2011.06.30 Sidebar Thread (Trial Day Thirty-Two)

[MEM2010]

I'm surprised that the prosecution didn't bring up two things:

1) The text that Casey Anthony said her car smelled like something had died in it (this is prior to the trash being in it, I believe June 25th). Which proves that the smell was not the result of her putting trash in the trunk. Also she said in the text it might be a dead squirrel.

2) The jailhouse letter that Casey was "just remembering" that her dad might have molested her. If she was so good at lying about Caylee b/c she had lied about the abuse, but she didn't remember any abuse until she got into jail... I don't see how that makes sense.

*****

For a while there I thought the defense was going to state that Casey and her dad thought he was Caylee's father, and that's why they had to cover the whole thing up.

Very interesting! I didn't even realize!

I thought at least the defense would bring up those jail letters.

I also wonder if the state will introduce the home depot video in their rebuttal. I think it's already in evidence right? And I've "heard" the video shows KC purchasing products that could be used to make chloroform

 

[SmoothOperator]

0Re: the question about Casey appealing the verdict if it is guilty on any charge??

My answer is ABSOLUTELY 100% she will appeal and from the attys and lawyers that have given their opinions they say she will have zero problem with appealing on the grounds of ineffective counsel because Baez has proven to be exactly that, ineffective counsel..

I wanted to bring up one other fact.. Since it was chosen for Casey to NOT take the stand and testify in her behalf.. What I learned that leaves the door wide open for is shocking IMO...

I learned that due to her not ever taking the stand and testifying in this court trial she is 100% legally able to not only claim ineffective counsel.. But she can also come up with an entirely different defense!!!!!!

She is legally able since she did not testify to work on a new, better and improved version of what, how, why this happened to Caylee and be tried all over again using the new story as her account.. It all falls under the ineffective counsel and since she never went under oath and testified to a specific account of what happened the she can legally come up with a new version stating that the version that was used by ineffective counsel was not accurate and true...

Can you believe this?? I had learned this in the past week and it was the number one reason that I was praying that she would end up taking the stand.. I knew if she did take the stand then what I just described ^above^ as an appeal option would no longer be an option as she had testified before the court under oath to a specific version of events...

She did not do this so now she has the option on appeal to make up a whole new vat of lies and ruin another group of individuals entire lives by falsely blaming them as the new killer of Caylee!!

This is am outrage imo!!!!

 

[allycat1208]

I'm surprised that the prosecution didn't bring up two things:

1) The text that Casey Anthony said her car smelled like something had died in it (this is prior to the trash being in it, I believe June 25th). Which proves that the smell was not the result of her putting trash in the trunk. Also she said in the text it might be a dead squirrel.

2) The jailhouse letter that Casey was "just remembering" that her dad might have molested her. If she was so good at lying about Caylee b/c she had lied about the abuse, but she didn't remember any abuse until she got into jail... I don't see how that makes sense.

*****

For a while there I thought the defense was going to state that Casey and her dad thought he was Caylee's father, and that's why they had to cover the whole thing up.

I thought the prosecution and the defense would bring up much more evidence in than they did. I think all those hearsay rules limited much of the important testimony...regarding TL's and JG's testimony. I really wanted to hear from JG. He knew KC the longest out of all the boyfriends it seemed.

 

[kant]

Can (will) someone explain to me the customary belief or thought process for agents of a court, law-affiliated individuals.....

If a person lies about one thing.... this thing or that thing... that, badda bing, they are characterized as a-liar-is-a-liar-is-a-liar.

Is the distinction IN GENERAL ?

or is the distinction that they are under OATH at the time? HUGE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE (imo)

Iow, I can see a married dude lying about an affair. I can see the same dude telling the truth about who he saw, let's say, rob a bank, for example.

There are circumstances that are personal that enter into the first lie (in this instance).

I know... if you're on the stand, under oath, then all bets are off; and one has to tell the truth. I'm just so freakin confused.

And for the record, I do understand the concept of rigorous honesty.

moo

PS

I think George did have the affair BTW.. FWIW....

and why is she River (her dad's nickname) Cruz (her mom's maiden name)

then Krystal (her given first name?) ...Holloway? (Her married name? but now she's divorced which is not a crime)

I just want to understand.


PSS

I can see why George wouldnt want Cindy to know about an affair either dayum - bc Cindy scares me and I dont even know her; BUT HE WAS UNDER OATH... so...

Ok my post is an incoherent hot mess, but I know what Im "tryna" ask.

help?

tia

And edit to add

Vinnie kinda rocked it in his interview with cruz/holloway tonight, imo.





.

 

[olive]

why does Jane Velez Mitchell keep having Padilla on her show???? Is this a dog and pony show?? Sick....I tuned out of this board back in 08 when Padilla's nephew started posting here...media hounds

 

[megsie]

George Anthony's suicide note partially transcribed, if you dare. It's pretty heartbreaking:

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/june/272093/Read-George-Anthonys-suicide-note

 

[Nova24]

You know, I really think she is guilty. I've been watching this with my 18 year old daughter, she feels like she could not find her guilty of murder based on the evidence presented. Especially since this is a death case. We have
interesting debates daily. JA & LB are her heroes though.

Just curious...does she think she could convict her of a lesser charge i.e. 2nd or Manslaughter? I ask because I think she will be convicted but of a lesser charge. TY.

 

[2door73chevy]

No they weren't

Thanks...She does have the "sweet little thing" voice down. I do wonder what they think and can't wait until this trial is over to find out.

 

[Shelby2]

ok, cool. And you've stated you think she's guilty. (as do most people here, myself included.)

You mention your daughter would vote not guilty. What is her extent of exposure to this case?

I'm asking b/c I'm concerned about the jury.

Well that's the thing. She knows everything about this case. The problem is, she knows everything about MANY cases. She has a notebook full
of defense strategies. Ever hear of 'The Twinkie Defense'? Many people have,
but she knows that it is based on something that never happened. She knows the whole case. I think the man's name was White. Anyway, since the age of 8 she's been obsessed with law, crime, and reads everything she can find on it.
As for this case, she would feel more comfortable with a body that could have been autopsied. She would feel more comfortable with a definite cause of death. "Because once in this other trial....." etc. There are other things that bother her too-much too numerous for me to remember!
Probably there is not someone on the jury obsessed with defense strategies,
etc. I hope?

 

[Nova24]

why does Jane Velez Mitchell keep having Padilla on her show???? Is this a dog and pony show?? Sick....I tuned out of this board back in 08 when Padilla's nephew started posting here...media hounds

Leonard Padilla is the biggest liar attention *advertiser censored* opportunity of the whole bunch. He makes the rest look like saints. lol

 

[Shelby2]

Just curious...does she think she could convict her of a lesser charge i.e. 2nd or Manslaughter? I ask because I think she will be convicted but of a lesser charge. TY.

I asked her that, she said she'd have to research it first.:banghead:

 

[Lanie]

talking of HLN, my husband is perplexed about the transvaginal mesh commercials. He keeps asking me what that is, and I have no idea, so he is comfortable deciding it has something to do with male-to-female sex change operations. :floorlaugh:

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

I've heard that so many times, and I have mostly watched this online.
I hope I'm never on the stand testifying to the contents of my harddrive, because now I HAVE to google this. I can hear it now, "Ms. Lanie, how many times did you google how+to+make+transvaginal+mesh?"

 

[LinasK]

Well that's the thing. She knows everything about this case. The problem is, she knows everything about MANY cases. She has a notebook full
of defense strategies. Ever hear of 'The Twinkie Defense'? Many people have,
but she knows that it is based on something that never happened. She knows the whole case. I think the man's name was White. Anyway, since the age of 8 she's been obsessed with law, crime, and reads everything she can find on it.
As for this case, she would feel more comfortable with a body that could have been autopsied. She would feel more comfortable with a definite cause of death. "Because once in this other trial....." etc. There are other things that bother her too-much too numerous for me to remember!
Probably there is not someone on the jury obsessed with defense strategies,
etc. I hope?

The Twinkie Defense happened in San Francisco. Supervisor Dan White killed Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk, who was gay. Dan White claimed he killed them because of all the sugar from the twinkies he ate!!!

 

[miabellamoure]

Favorite LDB question of the day (to CA):

"I take it you did not euthanize your own pets with chloroform?"

 

[mentalsolstice]

Just curious...does she think she could convict her of a lesser charge i.e. 2nd or Manslaughter? I ask because I think she will be convicted but of a lesser charge. TY.

I just hope she sits in prison until she goes through menopause.

 

[olive]

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

I've heard that so many times, and I have mostly watched this online.
I hope I'm never on the stand testifying to the contents of my harddrive, because now I HAVE to google this. I can hear it now, "Ms. Lanie, how many times did you google how+to+make+transvaginal+mesh?"

bahahahahahahaha:floorlaugh:

 

[Amster]

For anyone who wants to amuse themselves in this lull - why not go over to www.thehinkymeter.com and check out Val's summary/commentary on the trial proceedings yesterday, including "Mustang Sally". Should perk you all right up....:great: :floorlaugh: :great:

I'm howling!! Puffalump!! :floorlaugh:

Much needed hilarity! Thanks!!!:seeya:

 

[Shelby2]

Favorite LDB question of the day (to CA):

"I take it you did not euthanize your own pets with chloroform?"

That was mine too!!!

 

[gngr~snap]

FWIW Matthew David (I think) Bartlett is the birdy boy not
Matthew William Bartlett

 

[Nali87]

0Re: the question about Casey appealing the verdict if it is guilty on any charge??

My answer is ABSOLUTELY 100% she will appeal and from the attys and lawyers that have given their opinions they say she will have zero problem with appealing on the grounds of ineffective counsel because Baez has proven to be exactly that, ineffective counsel..

I wanted to bring up one other fact.. Since it was chosen for Casey to NOT take the stand and testify in her behalf.. What I learned that leaves the door wide open for is shocking IMO...

I learned that due to her not ever taking the stand and testifying in this court trial she is 100% legally able to not only claim ineffective counsel.. But she can also come up with an entirely different defense!!!!!!

She is legally able since she did not testify to work on a new, better and improved version of what, how, why this happened to Caylee and be tried all over again using the new story as her account.. It all falls under the ineffective counsel and since she never went under oath and testified to a specific account of what happened the she can legally come up with a new version stating that the version that was used by ineffective counsel was not accurate and true...

Can you believe this?? I had learned this in the past week and it was the number one reason that I was praying that she would end up taking the stand.. I knew if she did take the stand then what I just described ^above^ as an appeal option would no longer be an option as she had testified before the court under oath to a specific version of events...

She did not do this so now she has the option on appeal to make up a whole new vat of lies and ruin another group of individuals entire lives by falsely blaming them as the new killer of Caylee!!

This is am outrage imo!!!!

I value the opinion of the lawyers on here way more than the talking heads - mostly because they have nothing to gain by giving their unbiased opinion, unlike the talking heads who do it all for ratings. AZlawyers and beachbumming have both stated that it's almost impossible to get an appeal based on ineffective counsel. Someone else brought up that Jose Baez might be lead counsel but he has very experienced attorneys on his team, Cheney Mason, Dorothy Simms, Ann Finnell, so I don't think ineffective counsel will fly...

I love the Lawyer's thread. :great: