are not golfing buddies or something like that :waitasec:

CM has lead a criminal trial before JBP before - a death penalty case. I believe he lost.

 

[manatee]

I disagree because Judge Perry did not state they had a long standing relationship at all. He simply stated that they had worked together on another murder cases and chosen a jury for it in order to make the point as to why no jury consultant would be necessary. He also wanted to point out to Baez that CM would be perfectly fit enough in choosing members of the jury.

Yes, I hope that's right. I have to go back and look at it. It seemed to me to be more to it than that. But I do hope I'm reading too much into it. that would stink! I'm glad you did not see that way.

 

[Anais]

Thanks Beach2yall -- I will try a search of the thread to catch you guys ideas on why!!!!
I must say, that on the face of it some might feel the defense got a bunch of yeses today, but to me it appeared that this judge was ruling with the future very much in mind and to really, really minimize issues on appeal. I hate that he took JB word for "how much work has already been done" (and he did ask for the hours on the mitigation specialist) but on most "experts" it seemed JB was given respect as an officer of the court. (My personal opinion is he might not deserve this trust!)

Although he did take his word today Judge Perry also stated that he would be reviewing all of the records and scrutinzing the full accounting which to me says that this judge is no fool and therefor will be certain we have no fibbing or shortcutting going on!

Plus the dude from JAC will IMO be all over it like a moth to a flame!

BTW I put up a few theories on GA & CA if you search my name.

 

[logicalgirl]

Darn it all, I missed it this time!

Shoot I wouldv'e liked to have seen this one. So what was he peeving and whining for today?! :boohoo: The defense (at least I felt) got a great deal today from Judge Perry. He was most certainly pretty generous from where I stood when you look at it. However, Jose Baez et al did explicitly ask for this; they asked good ole Judge Strickland to recuse himself which he promptly did.

So, Jose Baez et al....you're not happy with the results??? :tsktsk: Hmmm what's that you say Baez? So in other words the defense's plan back fired on them. Bummer.....However right about now I am imagining Judge Strickland enjoying a nice dry martini and having a real, good laugh @ Jose Baez et al! :laughitup:

I think Baez was all Pizzey with the reporters after the court hearing because he has gotten himself in to "a fine mess". He reported that all of his experts had completed at least 50% of their reviews, with the exception of Barrett who he claimed has done 60%. He knows darn well he lied and now how the heck is he going to get this done in the time alloted and on the schedule required.

Giggle.

 

[whiteangora]

I think Logical Girl is right and IMO that is not a sign of prejudice on the part of JP nor does it cause a risk that he will be taken out of the case. Yes, judges are supposed to rule pre-trial with the understanding that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty but that does not mean that they are supposed to leave logic at the door. In fact, if JP was to do so, that could be grounds for an appeal.
In essence, many pre-trial issues specifically necessitate the court making a determination as to what a likely verdict may be, such as, off the top of my head, the decision whether the state will pay for a mitigation expert. What is the likelihood that one will be needed, that one will be so important? The probability of a guilty verdict seems paramount in making that decision.
JP is no idiot. He is very experienced and I agree with Logical that he has assessed the probability of a guilty vs. non guilty verdict. That has nothing to do with his ability to be fair and unbiased which I think he has.

I totally understand and appreciate what you are saying.
My thoughts were going in a different direction, let's just say that if the bloggers and forums begin stating that "JP knows Casey is guilty," there could be some big problems on the horizon.