2011.06.25 Sidebar Thread (Trial Day Twenty-eight)

[sherryk]

Could it be somthing a little more simple for the dismissal of court. Could it be that the Judge is so tired of the tit for tat with the Attoney's especially JB and told all of them talke the weekend and get all depositions done, get your stuff in order and specifially to defense to get to the point with him as far as if just what exactly they are trying to change about opening statement. Could the judge order LA to disclose to the prosecution as to what his conversation with JB was about and take some type of deposition.

Could the Judge just want all the craziness ended by Monday, therefore giving them the weekend and then that is the line in the sand?

 

[*JMO*]

I just had a thought.......it happens at times.

When JB said "maybe if you say it enough times it will be true" referring to JA.......perhaps that is something that KC said to JB at some point about Zanny.

She kept saying Caylee was fine and with the nanny. In KC's world maybe that made it true.

JB likes to parrot others in his phrases and comments......perhaps he was parroting a comment by KC.

Well, I definitely think you are on to something..but I think it is something he heard from an instructor in law school and adopted it as his philosophy of case presentation. No real facts necessary...just pound in your theories and doubts and eventually it will become truth in the minds of the jury.

 

[logicalgirl]

I don't think the big secret came from Baez. It was all Casey. Same bull she fed JG, TL .

Originated - agreed. But now Baez insinuates it. I need proof. If someone can offer any actual fact - I'm content to say I'm wrong...but coming from either of them? No.

 

[cluciano63]

Could it be somthing a little more simple for the dismissal of court. Could it be that the Judge is so tired of the tit for tat with the Attoney's especially JB and told all of them talke the weekend and get all depositions done, get your stuff in order and specifially to defense to get to the point with him as far as if just what exactly they are trying to change about opening statement. Could the judge order LA to disclose to the prosecution as to what his conversation with JB was about and take some type of deposition.

Could the Judge just want all the craziness ended by Monday, therefore giving them the weekend and then that is the line in the sand?

But then why is it sealed and so seemingly top secret?

 

[~n/t~]

Could it be somthing a little more simple for the dismissal of court. Could it be that the Judge is so tired of the tit for tat with the Attoney's especially JB and told all of them talke the weekend and get all depositions done, get your stuff in order and specifially to defense to get to the point with him as far as if just what exactly they are trying to change about opening statement. Could the judge order LA to disclose to the prosecution as to what his conversation with JB was about and take some type of deposition.

Could the Judge just want all the craziness ended by Monday, therefore giving them the weekend and then that is the line in the sand?

Why would it be sealed though?

 

[sherryk]

Whatever happened on Saturday Mason knew about it before court started, so he went to talk to ICA about it first thing before he spoke about it in open court to Judge Perry, which would be proper. It must be something that Mason learned the previous day which would encompass a "legal issue".

Just throwing this out there and I haven't read back so I'm not sure if someone has mentioned this, but maybe Mason was able to go through the 16 June computer presentation the State supplied a couple of days earlier and realised the defense "drowning" theory was not going to fly.

So Mason has a chat to ICA about it tells her the problem and perhaps decides they need some time to prepare a different strategy, maybe he even asks her to tell him the truth. This kind of ties in with obvious enjoyment that LDB and JA seemed to display before they all went back for a meeting with the Judge.

I think the defense knows the truth.. I believe they know exactly what happened to Caylee. I posted a few weeks ago if they were obligated to tell what happened IF they knew. I recieved and answer that due to confidental with attorney/client they do not have to tell any facts of what really happened.. only the defense they come up with.. that doesnt seem legal to me.. if they have information about a crime it sould be reported.

 

[~n/t~]

Originated - agreed. But now Baez insinuates it. I need proof. If someone can offer any actual fact - I'm content to say I'm wrong...but coming from either of them? No.

I hope you don't think I believe the molestation. NO WAY! It was fabricated by Casey and Baez ran with it.

 

[suzihawk]

Anyone know what Mark Nejame's new theory was on MSNBC? I misssed it.

He said:

"Is there a plea in the works? Probably not but that's a possibility. Is Casey Anthony unhappy with one of her attorneys? That's a definite possibility. You saw Jose Baez start in the morning, there was a witness issue - again. And then all of a sudden Cheney Mason came up and approached the bench and they went in the back for almost an hour. And then they stated that Court was over. And then the third one which I've come up with - I've been researching actually this morning. Is it possible that the lawyers are filing ethical requirements? That they've found out that a witness may have, in fact, been less than truthful. And they felt duty bound under the ethics opinions to take it before a Court. Could that have happened? Possibly."

Word for word. I just rewound my DVR.

 

[Mz.Harleywood]

I am so sick of all this game playing.:banghead: Scheming and plotting. Give me the old days. Kill them all and let God sort it out. ANYONE involved in obstructing justice for the murder of Caylee Marie Anthony should be thrown in jail. The End.:twocents:

 

[~n/t~]

I think the defense knows the truth.. I believe they know exactly what happened to Caylee. I posted a few weeks ago if they were obligated to tell what happened IF they knew. I recieved and answer that due to confidental with attorney/client they do not have to tell any facts of what really happened.. only the defense they come up with.. that doesnt seem legal to me.. if they have information about a crime it sould be reported.

They only know what Casey told them and it's far from the truth. That's why they're in this mess. :loser:

 

[tehcloser]

He said:

"Is there a plea in the works? Probably not but that's a possibility. Is Casey Anthony unhappy with one of her attorneys? That's a definite possibility. You saw Jose Baez start in the morning, there was a witness issue - again. And then all of a sudden Cheney Mason came up and approached the bench and they went in the back for almost an hour. And then they stated that Court was over. And then the third one which I've come up with - I've been researching actually this morning. Is it possible that the lawyers are filing ethical requirements? That they've found out that a witness may have, in fact, been less than truthful. And they felt duty bound under the ethics opinions to take it before a Court. Could that have happened? Possibly."

Word for word. I just rewound my DVR.

BBM

That bit could bring in all kinds of interesting possibilities.

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

Originated - agreed. But now Baez insinuates it. I need proof. If someone can offer any actual fact - I'm content to say I'm wrong...but coming from either of them? No.

No. No proof. That's the point. And including what SOTS said - saying it enough times makes it true - no, it doesn't. It may inure it it people's minds, but it doesn't make it true. (That's the danger).

Frankly, saying it enough makes it true is ICAs game -it's really more of saying it enough times to make everyone quit asking about it and move on. It's part and parcel with - "there's a reason... and if you understand my reason (generally only implied so that the recipient's brain does all the damaging fill in the blanks) then it all makes sense or is justifiable." That is also ICAs game along with wait for your listener to fill in the blanks and feed you your next line.

I said it before - JB thinks like a criminal. Whether he adopted his line of thinking from ICA or some evil kismet allowed these two like minds to come together, I don't know. But like ICA JB, "thinks" this is all perfectly allowable and explanatory. But in the end, it's nothing but air.

 

[~n/t~]

BBM

That bit could bring in all kinds of interesting possibilities.

I think most can guess who may have been less than truthful:fence:

 

[Numbers]

I forget the specifics now..47 and he said 7 murders and I forget how many DP's. If all that's true why has no one ever reported it? Why do all reports focus on his inexperience if he's actually very experienced? Who do we believe? I really hope some news outlet follows up on his statements. I think he maybe might have slightly embellished...I know he interned or worked right after law school at the Public Defenders office and wonder if he's "including" all cases he did anything for..like research, running errands for the lawyers. I know after he didn't get admitted to the bar they took him off all lawyer tasks and then he left for the bikini business.

Some time ago, Baez's web site claimed he had worked on all sorts of case, mostly back in the '90s. It was learned that he did indeed work on cases for the DA's office (?) or some legitimate legal body, but he was not a lawyer at the time. After the FL Bar found him making such untrue claims, they made him remove those from this web site. I also recall that the legitimate legal body re-assigned him to non-legal stuff at one point.

Bottom line: he did work in the same office where these cases were being worked on. He probably copied some legal files, or poured coffee for a real lawyer or two.

Sorta like me claiming to be an MD if my office were next to a medical building.

Knowledge by osmosis or something.

 

[tehcloser]

I think most can guess who may have been less than truthful:fence:

Ayup, but what if........they are going to say LA told them that everyone thought he was the father and then he wouldn't say it in court?

 

[gngr~snap]

:floorlaugh:
Is it just me or did JA have a "pudding face"?

 

[wandering]

Could it be somthing a little more simple for the dismissal of court. Could it be that the Judge is so tired of the tit for tat with the Attoney's especially JB and told all of them talke the weekend and get all depositions done, get your stuff in order and specifially to defense to get to the point with him as far as if just what exactly they are trying to change about opening statement. Could the judge order LA to disclose to the prosecution as to what his conversation with JB was about and take some type of deposition.

Could the Judge just want all the craziness ended by Monday, therefore giving them the weekend and then that is the line in the sand?

The explanation is in Bill Schaeffer's analysis at WFTV.com. I posted this yesterday. I can't believe you all are still trying to figure it out.
:banghead:

 

[Rapunzel]

He said:

"Is there a plea in the works? Probably not but that's a possibility. Is Casey Anthony unhappy with one of her attorneys? That's a definite possibility. You saw Jose Baez start in the morning, there was a witness issue - again. And then all of a sudden Cheney Mason came up and approached the bench and they went in the back for almost an hour. And then they stated that Court was over. And then the third one which I've come up with - I've been researching actually this morning. Is it possible that the lawyers are filing ethical requirements? That they've found out that a witness may have, in fact, been less than truthful. And they felt duty bound under the ethics opinions to take it before a Court. Could that have happened? Possibly."

Word for word. I just rewound my DVR.

So far a lot of witnesses for the DT have been less than truthful...just saying...

 

[~n/t~]

The explanation is in Bill Schaeffer's analysis at WFTV.com. I posted this yesterday. I can't believe you all are still trying to figure it out.
:banghead:

What did he say? I have no sound on this computer. No disrespect but Bill Shaeffer is guessing just as the rest of us are.

 

[~n/t~]

:floorlaugh:
Is it just me or did JA have a "pudding face"?

I would love for him to have that face when the "GUILTY" verdict is read and he looks over at the defense table. OMG! :floorlaugh: