2011.07.01 Sidebar Thread (Trial Day Thirty-Three)

[LambChop]

I agree. It may have been an impossibly difficult case, but Baez did not have to add fuel to the fire by turning his witnesses into state witnesses. I believe Casey had ineffective counsel. And the fact that the Judge said, about the jurors, "These folks want to return to their homes" is not too great, either. It is a death penalty case, and it takes as long as it has to take. Civic duty demands this. I love Judge Perry to bits, but that is not what a defendant should be hearing, and may be brought up in an appeal, the the jury was rushing for a holiday.

I think by the time the jury gets the case the holiday will be over for most folks. This jury is not from Orlando as the defendant demanded. It is what it is and the jury has the right to hear all evidence if there is in fact any evidence for the defense to present. I do not see JB as ineffective when he had nothing to work with to begin with. He is not responsible for her being found guilty if the jury just does not believe her because she has continually lied about everything. Let's face it. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. KC could not just stop at "it was a terrible accident and I panicked". She had to add the abuse from every member of her family, etc. with no proof. Ironic how JB never asked GA or Lee about the abuse.

What made me laugh today was CM's comment of what a good mother KC was and how everyone testified to her being a great mom....but defense did not call one witness who testified how great she was. They never recalled Mallory which really surprised me. I think Mallory was trying to get on the good side of KC in hopes KC would have her attorneys back off of LA a little. Did not work so I guess recalling Mallory would have been a bad idea. jmo

 

[megsy]

I am surrounded by people who think she will be found Not Guilty. Ugh.

My DH, my Mom, even the doctor I work with. They all say about the same thing, not enough evidence of murder and/or cause of death.

Am I in the Twilight Zone?

Thank goodness for this forum.

Are they religiously watching the trial as if they are jurors? Or catching up with news stories at the end of the day?

If it's the latter, no sweat.

 

[Bullwinkle]

Does anyone know the DATE when the deleted computer files were deleted?

I believe you're referring to clearing searches from the web browser's search history, in which case it would virtually have to be done almost immediately after they occurred. Doing it later would involve a lot of work to locate those specific searches, and it would be much simpler (and far more common) to simply delete the browser's entire search history.

 

[Donjeta]

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

If someone makes the opening statement that a child drowned and her grandpa hid her somewhere until a duct tape wielding body snatcher came along they'd better make their eidence and the closing statement match and tell the same story all over again. Otherwise I'd conclude that they're making it up all along, choosing and discarding details as it serves their purposes. The truth does not need tweaking.

 

[ynotdivein]

This was just sent to me, it is JA's finest moments ... not sure where to post it, but all will enjoy - I promise http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvAzFWFS_PI&feature=youtu.be

Gut, thank you for that. I wish I could view it without the soundtrack playing behind it. But wow, these are some of JA's more forceful moments for sure.

 

[faefrost]

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

You are confusing "Ineffective Defense" with "Ineffective Assistance of Council". There are no rights violated by putting forth an Ineffective Defense. It simply means whatever your defense strategy was it was not successful. People don't get granted new trials or appeals based on that. If they did we wouldn't have anyone in prison. Besides some cases really are all but indefensible. You can put on all the stupid pointless or utterly idiotic arguments you want. Or even hire a lawyer that will do so. That will not get you an appeal or a retrial. All it will get you is a jail cell or at the end a long walk down a hallway somewhere other than Universal Studios.

Ineffective Assistance of Council is a much higher standard to meet. Your lawyers must have truly erred not just in strategy but on gross overriding matters of law. They must have failed to represent you by not filing motions or properly pleading your case. A lawyer that ignores you rotting in jail for 3 years, files no motions in your defense, does not prep for trial, and fails to communicate with you regarding things like plea bargains is someone rife for an ineffective council appeal. Simply hiring an idiot and having him present a stupid case is not. You have every right to hire the idiot of your own choosing.

 

[summerthyme]

This was just sent to me, it is JA's finest moments ... not sure where to post it, but all will enjoy - I promise http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvAzFWFS_PI&feature=youtu.be

Oh my goodness, I am going to miss my Ashton Moments. I have talked so much about Jeff to my hubby, so he just watched this with me, and he got a little taste of the greatness of our Mack Truck! :great:

 

[ami]

This was just sent to me, it is JA's finest moments ... not sure where to post it, but all will enjoy - I promise http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvAzFWFS_PI&feature=youtu.be

Omg I love that! Too funny!!

Forgot about the "if you add water to non food items, they don't suddenly BECOME food, do they? Whether it's wet or dry, it's still not food. Correct?"

Witness: "Not as I understand the definition of food..."

LMAO!

 

[Dr.Fessel]

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.

I don't know what Baez was talking about but on my firefox I do not have to go to any web page. I have a search bar on the top right with a flip down that I can chose many search sites from. I don't have to go to any page.

 

[JB Fletcher]

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 have always liked him too.

 

[allycat1208]

I wonder what will happen to Ashton after this case? Was he known at all before this case?

 

[Jstc4caylee]

VinniePolitan...on for Dr Drew....
A train comes by tooting its horn..He says wait,listen....its Jeff Ashton, coming through in closing arguments....lol

 

[faefrost]

I wonder what will happen to Ashton after this case? Was he known at all before this case?

He was the first prosecutor to ever get DNA evidence admitted at trial. He set the modern standards of evidence as a result. He is probably one of the best known and respected prosecutors in the nation as a result of that. (Go back to Eikenblooms cross examination and note how much the defense witness is all but falling over' himself to be discussing DNA evidence with the famous Jeff Ashton!)

I am sure for JA LDB and FG this case is just another in a long line of respectable work.

 

[ami]

If someone makes the opening statement that a child drowned and her grandpa hid her somewhere until a duct tape wielding body snatcher came along they'd better make their eidence and the closing statement match and tell the same story all over again. Otherwise I'd conclude that they're making it up all along, choosing and discarding details as it serves their purposes. The truth does not need tweaking.

ITA. Also it sounds like the judge was holding them to their opening statement. He kept telling Baez that something was not relevant - based on the theory they described in their OS - and so he wouldn't allow it in, unless the defense theory had changed. To me that made the OS pretty important for the trial itself.

 

[Turnadot]

That bothers me....Why would they refuse?

Well, to be fair, I'd refuse a polygraph too, IMO, they're useless. Innocent people fail polygraphs, and yes, I know the alleged accuracy of them. Or if I decided to take one, I'd down a sedative first.

 

[egnarts]

We don't know for sure and I'm not sure why it even matters .

Someone up thread had respectfully stated when visiting relatives in Orlando area, (s)he would like to pay respects to Caylee's gravsite, if there was one.


:innocent::seeya:

 

[MissJames]

I believe you're referring to clearing searches from the web browser's search history, in which case it would virtually have to be done almost immediately after they occurred. Doing it later would involve a lot of work to locate those specific searches, and it would be much simpler (and far more common) to simply delete the browser's entire search history.

I thought LDB said it was right after ICA's first interview at home with YM.

 

[Turnadot]

I wonder what will happen to Ashton after this case? Was he known at all before this case?

Yes he was.


http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/27347743/detail.html

 

[Cherry Ames]

Yep, it they start adding certain presidents elected from 1978 on.

What's that supposed to mean?

 

[SeaNymph]

This was just sent to me, it is JA's finest moments ... not sure where to post it, but all will enjoy - I promise http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvAzFWFS_PI&feature=youtu.be

LOVE LOVE LOVE IT.

Now I need the same featuring Yuri Melich - it will help the withdrawals in the coming weeks.