Excused from the Rule of Sequestration

[animallover]

Katsclown... God Bless You. I admire your courage and strength.

 

[Aedrys]

Katsclown - you're the kind of grandparent the A's should have been and the kind of parent they should be. They could learn a lot from you. Bravo for doing what you did, and being brave enough to post about it. *hugs*

 

[Melanie]

They really SHOULD stay out. Cindy has a propensity to change her story and George just can't contain himself, making faces, nodding his head, etc. For those two reasons alone they shouldn't be allowed in to hear what everyone else has to say. At least until they are through being called to testify.

Oh Lord, please keep me from having to look at them chomping gum, leaning on each other, shaking their heads, and making every facial expression known to man. Let me not witness CA standing up raising her hand in the air should she feel the need to say something. Please let me avoid the hugs she will garner IN FRONT OF THE JURY, and the tears, oh the tears. Not for her beloved grandaughter, but for the child killer (IMHO) ICA.

IF they are allowed in court, I just may have to up my Blood Pressure meds.

Your Honour - JUST SAY NO! PLEASE!

MOO

Mel

 

[pip]

I vote NO special privileges for the A's. They are not entitled and special and need to be reminded of that. Let em' visit their lovely daughter at Lowell. Attending the trial is not about honoring the victim for them. That isn't going to happen until the trial is over, ICA is locked up for good, and reality can no longer be escaped or distorted. (and maybe not even then)

 

[Melanie]

:hug: katsclown

 

[Melanie]

I vote NO special privileges for the A's. They are not entitled and special and need to be reminded of that. Let em' visit their lovely daughter at Lowell. Attending the trial is not about honoring the victim for them. That isn't going to happen until the trial is over, ICA is locked up for good, and reality can no longer be escaped or distorted. (and maybe not even then)

Here's a ?. Once she's convicted (and I'm sure she will be), when she goes off to the Pen, will her visits be recorded? Or can they talk at will.

Thanks,

Mel

 

[wenwe4]

Katsclown, you voice (and others) here are the very reason I am drawn to this site. The life experience, combined with education, thoughts, musings, and pure talent that has been and remains to this day on this forum from all of the posters. WS allows for and encourages the different perspectives that we all bring to each other. Thank you so much for sharing your experience and I feel truly blessed to be here with you on this journey.

 

[pip]

Here's a ?. Once she's convicted (and I'm sure she will be), when she goes off to the Pen, will her visits be recorded? Or can they talk at will.

Thanks,

Mel

They won't be recorded, they can talk at will.. but you know they won't be talking about the truth about what happened in case anyone overheard anything. They will hold out all hope for a retrial imo, and not take any risks. They will never be in a place they can talk 100% privately.

 

[katsclown]

Katsclown, you voice (and others) here are the very reason I am drawn to this site. The life experience, combined with education, thoughts, musings, and pure talent that has been and remains to this day on this forum from all of the posters. WS allows for and encourages the different perspectives that we all bring to each other. Thank you so much for sharing your experience and I feel truly blessed to be here with you on this journey.

Wenwe4: Your kind words mean the world to me. Thank you so much for the support and sympathy - to all others, thank you, too. This is an amazing forum and I'll be forever hooked, long after this case is over.

 

[Omachka]

I've followed this case quite closely from day 1 for a very personal reason. My own daughter has been in prison for almost 5 years for child abuse. Her victim was my greatgrandson (her own grandson). She got 20 years (10 in prison and 10 probation).

When pretrial called me to see if I had any input, I told them honestly that I had seen no problem with her EVER around kids, but that I would not support her in court or at any other time. I was more concerned for her innocent VICTIM. I think they were kind of shocked. My hands are shaking writing this, but I've read here forever and thought it'd be ok to share here.

I was not in court I seldom write to my daughter (it's been over a year), I've never sent her a dime and I don't visit or speak to her on the phone. When and if she owns up and apologizes to her daughter and her victim, things can and will change. I feel this is the best way and I do love my daughter. I hope she learns something from this, but as far as I'm concerned, she can stay in jail forever if she doesn't.

Thanks for listening. I'd have a drink, but it's not even noon. LOL

Ya'll are mahvelous !!

Katsclown you are a very brave woman. I admire your strength and resolve. Thank you so much for sharing your story with us. I know that must have been hard to do. I'm sure the others who have read your post will agree with me that we are very happy you are here.

As soon as it's time for that drink, I will drink a toast to your strength. :toastred: You are mahvelous too!!

 

[cloud9]

New docket entry:

04/25/2011 Motion
for Relatives of Victim to be Excused from the Rule of Sequestration and Memorandum of Law

IMO, The A's will not be able to keep quiet, and I am sure they will be called to the witness stand more than once. Thoughts.

Does anyone know if this motion has been posted as yet? The "newest" trunk stain one has not.:waitasec:

Thanks!

 

[Snaz]

So I wonder why it was taken off of the docket then? Curiouser and curiouser! I can't imagine the A's wanting that off of the docket...

So how can that motion just "be gone" from the court docket? Wouldn't the A's attorney have to file a memorandum or some legal document to remove it?

Anyone?

TIA!

 

[Aedrys]

I don't know. I wasn't the first one to see it gone from the docket. I didn't even see it there as I didn't access the docket until it wasn't there anymore. I am just as confused as everyone else here. Oh wait, here's suepitzl's original post and I trust her:

New docket entry:

04/25/2011 Motion
for Relatives of Victim to be Excused from the Rule of Sequestration and Memorandum of Law

IMO, The A's will not be able to keep quiet, and I am sure they will be called to the witness stand more than once. Thoughts.

That's two motions, one that hasn't made it on the docket yet, and one that was but then vanished. What the heck is going on?

 

[Intermezzo]

I think the trial is gonna get interesting if Cindy's allowed to stay in the courtroom throughout.

How did I miss that picture of Cindy standing up in court?
OLG when was that?

 

[LolaMoon08]

I don't know. I wasn't the first one to see it gone from the docket. I didn't even see it there as I didn't access the docket until it wasn't there anymore. I am just as confused as everyone else here. Oh wait, here's suepitzl's original post and I trust her:




That's two motions, one that hasn't made it on the docket yet, and one that was but then vanished. What the heck is going on?

:hypno::ufo::hypno:

 

[Aedrys]

Does anyone know exactly when the A's got new attorneys? I'm trying to check the docket to see if they ever did a notice of appearance. AZlawyer said that might be why the motion was pulled.

 

[SondraK]

I don't know. I wasn't the first one to see it gone from the docket. I didn't even see it there as I didn't access the docket until it wasn't there anymore. I am just as confused as everyone else here. Oh wait, here's suepitzl's original post and I trust her:




That's two motions, one that hasn't made it on the docket yet, and one that was but then vanished. What the heck is going on?

Hasn't HHJBP already addressed these???? I don't think he intends to chew his cud twice. (as my mom would say) :great:

 

[SCHTown]

08-25-2010, 05:05 PM
strawberry
Registered User Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,008

George and Cindy Anthony have new lawyers

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the news thread:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,1022165.story

<snipped>

George and Cindy Anthony have a new pair of lawyers representing them in their daughter's case, according to court documents filed late today.

Orlando attorneys Mark Lippman and Jennifer Craddock, both with the Lippman Law Offices on South Orange Avenue, filed notices of appearance in the Casey Anthony case file late today.

I thought this was what the docket update meant. Thanks nums!

Suckas?

 

[lauriej]

Does anyone know exactly when the A's got new attorneys? I'm trying to check the docket to see if they ever did a notice of appearance. AZlawyer said that might be why the motion was pulled.

..this one is on the docket now--

04/26/2011Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Motion to Exclude Stain in Trunk of Car


..the anthony attorneys, mark lippman and jennifer craddock filed notice:

08/25/2010 Notice of Appearance
on Behalf of George Anthony
08/25/2010 Notice of Appearance
on Behalf of Cynthia Anthony

 

[Aedrys]

..this one is on the docket now--

04/26/2011Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Motion to Exclude Stain in Trunk of Car


..the anthony attorneys, mark lippman and jennifer craddock filed notice:

08/25/2010 Notice of Appearance
on Behalf of George Anthony
08/25/2010 Notice of Appearance
on Behalf of Cynthia Anthony

Thank you! One mystery solved. BayNews jumped the gun. Or should I say shark, LOL. I still don't know what happened to the Anthony's motion, though.