2011.06.18 Sidebar Thread (Trial Day Twenty-Two)

[Niner]

Here's a few pictures I captured while watching the raw videos of today's testimony! I've put captions on the pix what it pertain to in the day's testimony.

 

[ThinkTank]

Originally Posted by BigFatMommyDog
It occurs to me that there was a dust up by CM over whether the jurors had been speaking to each other when they asked to examine the heart sticker - it should have entered my mind earlier...

I thought I had read a tweet earlier that this was because there were thoughts that Dr. S had seen Dr. G's testimony on tv or pc....JA spoke to Dr. S this morning and cleared it all up....this was my understanding....I could be wrong...

Judge said: the matter I was informed earlier at 8:25, the resolved matter that you all wanted the 8:30am hearing on

Ashton: I spoke to Dr Spitz and resolved it, not an issue

Judge: [when discussing Baez' violation of the court order regarding expert opinion] it is quite ironic that scheduled to be here at 8:30 this morning regarding violation of sequestration

The issue the Judge was talking about was expert witnesses and their testimonies.
So, I wonder if the sequestration issue was about Dr. Rodriguez and Dr. Spitz discussing each other's testimony among themselves before they testified? They both decided to talk about the positioning of the duct tape this morning.
Ashton said he spoke to Dr. Spitz, so the sequestration (witnesses must be out of the courtroom when other witnesses are testifying) issue must have involved Dr. Spitz.
Or, it was about Dr. Spitz having seen Dr G's testimony in court, as it was tweeted earlier?

 

[Niner]

And some more...

 

[Niner]

Whoa, Dr. Spitz told Kathi Belich that JA did a good job on his cross!

It could be - as I saw Dr. Spitz stop at the State's table and say something to Mr. Ashton before he left the court room!

Oops - edited to add - I mis-read your post - but I DID see Dr Spitz stop at the State's table - and thought you said Dr. Spitz told Mr. Ashton he did a good job... sorry!

 

[katydid23]

But isn't it the witness's fault if they did not put every opinion they have in a report?

No. The attorney needs to set out the topics and list what he needs from the testimony. If he wanted to discuss the duct tape he needed to ask the expert to give his opinion about the duct tape in his report. He should give them a check list of what he needs to build his case and poke holes in the SA case.
eta:
and someone from the DT should have reviewed the report and added anything that was missing.

 

[ThinkTank]

And some more...

Thank you for the screen captures!!!
I just can't even stand to look at the faker when her daughter's skull is mentioned -- makes me nauseous!!! She so totally copped a look at Sim's monitor when the skull was published on the screen [for jurors and courtroom audience - not the public]. If you watch the video playback of it, she glances at Sim's monitor ever so quickly ... then goes with the drama queen charade.
She has seen worse than Caylee's clean medically scrubbed little skull ... she has seen the horrors of baby Caylee's precious little body decomposing in the trunk of the car and handling her decomposing body.

 

[Leila]

Ok so what's next for the DT? thier past witnesses have mostly been chewed up and spit out by the SA especially JA..So their "bug" guy Dr. H. confirmed it w/ JA that the Caylee was in that location from 2-4days after death and remained there until found in Dec, which basically discredits their OS of the body being moved. Then Dr. S. today was "supposed" to be big and it was nothing but a flop. He didn't know details of the case (or couldn't recall), he had an outrageous theory as to how the duct tape was applied on the skeleton, and how the ME office "staged" the photos.

So what's next for the DT? The only thing I can think of to have any interesting value will be to have KC take the stand..

In his opening statement, JB said that Caylee drowned in the family pool on June 16, 2008; that George found her, yelled at Casey that it was her fault and ordered her to leave; that George disposed of Caylee's body and Roy Kronk later found the body, hid it for a period of months, and then placed it where it was found. He also stated that it was Cindy who left the ladder on the pool.

In addition to all above, JB stated that George and Lee molested Casey.

Although the opening statements can't be used as evidence for the jury to consider, JB's statement is out there lurking in the background. He will have to somehow pull all that he said together into a believable sequence of events.

I think he has to put George, Lee, Cindy, and Casey on the stand. But looking at the witness list for the defense at the link below, I can't see anyone on the list that could or would corroborate the testimony of the Anthonys. I think it's a given that everyone, including the jury, knows that Casey lies. But the jury doesn't know that the other members of the Anthony family have lied too, so who would they believe?

He would also have to put Roy Kronk on the witness stand, who would deny the accusation that he hid the body and later placed them at the remains site. But there's several people on the witness list who would undermine Roy Kronk's character, thus muddying the waters.

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

 

[technicalconfusion]

I'm wondering if the "violation of the rule of sequestration" is something lame the DT cooked up to complain about as to where the jury ate dinner or something. IIRC, HHJP mentioned something yesterday about how he hoped they'd have a better time at dinner even (which could have been an innocent comment seeing as how they had to eat lunch with pix of decomposing pigs fresh in their minds and then after lunch continue to look at the same unappetizing and totally gratuitous exhibits). Perhaps HHJP had arranged for them to eat dinner at a nice restaurant or something and the DT, in their increasingly frenetic search for reasons for mistrial, jumped on it as some kind of imagined violation.

I think the "violation" had something to do with the sticker the jury wanted to see. It was passed around to them.

 

[allycat1208]

No. The attorney needs to set out the topics and ask list what he needs from the testimony. If he wanted to discuss the duct tape he needed to ask the expert to give his opinion about the duct tape in his report. He should give them a check list of what he needs to build his case and poke holes in the SA case.
eta:
and someone from the DT should have reviewed the report and added anything that was missing.

So, I guess Poor Baez was made to look like a fool in front of everyone. The jury was excluded from all this, I presume?

 

[allycat1208]

Was the "violation of the rules of sequestration" ever discussed?

 

[Turnadot]

Was the "violation of the rules of sequestration" ever discussed?

Yes, it was just a misunderstanding.

 

[Leila]

:tyou: logicalgirl

The more I think about Dr. <modsnip> cracking open Caylee's skull, the more disturbed I feel. Especially since everyone is reminding me of all the modern technologies that would be employed to look into the skull BEFORE I would think one would want to CRACK the skull open.

And wouldn't that act alone, possibly cause trouble? If Dr. G had cracked open the skull, Jose would have had Dr. <modsnip> say that proves their point. That is what sends me the most about these unusual people. They will always find a way to lie. A way to weasel out.

Am I right in remembering that HHJP brought up his case involving the "black widow" today? Barbara? Something. I could have the Barbara all wrong...but I think that was the case HHJP was referring to, I could be wrong...?

:cow:

Yes, when HHBP was admonishing JB without the jury present, he mention that he prosecuted the case against the woman known as the "black widow." Her name is difficult to pronounce - it sounds like Guerramo, but I think it starts with a "J". That was the woman who killed her husband, poisoned her invalid son, and had tried to kill a boyfriend too. It was a major case, and HHBP witnessed her execution in the electric chair.

 

[technicalconfusion]

JB's defense has come out of the gate so poorly that if we hadn't watched the beginning of the trial we would not know what he is talking about. His theatrical opening appears to belong to another trial all together.

He rarely mentions Caylee's name, and even fewer times mentions the defendant's name.

His examination of his own witnesses are scattered and disjointed. The most I get from watching JB is the circus act of his own incompetence.

He pouts, he stammers, he becomes red in the face, and his favorite line is 'strike that'.

Thanks to all of you here who can watch him....and post such great information.

JB and ICA have been able to maintain their weird relationship this past 3 years because he is convinced it is all about him and ICA believes it is all about her and they are both incorrect - it is all about Caylee.

It seems to me...if you're a *defense* attorney, it should be about the defendant (even though we as a public don't necessarily like that idea,lol.)

 

[ThinkTank]

I wonder if the first witness today had something else scheduled for Monday.:crazy:

I wish HHJP had not led the jury to believe the switch was to accomidate an out of town witness. I understand why he did,but that was misleading. :maddening:

I agree ... especially since Dr. Rodriguez already told the jury that he is Washington, DC, and the Defense Witness List says he is Maryland -- HE is an "out of town witness" also.

Defense Witness List
Dr. William Rodriguez - Maryland - EXPERT - Anthropologist/Taphonony
added Nov 30, 2010

 

[strawberry]

HHJP said that SA can draft a statement to be read to the jury regarding this so they may hear about it after all.

 

[Jaboom97]

Yes, when HHBP was admonishing JB without the jury present, he mention that he prosecuted the case against the woman known as the "black widow." Her name is difficult to pronounce - it sounds like Guerramo, but I think it starts with a "J". That was the woman who killed her husband, poisoned her invalid son, and had tried to kill a boyfriend too. It was a major case, and HHBP witnessed her execution in the electric chair.

Yes her name was Judy Buenoano (I believe the name was made up-which means good year--in reference to her killing her husband for her was a good year) HHJP tried the case in 1984 or 1985 and she was put to death in March 1998 and HHJP was present for that as well.

 

[Grammaof4]

Originally Posted by allycat1208
[Was the "violation of the rules of sequestration" ever discussed?]

Yes, it was just a misunderstanding.

Hi, here's the link to WFTV.com which has the whole video of HJP dressing down of JB.
The TH as usual, are only showing bits of it, editing etc.
I missed it this morning too, Sorry if someone else already posted this.
I'm still playing catch-up myself. I prefer to see whats' actually said myself ,
rather than just what the media wants/chooses to show.

Raw Video: Baez scolded by Judge On Day 33

http://www.wftv.com/video/28280973/index.html

Hope that helps you.

Thank you all so much for being here and posting everyday.
Long-time Lurker
Sincerely,

 

[technicalconfusion]

Is JB picking up his clients eye poking habits?

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=16645&d=1308427554

And in this pic, JB looks like he's losing weight.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=16646&d=1308427577

 

[ThinkTank]

HHJP said that SA can draft a statement to be read to the jury regarding this so they may hear about it after all.

yes, the Judge said the State could draft an instruction for the Judge to read to the jury, because Dr. Rodriguez had already given some of his opinion about the duct tape. So, if the Judge rules on Monday that Dr R's testimony about the duct tape will not be allowed in, the jury needs to be told to disregard his previous testimony on this.

Baez - what do you expect in finding remains with duct tape
Dr. R has seen 100s of cases like that
Baez - what aspects take into consideration to packaged or bound victim?
Dr R - looked at numerous cases where body bound with wire, cloth, and duct tape and other tape employed to bind hands or head or facial area - those type of cases and binding itself - the body still has soft tissue on them in early stages of decay, we look at positioning of tape on body, to see where tape bound to body - when body undergone mummification, gives us a good idea where tape is, attach to mummified tissues - body undergo decomp will affect adherence of tape
Ashton - object discovery issue

 

[ThinkTank]

Is JB picking up his clients eye poking habits?

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=16645&d=1308427554

And in this pic, JB looks like he's losing weight.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=16646&d=1308427577

at first glance, I thought the first photo was the special finger .... again ....