Casey's appeal on the 4 charges of lying to police

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

I simply do not see how they can overturn her lying convictions. She lied. Plain and simple. They should play her interview with the detectives at Disney in a loop. He asks her "Why are we here?" and KC says, "Because I lied." Just play that in court on a loop. "Because I lied. Because I lied. Because I lied." Then, look at the judge, and say "I rest my case." A no brainer. She lied. MOO.
 
chefmom said:
I simply do not see how they can overturn her lying convictions. She lied. Plain and simple. They should play her interview with the detectives at Disney in a loop. He asks her "Why are we here?" and KC says, "Because I lied." Just play that in court on a loop. "Because I lied. Because I lied. Because I lied." Then, look at the judge, and say "I rest my case." A no brainer. She lied. MOO.
Click to expand...

I'm aghast that lawyers, regardless of their obligation, duty or whatever other made-up nonsense they cling to, will argue this. There is absolutely no doubt that she lied, she admitted it to police, her attorneys admitted it, her family admitted it. This farce is the very definition of manipulation and exploiting technicality to let a guilty person off the hook. So cynical. In a perfect world, these people would not be practicing law. Disgraceful.
 
RR0004 said:
Credit card theft, car theft, bank theft...I guess Cindy had a list to choose from. But, I always thought it was the car...in hindsight, it's a little drastic to put someone in handcuffs for using their mom's cc without their permission. Wonder if the police officer was afraid of Cindy. LOL
Click to expand...

She committed a crime. It makes sense they would out her in cuffs since at the time they were probably going to arrest her (before they knew about "missing" Caylee). Cindy didn't call them over nothing.
 
Horace Finklestein said:
I'm aghast that lawyers, regardless of their obligation, duty or whatever other made-up nonsense they cling to, will argue this. There is absolutely no doubt that she lied, she admitted it to police, her attorneys admitted it, her family admitted it. This farce is the very definition of manipulation and exploiting technicality to let a guilty person off the hook. So cynical. In a perfect world, these people would not be practicing law. Disgraceful.
Click to expand...

I could not agree more! Everyone is entitled to a defense when charged with a crime and they are entitled to an attorney to argue on their behalf. But that is supposed to be for the purpose of making sure the person's rights are not violated and that they get a fair trial. It is not supposed to be for pulling out all the stops to get a guilty person off scot-free. Casey has had her day in court; she got away with murder, a travesty beyond comprehension. But for attorneys to go to a higher court to get her off on misdemeanor lying convictions, that every person under the sun including Casey herself knows she's guilty of, well...it's pathetic, really. It is not what our justice system is supposed to be about. I'm sorry, but this Nation should be better than this.
 
RR0004 said:
Credit card theft, car theft, bank theft...I guess Cindy had a list to choose from. But, I always thought it was the car...in hindsight, it's a little drastic to put someone in handcuffs for using their mom's cc without their permission. Wonder if the police officer was afraid of Cindy. LOL
Click to expand...

Well I imagine the Judges are going on the submissions from the State and the Defense, plus court records. The one ThinkTank posted is 52 pages long and is interesting reading - it was for me anyhow - after all this time.
 
Horace Finklestein said:
She committed a crime. It makes sense they would out her in cuffs since at the time they were probably going to arrest her (before they knew about "missing" Caylee). Cindy didn't call them over nothing.
Click to expand...
...and as the judge pointed out, just because she was in cuffs doesn't mean she was under arrest. I was a little surprised that the defense was going for throwing out all her statements...I always thought the appeal was more about condensing the charges. I guess it shouldn't have surprised me...they did try to throw out her statements at trial as well.
The judge did point out that the oral statement(s) she made post cuffing was what she had written in her written statement pre-cuffing. Hope I got that right.
 
I remember reading about Judge Perry's record when this whole thing started and IIRC he has had only a minute amount of his decisions overturned on appeal....
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chefmom:
I simply do not see how they can overturn her lying convictions. She lied. Plain and simple. They should play her interview with the detectives at Disney in a loop. He asks her "Why are we here?" and KC says, "Because I lied." Just play that in court on a loop. "Because I lied. Because I lied. Because I lied." Then, look at the judge, and say "I rest my case." A no brainer. She lied. MOO.

Posted by Horace F:
I'm aghast that lawyers, regardless of their obligation, duty or whatever other made-up nonsense they cling to, will argue this. There is absolutely no doubt that she lied, she admitted it to police, her attorneys admitted it, her family admitted it. This farce is the very definition of manipulation and exploiting technicality to let a guilty person off the hook. So cynical. In a perfect world, these people would not be practicing law. Disgraceful.

Post of the year #1, and post of the year #2.
 
Judge to FCA's lawyers: Did Casey Anthony lie to LE about her daughters' whereabouts?

FCA's lawyers: ummm... Well.... Umm That's not really the point, now is it, Your Honor?
 
missm said:
Quote:

Originally Posted by chefmom:
I simply do not see how they can overturn her lying convictions. She lied. Plain and simple. They should play her interview with the detectives at Disney in a loop. He asks her "Why are we here?" and KC says, "Because I lied." Just play that in court on a loop. "Because I lied. Because I lied. Because I lied." Then, look at the judge, and say "I rest my case." A no brainer. She lied. MOO.

Posted by Horace F:
I'm aghast that lawyers, regardless of their obligation, duty or whatever other made-up nonsense they cling to, will argue this. There is absolutely no doubt that she lied, she admitted it to police, her attorneys admitted it, her family admitted it. This farce is the very definition of manipulation and exploiting technicality to let a guilty person off the hook. So cynical. In a perfect world, these people would not be practicing law. Disgraceful.

Post of the year #1, and post of the year #2.
Click to expand...

Isn't this about having one lying conviction instead of four?:waitasec:
IMO the Defense wants all her statements thrown out or one lying conviction.
 
They can want a cow to jump over the moon too. Doesn't mean they'll get sweet FA!

One lie, one hundred lies, statements in or statements out, this is a waste of EVERYONE'S time and a further waste of resources. Her lawyers can't have it both ways: either they are thrilled with the verdict of the wonderfully intelligent jury who got it "right", or they aren't. Trying to unring a bell now is making a joke of the entire justice system.
 
How does that song go?

You put your statements in,
You take your convictions out,
You put your statements in and you shake them all about,
You do some time in pogey and you turn the courts around,
That's what it's all about!
 
logicalgirl said:
Isn't this about having one lying conviction instead of four?:waitasec:
IMO the Defense wants all her statements thrown out or one lying conviction.
Click to expand...

I may be wrong but I thought that KC and her lawyers are trying to do two separate things with this appeal.

First was to say that she was in custody and wasn't read the Miranda warning when she lied to LE so all of her lies are inadmissible. That would overturn her convictions.

Secondly, I think they are saying that she should not have been charged with four counts of lying to police because all of the lies took place at the same time. I'm not sure how reducing her convictions to one count would help her. She would still be convicted felon and if asked in a civil case if she's been convicted of lying, she would still have to answer "yes." MOO.
 
logicalgirl said:
Isn't this about having one lying conviction instead of four?:waitasec:
IMO the Defense wants all her statements thrown out or one lying conviction.
Click to expand...

They're trying to soften the impact of her lying to LE one way or the other, so to me it doesn't matter. It's an absolutely disgusting and wasteful cause to take up, especially when their pay comes in the form of notoriety. Simply the worst of all worlds and they should be reviled for it imo.
 
logicalgirl said:
Huh? I'm not following you FaerieB - who what please? :waitasec:
Click to expand...

Sorry for the late reply. I was referring to the fact that the judge kept asking LF what amount of time would deem FCA "unarrested". LF said she wouldn't have appealed if three weeks had elapsed between the time CA was handcuffed and the time she lied to the police. He kept asking her to narrow down what she believed a sufficient amount of time would be and she kept saying she couldn't say.

(I hope I explained that in a way that made sense. Virus-brain thinks I did, but virus-brain has been known to be wrong before. :) )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 162 more.
Total: 669 (members: 163, guests: 506)

Online statistics

Members online
163
Guests online
506
Total visitors
669
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,325
Messages
18,237,731
Members
234,342
Latest member
wendysuzette
Back
Top