2011.06.30 TRIAL Day Thirty-two (Afternoon Session)

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I like JA, but this strikes me as an extraordinarily bad idea on many levels.

:cow:
 
I think it should be unanimous-every juror should smell the can.
They looked at evidence pics of Caylee's remains.
They should be given the choice of smelling the evidence.
 
JA also argued that it is basically needed because the DT continued and will continue to blame the smell on the trash. Trash that has no smell.
 
Why did they take a 2 hour lunch break if they were going to come back and do arguments?
 
Remember Bill Sheaffer saying that this could backfire on the state. What if the smell is so faint that the jury cannot believe that it is the smell of human decomp?

It isn't. I believe JA said a Michael Vincent has opened it, smelled it, and just wants to say the odor is the same just not quite as strong.
 
I would be arguing a 403 here. If the jury smells that can, it will totally sink the ship. There will be no deliberations and I would predict a 12-0 for guilty approx. 5 minutes after smelling.

All the feeds are going out. :(
 
KBelichWFTV Kathi Belich, WFTV
The defense knew Cindy would dispute her work records which shows she worked with them behind the scenes
2 minutes ago

Of course she did. Both LA and CA have been working with the defense.
 
Florida summertime afternoon thunderstorms again? I keep losing the akamai feed.
 
JA arguing the can should be opened by the jury. Gives case examples.
Washington v. Fairbanks, issue was the prosecutor in a marijuana case, there was an issue about the officer saying fresh marijuana had a distinctive odor about it.

Gives copies of case to judge.

The prosecution brought in a fresh bag of manijuana to show the jury what fresh marijuana smells like. Proving the use of smell is appropriate.
In the 1930 in prohibition jurors could smell liquor evidence.
JA: I can't find anything that would support the defense's contention that the use of the olfactory sense should be prohibited. If they (the jury) do this, they each must smell it individually.
 
State won't call CA back to stand. The Gentiva employees will prove she was lying and no need to bring her back.
 
Mmmm. Fresh marijuana....



I think, Since so much testimony was BASED on SMELL, ie Dr, Vass, sniffer dogs, yadda yadda, to NOT allow them to use their sense of smell to look at the evidence, then that would be silly. So much testimony about SMELL, then denying the jury to USE their OWN sense of smell... I think they need to smell it.



I lost feed..
 
Is there bad weather in Orlando right now. Just lost my feed. Or did it just too hot in the court room?
 
The records will show, IMO, all of the activity on the desktop computer CA used at her job, i.e., logging on in the morning, any emails she sent, internet searches, logged back off for lunch, if her computer went to sleep, logging back on and off, more emails, opening emails, it will show all activity using HER password, which only she knew versus the IT or IT Admin people at her work. It will show whether she was really there, versus just "reporting" her time. It will show real-time computer activity. She will be shown to have blatantly lied about this. IMO.

And you know this how? LDB stated these were time records.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
71
Guests online
178
Total visitors
249

Forum statistics

Threads
609,410
Messages
18,253,687
Members
234,649
Latest member
sharag
Back
Top