2011.06.13 Sidebar (Trial Day Seventeen)

[Leila]

The prosecution is AWESOME!!!!!!!! They know that "sometimes less is more". Why bring in a bunch of information that may give the case a little boost, but also gives the DT a chance to muddy things up some more? "Just the facts, ma'am"

Knowing the track record of Jeff Ashton and Linda Drane Burdick, I don't think they're making mistakes on this case. There's a strategy in place and we just have to wait and watch in unfold.

 

[coloradoteacher]

Unfortunately, the jurors don't have the luxury of poring over the details of the case for a year (nor, I suspect, would they want to, since I'm sure they are eager to return home).

The jurors only have access to what has been presented in court.

In court, the 911 tapes were played. In one of them, CA said she hadn't seen her granddaughter since June 7th.

In other evidence (KC's interview with Yuri Melich & the jail visitation w/LA video), the jurors heard KC state June 9th, & the cryptic conversation between KC & LA that ensued.

Jurors heard CA state she hadn't seen her granddaughter for a month.

Jurors heard KC state she hadn't seen her daughter for 31 days.

Then, CA testified that Father's Day, June 15th, was the last time she saw Caylee (contradicting what she said in the 911 call).

GA testified he saw Caylee on the morning of June 16th, and described her clothing, but it was different from what was discovered @ the crime scene.

IMO, there are so many dates regarding the last time Caylee was allegedly seen, it might cause jurors to doubt each of the family members' testimony (especially with all that weird back-and-forth between KC & LA on the jail visitation videos when LA was playing sleuth).

It might cause them to ask was it June 7th? Was it June 9th? Was it June 15th?

It might cause them to question if GA had actually seen Caylee on the 16th, based on the contradictory description of what he said Caylee was wearing (compared to what was found @ the crime scene).

Confusion & contradictions are not a good thing when trying to decide who to trust.

If I was a juror, I might not trust what the family members have testified to, and I might decide that what the DT has alleged has some merit.

CA testified, on cross examination of all places, that the got the dates mixed up and didn't have a calendar in front of her. This was all in front of the jury, so I think this was explained. and IMHO, this jury is not as familiar with CA as we all are and found her to be a very believable, loving, grieving grandmother.

 

[Phoebeb]

It's never made sense to me how CA never DEMANDED to meet Zanny the nanny. As involved as she was in Caylee's day to day life, and the way she tried to micromanage ICA's you would think she would be personally introduced and involved with whoever had such a close relationship with her precious granddaughter. :waitasec:

I get what you mean, but I think maybe CA was happy that ICA was taking control of her child's needs herself. CA had complained about ICA not being a good mother in the past, so maybe CA thought: good, daughter has a job, able to pay for babysitter herself, I'll let her take some charge of her role as mother. Maybe?

 

[1tasha]

Thanks so much- this is interesting. What an ugly, cold place...

Perfect for an ****, **** person.

 

[Tuffy]

It's never made sense to me how CA never DEMANDED to meet Zanny the nanny. As involved as she was in Caylee's day to day life, and the way she tried to micromanage ICA's you would think she would be personally introduced and involved with whoever had such a close relationship with her precious granddaughter. :waitasec:

Because Cindy knew there was no nanny. She knew Casey didn't have a job, and Casey had no money. Casey certainly didn't have a nanny.

If Casey really held the job that she did, one that came with flexible hourse, a laptop, phone, and travel in the hospitality field. She would be making pretty good cash. She wouldn't be driving a hand-me-down car, and living in her parent's house. :snooty:

She'd be making around $50,000 a year. It would also be unlikely that a high school dropout would be in this position.

Nah, Cindy wasn't going to push Casey to try to meet any of her imaginary friends. I think this is where Casey go the idea that people wouldn't check up on her stories, no matter how far-fetched.
There was either some serious denial going on, or serious lying going on. My money is on the lying!

 

[passionflower]

Didn't Cindy herself tell 1 of ICA boyfriends that ICA was a socioath?
IIRC, CA admitted that..............being a nurse, she KNEW! Hope that is brought
up during all of this!

 

[roseofsharon]

It's never made sense to me how CA never DEMANDED to meet Zanny the nanny. As involved as she was in Caylee's day to day life, and the way she tried to micromanage ICA's you would think she would be personally introduced and involved with whoever had such a close relationship with her precious granddaughter. :waitasec:

But yet CA testified that she had a phone number for the nanny at one time, however, never had occasion to call her -- something's wrong -- you don't even know who your daughter is allowing the baby to be with so frequently!!!

CA so afraid to make any waves with KC -- GA and CA emotional hostages.

KC emotional vampire -- took more and more and felt entitled to even more from GA and CA.

imo

 

[Phoebeb]

BTW, I hate that she called a babysitter "my nanny". So pretentious. It irritates me when people I know call their babysitter a nanny. Fran Drescher was THE Nanny ;-) , she lived in the house full time raising the kids. Nannies aren't called occasionally to watch kids. Just one of a million things that get under my skin about this ICA. IMHO, of course.

 

[milliac]

Welcome!!!! :welcome:

I was just thinking about the receipts they had lee count. I'm thinking that they were laying the foundation for something, but we didn't ever see what was on all the receipts did we? Just because they only have one more
Witness, they may have more "events". Yes that was in quotations. LOL.

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[Emeralgem]

I get what you mean, but I think maybe CA was happy that ICA was taking control of her child's needs herself. CA had complained about ICA not being a good mother in the past, so maybe CA thought: good, daughter has a job, able to pay for babysitter herself, I'll let her take some charge of her role as mother. Maybe?

I agree, however I would think most grandmothers would want the number of the sitter and would want to know where the sitter lived and at some point would want to talk to and meet the sitter especially IF the grandchild was living in their home...
It's just not normal for a grandparent not to know where the sitter lives or their phone number... What IF there was an emergency and the grandparent needed to pick up the child?

 

[Leila]

Hello all. This is my first post here and I have been enjoying reading all the great insight that you all have offered.
It seems that I am not alone in getting very worried about the state not introducing some evidence and am hopeing that they are not going to think they have the case in the bag and end prematurely.
When I watch the TH, I get even more nervous with all their spewing of nonsense. To bring me back to reality, I must remember that the SA have a great track record that they know what they are doing and why they are presenting the way they are. They have worked too hard for the last 3 years to present anything but the best in order for the jury to follow. I pray that they find the OC guilty.........This is very nerve-wrecking!
Thanks for letting me get my 2 cents out there!

Cheers~

:welcome: Ichal !

 

[roseofsharon]

BTW, I hate that she called a babysitter "my nanny". So pretentious. It irritates me when people I know call their babysitter a nanny. Fran Drescher was THE Nanny ;-) , she lived in the house full time raising the kids. Nannies aren't called occasionally to watch kids. Just one of a million things that get under my skin about this ICA. IMHO, of course.

Oh yeah and breaking into the shed and TL asks is it okay and KC says of course, it is MY shed -- REALLY KC -- do you pay the bills on Hopespring:maddening:

 

[sorrell skye]

I do not think those two situations are comparable. What I mean is, plenty of parents might want to 'hide' their 20 yr old's out of wedlock pregnancy from the family, or even from themselves, for awhile. But that is not the same thing as
NOT CALLING FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE FOR A DYING CHILD. imoo
'

IMO, it illustrates that KC has a history of keeping secrets, and it illustrates a history that other family members looked the other way and participated in the denial.

IMO, there is a history of denial and secrecy and shame in this family.

Unfortunately, little Caylee has paid the price.

 

[Phoebeb]

I agree, however I would think most grandmothers would want the number of the sitter and would want to know where the sitter lived and at some point would want to talk to and meet the sitter especially IF the grandchild was living in their home...
It's just not normal for a grandparent not to know where the sitter lives or their phone number... What IF there was an emergency and the grandparent needed to pick up the child?

That's very true. I guess the story around the house was that every day ICA went to work, she dropped Caylee at Zanny's. Do we know when ICA claimed to go back to work after Caylee was born? Right away? Then "Zanny" came on the scene when GA and CA couldn't babysit all the time? Man, ICA sure did have a lot of spare time when her parents were babysitting for her and she had NO JOB to go to! :loser:

 

[kaRN]

What could possibly be that exception of not calling 911 for your child?

The only things I can think of are that you can't because of a lack of phone and aren't within screaming distance of someone who might have one or because the parent was in the same accident and is unconscious or dead.
Casey has neither of those reasonable excuses going for her.

 

[crredwards]

JB will get what he pays for.

Well, that certainly won't be Dr. Neal Haskell.

 

[Sleuth5]

Hello all. This is my first post here and I have been enjoying reading all the great insight that you all have offered.
It seems that I am not alone in getting very worried about the state not introducing some evidence and am hopeing that they are not going to think they have the case in the bag and end prematurely.
When I watch the TH, I get even more nervous with all their spewing of nonsense. To bring me back to reality, I must remember that the SA have a great track record that they know what they are doing and why they are presenting the way they are. They have worked too hard for the last 3 years to present anything but the best in order for the jury to follow. I pray that they find the OC guilty.........This is very nerve-wrecking!
Thanks for letting me get my 2 cents out there!

Cheers~

:Welcome1:

 

[JusticeSeeker1960]

I'm gonna try this again. In the NCIS report of Hawkins statement, he mentions that when he spoke with ICA about Caylee missing, she stated something to the effect that "And the worst part is they're looking at me!

Then after he left, he called back to the Anthony's home, GA told him that Casey had been arrested that day. When he hung up the phone, he called his Mother to tell her & she said, "I forgot to tell you but I saw Casey about a week ago at Target, by herself, buying a case of beer" His Mom said ICA was telling her about her boyfriend coming back into town (but she didn't say from where). And, that she thought about asking ICA where Caylee was but didn't.

He also states that when he talked to her during her "good life" times, she never mentioned a nanny or a babysitter. When he asked her where Caylee was, she would say at her Mom's or was taking her to her Mom's because she hadn't seen her in a while. This was while she was staying at Tony's....ICA told him mad at CA & took Caylee and they were both staying at Tony's house.

 

[scandi]

You're right, NCIS prepared a report of statements provided to them by Mark Hawkins (link below). I doubt we'll hear from Naval personnel; there's just not much to Mark's statements, really. My opinion, of course. You may decide otherwise.

http://www.wesh.com/download/2011/0311/27161404.pdf

Do we know who the source was? Very interesting as it's the first time I've heard about this.

 

[crredwards]

It's garbled pretty badly. It sounds like digital interference of some kind. I captured it and ran it through some of my audio clean-up software that I use for work but still couldn't capture it. Here's what I have:

"During this exchange, and while there is some dead air between the dispatcher and Cindy Anthony, you can hear Cindy Anthony threatening to take Caylee away from Casey Anthony. And Casey Anthony got [unintelligible]."

If LDB's face was turned toward the camera a bit, we could probably read her lips somewhat. Unfortunately, the camera angle is only capturing her profile during this portion. The first word made me "so," but beyond that I just cannot make it out.