MissSallyAnnie
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2011
- Messages
- 536
- Reaction score
- 0
Baez is making the Grief Lady sound reasonable.
2011.07.03 TRIAL Day Thirty-four - DEFENSE (JB) CLOSING ARGUMENTS
- Thread starter beach
- Start date
- Status
BetteDavisEyes
Fasten your seatbelts...
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2010
- Messages
- 35,770
- Reaction score
- 81,739
This is just pitiful. I'm almost embarrassed for Baez. He is beyond hopeless and should give it up already. The jury must be ready to vomit.
truthsleuth
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,946
- Reaction score
- 9
this is the kind of nonsense that Dr. Vass brought to you. this is the desperation, the level of absurdity that they brought here. They will take it to the next level. It is a fantasy of forensics.
The state wants to create things for want? the camera? To them it is all about winning.
I want to take you to what I think the evidence showed in this case, where it reached its most outrageous level: the computer searches. Sgt. Senger in Aug 2008 used a software Metanalysis. the report shows chloroform was searched one time. Sgt. Senger then testified in his report and tries out a new software. What happens? He can't get it to work. I have this high profile case and I can't get it to work. Mr. Bradley said he stayed up three nights trying to get it to work. And they come back with 84 searches for chloroform. What was odd it was a jaw-dropping moment for me. Because I know I couldn't miss that. They went back and we finally realized the meta-analysis report, this man not only testified about what was there but he also testified that somebody else's report. You'll remember when I asked him about the report, he told me this is not my report. He said no. this report was done Friday, June 30, 2011. We're already well into this. Case in the state of Florida causes men to testify after this report is dated 2008. This is fraud. They are just trying to pull a fast one.
this is not true evidence. This is not true evidence. This is not the truth. A human life lies in the balance, you're about to make the biggest decision of your life and you're being asked to take someone's life and this is the type of adventure given. I suspect that when the prosecution get back up they will tell you which rely on. but this is the true number. This was Myspace, 84 times a search for MySpace. we called the man who wrote the report. Why does the defense have to call witnesses, police officers, to testify and tell you the truth, to This is outrageous. Why is it our job to bring these things to light. this is a murder case. they are hoping you'll buy the chloroform? they are hoping? where do they get this stuff from? How can they ask you this? it's junk. It doesn't even work. Why did the creator of the software not issue a report? No one's going to prosecute him for perjury. There was no person searching 84 times for chloroform.
the MySpace posting of Ricardo Morales. Ricardo posted this on his MySpace at the same exact time he was dating Casey Anthony. If you don't know what chloroform is, it beckons the curiosity of what exactly chloroform is. Especially in someone that is shown. It is not unreasonable for a young woman to research something like this based on a boyfriend's interest. I hate him
Then comes the issue of Cindy Anthony. We all knew Cindy Anthony in 2009 searched for chloroform. The state went out and tried to spend their entire rebuttal case to prove her liar. It has been clear throughout this case. But there is one thing you cannot deny. MySpace goes before the Google search. When Miss Burdick question Ms. Anthony she said chloroform 84 times. how is that proof? how can I come before you? phantom stickers, phantom stains, no real hard evidence. No fingerprints, no DNA. But she is a liar and a slot. She made some stupid decisions and she needs to pay for it for the rest of her life? this case is that of control. And it is true that Casey made some bad decisions, but it doesn't have to continue. It doesn't have to be presented this way. It doesn't have to come out this way. Let the nonsense stop right now. this is what they want you to render a verdict on, for you to say I want see some evidence, conclusive proof, and on something so serious I can reject part of I can reject the whole thing.
There is a legal standard here. If you go to a restaurant and find a bug in your meal, you send it back. that has been the situation right here and now. A situation so serious, you can never take it back, you can never say all Your Honor I made a mistake, or owe your honor I change my mind. Once you make up your mind it's done. That's why we have the standard of reasonable doubt.
That stain that never was is reasonable doubt. It's all reasonable doubt. if you don't know what happened, that's it. It was once it's proven to you, that's it, it's over. It's not guilty on every count. That's what our law is. All the emotion all the anger can never change that. That's how we have for society. To make the law equal for everyone. That's what we have, and you've got to follow it. Not myself not Mr. Ashton, not Miss Burdick, you follow the law. Not anything less, because we will not discuss anything less.
Stops. New chart up.
The state wants to create things for want? the camera? To them it is all about winning.
I want to take you to what I think the evidence showed in this case, where it reached its most outrageous level: the computer searches. Sgt. Senger in Aug 2008 used a software Metanalysis. the report shows chloroform was searched one time. Sgt. Senger then testified in his report and tries out a new software. What happens? He can't get it to work. I have this high profile case and I can't get it to work. Mr. Bradley said he stayed up three nights trying to get it to work. And they come back with 84 searches for chloroform. What was odd it was a jaw-dropping moment for me. Because I know I couldn't miss that. They went back and we finally realized the meta-analysis report, this man not only testified about what was there but he also testified that somebody else's report. You'll remember when I asked him about the report, he told me this is not my report. He said no. this report was done Friday, June 30, 2011. We're already well into this. Case in the state of Florida causes men to testify after this report is dated 2008. This is fraud. They are just trying to pull a fast one.
this is not true evidence. This is not true evidence. This is not the truth. A human life lies in the balance, you're about to make the biggest decision of your life and you're being asked to take someone's life and this is the type of adventure given. I suspect that when the prosecution get back up they will tell you which rely on. but this is the true number. This was Myspace, 84 times a search for MySpace. we called the man who wrote the report. Why does the defense have to call witnesses, police officers, to testify and tell you the truth, to This is outrageous. Why is it our job to bring these things to light. this is a murder case. they are hoping you'll buy the chloroform? they are hoping? where do they get this stuff from? How can they ask you this? it's junk. It doesn't even work. Why did the creator of the software not issue a report? No one's going to prosecute him for perjury. There was no person searching 84 times for chloroform.
the MySpace posting of Ricardo Morales. Ricardo posted this on his MySpace at the same exact time he was dating Casey Anthony. If you don't know what chloroform is, it beckons the curiosity of what exactly chloroform is. Especially in someone that is shown. It is not unreasonable for a young woman to research something like this based on a boyfriend's interest. I hate him
Then comes the issue of Cindy Anthony. We all knew Cindy Anthony in 2009 searched for chloroform. The state went out and tried to spend their entire rebuttal case to prove her liar. It has been clear throughout this case. But there is one thing you cannot deny. MySpace goes before the Google search. When Miss Burdick question Ms. Anthony she said chloroform 84 times. how is that proof? how can I come before you? phantom stickers, phantom stains, no real hard evidence. No fingerprints, no DNA. But she is a liar and a slot. She made some stupid decisions and she needs to pay for it for the rest of her life? this case is that of control. And it is true that Casey made some bad decisions, but it doesn't have to continue. It doesn't have to be presented this way. It doesn't have to come out this way. Let the nonsense stop right now. this is what they want you to render a verdict on, for you to say I want see some evidence, conclusive proof, and on something so serious I can reject part of I can reject the whole thing.
There is a legal standard here. If you go to a restaurant and find a bug in your meal, you send it back. that has been the situation right here and now. A situation so serious, you can never take it back, you can never say all Your Honor I made a mistake, or owe your honor I change my mind. Once you make up your mind it's done. That's why we have the standard of reasonable doubt.
That stain that never was is reasonable doubt. It's all reasonable doubt. if you don't know what happened, that's it. It was once it's proven to you, that's it, it's over. It's not guilty on every count. That's what our law is. All the emotion all the anger can never change that. That's how we have for society. To make the law equal for everyone. That's what we have, and you've got to follow it. Not myself not Mr. Ashton, not Miss Burdick, you follow the law. Not anything less, because we will not discuss anything less.
Stops. New chart up.
Quiche
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 9,130
- Reaction score
- 501
He's racking them up on purpose, what does he have to lose?
Me, too. I think he is very unprepared for his argument today. Just going "on the fly" mostly. Very bad strategy, once again.
Horace Finklestein
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2008
- Messages
- 5,658
- Reaction score
- 1
We get it. It's all a bunch of horrible coincidences. Poor Casey what horrible luck she has! lol
TortillaChip
New Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
- Messages
- 410
- Reaction score
- 0
I was on a jury once, where the Atty used this same tactic, trying to make us feel guilty if we did not vote not guilty for his client, and yelled and tried to make us feel intimidated by his closing. DID NOT WORK. In fact after we talked, way after deliberations, some said that it made them feel anger toward the atty.
Hamsterdance
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,715
- Reaction score
- 28
Interesting. Mention of the "phantom heart sticker" according to JB, seemed to elicit a gasp from ICA
marie-chantal
Language analyst
- Joined
- May 9, 2011
- Messages
- 1,119
- Reaction score
- 95
EXACTLY! That's what I was saying too.
Also, if she just wanted to know what chloroform was, she'd just type in the word-not "how to make" and she certainly wouldn't look it up 84 times. Baez must really think this jury is stupid. :loser: He's such a joke. :twocents:
Fluffy Puppy
Active Member
If jurors think the prosecution has a case, this will make them mad. He is insulting them.
JMO
Cubby
fly the W!
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2007
- Messages
- 77,225
- Reaction score
- 13,583
Twice now I thought JB was ready to wrap it up - and he goes on and on like the damn eveready bunny. What was that song from the 90's? you talk too much, you never shut up! - running through my head today listening to JB
ButForFortune
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 2,131
- Reaction score
- 184
Good-googly-goo! Love it!:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:
RammerJammer
Bama Alum
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 832
- Reaction score
- 3
Darn.....stepped away for a while and came back hoping JB had vanished. No chance. He is still droning on in his overly dramatic, theatrical voice. Grrrrr!!!!!
- Status