Nancy Grace.
:sick:
did she show it? everything I saw was blurry and she said she wouldn't be showing the uncensored photos. Maybe I missed it
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nancy Grace.
:sick:
I just finished looking over BOTH witness lists...and YES, Jesse Grund IS on the STATE witness list as well....
But have a few more questions...
I noticed that Roy Kronk is NOT listed as a witness on the DEFENSE list, so since the State did NOT call him to the stand during their presentation of case, does this mean that Defense CANNOT call him....
In other words, if prosecution neglects to call him to the stand tomorrow, or during their rebuttal case, Roy Kronk may not even be a witness in this case???
Where is ThinkTank when I need her?????:banghead:
Help! I'm legal and trial ignorant. If the prosecution wraps up their case in the next couple of days, can the defense put on a whole case with witnesses lasting for weeks? Is this expected to happen? If it does, can the state question each of these witnesses which will open the door to more incriminating things against Casey, for example Jesse Grund?
If we're recalling correctly, the SA mentioned him in regards to the shower, and in regards to her calling him and/or texting him to get her when she ran out of gas one of those Fridays (I don't recall when). Still listening to JB's OS and JG's name hasn't jumped out at me, but I do tend to tune JB out sometimes, so...?? :waitasec:
Back to some common sense.
I stole this comment from another poster and regret not tagging the name...here we go again
"I've heard of covering up a murder to look like an accident ,but when have you ever heard of covering up an accident to look like a murder?" :waitasec:
JMO ,but your assertion doesn't add up . If there has to be irrefutable proof,what would that be? Is that for you or do you think it's the law? Because it's not. A witness (can be unreliable) a video? What?
Using common sense and "inferring" can also be part of a jury's decision.
If this was an accident there would not be 3 strips of duct tape across her face and into her hair, she would not have been have dumped like trash.An uncaring person does that,not someone who loves a child that died accidently.
And most of all ,ICA would not sit in jail,removed from even her fellow prisoners ,for three years because of an accident.She would have begged for a deal with the State.
That's common sense to me. JMO
Is JG only on the defense's wittness list? Does anyone know? Just wondering because I just remembered JG stating that he thought there could have been an accident and then KC would go into a denial about the whole thing. I guess he would be a better witness for the defense.
Is there any speculation as to who their witness is they're waiting for?
Wow...
Did you discard Dr. G's testimony?
I felt Dr. G was a very believable expert witnesses, and her testimony was compelling.
However, I must weigh her testimony against all the other witness's testimonies, and against all the other evidence.
Yes, Dr. G testified that, in her jurisdiction, 100% of accidental drownings of children resulted in a 911 call. But there's always a first time that someone, for whatever reason, doesn't.
When describing human behavior, nothing is written in stone. There are always exceptions to *the rule*.
What could possibly be that exception of not calling 911 for your child?
IIRC It was on Lee who wrote about the aborted baby and Tara.
I'm not so sure I believe that. If Caylee going missing was going to be her ticket to riches why wait so long reporting her missing?
Cindy knew the events of the last day she saw Caylee,and she knew where thay'd been.She just mixed up her dates.WHen YM saw the dates of the NH pics he was the one who caught the date on the pics as June 15th.That's when he said something to Cindy.
She never tried to pretend the 15th didn't happen,just her dates were off.
And that's why YM had to tell CA the last she time she saw her grandaughter.
One more tidbit we poured over for the first year ,or so,of this case.
Here is what I think happened.
SA prepared their opening statement, and had originally planned to lay out the entire scenario from start to finish.....
UNTIL they were flabbergasted with the Defense Opening Statement. I think they truly expected a more logical "story"...and after hearing Baez' opening, they adjusted their strategy to keep it simple for the jury....remember how shocked everyone was that GEORGE was the FIRST witness?? I don't think that was the original SA plan...I think it was quick thinking strategy...
I think after hearing the Defense theory, SA knew that the only hurdle they had to overcome was the "premeditated, Murder One" aspect....they knew it was a given that the jury would be convinced that Casey, and ONLY Casey was involved...
In fact, have you seen anyone comment that at THIS point, they are NOT convinced that Casey had something to do with Caylee's death?
The BIG question seems to be whether or not it was an ACCIDENT COVERUP...or MURDER...and that is what SA strategy focused on....so far...
But I don't think SA is done...I think they are now telling the Defense..."Your turn...." and then will fill in what is needed during cross of defense witnesses, as well as rebuttal witnesses.
In the end, the jury will appreciate that SA did not drag this case out unnecessarily....like SOMEONE else appears to be doing....:banghead: