2011.07.01 Sidebar Thread (Trial Day Thirty-Three)

[cluciano63]

OK I am biased here, so take this for what it's worth. But I am re-watching Frank George's questioning of Debbie Polisano and am just all :heartluv: again about this awesome and much-overlooked defender of justice for Caylee!

http://www.wftv.com/video/28423074/index.html

I've had my eyes on him since he did the questioning of Casey's friends in the early days...love his voice, he could make me agree with anything he says...

 

[texaslb218]

How old is the judge, Suzi?

 

[SCWldneart]

Oh, I know. She is a piece of work, for sure. The jury leaves. Blink your eyes and she's completely different. That's just how fast she changes.

If only the jury could see, they would be able to figure out why some people thought KC was a 'good' mother.

Q: How does someone go from being a good mother to murdering her child?
A: She never was a good mother.

 

[katydid23]

I don't believe that Judge Seidlin could get away with saying to JVM that Casey was *advertiser censored* her pants and had to say poo poo. And I agree she probably was. LOL!

That guy is whack. Sorry, but he just seems to have a screw loose somewhere.

Compare him to Judge Alex or whatever the guy name is. Night and Day. imo

 

[Chris_Texas]

I've read all of the legal opinions, here and elsewhere, as well as researched some cases, but honestly, I do not see how this particular defense cannot be deemed "ineffective". I cannot imagine a less effective defense. Regardless of the experience of CM, for instance, or the credentials of DS, this was a horribly assembled defense, made no sense at all and more often than not, her own lawyers pointed out incriminating facts to the witnesses. To watch this case with an open mind, one would could be forgiven in concluding that her defense was "throwing" the case. I often felt like I was watching an athlete intentionally losing a game or shaving points to cover the spread.

As much as I hate the idea of another trial three years from now I will lose some respect for the system if this defense is deemed effective.

JMO

I disagree. I think the defense had an impossible task from the beginning. Yes, they made some mistakes and took some gambles (all of which the prosecution knocked out of the park) but that's all they ever had.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Two things that stuck out to me in the sidebar transcript from 6/24.

stating that GA's motive was not wanting it to get out that he was home and that Caylee died on his watch.



Hundreds of checks on Mom's account? Hundreds?

 

[kimmera]

Agree. I was watching and waiting for her to have a meltdown.... she was on the edge.

I'm pretty sure she's always on the edge! :twocents:

 

[smolea]

Here you go. http://www.wftv.com/video/28424275/index.html

from this angle she says...

"No."
"That's fine."
"Got enough of this, no, just take it back with you."
(smiling) "I can't take anything with me."
"No."
....JA and LDB in the way...
"Nothing."
"Someone would actually have to bring it in to me..."

that's all i can get from this angle, but it seems to me that her lawyers want her to take something - looks like paperwork - back with her and she's telling them she can't. JMO

 

[MargoD]

I wonder about those lie detector tests though. I don't know how reliable they are. Maybe even if you are innocent, you would worry that test would not give the correct results. How reliable are these lie detector tests?

I wouldn't take a polygraph. We had an infamous case in Ontario a few years ago where the father failed the test. He was in jail at the time of his daughter's murder. Some guilty and innocent people have results that are 'inconclusive'.

 

[Kat]

Does anyone know if the Closing Statements have to reflect the OS?

No princessa. The OS are not considered evidence and do not have to be considered during deliberations. No the CS do not have to reflect the OS. JMHO

however, it doesn't look good when either side, namely the defense in this situation, gets up and gives a Looloo of an opening statement and then does not deliver the goods so to speak. Nursebeemee and I posted on a thread a while back she said that you can't unring a bell. I agreed. They said and even though it will not be deliberated on the jury can't unhear it KWIM? JMHO

 

[strawberry]

Earlier, LG mentioned her holiday...Happy Candada Day to all our friends from the North! My neighbor's husband is Canadian and I always know it's Candada Day when his flag goes on the house!

 

[SeaNymph]

I agree. I just had this argument with my cousin, who is pretty high up in LE. When he first started his job he did work murder investigations. And he thinks Casey did it but will not be found guilty b/c the state didn't prove that she died from the chloroform.

I told him that the state doesn't have to prove HOW she died, and he kept arguing that they do. I said, "What about Scott Peterson? No one ever proved how he killed Laci and Conner, but look where he is." And my cousin kept saying there was blood in the house...which was about the point that my DH and oldest son started laughing that someone would argue with me about Laci! :innocent:

It is amazing to me that someone who is very well educated about criminal justice and has worked murder cases doesn't get this. He also made a comment about "blogs" with a disparaging sneer, and I thought I was going to have to smack him.

Aren't family reunions fun??? :great:

My friends and family know they dont stand a chance to try to go up against me with facts on a case - had to school my MIL on the SP trial when she started hemming and hawing....threw out some facts on the topography of the SF Bay and it was like hwow: ... they were amazed at the 'little redneck girl' they thought their son had married.

Well, all that and I kicked all their butts in Trivial Pursuit one year on vacation. They kept coming back for more and I just kept spankin them.

That'll teach 'em.

 

[Americka]

Two things that stuck out to me in the sidebar transcript from 6/24.

stating that GA's motive was not wanting it to get out that he was home and that Caylee died on his watch.
View attachment 17415


Hundreds of checks on Mom's account? Hundreds?
View attachment 17416

I thought those two things were interesting as well. If Caylee died when George was babysitting her, then why didn't Casey take the stand and reveal this? Why didn't Baez provide his work records and cell phone pings indicating that he was home at the time of the tragedy? Who sits in jail for three years over an accident that wasn't their fault? IF that is what happened. As for the checks, I can't even formulate a response. Literally hundreds of checks. Someone reported that LDB had them at the SA desk going through them one by one. :floorlaugh:

 

[darnudes]

31 days brings us back to Sunday, June 15. GA is misremembering or outright lying. The scenario he describes happened on the previous monday, the 9th

ICA slept w/ricardo on the 9th but told GA her and Caylee would be at Zanny's. GA is confused or...........

There is definitely something going on the week of 9 June, the precursor of all to come. One day when the trial is over I'm going to go back and really study this week because it is those 7 days leading up to 16 June that is the impetuous for ICA to put her plan in action.

There is something that niggles away at me that Caylee was found in a shirt that none of her family recognise and Caylee is pictured in that shirt two different times months apart at an apartment that ICA was saying was Zany's. When ICA left Ricardo's on the 10th she must have taken the big trouble shirt with her and probably left it in the trunk. I don't know why she slept there night but I imagine she was saying to herself it was the last time with Ricardo as she was well and truly moving on to Tony by then.

June 9 is a mirror image of June 16 with one important difference, ICA could not or would not take Caylee over to sleep at Tony's.

 

[Kat]

Does anyone know if the Closing Statements have to reflect the OS?

This is the very oversimplified way I interpret a couple components of a trial (not to include all components)

It's like writing a thesis.

1. Opening statement---I am telling you what I'm going to tell you.

2. Evidence and trial---I am telling you what I told you earlier that I was going to tell you. And showing you.

3. Closing statements---I am telling you what I told you. (and showed you).

JMHO

 

[Boytwnmom]

a more clear intent to lie. What she said was that if those searches were made she was home. Not limited to a date or time. The state showed when they were made and she still insisted if they were made she was home. To me, IMO, that is an even more deliberate lie than merely limiting her statement to a particular date or time. You could be "mistaken" about a date or time you cannot be mistaken when you insist if it happened, whenever it happened, I was there. Perjury is a specific intent crime and, IMO, her definite, unlimited statement shows the intent to commit a perjurous act. It is clearly a lie and as she in no way limited the lie it is one that cannot be excused by mistake in any way and can only be viewed as a deliberate attempt to perpetrate a fraud on the court.

IIRC on the stand,Cindy kept answering "if that's when the searches were ,then yes". Things along that vain,so she never actually said March 17 and 21 specifically. It was clear she was covering her butt ,then and even more obvious now.

 

[mombomb]

Thanks was not enough. That makes sense to me.
I started going down the path of, "hmmm, JA better lock his doors tight...as JB may be lurking in the darkness to take me out for a boat ride...with the journal of sanctions in the wings."
:floorlaugh::seeya:

This may have been posted already, but here's the back story behind the Judge's comment:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,711938-1,00.html

 

[~PrinceSSa~]

No princessa. The OS are not considered evidence and do not have to be considered during deliberations. No the CS do not have to reflect the OS. JMHO

however, it doesn't look good when either side, namely the defense in this situation, gets up and gives a Looloo of an opening statement and then does not deliver the goods so to speak. Nursebeemee and I posted on a thread a while back she said that you can't unring a bell. I agreed. They said and even though it will not be deliberated on the jury can't unhear it KWIM? JMHO

Thank you, Kat, for this clarification. I have serious doubt that the DT can even fall back on ANY statements made during OS; since NONE were proven imo. :seeya:

 

[Jstc4caylee]

And another question...Was it google or yahoo..?? I thought they were google searches..I use all of them, i know..But I thought they were pretty consistent with google comments...His comments today were about yahoo.. Google does not have ads/stories on their homepage, yahoo does.

 

[egnarts]

I've got a mental list going of everything CA said since, July 16, 2008, that has NOT turned out to be a lie. Not much on the list after the "damned dead body" statement.

Phone records discussed today proved there were no phone calls between CA & GA via home & their cell phone #'s. Meaning, CA did NOT call GA & question him about the ladder or gate being open. I believe she testified previously she had called him on his cell phone, from either home or @ home on her cell.