2010.12.21
Motion in Limine Regarding Any Testimony That Defendant Has History of Lying And Or Stealinghttp://www.docstoc.com/docs/67726322...nd-Or-Stealing
This is going to be interesting at the hearing.
The state has no interest in pointing out Casey Anthony's promiscuity. If she had no toddler, of course whose bed she was in would not matter. This is not a societial question. It matters whose bed she was in; because, we need to know when and with whom she had little two year old Caylee. In that light, if she had little Caylee out all day with Tony and then she had little Caylee spend the night with she and Ricardo, that whereabouts matters, not the sex or cuddling.
If Ricardo testifies that when he fell asleep both Casey and little Caylee were in bed fast asleep right beside him, in the middle of the night Casey claims to have responded to a demand from her mom to bring the baby home, and voila when he wakes the next morning, the baby is not there or anywhere to be seen in his home, yet Cindy testifies she never made any such call......hell yes it matters who Casey is sleeping with., and that
she lied about Caylee's wherabouts.
The lying is coming in ...in a thousand different ways and not necessarily by design. Even if you just start with her statements to police and the wild goose chases, the fact that she is a pathological liar will be clear.
Lies she told years ago, I agree are irrelevant. Lies she told while this baby was missing and in the time of the investigation...absolutely relevant and coming in. That it all started in jr. high ...that is a matter for the penalty phase, ironically, it will be the defense raising it.
If you study any case that involves a mother and her reputation for lying is raised, you'll see this clear line of before the child was missing and after to help differenciate the two. The defense knows that the state KNOWS THE RULES!
The defense is going to do a victory lap over some of these things they are asking for that are obvious, and matters the state would never try. These are twenty year veteran prosecutors. They know the rules. They have plenty to work with, within the rules. The defense asking for Tony R. nonsense to be excluded is a good example. He was never taking the stand to be asked about what went on years before Caylee went missing.
Do I wish they wouldn't waste the court's time and annoy him with silly motions on matters they know to be disingenuous, rather than rolling up their sleeves and working on the nuts and bolts work they must do to be ready for the trial date? Of course.
Will this be of any headacke or harm to the prosecution or this learned judge? Of course not.
All I can say about this is what Judge Perry told them, "You might want to get you some lunch"!
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCX84hgAsQg[/ame]
I am perfectly fine with starting with her first police statement regarding her lies. It is a treasuer trove. One need not go into her "past history of years of lying in stealing", to get the truth of the matter across to the jury of who she is and what she does. She lies. They will get it.
We can start at the end of the hallway at Universal, with Yuri confronting her that every thing she has told them, they have checked out and found it all to be lies, every address, every phone number, every job...all lies.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_SyH8-6Pho[/ame]
"With a certainty, everything that you have told me today has been a lie, every single thing", Yuri began. "Especially where Caylee is", he continued. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLquF7kRN9w[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nig-ITwHAWM[/ame]
Why are we here?, she was asked.
"Because I lied", Caey Anthony answered.
I know one lie that is coming in, Casey telling the detectives she got a call from Caylee that day! [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQaBs6S4ZTA[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rA4nBgphfQ[/ame]
You see how silly her past becomes when you have this treasure trove!!! Judge Strickland sure didn't need her past history to conclude that "The truth and Ms. Anthony are strangers", and likewise, neither will the hardworking , taxpaying members of the jury. That is my guess.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESjK7FSZV38[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLb0RYC1q5o[/ame]