Excused from the Rule of Sequestration

[Solace]

If I were in CAs shoes, I'd be thankful I had an excuse not to attend the trial in person and see the autopsy photos and hear what a complete sociopath I had raised, day after day after day. Caylee doesn't need her. ICA hates her.
I just don't get it.

She really doesn't want justice.

Saw a recent case on ID where a 16 year old asked a friend to kill her boyfriend and he did. About six years later, she was also tried for it and got lwop. The judge in the case blasted the parents at the sentencing saying there was a complete lapse in parenting, etc. etc.

She is going to be

 

[pip]

If I were in CAs shoes, I'd be thankful I had an excuse not to attend the trial in person and see the autopsy photos and hear what a complete sociopath I had raised, day after day after day. Caylee doesn't need her. ICA hates her.
I just don't get it.

She really doesn't want justice.

CA is more offensive to me than ICA..she is just the original and bigger version of ICA. The one thing I know is that she would not be there to represent the victim... the only other reasons to be there represent a continuation of the major dysfunction.
I believe ICA hates her too, no doubt.

 

[Gma Kat]

Problem is, WE want to see them misbehave and that is not what is best for the trial. lol I include myself in that WE. While I would not want to miss them acting out because we know they will, it could cause some potential problems with the jury being distracted. They could watch from an off-site, no interruption in their live feed and see everything. They could have whatever support system they wanted with them in that room. CA can't keep her mouth shut and proved it the last time she testified by calling Linda out in court by her first name as if they were best of friends. We may want them in but for the sake of the trial, I hope they are out. I think allowing them to sit in another room w/full access to what is happening in the courtroom would not be the same as keeping them sequestered. jmo

Okay Lambchop, I see where you are coming from and respect it :blowkiss:. There is some part of me that is in that WE you speak of! :blushing: I know I am in the minority that doesn't think it (an outburst) will happen, but then again I also didn't expect the A's antics on the stand during these hearings either. ....I too want what is best for the trial, so if that means I don't get to sit the A's right behind their daughter and put them all on trial, so be it :snooty:. If I really think about it, I guess I want to be able to see their faces IF they have a moment of reckoning......

They definitely should not be exempted from the sequestration rule IMO....but also, yep, I want to see them IF THEY have the "ahaaaa" moment JB speaks of..........only I want it to be the SA that gives it to them. :highfive:

 

[Solace]

I want to see them IF THEY have the "ahaaaa" moment JB speaks of..........only I want it to be the SA that gives it to them. :highfive:

Can you tell me what aha moment JB was referring to re Cindy and George? Thanks

 

[LambChop]

Okay Lambchop, I see where you are coming from and respect it :blowkiss:. There is some part of me that is in that WE you speak of! :blushing: I know I am in the minority that doesn't think it (an outburst) will happen, but then again I also didn't expect the A's antics on the stand during these hearings either. ....I too want what is best for the trial, so if that means I don't get to sit the A's right behind their daughter and put them all on trial, so be it :snooty:. If I really think about it, I guess I want to be able to see their faces IF they have a moment of reckoning......

They definitely should not be exempted from the sequestration rule IMO....but also, yep, I want to see them IF THEY have the "ahaaaa" moment JB speaks of..........only I want it to be the SA that gives it to them. :highfive:

And the only way we would be priviledged to that is if the camera were on them a lot. Defense has decided to take the judge up on his offer of the side table so KC will not have her mother behind her but her mother will have a clear view of her daughter if she sits on SA's side. KC starts acting out in court CA will not sit still for it. Decisions, decisions.

 

[Just Jayla]

Okay Lambchop, I see where you are coming from and respect it :blowkiss:. There is some part of me that is in that WE you speak of! :blushing: I know I am in the minority that doesn't think it (an outburst) will happen, but then again I also didn't expect the A's antics on the stand during these hearings either. ....I too want what is best for the trial, so if that means I don't get to sit the A's right behind their daughter and put them all on trial, so be it :snooty:. If I really think about it, I guess I want to be able to see their faces IF they have a moment of reckoning......

They definitely should not be exempted from the sequestration rule IMO....but also, yep, I want to see them IF THEY have the "ahaaaa" moment JB speaks of..........only I want it to be the SA that gives it to them. :highfive:

Let's not underestimate what they are capable of on the stand-They were reminded in the civil depo time after time that they were in a courtroom, that they could be found in contempt, and they still did not zip it-Well, GA sort of did after BC must have really broken it down with him. They have even overstepped when JB was questioning them, so it's not just their hatred of the state's attorneys.
This is the same attitude that has contributed to making this thread so hefty. Not only do they not know how to be cordial, they do not see any problem with lying, either. CA is very quick to spin her lies into excuses, like medication, trauma, etc. What I find bizaare is the way that CA will tell the truth on so many issues, then out comes a lie. She doesn't lie about everything, and sometimes when she tells the truth it is not good for KC, so it's not like she is lying on the damning stuff always. For some reason, these two have analized the case and made their own decisions about what to spin, what to leave alone, and it really shows that they have no idea what is and isn't important, just their own oddball assessments...unless JB steers them like the Febreeze. Under other circumstances, I think CA would have told the true story of the Febeeze/dryer sheets, because in her mind they are no big deal. Then, when JB hauls her into his office to explain the big deal, she is able to spin.
I wish she could be banned rom speaking with JB on the side, as some sort of form of witness tampering, since she is technically a state's witness.

 

[Oakley]

Fundamentally, as witnesses they should be out for the duration... but I have to say that a lil Anthony courtroom drama would be a hoot. These <interesting people> never cease to amaze me. I want to see CA having to sit through testimony of others SHE CANNOT CONTROL. Meltdown.

ITA Pip, they can be entertaining at times. But the outcome of this trial is far too important to take the risk that they will act out. Given past behavior, it's nearly a certainty they will. I hope they are not permitted any special entitlements. IMO.

 

[Gma Kat]

I haven't read what everyone else has said in this thread, I'm still reading the book submitted by the Anthonys' attorney - why they shouldn't be banned from the courtroom...

I do believe the attorney was so busy gathering case citations he forgot to proofread his document:

Page 2, #3, he refers to the Defendant as Caylee Marie Anthony.

Interesting how this poor child is both victim and murderer.

In appears to me that neither the Anthonys nor their attorney can be bothered with the LAW.

Since Cindy insists Caylee isn't deceased, and is living in The Bronx, how can she claim to be kin of the unknown victim? hmmm?

BBM: Plausible since ICA is a murderer claiming to be a victim.........

 

[Gma Kat]

Let's not underestimate what they are capable of on the stand-They were reminded in the civil depo time after time that they were in a courtroom, that they could be found in contempt, and they still did not zip it-Well, GA sort of did after BC must have really broken it down with him. They have even overstepped when JB was questioning them, so it's not just their hatred of the state's attorneys.
This is the same attitude that has contributed to making this thread so hefty. Not only do they not know how to be cordial, they do not see any problem with lying, either. CA is very quick to spin her lies into excuses, like medication, trauma, etc. What I find bizaare is the way that CA will tell the truth on so many issues, then out comes a lie. She doesn't lie about everything, and sometimes when she tells the truth it is not good for KC, so it's not like she is lying on the damning stuff always. For some reason, these two have analized the case and made their own decisions about what to spin, what to leave alone, and it really shows that they have no idea what is and isn't important, just their own oddball assessments...unless JB steers them like the Febreeze. Under other circumstances, I think CA would have told the true story of the Febeeze/dryer sheets, because in her mind they are no big deal. Then, when JB hauls her into his office to explain the big deal, she is able to spin.
I wish she could be banned rom speaking with JB on the side, as some sort of form of witness tampering, since she is technically a state's witness.

You made some really good points in here JJ....what I bolded in particular. We are gonna have to start a pool as to who blows-up either on the stand or in the audience first! I still am thinking there will be no scene created.....that they will play the poor pitiful grieving grandparents who are clinging on to hope that their daughter is innocent. Their testimony will be from beaten down, grief destroyed grandparents. CA will glance at the jury through her tears while burying her head in her hands during difficult testimony......BUT.......... :hand: maybe THAT constitutes a scene???? :back:

I could be wrong........

its my :twocents: and I'll be happy to poor you all a drinky-poo from Gma's cupboard if so. :martini::toastred::toast:

 

[marycontrary]

I thought the As' attorneys did a good job of presenting the argument. HHJP will want to deny it IMO , so he will have to say either (1) GA and CA are not "next of kin" or (2) CA and GA's constitutional rights as "next of kin" are trumped by KC's constitutional right to a fair trial (which would include not having witnesses who have shown that they cannot keep their stories straight from one proceeding to the next further tainted by watching other witnesses testify).

Interesting how GA and CA say that, because Caylee's closest relatives are Casey AND LEE, if CA and GA can't be there, then "no one" will be there to represent Caylee's interests. Really? IMO Lee would be a more appropriate choice as a representative of Caylee than CA and GA.

Maybe Rick would like to attend.

 

[AZlawyer]

And another great point was CA gave FBI the hairbrush used by both ICA and Caylee and not Caylee's exclusive hairbrush, which IMO. manipulated the outcome of the test...or it would have come back exclusively to Caylee's hair and not 'maternal' connections to that hair...this shows how dishonest she is and then some...

We have all seen how CA will use the victim card but yet, there she sits on the defense side of the courtroom denying true justice for Caylee...They cannot be trusted....they are not special and should be treated as any material witness is...after they've testified, then let them in..and most assuredly, they will make faces/shaking heads/hand gestures during crucial testimony they don't agree with....JMHO

Justice for Caylee

The hair from the hairbrush was tested and came back with DNA from Caylee and Casey--the test was not fooled by Cindy's attempt to "thwart" LE.

As for the hair from the trunk, a full DNA profile could not be obtained--only the mitochondrial DNA could be tested, which is passed down through the maternal line. The limitation of testing as to the trunk hair had nothing to do with the hairbrush provided by Cindy.

 

[jon_burrows]

Okay Lambchop, I see where you are coming from and respect it :blowkiss:. There is some part of me that is in that WE you speak of! :blushing: I know I am in the minority that doesn't think it (an outburst) will happen, but then again I also didn't expect the A's antics on the stand during these hearings either. ....I too want what is best for the trial, so if that means I don't get to sit the A's right behind their daughter and put them all on trial, so be it :snooty:. If I really think about it, I guess I want to be able to see their faces IF they have a moment of reckoning......

They definitely should not be exempted from the sequestration rule IMO....but also, yep, I want to see them IF THEY have the "ahaaaa" moment JB speaks of..........only I want it to be the SA that gives it to them. :highfive:

I'm on the fence as to whether or not they'll have a big, blow-out outburst but I do believe they'll continue doing what they've been doing all along. Lots of head shaking, throwing their hands up, chomping gum, making faces, and mumbling when evidence is presented in a bad light for Casey. It's a way of testifying without getting on the stand. JBP has already stated his rules and every one of these actions falls under the 'do not do' area.

It's distracting for me when I watch but I have the ability to rewind and watch again. The jury doesn't have that luxury. It may also distract the jury. They can read the transcripts but that's not the same. The As have proven time and time again they can't or won't follow the rules of the court room.

IMO

 

[joypath]

:maddening::maddening::maddening:


This one is wicked frustrating matter how one looks at it! By BIOLOGY, they ARE "kissin KIN", by SOME legal standards they are KIN, by the rules I get to play by, they are "related parties with an interest" UNLESS the document the inmate signed transferring the control of the disposal of Caylee's remains contained OTHER STATEMENTS OF CONDITIONS! I am obligated by STATE LAW to turn over the decedent to the licensed funeral home/agency of the choosing of the NEXT OF KIN no matter WHAT "cloud" of "confusion" HE /or SHE might be under. NOW, that does not mean that some other party can't come along an initiate legal action to PREVENT or at least DELAY the N o K from action and then I hold up the remains.
SO, if GA & CA were legally declared Caylee's N of K in addition to the responsible parties regarding the disposal of her remains, THAT might be a "leg for them to stand on".

IMHO, They are WITNESSES to primary facts of a case. As such, I believe that they should be treated equal to each and every other witness to insure justice for the defendant. Additionally, each has demonstrated deviations from prior statements taken UNDER OATH and thusly has demonstrated that each is influenced by "atmospheric conditions" PRN {:floorlaugh: there was NO OTHER nice way to say that!:floorlaugh:}. Since the defense gang wants to "chat" with the on the stand and since the prosecution team will be able to address them in rebuttal, looks like the Anthony trio or at least the dynamic duo should be ensconced in a "spescheal","preveate","SOUND-PROOF for our sanity" room! after testimony or IF excused without possibility of call back, THEN in the gallery LIKE ANY OTHER WITNESS. AND YES,THEN THEY CAN SIT

BEHIND THE PROSECUTION AS CAYLEE'S FAMILY/RELATIVES/KINFOLK

 

[jon_burrows]

Okay Lambchop, I see where you are coming from and respect it :blowkiss:. There is some part of me that is in that WE you speak of! :blushing: I know I am in the minority that doesn't think it (an outburst) will happen, but then again I also didn't expect the A's antics on the stand during these hearings either. ....I too want what is best for the trial, so if that means I don't get to sit the A's right behind their daughter and put them all on trial, so be it :snooty:. If I really think about it, I guess I want to be able to see their faces IF they have a moment of reckoning......

They definitely should not be exempted from the sequestration rule IMO....but also, yep, I want to see them IF THEY have the "ahaaaa" moment JB speaks of..........only I want it to be the SA that gives it to them. :highfive:

I'm on the fence as to whether or not they'll have a big blow-out outburst but I do believe they'll continue doing what they've been doing all along. Lots of head shaking, throwing their hands up, chomping gum, making faces, and mumbling when evidence is presented in a bad light for Casey. It's a way of testifying without getting on the stand. JBP has already stated his rules and every one of these actions falls under the 'do not do' area.

It's distracting for me when I watch but I have the ability to rewind and watch again. It may also distract the jury. The jury doesn't have that luxury. They can read the transcripts but that's not the same. The As have proven time and time again they can't or won't follow the rules of the court room. They will tailor their testimony (aka lie) under oath and become argumentative on the stand. They know the rules by now, they should not need JBP to scold them.

IMO

 

[LolaMoon08]

Problem is, WE want to see them misbehave and that is not what is best for the trial. lol I include myself in that WE. While I would not want to miss them acting out because we know they will, it could cause some potential problems with the jury being distracted. They could watch from an off-site, no interruption in their live feed and see everything. They could have whatever support system they wanted with them in that room. CA can't keep her mouth shut and proved it the last time she testified by calling Linda out in court by her first name as if they were best of friends. We may want them in but for the sake of the trial, I hope they are out. I think allowing them to sit in another room w/full access to what is happening in the courtroom would not be the same as keeping them sequestered. jmo

BBM - I never took Cindy calling Linda out by her first name as friendly. I actually found it extremely disprespectful... which I think is the way that Cindy intended it to be. The fact that she shouldn't have even been addressing her at all is bad enough, but I took it as if she were chastising Linda by not addressing her as Mrs. Drane-Burdick. It was like she was correcting a child.

I agree 100% that WE want to see the Anthony's have to sit there and lose their cool during certain testimony, but WE also have to think about what is best for Caylee and her case. Yes, Caylee... not Casey!! The Anthony's have a saying they like to use "Justice for Caylee will be Justice for Casey." They believe the only way that Casey can get a fair jury is if that jury listens to all the evidence and finds her not guilty... and only a not guilty verdict will be Justice for Caylee.

The victim they speak of wanting to be there for in the courtroom is Casey... they are simply using Caylee's name to get what they want. She's still their little pawn they like to use and I find it disgusting!

I don't want anything taking away from Caylee's justice and I just know that something is going to happen where Cindy or George are going to try and make that happen. They can not be trusted. I have no problem if they want to set up a room just for Cindy and George and anyone else that wants to sit with them to watch this trial... I do have a problem with them sitting in that gallery and being a distraction and potentially influencing that jury. I also do not like that they could potentially intimidate some of Casey's former friends with their dirty looks, head shaking, flaring of the arms, etc... They are going to be nervous as it is and do not need the added distraction when testifying about very important matters. It's a natural instict to look towards the person you are speaking about. I just think it is unfair to these witnesses, the jury, to Caylee, and to even Casey.

They had their chance to prove that they could behave during important hearings and they chose not to. I am standing by MY feelings that they should not be allowed in that courtroom.

 

[Solace]

BBM - I never took Cindy calling Linda out by her first name as friendly. I actually found it extremely disprespectful... which I think is the way that Cindy intended it to be. The fact that she shouldn't have even been addressing her at all is bad enough, but I took it as if she were chastising Linda by not addressing her as Mrs. Drane-Burdick. It was like she was correcting a child.

I agree 100% that WE want to see the Anthony's have to sit there and lose their cool during certain testimony, but WE also have to think about what is best for Caylee and her case. Yes, Caylee... not Casey!! The Anthony's have a saying they like to use "Justice for Caylee will be Justice for Casey." They believe the only way that Casey can get a fair jury is if that jury listens to all the evidence and finds her not guilty... and only a not guilty verdict will be Justice for Caylee.

The victim they speak of wanting to be there for in the courtroom is Casey... they are simply using Caylee's name to get what they want. She's still their little pawn they like to use and I find it disgusting!

I don't want anything taking away from Caylee's justice and I just know that something is going to happen where Cindy or George are going to try and make that happen. They can not be trusted. I have no problem if they want to set up a room just for Cindy and George and anyone else that wants to sit with them to watch this trial... I do have a problem with them sitting in that gallery and being a distraction and potentially influencing that jury. I also do not like that they could potentially intimidate some of Casey's former friends with their dirty looks, head shaking, flaring of the arms, etc... They are going to be nervous as it is and do not need the added distraction when testifying about very important matters. It's a natural instict to look towards the person you are speaking about. I just think it is unfair to these witnesses, the jury, to Caylee, and to even Casey.

They had their chance to prove that they could behave during important hearings and they chose not to. I am standing by MY feelings that they should not be allowed in that courtroom.

She was definitely being disrespectful calling her by her first name and it was intentional. She would never say but Belvin, I am trying to explain, would she? She was being disrespectful.

 

[LambChop]

And haven't the A's already done a lot of damage to some of these same witnesses who were friends of KC already. InSession is saying the A's may be giving interviews during the trial. So what will they be doing? Calling all the witnesses liars. The A's will suffer through this but let them suffer in silence. jmo

 

[LolaMoon08]

And haven't the A's already done a lot of damage to some of these same witnesses who were friends of KC already. InSession is saying the A's may be giving interviews during the trial. So what will they be doing? Calling all the witnesses liars. The A's will suffer through this but let them suffer in silence. jmo

Are they even allowed to give interviews when they are not completely finished testifying?? The way I understand it is that the State has them on their witness list and the State will present their case in chief first... Then the Defense, who have the Anthony's listed as witnesses, are going to present their case in chief... then the State can call the Anthony's back as rebuttal... and then the defense can call them back once again...

IF Judge Perry orders that they are to remain out of the courtroom until the State and the Defense has excused them... the Anthony's are told that they are not to watch any of the court proceedings on television or the internet... so how can they go on television to discuss other peoples testimony??

 

[LambChop]

Are they even allowed to give interviews when they are not completely finished testifying?? The way I understand it is that the State has them on their witness list and the State will present their case in chief first... Then the Defense, who have the Anthony's listed as witnesses, are going to present their case in chief... then the State can call the Anthony's back as rebuttal... and then the defense can call them back once again...

IF Judge Perry orders that they are to remain out of the courtroom until the State and the Defense has excused them... the Anthony's are told that they are not to watch any of the court proceedings on television or the internet... so how can they go on television to discuss other peoples testimony??

Exactly.

 

[my2sense]

Are they even allowed to give interviews when they are not completely finished testifying?? The way I understand it is that the State has them on their witness list and the State will present their case in chief first... Then the Defense, who have the Anthony's listed as witnesses, are going to present their case in chief... then the State can call the Anthony's back as rebuttal... and then the defense can call them back once again...

IF Judge Perry orders that they are to remain out of the courtroom until the State and the Defense has excused them... the Anthony's are told that they are not to watch any of the court proceedings on television or the internet... so how can they go on television to discuss other peoples testimony??

I'm not sure which hearing it was, but recently the Judge did say that he couldn't order people/witnesses not to talk to the press. I do remember him saying that.