The jury was not in the room or there would have been a mistrial.
This was done in front of the jury. The judge clearly stated it was. He asked the guy: "And you were aware the jury was in the room when you did that? You realize it could have caused a mistrial had they seen it?" (Paraphrasing).
Which is absolutely absurd! Start all over again with a new jury for that? That has to be one of the stupidest laws or rules I have ever heard.
If the jury had seen it, the defense would try to argue that they had been impacted by it and then the defense would ask for a mistrial. The judge would then question the jury. Did it affect them? Will it affect their ability to render an impartial decision? Etc. It could cause a mistrial because it could be seen as influencing the jury. But the judge could rule it was not enough of an impact to cause a mistrial. I think the guys a jerk. Who acts like a 13 year old at that age?
BBM
Do these two comments bother anyone else ?
Not me. GA has stated to casey that he feels if he would have been a better father, none of this would have happened.
Clearly, there were issues with GA during his marriage - cheating, gambling and I think he feels he wasn't a good enough dad. Probably left it all to CA and only yelled at casey now and then, maybe tried to spank her once or twice but feels he didn't talk to her enough. Lots of dads are like that, IMO, but when something like this happens, they blame themselves.
He seems to feel that had he been a better dad, casey would not have killed her child. And yet, even though e knew Caylee was dead and casey probably did it, he still could not totally face that. He wanted to blame others. Maybe casey got involved with the wrong people because GA wasn't there for her as a father enough. And then they killed Caylee.
I think he flips between that and casey killing her own kid because he wasn't there for her, because he didn't help her through her stress.
In any event, the letter also states that he wanted to get a gun and find out what happened to Caylee and that he just needed the truth. That he couldn't stand not knowing. I don't think those parts have been published yet but they were discussed by JA. That clearly exonerates GA from knowing about an accident or being involved in a cover up.