2010.05.11 - Casey Anthony Death Penalty Motions Hearing

[Astraea]

As Mr. Ashton pointed out, she has no background in psychology. Philosophy doesn't apply to this case. She said her expertise is derived from reading articles, and she doesn't "know much" about this particular case. Okay, reading articles makes you an expert now, gotcha. So if we read articles, have no background in psychology, and know more about the KC case than she does - from her own words, we are just as qualified if not more so. Since obviously they're just bringing in anybody. I'm sure the State can find people with as much education in at least a related field to be an expert witness as well. JMO.

Reading articles is not what makes her an expert. I am watching the first part of the hearing NOW, where her qualifications are duly noted. In my opinion she is MORE than qualified to testify about gender bias, it has been her area of study for over 20 years according to the hearing. This forum would be a good research place imo

 

[Turnadot]

Reading articles is not what makes her an expert. I am watching the first part of the hearing NOW, where her qualifications are duly noted. In my opinion she is MORE than qualified to testify about gender bias, it has been her area of study for over 20 years according to the hearing. This forum would be a good research place imo

I think you've missed something here. Or I did. The witness is not an expert in the field for which she was called to testify.

Can someone clarify this, please? I'd appreciate it a lot.

 

[suzihawk]

As Mr. Ashton pointed out, she has no background in psychology. Philosophy doesn't apply to this case. She said her expertise is derived from reading articles, and she doesn't "know much" about this particular case. Okay, reading articles makes you an expert now, gotcha. So if we read articles, have no background in psychology, and know more about the KC case than she does - from her own words, we are just as qualified if not more so. Since obviously they're just bringing in anybody. I'm sure the State can find people with as much education in at least a related field to be an expert witness as well. JMO.

And to add to that... she has no legal background that I can see. Yet she was attempting to school JA as to what is and is not legally relevant with regards to the cases she's read about in newspaper articles.

(I really enjoy your birdseye view and first hand reports from the courtroom. Thank you!)

 

[Kat]

Oh my. I'm reading the article by Paraport that I linked back there <<<<<.

Wonder if this shows us a facet of the defense's strategy. Hmm.

 

[Astraea]

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.

I am watching the hearing now, and at 15 minutes in I have already heard more in regards to her expertise on the subject than your post has implicated.

 

[justbeachy]

Just got home from today's hearing (had to make a detour to pick up the kiddos from school) and WOW, what a day! My new favorite line is: "This pretense of ignorance is getting old." I actually had to stifle a laugh on that one. Well, that and the Roy Kronk line.

I &#9829; Jeff Ashton!

 

[mitzi]

I seem to recall KC's response to losing Caylee was nothing at all. Thank goodness Cindy called 911.

No, actually KC did have a response...it was "just give me one more day". :furious:

 

[whiteangora]

I think you've missed something here. Or I did. The witness is not an expert in the field for which she was called to testify.

Can someone clarify this, please? I'd appreciate it a lot.

Probably not the answer you are looking for here, jmo.
The entire presentation sucked, questions AND answers.
We will never see her again hopefully, so it's just water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Astraea]

She is an "expert in the area of gender and the death penalty". JP accepted it as being so, and the SA had PLENTY of time to look over her work, and from what I have read quickly her credentials are definitely in line with the topic she is testifying to in my opinion.

 

[Turnadot]

Probably not the answer you are looking for here, jmo.
The entire presentation sucked, questions AND answers.
We will never see her again hopefully, so it's just water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned.

I agree as an 'expert' witness, her testimony was a failure. I don't expect to see her again, either.

 

[seagull65]

Miss Anthony's child was found..............hey AL, that child has a name!
CAYLEE, remember that Angel's name!!! Justice and prayers for CAYLEE!!!

"Miss Anthony's child" seems correct and normal. The prosecution sometimes also say "the child", I guess meaning "the child victim" or "the child in question/the child in this case" as the defense also sometimes do. I can understand when both sides use this term, but it's true it would be nice to hear her first name used more in the court room. Maybe they sometimes get confused by the similar names Caylee/Casey and have trouble retrieving the name when they're speaking so use these other terms?

 

[Astraea]

And to add to that... she has no legal background that I can see. Yet she was attempting to school JA as to what is and is not legally relevant with regards to the cases she's read about in newspaper articles.

(I really enjoy your birdseye view and first hand reports from the courtroom. Thank you!)

She has a law degree...

 

[mitzi]

And JB said he's going to file yet more motions....

Bold mine.

Which at this point in time, probably means that Mason is going to file more motions. I'm sure that Baez, with his immense knowledge of the law, (note sarcasm) probably can't even come up with any more motions to file, let alone write them succinctly.

 

[beach]

I was not refuting and/or doubting anything that was posted in this thread in the post that you have quoted. It is MY experience that judges OFTEN allow witnesses without notification. Most people seemed very amazed by this fact, and it is not as rare as one may think. That was my point.

BBM

Wow. Had no clue. I have worked as a paralegal for the past 13 years, including assisting at trials and arbitrations. I guess ya learn something new every day.

Thank you for the education. Are you an attorney?

 

[LambChop]

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.

In my opinion she was ill-prepared. Who comes to testify in a case and has little to no knowledge of what she was testifying to in regards to the case? This is by her own admission. The club pictures have nothing to do with SA saying KC was a bad mother in this case but what KC was doing when she claims to have been looking everywhere for her child. Fusion dance floor, Target getting beer, BOA cashing checks, etc., drinking, dancing all things that are not included in the book of "Dummy's Manual for Finding a Lost Child/Missing."

Obviously Ms. Rapaport had been lead to believe she was testifying for a different reason than what the facts are for this case. This poor woman is probably embarrassed by her performance and has no one to blame but defense. SA did nothing wrong. Isn't it HHJP who said you need to be PREPARED for court? That includes, expert witnesses, especially expert witnesses. Hope she learned a valuable lesson.

jmo

 

[Astraea]

This hearing is wonderful I must say (only 20 mins in). I have noticed this trend in this case particularly! Poor JA cant object enough to be overruled enough LOL!

 

[Turnadot]

At the end of the day, her credentials don't matter because as educated as she might be, she failed to deliver anything convincing in her testimony, obviously since JP denied the motion I'm assuming he wasn't too impressed either.

 

[debbie0604]

No, actually KC did have a response...it was "just give me one more day". :furious:

Yes.... and I think CA said that KC "thanked her" for calling 911.. IIRC....

 

[What'sThatClue]

She is an "expert in the area of gender and the death penalty". JP accepted it as being so, and the SA had PLENTY of time to look over her work, and from what I have read quickly her credentials are definitely in line with the topic she is testifying to in my opinion.

"the SA had PLENTY of time to look over her work..."

This was a surprise witness. The SA was not informed of this witness and had no time to prepare and said so.

Anyone can call themselves an expert. She presented no credentials that were applicable to this trial other than admitting she writes her papers based on news media articles she reads, along with a few press reports.

 

[Astraea]

BBM

Wow. Had no clue. I have worked as a paralegal for the past 13 years and I guess ya learn something new every day.

Thank you for the education. Are you an attorney?

I am a paralegal/law clerk and I also possess a degree in political science and sociology. Graduated top of my class If I thought my opinion would EVER matter I would verify with Tricia of course