2010.05.11 - Casey Anthony Death Penalty Motions Hearing

[Turnadot]

Why would her daughter be at a nightclub? That's always bothered me... IIRC, she didn't say she was looking for ZFG at that nightclub, she was looking at places where her daughter would be. Why would Caylee be at a nightclub? :waitasec: Yes it will open the door allright...

Remember the Universal Q&A after KC lied to LE?

'What did you think, she took a cab here?'

Paraphrase, but close enough. Gold.

 

[Astraea]

'Quite frankly', no we can't too well. Considering the only one who WAS familiar with her was Andrea Lyon, and possibly CM/JB.

I directed you to Today's News thread where the videos are linked. You can find out as much as we know AND THE SA, about her there.

Thanks, someone already posted the inforamtion for me. She seems very well educated

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I saw no wet tears, no red face. It didn't appear that she was crying IMO.

Yeah it's not crying at all, it's a very very poor acting job. She jabs her eyes and looks at a kleenex. In today's hearing, she literally went from laughing and smiling to the fake crying several times in a few minutes. It's pretty sad if she can't even remember the fake front she's trying to put on.

 

[KeyboardCat]

Hello again!!
I haven't even made it past page eight, yet somehow my seemingly unrealistic expectation of being called as an expert witness has dramatically increased!

Here are my qualifications: I've read hundreds, perhaps thousands of reports regarding this case. In fact, I've written fourteen of them! (Wait I suppose this counts as fifteen ::checks post count: I have a wonderful understanding of human nature. I am a human, after all.

My testimony: I don't need any sort of degree or education to come to the realization that a mother killing a child would be defined as "particularly heinous" and a jury should have the option, among others, of recommending a sentence of "death."

In all seriousness, I believe the state of Louisiana has set the bar in regards anyone convicted of purposely murdering a child under the age of 12. Death, nothing less.

Edit: My facts are wrong I apologize, Louisiana certainly set the bar in regards to anyone convicted of -raping- a child under twelve, however our supreme court declared that unconstitutional. They came to the decision that rape alone, on anyone of any age could not alone warrant the ultimate punishment.

 

[debbie0604]

Remember the Universal Q&A after KC lied to LE?

'What did you think, she took a cab here?'

Paraphrase, but close enough. Gold.

I have never forgotten that.... classic...

 

[Astraea]

Making any one of us more qualified to be a witness, IMO.

I have been to College and University and I certainly could not say that I was more qualified than this woman. She deserves some respect for her accomplishments. Just wondering what makes her less qualified than the posters here in your opinion?

snipped from this link: http://lawschool.unm.edu/faculty/rapaport/index.php


"When Elizabeth Rapaport joined the UNM law faculty in 1995, she brought 17 years of experience teaching philosophy and public policy, with ethics as her specialty. After earning a Ph.D. in philosophy in 1971 at Case Western Reserve University, she spent the next 12 years teaching at Boston University, University of Southern California, Brown University, Bennington College and the University of Sydney.

After earning a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1987, she returned to the classroom at Duke University, where she taught in the school of public policy."


As a side note, I think this also changes the assumption that she is 43 years of age as was stated earlier in this thread

 

[Amil]

I didn't get to watch the hearing live, but have watched several of the videos. I haven't had a chance to read this entire thread, but a thought keeps going through my mind and I don't know if anyone here has addressed this.............

George wasn't in the courtroom today. Maybe he's got a job and is working today, or maybe he just didn't want to attend today's hearing. But, I found it interesting that in the past Casey hasn't acknowledged her parents when they've been in the courtroom. And then today, when it was only Cindy and George was absent, Casey did acknowledge her mother.

It makes me wonder if Casey is purposely not acknowledging her parents when George is there. Is it George she's angry with?

George was in the courtroom on Monday with Cindy and Monday was the first day that KC acknowledged her parents in a very long time. It had nothing to do with George not being there. He was sitting right next to Cindy when KC spoke to her mother on Monday, yesterday.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

I watched about an hour of the motion hearing this afternoon on "In Session". I was unable to watch while it was being discussed here and haven't read this entire thread. My apologies if someone has already mentioned the fact that JB wasn't taking notes. What's up with that?

Although it wasn't his show today, and Ms. Lyons was presenting the motions, Baez appeared disinterested and aloof during the proceedings. jmo

 

[beach]

Yes--the leeway granted to the defense re: the silly expert witness was to make sure that there was no appeal issue. HHJP had to deny the motion because it was groundless, but he didn't want the defense to go to the appeal court and say, "Oh, but if we'd only had a chance to put on our expert witness, HHJP would have had to grant the motion." So he listened to the silly witness and THEN denied the motion. Excellent decision, and it shows why he rarely gets overruled on appeal.

The State definitely came out on top today. Regarding the aggravating factors motion, I think they will ultimately realize it is a good thing they lost that one, because the ruling again removed an appellate issue from the table.

BBM

I am SO GLAD you brought that up! I thought the exact same. It seemed a little bittersweet that the judge forced them to 'tip their hand', but the payoff was 86'ing any appellate issue, which could be far more serious.

 

[LambChop]

In my opinion this should help to steer the average follower of this case, as well as the defense, in the route that the SA is going to take.

For example: Whether or not they are ACTUALLY going to say that Casey chloroformed Caylee. I tend to think that they will use the minor clause as the aggravating factor, as the aforementioned seems totally absurd on many levels!

Will be interesting to see. For me at least, as I am very "legal and/or "justice minded, and up to this point I have been very disheartened with the SA.

See, this is what I do not understand. I respect that you have an opinion, don't we all. But SA has a job to do. There is a victim and there has been a crime. Someone committed the crime and during their investigation the information SA gathered points to one person. If there were more than one person who were suspected they also would be on trial. Blaming SA, or being upset with SA is pointless because the very person who could help them find the killer just is not talking. She will not discuss the case with SA. She does not have to discuss the case with them but if she were truly interested in putting the person who killed her child behind bars she'd be talking non-stop (which we know for KC is not difficult). I believe SA is doing the best they can do given the fact that the child's mother has been anything but cooperative for reasons which apparently are obvious.

SA is there for Caylee, less we forget. KC is not a victim regardless of what her mother says. SA does their job and yes, it is difficult when it involves a child but if KC were male and not related to Caylee we'd all be praising SA for their outstanding work. Just because KC is a woman and a mother to the child does not give her a special pass. jmo

 

[beach]

Thanks, someone already posted the inforamtion for me. She seems very well educated

I don't dispute that she is 'well-educated'. She is a Harvard grad.

That said, lots of 'well-educated' people make terrible witnesses, and she was one of them. It was the first time she had ever testified in any courtroom (by her own admission), and she did not come across well.

Hopefully, you will be able to WATCH the hearing soon.

 

[Dear Prudence]

Yes JB gets on my nerves for MANY reasons, as does the SA. I was pleased to read that JP finally admonished JA today I might add! Would love a recording of this hearing, but am only going off the word of posters at this point

You can watch the hearing here: http://www.wftv.com/news/23514611/detail.html

Look for the video heading "5/11/10 HEARING: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

 

[Kat]

Profile for Ms. Rapaport:

http://lawschool.unm.edu/faculty/rapaport/publications.php

NOTE: that links to the page outlining her articles and other writings.

There are other links to her information located on that page.

 

[beach]

I bet you just hate it when JB does his comic routine during hearings, just like I do!

:blowkiss:

 

[Kat]

PDF of the first article listed on the profile page I posted in #1145.

Mods if deemed inappopriate for thread please delete or move? TIA.

https://repository.unm.edu/dspace/bitstream/1928/6995/1/Rapaport-Mad Women Desperate Girls.pdf

Article Title:

Mad Women and Desperate Girls: Infanticide and Child Murder in Law and Myth (2006)

 

[LambChop]

I have been to College and University and I certainly could not say that I was more qualified than this woman. She deserves some respect for her accomplishments. Just wondering what makes her less qualified than the posters here in your opinion?

snipped from this link: http://lawschool.unm.edu/faculty/rapaport/index.php


"When Elizabeth Rapaport joined the UNM law faculty in 1995, she brought 17 years of experience teaching philosophy and public policy, with ethics as her specialty. After earning a Ph.D. in philosophy in 1971 at Case Western Reserve University, she spent the next 12 years teaching at Boston University, University of Southern California, Brown University, Bennington College and the University of Sydney.

After earning a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1987, she returned to the classroom at Duke University, where she taught in the school of public policy."


As a side note, I think this also changes the assumption that she is 43 years of age as was stated earlier in this thread

I think it is because her testimony amounted to "apples vs. oranges". Ms. Rapaport was saying how a person is dressed does not mean the person was not a good mother. KC on the other hand had made a statement to LE that she was looking everywhere she thought ZFG would be, searching the whole 31 days herself. The pictures would be brought in for that reason not as a reflection on her being a good mom versus the party girl. jmo

 

[Aedrys]

I have been to College and University and I certainly could not say that I was more qualified than this woman. She deserves some respect for her accomplishments. Just wondering what makes her less qualified than the posters here in your opinion?

snipped from this link: http://lawschool.unm.edu/faculty/rapaport/index.php


"When Elizabeth Rapaport joined the UNM law faculty in 1995, she brought 17 years of experience teaching philosophy and public policy, with ethics as her specialty. After earning a Ph.D. in philosophy in 1971 at Case Western Reserve University, she spent the next 12 years teaching at Boston University, University of Southern California, Brown University, Bennington College and the University of Sydney.

After earning a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1987, she returned to the classroom at Duke University, where she taught in the school of public policy."


As a side note, I think this also changes the assumption that she is 43 years of age as was stated earlier in this thread

You're missing the point. She said she read newspapers and that was what she based her opinion on. You could be a high school dropout or have 10 PHd's, read newspapers, and have an opinion. ANYONE can do that.

Now if she had cited case studies and reports, you know, SOUNDED like someone who really knows what they are talking about (because really, I was shocked she went to Harvard because of her testimony) THAT would make her a better witness. Just saying she read some newspapers is not enough to make someone an expert, IMO.

That and she was sprung on the SA TODAY. They didn't get a chance to familiarize themselves with her, though JA crossed examined her just fine. The defense would be screaming bloody murder if the SA did the same to them (mostly because they wouldn't cross examine nearly as well IMO).

And btw, MOST of what's in this post was spoken in the hearing. The best thing to do is watch it and listen closely before making opinions, IMO. And it shouldn't be hard to find a link to watch it.

 

[Anais]

'Quite frankly', no we can't too well. Considering the only one who WAS familiar with her was Andrea Lyon, and possibly CM/JB.

I directed you to Today's News thread where the videos are linked. You can find out as much as we know AND THE SA, about her there.

Beach2yall you have a pm!

I'll be back tomorrow if possible!

Justice For Caylee Marie! :balloons:

 

[marspiter]

I have been to College and University and I certainly could not say that I was more qualified than this woman. She deserves some respect for her accomplishments. Just wondering what makes her less qualified than the posters here in your opinion?

snipped from this link: http://lawschool.unm.edu/faculty/rapaport/index.php


"When Elizabeth Rapaport joined the UNM law faculty in 1995, she brought 17 years of experience teaching philosophy and public policy, with ethics as her specialty. After earning a Ph.D. in philosophy in 1971 at Case Western Reserve University, she spent the next 12 years teaching at Boston University, University of Southern California, Brown University, Bennington College and the University of Sydney.

After earning a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1987, she returned to the classroom at Duke University, where she taught in the school of public policy."


As a side note, I think this also changes the assumption that she is 43 years of age as was stated earlier in this thread

The problem I have with her "expert" testimony is that she was giving her "expert" opinion on a topic that has a more fundamental base in psychology/sociology (which she admitted she has no background or training in). She was not there to give her expert opinion on law or philosophy. She even admitted that her research was based on reading newspaper articles on cases and that she hadn't followed this case. Furthermore what accredited/published research has she done on the topic?

You don't call a plumber to fix your teeth so to speak. No mater how good the plumber is.

 

[whiteangora]

I don't dispute that she is 'well-educated'. She is a Harvard grad.

That said, lots of 'well-educated' people make terrible witnesses, and she was one of them. It was the first time she had ever testified in any courtroom (by her own admission), and she did not come across well.

Hopefully, you will be able to WATCH the hearing soon.

Fortunately her appearance was a brief one time thing, I don't know what kind of rabbit AL expected this meek woman to pull out of her hat.