2011.06.30 Sidebar Thread (Trial Day Thirty-Two)

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just listening to ICA's voice during the jail videos. I said before she was a mimic and I think I may detect a New York accent, ala Tone?
 
Something that has been lost on me until tonight...
But. God Bless the woman who called to have Casey's car towed.
Casey would have gone back and gotten that car, and either burnt it , had it stolen, ,managed to clean it or whatever.. But without that evidence the state would have had a tough try....
 
Lanie said:
IMO, yes. But I admit my opinion is colored by following this case from the beginning and no matter how hard I tried to give Baez the benefit of doubt, for me it always comes back to this case being so much more about him than about his client.

I have limited legal expertise I've picked up over the years from this, that, and something else (but not Law & Order, lol.) Based on that, MO has been ICA has 100% chance of being convicted of something worth at least 30 years, 95% chance of LWOP, and 90% chance of DP. MO has been a plea deal could have been worked out before Caylee's body was found for 15-20 years, in exchange for the location of the remains. So I would not in good conscience be willing to make this kind of gamble.
Click to expand...

Yep - my best guess (and not a particularly educated one) is somewhere between 30 and 40 years -and that was my opinion on July 15th 2008. But then there was Scott Peterson ...

I must add that I support the SAO in seeking the penalty - in the words of Mr. Baez - "don't ask - don't get" - in asking for the ultimate, I think they have set the bar high enough to provide for a very long term incarceration. IMHO that was the point.
 
nephers said:
OT: Can somebody point me in the direction of where I can get text alerts to what is going on in this case? I don't want to sign up for something that will give me all of Orlando's breaking news just this case. Of course I have a family reunion on Sat. So, I will miss closing arguements and my phone has limited capabilities. (I can't wait to upgrade next month!) Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

I think one of the posters posted one a few pages up thread (back)
 
nephers said:
OT: Can somebody point me in the direction of where I can get text alerts to what is going on in this case? I don't want to sign up for something that will give me all of Orlando's breaking news just this case. Of course I have a family reunion on Sat. So, I will miss closing arguements and my phone has limited capabilities. (I can't wait to upgrade next month!) Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

Text "casey" to 43886 for updates about the trial through orlando sentinel
 
CookieF said:
Ok I am off to bed. Thanks to all the not-sleeping, inside out sweatshirt wearing, watching while at work, dirty/upside down spoon having, messy housed WS-ers for the comforting thought that I am not alone! LOL! See you tomorrow.
Click to expand...



and the going commando, al fresco.


ok too much information.

I can never shutty and quit while I'm ahead.

:-)






.
 
Do you think the DT will re-rebuttal (or whatever you call it)? And do you think the verdict could come on Monday? Judge Perry did tell the lawyers not to make plans...
 
allycat1208 said:
What happened in the hearsay exception issue regarding TL? Does anyone remember this?
Click to expand...

I kind of messed up in my post you were responding to, I should have said JG can say ICA said she did something to LEE, but she can't say LEE did something to her. (Instead of George.)

I don't remember the exact details of objections and rulings during TL's testimony (it's been a while :crazy:) but the main difference that stands out to me is TL was testifying about what was said about George and Lee, while JG was only testifying about what was said about Lee.

Lee hasn't been accused by the DT of anything regarding Caylee's death and disposal, and George has. So my guess would be if this was actually something that was allowed in is the DT could make the argument this hearsay by TL had direct bearing on their case, while the hearsay by JG could be argued by the State to be irrelevant.
 
Murphismo said:
totally, respectfully disagree. I too have the misfortune of being surrounded by lawyers, sigh.... JB, though grating on the nerves, is NOT innefective, although is a bumbling dingleberry, he's tried over 40 jury trials, (gasp) and 4 or 5 DP trials, he is flanked by some astouding lawyers, upwars of 20 by my count. It will never fly for innefective councel, that is a ploy by almost every convict, I've seen trials where the DT SLEPT during trial and the judge ruled it was not innefective councel because the DT was awake during the important parts.
Click to expand...

Please do not take this personally, but I don't think that Baez has anywhere NEAR this amount of trial experience. I do not have a link to his resume, but I am almost positive that someone here can find it for you.

This man is VERY inexperienced and, if I recall correctly, has NEVER served as counsel in a death penalty trial until he found the audacity to think that he qualified to sit on this case.
 
Lanie said:
I think if the CA woman is not found incompetent and pleads guilty, she will not get LWOP or the death penalty. Also, IMO it's pretty easy to convince a jury putting a baby in a microwave is premeditation.

What I find is sad and twisted is the women who have beaten their children repeatedly over their short lives until they finally kill them have an out. It's like, "Well, the 50 previous times I tortured my child he/she didn't die, so it's not like I meant to kill them..." It makes me so sick and angry it isn't SOP slamming a baby's head in the wall is an automatic 'intent to kill'. I mean, FGS, what do they think is going to happen???
Click to expand...

One of the worst cases I ever read involved a teenager named Melinda Loveless who with the aid of 3 others, killed a 12 year old because she was jealous of another girl she was involved with. Melinda Loveless who was a few years older than the victim, kidnapped Shanda Sharer with the aid of 3 other teens and tortured her in a field, knifed her, put her in the trunk of a car all night while she was still alive and the next day they burned her while she was still alive in a field. All this because Loveless was jealous that Shanda Shara had a few conversations with another teen who Loveless claimed was her girlfriend. I don't even think Shanda Shara had sex with the other girl, not that it would have changed my view of them. Because of the teens ages and how much of a role they played, the teens who aided Loveless received different sentences. Two of them got out of jail after 10 or so years. One of them actually poured gasoline on the victim and she still got only 10 or so years in prison. This was because of plea bargains they accepted and time off for good behavior. The ringleader and another teen received 60 years but can get out much earlier for good behavior. I think I read they can possibly be released while they are in their 40s. All this because because Loveless was a bit jealous of another girl. That was extreme torture. I don't like these plea bargains deals because it seems like there is little justice just because these horrible evildoers reveal what they did partially or totally. In this case you don't even know if they are honest about what their total involvement was because there were no witnesses other than the perpetrators themselves.
 
noelle91176 said:
I think hearsay is stating what someone else said. the reason I understand it's not allowed is because you can't cross examine that statement. That's why DC couldn't say what the Psychic was saying, because they can't cross examine her statement. When RC brought up what George said, it was to "impeach" his testimony. The rules are different in impeachment. She was brought in to impeach his credibility. He could be cross examined if need be.

JG can't say what ICA said to him, because the state cannot cross examine these statements. Meaning they can't cross examine ICA. "statements" cannot be cross examined. Ofcourse I'm NOT an attorney, this is just my understanding. :fence:
Click to expand...

I'm not an attorney either, but I don't think that can be right because there has been quite a bit of testimony by a lot of witnesses during this trial about what ICA has said. The objections come in when a witness is testifying about what people other than ICA have said.

For example, at one point they had Cindy on the stand, they excused her, Lee was called next, he was asked a question, his response was along the line of "My mother told me..." , there was an "Objection, hearsay." then "Sustained." then "Don't say what your mother said." Cindy was right there and could have been called right back. But then later, I guess for impeachment?, Lee was called back to the stand to testify Cindy told him she was sending the PIs to the woods to look for Caylee.

The only thing I know for sure, in my non-attorney opinion, is the rules of court are very complicated, lol.
 
You know - this is completely off topic of what we were talking about - but I was just making something to eat (as usual with this trial - it is now 9pm) and all of a sudden, thinking about how amazing it is to belong to WS, and the friends I have made and the experiences I've had, and the tears we've shared and the nights I have been on here and we've been completely foolish laughing ourselves sick and goofing around while the mods were off napping....

I think BigFatMommyDog got me started with her lovely Canada wish - and all of a sudden I was all misty eyed thinking about it all....

Good times....I remember nums24 (who faithfully posted here for years) was here poking around and we were chitchatting back and forth one night about midnight, and she accidentally discovered Baez houses had just gone into foreclosure - we almost had a riot trying to wake people up and email Kathi Belich so she could have the scoop and of course yukking it up because even then JB was not on our top 10 fave list....there have literally been hundreds of days or nights like that....

I'm going to miss all of this....:sigh:
 
Why does JB want 7/15 records? I know the significance of the date but curious as to why her records from that day would be so relevent. Do you think knowing she would get caught in a lie she somehow pulled a fast one to falsify things in some way? Something just seemed too planned about that.
 
So excited I talked to my own Mock Juror today! A neighbor from my old neighborhood called me up today out of the blue with a question about real estate. After we got thru discussing her question she said "have you been following the CA trial?" I said "yes". She then proceeded to tell me that she had not followed any previous to the trial and that she and her mom are watching the trial daily. I asked her to tell me what she thought so far about guilt vs innocence and she said "my mother and I both think she is guilty and hope she gets death". I was like wow! She also said another thing that I really thought was funny! She said "if that was my daughter who disappeared with my grandbaby and then my grandbaby turned up dead, give me 2 minutes alone in the room with her and I would be the one on trial for murder!" She speaks with a true grandmothers love, as she has 3 grandchildren ages 2, 2 and 3.

:great:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 211 more.
Total: 492 (members: 212, guests: 280)

Online statistics

Members online
212
Guests online
280
Total visitors
492
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,350
Messages
18,253,075
Members
234,639
Latest member
slotsrama
Back
Top