2010.05.11 - Casey Anthony Death Penalty Motions Hearing

[whiteangora]

My favorite lines too!

It was hard not to clap today, at times.

I think the "Pretense" line is getting added to my sig. :dance:

Were you there today Muzikman? If so did anything in particular stand out for you?

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I agree with you just beachy on the after pics but for me I don't think the BEFORE pics are so much about categorizing someone as a 'good' or 'bad' mother, it is more about establishing a pattern of care. If it was a pattern for KC to go out and party 5 out of 7 nights during the week and GA and CA were caring for Caylee - to me that establishes a little of where KC's priorities were as a parent and is relevant. She had no job, her parents supported her, she was out most nights at clubs or with boyfriends - where did she get the income? for all I know it establishes motive... her party lifestyle created a problem with her parents and the childcare became too much of a burden for her to adjust to.....

I really don't care WHAT she was wearing at the clubs (I know you didn't bring this up justbeachy but it comes up all the time)- the fact that she was out that much at all as a single parent even living at home makes a difference to me. Yes Caylee may have had a caregiver well able to take care of her while KC was gone but the PATTERN of absence makes a difference..IMO... what happens when KC is left on her own with Caylee during the day starting early in the morning after a night of clubbing and the other caregivers have left for work? She is fine for one day what happens when this goes on 3 days in a row, 3 weeks in a row?

Parenting isn't about a choice you make for one night it is a series of choices one makes starting with conception and it just builds from there

I, too, am a mother of 4 children. I also go out with friends. I was also a single parent with 2 small children for 7 years trying to navigate single parenthood and dating and working full-time and custody arrangements and make it all work. We all look at through our own lens I guess. I just have a hard time knowing that KC had to justify her clubbing as a 'job' as an event planner with universal to her parents because it was so frequent she knew they wouldn't watch Caylee otherwise. The other nights she told CA she and Caylee were 'staying with the nanny' because she 'worked too late' and they were over at some guy's house.

I just think that her behavior is so drastically different than most parents/moms that are in the same situation as her (single parent either on their own or even those living with their parents) - as I believe most parents/moms only go out occasionally to let off some steam-- it becomes relevant in the case.

MOO

Exactly - it shows her priorities and lack of responsibility, especially considering she wasn't working and was stealing and foisting Caylee on other family members so she could do what she wanted. And that does make her a bad mom. She was a ghastly, horrible mom.

 

[RR0004]

ER--I'm not familiar with this case, I've read a few press reports

Witness excused

So now she relies on the press to make her assumptions? The same press that she shows such disdain for in their portrayal of women? You'd think that maybe she owed the "mother of all mothers" a little face time...get to know the gal first hand before she was set to testify. My feelings of late...this has nothing to do with Casey and everything to do with AL and her mission. What better stage to publicize herself and her cause? She was drawn to this case for the same reason the press finds it so "titillating".

 

[marspiter]

In regards to the relevance of Casey's partying, drinking and general shenanigans, for me personally it is important to separate them into two categories: before Caylee went "missing" and after.

I absolutely think that Casey's activities after Caylee disappeared (was murdered) are relevant. Each and every step she took in those days should be picked apart (IMO).

However, I think it is a slippery slope to judge any mother on their activities prior to an incident (barring a situation where a child is completely uncared for and the mother is neglecting/abusing the child). I say this because, as a mom of 2 wonderful kids, I "routinely" go out with my girlfriends. It's called "Moms Night Out" and just by name alone it implies that all the attendees are moms. Are we scantily clad? Sometimes. Are we drinking? Usually. Are we dancing? Sometimes. But does that make us "bad" mothers? I certainly hope not!

If someone took snapshots of our lives during these MNO events, they would see moms (gasp!) partying. There was even one instance where the bar we were at happened to have an old stripper pole. Needless to say, we took a lot of pics of us being silly on that pole. God help us if someone ever uses those photos to show that any one of us is a “bad” mom. If someone can show a specific time when a mom (Casey or anyone) was out partying and her child was not cared for, I would think that instance would be relevant. But, if a child is being cared for (by a babysitter, father, etc) then I think moms should be able to have some fun.

Let me be clear: I am not condoning Casey's behavior while Caylee was "missing" and she was "looking" for her. Absolutely not. But, if Casey was wearing a short dress, being drunk and partying prior to Caylee's disappearance AND Caylee was in the hands of a capable adult, then I think her activities (as long as they were all legal) are irrelevant.

I agree with your statement. What I do think would be relevant is party pictures before Caylee went missing that show Caylee in them. This could be used to show neglect and bad parenting. For example I don't think it would be prudent if Caylee were at the "anything but clothes" party. I believe some of Casey's friends have testified that Caylee was sometimes at these parties. So for example purposes. If you had a picture of Caylee at a certain party on a certain date and had other pictures of that party showing illicit drug use and other deviant/criminal behavior. Then they would be relevant. Just pictures of Casey partying though I agree would not be relevant until the date Caylee is suspected of being missing/murdered. Then any pictures during or after that date are very relevant indeed.

 

[Astraea]

I would be happy to address this, but I'm not sure what you're asking. Wouldn't the job of the SA be the same in any jurisdiction?

Well, to be honest, that is why I asked.

Here, we have directions(a manual persay) that sets out the role of the SA. It is to seek justice in the purest form, it is not to advocate for the victim(as only one example of the confusion/distress that I find here in regards to legal aspects/roles at times). I was wondering if FL had a simlar "policy manual" and/or set of "directives" that would be accessible online. I thought maybe there would be a thread devoted to the different roles of different players in these criminal cases.....if not...maybe one would be helpful.

I will look and see what I can find. Sorry if that post was somewhat confusing

 

[ZsaZsa]

My question is - and it may have been asked already, haven't read the whole thread - WHO PAID TO FLY HER HERE?

If it was the Taxpayers, we got ripped off. :furious:

I started watching when she was testifying and had no idea who she was.
It seemed to me that she had a big feminist chip on her shoulder. I don't think it would make much difference to JA whether she was unexpected because he soon sized her up - he asked her "Do you have any evidence that there is gender bias in THIS case"? she replied that she didn't know much about the case other than reading some newspaper clippings.
Some expert!

 

[RR0004]

AL: They don't say she's a *advertiser censored* and she should die; well, in blogs they do and they say I should die with her.
:floorlaugh:

Gimme a break...why even bring up this nonsense in Court?

PS- it must have been the other guys 'cause no one would ever get away with saying that here.

 

[Numbers]

Why does this particular issue keep coming back up? (RE: Why DP was put back on the table)

JA laid out the State's theory in open court on a silver platter for crying out loud! Is it just that the defense wants it in writing?

Many, including AL, are pretending to forget that whole speech from JA, that one could conclude that poor Caylee may have looked into the eyes of her murderer, that being her own mother, as she was suffocated via duct tape and restrained by physical and/or chemical means.

How could you forget it?

ETA: I'm sure this was addressed. I read through some of the thread, but it was the part that bugged me the most during this hearing. The state has said plainly what route they are going. Does the defense need their hands held?

Yes. A guide dog would be nice, too. They are so much more chic than white canes.

 

[RR0004]

AL: hearsay and prejudice in this case have overridden the fact that every witness in this case said Casey Anthony was a good mother

...and the point is?? Only "bad" mothers kill their children? Who's making the gross generalizations now?

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Mr. Ashton continues to try to put a lot of words in the witness's mouth.

He keeps asking one question and then when she asks for clarification, he completely asks a different question. Very confusing questioning.

She remains unruffled.

Sticks by her statement that a woman's mode of dress or whether she watched male strippers or used sex toys or other lifestyle questions may be completely irrelevant to her role as a mother. But that the media often cover these issue and even courts sometimes allow testimony regarding these issues.

It's like you and I are watching two different things. She was terrible with his questions, imo.

To be fair to seagull65, the witness(ER) was brought in to testify that a woman who is known to wear sexy clothing and likes to party will be judged as being a bad mother when she may be a good mother. That's all. If we're honest, most of us make quick judgments about people based on their looks, how they are dressed and maybe even their weight, etc. Heck, I'm sitting here thinking 'can't some of these people on T.V. come up with better fitting outfits/suits/hair styles to reflect their professional status'.

Since AL is trying to get the DP removed along with the photos of KC partying, she is trying to show that KC has already been judged guilty based on her dress and party habits whether or not she killed KC.

It's not ER's fault that prejudices exist and we judge people based on looks and dress. She's not saying anything new though.

But here's the thing, because someone dresses sexy and likes to party doesn't mean they didn't kill their child either.

It's a fact that if you go to a job interview in an office in torn blue jeans and a tube top, you'll probably not get the job. We are judged whether we like it or not.

This is pretty lame if you ask me. I have faith that jurors will make decisions based on more than what KC wore while out dancing. To me, the fact that we know KC brought Caylee in the bed with her and RM (a mere stranger) is far more damaging. Also the pictures that we know were taken within the dates of June 16 and July 15, 2008 should be allowed as evidence as it is unusual behavior that KC claims she knew her child was missing and she hadn't told anybody - the jurors need to know her state of mind. Her defense better have an alternative explanation for her behavior imo. Otherwise, it's fair for the Jurors to conclude that KC did not care that Caylee was missing and that would be damaging evidence.

 

[mitzi]

Sometimes I wonder what Jean C of Tru TV has had for lunch,some of her
comments are :woohoo::waitasec:

I've noticed when the talking heads get together to rehash hearings, etc. that Jean C., alot of times gets facts wrong. The one who seems to be the most on top of this case is Mark Eiglarsh...then Mike (the former cop-forget his last name), then Vinnie Politan, and the worst of the worst at knowing the facts of the case, is Ryan Smith. As a host, he is so unknowledgable it isn't funny.

 

[suzihawk]

Well, to be honest, that is why I asked.

Here, we have directions(a manual persay) that sets out the role of the SA. It is to seek justice in the purest form, it is not to advocate for the victim(as only one example of the confusion/distress that I find here in regards to legal aspects/roles at times). I was wondering if FL had a simlar "policy manual" and/or set of "directives" that would be accessible online. I thought maybe there would be a thread devoted to the different roles of different players in these criminal cases.....if not...maybe one would be helpful.

I will look and see what I can find. Sorry if that post was somewhat confusing

http://sa18.state.fl.us/general/duties.htm

[FONT=Verbana,Arial,Helvetica]Duties and Responsibilities[/FONT]​

[FONT=Verbana,Arial,Helvetica]The role of the State Attorney's Office is to protect the innocent, to prosecute crimes, and to promote the safety and well-being of the public, while seeking out justice. Article V, Florida Constitution, and Section 27, Florida Statutes, along with various other statutes, set out the authority of the State Attorney to accomplish these goals.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verbana,Arial,Helvetica]As the representative of the State of Florida in litigation in Circuit and County Courts in Brevard and Seminole Counties, this office is responsible for the screening and prosecution of criminal cases from criminal traffic charges up to first degree murder. We also pursue specific civil cases such as, but not limited to, involuntary commitment of sexual predators, bond validation proceedings, consumer issues, and environmental law. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verbana,Arial,Helvetica]Based upon legislation initially conceived and drafted by State Attorney Norm Wolfinger, the Florida Legislature passed a bill which became law on July 1, 1999, authorizing State Attorneys to allocate resources toward crime prevention under Florida Statute 960.001. This new law afforded State Attorney Wolfinger the opportunity to realize his long-term vision of working together with citizens, law enforcement, and other agencies and civic groups in identifying crime prevention and quality of life strategies. Crime prevention achieved through working in partnership with residents is a core focus of our office.[/FONT]



The first sentence says it all.

Seeking justice for an innocent two year old murder victim. That's about as pure as it gets.

 

[mitzi]

To make sense of my post here...Amil called the ladies behind the defense, Andrea's ladies-in-waiting. LOL.

Why did this make me laugh?:angel:

Maybe like me, it made you picture ALyon(s) and her "flock" in the "frocks" of Shakespearian times. Ah yes, the Taming of the Shrew! :crazy:

 

[SallyLu]

I would start a thread, but have never done so. I was hoping that AZLawyer or Hornsby or another verifed lawyer could lay out once and for all what the job of the SA actually IS as I am realizing that many have some differing opinions on that subject. If there is a thread about this already(maybe in the main forum somewhere?) I would truly appreciate some direction there. I am figuring it will be different from my locale, so dont want to comment until I am certain Thanks in advance and sorry for the OT

There's always a first time.

Sorry Suzi - we posted at the same time.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I agree with your statement. What I do think would be relevant is party pictures before Caylee went missing that show Caylee in them. This could be used to show neglect and bad parenting. For example I don't think it would be prudent if Caylee were at the "anything but clothes" party. I believe some of Casey's friends have testified that Caylee was sometimes at these parties. So for example purposes. If you had a picture of Caylee at a certain party on a certain date and had other pictures of that party showing illicit drug use and other deviant/criminal behavior. Then they would be relevant. Just pictures of Casey partying though I agree would not be relevant until the date Caylee is suspected of being missing/murdered. Then any pictures during or after that date are very relevant indeed.

I agree, and there had to be good reason that Cindy would have called Casey an unfit Mother several times, which we know she told Lee, and I am sure it was for the kind of activity we see in the pre June 16 photographs, not for studying late at the Library, so they do have some relevance.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

Thank you AZ. I appreciate your response and your experience! I was a little remiss to ask, for fear of sounding rude in some way, but I hoped that you wouldnt take it as being so

It is my experience here that many judges will allow certain impromptu witnesses during motions, amongst other matters. Our law rules of course allow for this and I am going to assume that FLs must as well or JP never would have allowed it. I would be surprised to see such a thing at trial though!

I am still of the understanding after reviewing the beginning of the hearing for a second time that this witness was not a surprise and/or undisclosed witness persay, more so, that the timing was poor and/or inadequate for the SA to prepare as JA stated.

AZlawyer has astutely and very adequately explained why Judge Perry allowed her "testimony", (if you'd like to call it that), so after about 40 posts or more appearing on this thread on this issue alone, bottom line is, it doesn't matter!

It's water under the bridge, over, finis, done and most importantly, .....

DEFENSE MOTION DENIED!

So perhaps we can finally stop beating this dead horse and move on to other issues?

 

[Chiquita71]

Respect Chiquita71 post snipped for space.

While agree with you on many of the points in your post, I would argue that Casey did not have to keep her baby. Every single mother is given the option by the hospital/doctor/social worker of keeping their child or putting that child up for adoption. They do not need their parents permission to do so. Plus Casey was of age. Either way, Casey was the sole guardian of Caylee, and had the right to make whatever decision she wanted to.

I believe ICA kept Caylee because she was getting a huge amount of attention from her family and she thought it was a good thing. I doubt the actuality of a child rather than a stunning wee baby actually occurred to her.

Quote Respect back at ya logicalgirl

ITA. And, thank you for saying so. Yes, more choices Casey had that would have kept her from where she now sits.

And, as I read your post I realize a spell that is over this case(one I get dazzled by) is that Casey isn't a grown woman! I really forget that(in a way)with the way she is treated. The way George and Cindy expect that they be treated as though Casey is a minor. To be informed in that way, the excuses they give are for a child, not a adult. You can see you even "caught" me in that in my example. Deep. I said, "Cindy made her have the baby." You're right, no one can make someone keep a baby. There could be dynamics that might keep a girl from getting an abortion, but I also agree that in this case Casey would have enjoyed the attention. I got that feeling, after seeing a picture of Casey I had never seen before that she let herself get pregnant on a whim, as attention and when the attention wore off her and went to Caylee she was done with her daughter. And, if Cindy was denying it then she wouldn't have felt pressure to keep the baby.

With Cindy, it is the Kobayashi Maru: in a no win situation it is a test of character and character is an opinion. I don't think Cindy is (ETA: partly) responsible for Casey's actions because she is her mother but because of the kind of mother she is/was. Cindy has not seemed horrified for Caylee. Those that have sympathy for Cindy have more for her than she has shown for her granddaughter. IMO, she has cared more about herself than Caylee or Casey. If we were talking about Sandra Cantu's parents, we wouldn't even be talking about this...IYKWIM. :innocent:

:twocents:

 

[Muzikman]

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

Aren't you from Canada, where the legal process may be slightly different than in the USA?

 

[SallyLu]

azlawyer has astutely and very adequately explained why judge perry allowed her "testimony", (if you'd like to call it that), so after about 40 posts or more appearing on this thread on this issue alone, bottom line is, it doesn't matter!

it's water under the bridge, over, finis, done and most importantly, .....

defense motion denied! :d

so perhaps we can finally stop beating this dead horse and move on to other issues?

thankyou 'cos it's wasting a lot of pen and ink! Enough already!

 

[mitzi]

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.

I hope that OneLostGirl will drop by and give us her take on whether she thinks KC could possibly be crying real tears or not. She has been spot on in her assessments of KC in the past, and I value her insight.