2011.06.13 Sidebar (Trial Day Seventeen)

[patriciah]

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

 

[ThinkTank]

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:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135704&page=32
page 32 Lawyer questions thread
6/5/2011

I asked on the lawyer questions thread: My question is -- can the Defense call a STATE witness, during the Defense case, if the STATE did not call their own witness during the case in chief?

The State has River/Krystal Holloway and her sister Skye, and the person at River's security gate where she lives on the STATE witness list [they are NOT on the Defense witness list]. However, if the State chooses not to call these witnesses to testify at trial... and the Defense cannot do a "cross exam" ... can the Defense still call these STATE witnesses when the Defense puts on their own case?

I believe the Defense will want to question River on the stand, to show that George had SECRETS, and to embarrass him with the alleged affair information, and to imply that the Inmate was protecting her father's secrets (from Cindy), and that the Inmate learned to keep secrets from her father. Baez said as much in his opening statements.

State witnesses:
Cecelia Benhaida - (Skye) - twin sister of River Cruz - involved with George - added May 24, 2010

Krystal Holloway (River Cruz) - involved with George - added May 24, 2010

Jody Lee - verify that George frequent visitor of River Cruz/Krystal Holloway - added May 24, 2010


AZLawyer answered: BBM
Yes, the defense should be allowed to call witness on the State's list even if the State did not call them.

 

[Leah0107]

I don't get the whole duct tape kidnapping thing - it makes no sense to me. Why would the nanny who 'knew' caylee have to use duct tape to take her/quiet her. Caylee would go willingly with someone she knew. That's why to me the whole duct tape in relation to a supposed kidnapping is ridiculous.
Additionally, there is no reason to put duct tape on an already deceased child. I don't agree with the theory that is was used to prohibit body fluid escape. It was for silencing or smothering.
Also, it doesn't matter to me if they didn't find the roll in the house or car or anywhere. The tape on the gas can matched this unique brand. To me that's the connection enough. It was in the house (shed), property where Casey lived and had full access. Yes, along with others, but I don't believe for one minute GA, CA or LA had anything to do with her death.

 

[Leila]

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?

The defense will have to offer something. While the opening statements can't be used as evidence by the jurors when deliberating, the defense can't leave them hanging with what they stated in their opening statement with nothing to back it up.

The state's opening statement offered a concise chronological breakdown of the state's case against Casey, and then presented the jury with evidence to back up their opening statement.

The defense will present witnesses. But the state will be cross examining those witnesses and it's likely that in doing so will bring out further evidence or shoot down the defense theory.

I doubt that the defense's case will last weeks. It's more likely that their case will take about a week - 10 days. HHBP stated this morning that the jury will possibly have the case on Saturday June 25th or Monday June 27th.

When the defense finishes presenting their case, the state will have rebuttal, at which time they can put witnesses on the stand to refute witnesses the defense presents.

IMO............I think the state's strategy is good! It would appear that the state is going to let the defense present witnesses the state didn't (like Roy Kronk), and then the state will be able to diffuse the defense's evidence through cross exam.

 

[Leah0107]

And I don't think it was silencing because of how much duct tape was used and that it was stuck so much in her hair. If you wanted to keep a child quiet only. You'd want to be able to remove it without pulling out the hair. It was placed on intentionally to be permanent!

 

[Rapunzel]

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:

FYI: Click Orlando 6 (reflector akamai) said tonight on the news they are replaying OS tomorrow morning...didn't catch the time...9 I think.

 

[sorrell skye]

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

I have no doubt the same questions I've asked might also be questions the jurors will ask themselves during deliberations, and if they feel the State has not answered them, they may not be able to reach consensus on a guilty verdict.

I also have no doubt that the jurors will challenge one another, just as we are doing here.

It's entirely possible that some members of the jury may infer (based on the testimony & evidence) that Caylee's death was an accident and that KC tried to cover it up. All it takes is one juror.

IMO, I don't think the State has proven premeditated murder or aggravated child abuse beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the evidence presented thus far.

If we here are an example of the average juror serving in this trial, I'd venture to say that an easy conviction is in doubt, and we may end up with a hung jury.

 

[ThinkTank]

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.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6617143#post6617143"]Witnesses and when they testified ***LIST ONLY*** - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
Witnesses and when they testified ***LIST ONLY***

https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1eypXuLsh5uatd0yhKQPIBl3_qCYIw5K-bc0q2jEVkHo&hl=en
STATE WITNESS LIST

https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1SJuT6ZnZa_DMbH7rK5QXMFWMCG9xV7KVoIjLLRZfg_E&hl=en
DEFENSE WITNESS LIST

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1t1IKoWtQFXbILJ9pVMwT-c0dXhXOtFw-u5N2jfvVJM0/edit?hl=en
DEFENSE PENALTY PHASE WITNESS LIST

 

[allycat1208]

I guess the State has not asked for JG yet since they believe that he's more important for the defense and than all the State has to do is rebut JG' and state that all JG has stated is his opinion. Then on the other hand opinions seemed to be objected to much when they are non-experts.

 

[Rapunzel]

Is there any speculation as to who their witness is they're waiting for?

The only expert left is the botanist. Tattoo artist...cell phone ping expert.

 

[sorrell skye]

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*.

 

[Baxter]

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?

 

[guitasjm]

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

that is the end all of all this is about and where, imo, the dt's theory needs to be destroyed... and to that, Dr G did just that! her eyes and her words during the cross by CM, was so foreceful and powerful; you could see it in her eyes and hear it in her voice. and as much, you could 'tell' where she was directing those comments...

 

[NocturnalLady]

IIRC It was on Lee who wrote about the aborted baby and Tara.

I have completely missed the Lee & Tara angle. Can anyone steer me to where I can read about this??

 

[Cross Creek]

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?

She was too busy having fun and she was waiting for an opportune time for her to report it.....there were all those missing children searches on her pc... And also the donations were a second thought to her, she wanted to be rid of Caylee so she could be free to come and go. And no one in her new group of friends had children...she wanted to fit in and be like them.

And just where are all her friends and boyfriends that she chose over family and Caylee?? Gone with the wind! Who puts money in her account and always shows up at court? Her family that she threw under the bus. She's so evil!!

just thinking aloud :twocents:

 

[Leila]

This thought crossed my mind...............the state attorneys are in the courtroom and presenting their case to the jury. They, no doubt, are observing the way the jurors receive their presentation. I'm sure the state knows how to gauge the jury's body language.

Is the jury appearing to be bored? lethargic? interested? eager for more?

I think there comes a point where the state decides they've presented a strong case and are confident of their case. Even though they could stretch out their presentation for another week or two, and get in every little detail, they risk losing the jury to information overload.

I also think that because of JB's opening statement, the state knows that the defense's case is going to give them ample opportunity to further the state's case.

 

[lchal]

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~

 

[sorrell skye]

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.

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.

 

[Leila]

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:

ITA...............especially the part I put in bold. I think the state had to quickly restructure their presentation after JB's opening statement. Putting George on the stand first was part of their restructure.

 

[luvmy4brats]

I expect well see the botanist and cell phone records tomorrow and if there's time, they'll finish with the tattoo guy. LDB finished her opening statement talking about how ICA wanted to live the good life, which is a reference to the tattoo...

I think they can save everything else for rebuttal. I also see them saving some evidence for the penalty phase. All the THs are acting like the state has already wrapped up their case. They haven't! JA mentioned that the witnesses ARE coming in tomorrow.. As in more than one flying in... That's why I think botanist and cell phone records... They're saving the tattoo for last. Leave THAT picture with the jury.