Excused from the Rule of Sequestration

[Gnatcatcher]

That's WESH for ya. Sloppy at best. :snooty:

That's not from Wesh, it's actually in the Anthony's motion written that way.

The motion is only a few pages, but it looks like they copied an entire law journal and attached it to make it 92 pages.

 

[RR0004]

Page 2, section 5:

"As relatives of the victim, Caylee Anthony, and pursuant to Article I, Section 16(b) of the Florida Constitution, Cindy Anthony and George Anthony are entitled to attend all proceedings as relatives to the victims."

a) Why inconsistently omit her middle name here?
b) relatives TO, not OF?
c) the victimS ??? Plural?

There are tons and tons of typos. But ok, I'll let it go.

BBM in red...very interesting!

 

[Aedrys]

That's not from Wesh, it's actually in the Anthony's motion written that way.

The motion is only a few pages, but it looks like they copied an entire law journal and attached it to make it 92 pages.

Oh well, if an entire law journal is on there, it can't be denied!!!!

Pfffft. It'll take him under 92 seconds to deny this!

 

[strawberry]

The first thing that jumped out at me was they called ICA Caylee. The second is on page 8 where they bolded "next of kin of homicide victims". So they'll call it a homicide so they can be in the courtroom, but not a homicide if ICA had anything to do with it?

 

[Joanner]

This has probably been asked before, but I haven't seen it.

Bob Sheaffer says "You really don't want them present in the courtroom so that the prosecutor can raise the issue of their testimony possibly being tainted by what they've heard, thus discrediting what good they may have to say," he explained."

So the Anthonys can't be in the courtroom as spectators. But they would be able to watch the trial at home or on their computer? Because they are witnesses, does that mean they have to spend every day at the court house or would they just be there on the days they are to testify?

I really like Bob Shaeffer. He doesn't beat around the bush.

 

[Anais]

Page 2, section 5:

"As relatives of the victim, Caylee Anthony, and pursuant to Article I, Section 16(b) of the Florida Constitution, Cindy Anthony and George Anthony are entitled to attend all proceedings as relatives to the victims."

a) Why inconsistently omit her middle name here?
b) relatives TO, not OF?
c) the victimS ??? Plural?

There are tons and tons of typos. But ok, I'll let it go.

Somehow I am certain that CA has her hand in on the "to the victims" end of the motion. As a matter of fact there is no doubt in my mind that it is just another stab at the SAO!

BBM in red...very interesting!

ITA......as I stated above I do not for one second believe that "victims" is a typo! HHCJBP will not fail to recognize it for what it is either. Of that I am certain!

 

[AZlawyer]

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.

 

[Leila]

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 !!

I'm so sorry to hear of your situation. Although it's painful, you've done the right thing. Loving your daughter does not mean supporting or condoning what she did. When and if she admits what she did was wrong, apologizes, and wants to move forward, then you can support her.

 

[strawberry]

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.

Sounds like Lee has no intention of sitting through it.

 

[Intermezzo]

The first thing that jumped out at me was they called ICA Caylee. The second is on page 8 where they bolded "next of kin of homicide victims". So they'll call it a homicide so they can be in the courtroom, but not a homicide if ICA had anything to do with it?

I have only heard Cindy refer to Caylee's death/murder, on tv a interview, as Caylee's tragedy.

 

[Gnatcatcher]

This has probably been asked before, but I haven't seen it.

Bob Sheaffer says "You really don't want them present in the courtroom so that the prosecutor can raise the issue of their testimony possibly being tainted by what they've heard, thus discrediting what good they may have to say," he explained."

So the Anthonys can't be in the courtroom as spectators. But they would be able to watch the trial at home or on their computer? Because they are witnesses, does that mean they have to spend every day at the court house or would they just be there on the days they are to testify?

I really like Bob Shaeffer. He doesn't beat around the bush.

BBM - I have wondered this myself. What's to prevent ANY of the witnesses from logging in online or watching TV? I admit I have not actually read the fundamentals of the rules of sequestration, so i'm asking without checking it out first, but I know they're not going to put the witnesses away in a hotel room and throw away the key, so I guess I just don't really get it. Is it an 'on your honor' sort of thing?

 

[ZsaZsa]

The Anthonys don't deserve to sit on Caylees side. Not that they would even want to sit on her side.

I agree.
There is one law for the Anthonys and another for the rest of us.
They cannot even comply with the current restrictions in court, they have no business being there.

 

[JSR]

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.

As IF they would actually be in the courtroom for Caylees interests!!!! :furious: I can't tell you how infuriating this family is .... Ugh!! :banghead::banghead:

 

[animallover]

Sorry made a bit of a mess of the last post...this is what I meant. :crazy:

THANKS for the best laugh that I've had in many moons!

 

[cloud9]

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.

Well said! I completely agree!

 

[animallover]

I think the name mix up will keep happening through out the trial. : (

Wouldn't surprise me either....I was surprised that George and Lee didn't have Marie as their middle name.

 

[Leila]

..bill shaeffer seems to think those 92 pages were a huge waste of time.

http://www.wftv.com/news/27678035/detail.html

---------"Sheaffer says if either side would have to expose to the jury how their stories might have changed as a result of hearing what others said before their testimony, it would complicate matters, which is why he does not expect Chief Judge Belvin Perry to make an exception in this exceptional case for the Anthonys.


"I doubt he's going to grant it," Sheaffer said.


Prosecutors have not yet responded to the Anthony's request. Sheaffer has never seen a judge make this kind of exception to the rule of sequestration of witnesses."

I read Sheaffer's comments about this and I sure hope he's correct when he says that he's never seen a judge make this kind of exception to the rule of sequestration of witnesses.

The Anthonys should NOT be allowed to have an exception made in this case. They are not special, even though they think they are. Every murder defendant has parents.

 

[Kentjbkent]

So here is a thought....

As the lone man (woman) standing who still strongly believes that KC is going to change her plea (as part of last minute plea deal) at the beginning of the trial...

I can't help but wonder if this motion was not prepared and submitted at the direction of CA so that she is sitting front and center as KC makes one of her last court appearances?

Can't believe IF this is going to happen, that CA would stand for not being present to show her "support" of her daughter....

Was CA present in the courtroom at the opening of the fraud trial when KC changed her plea

(and is for another thread, but for clarification, I still think the defense is trying to get SA to agree to plea negotiation for involuntary manslaughter under "accident theory" but SA is not budging....but defense may cave to 2nd degree to prevent trial from happening..imo...)

 

[Softail]

Wouldn't surprise me either....I was surprised that George and Lee didn't have Marie as their middle name.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[momtective]

So here is a thought....

As the lone man (woman) standing who still strongly believes that KC is going to change her plea (as part of last minute plea deal) at the beginning of the trial...

I can't help but wonder if this motion was not prepared and submitted at the direction of CA so that she is sitting front and center as KC makes one of her last court appearances?

Can't believe IF this is going to happen, that CA would stand for not being present to show her "support" of her daughter....

Was CA present in the courtroom at the opening of the fraud trial when KC changed her plea

(and is for another thread, but for clarification, I still think the defense is trying to get SA to agree to plea negotiation for involuntary manslaughter under "accident theory" but SA is not budging....but defense may cave to 2nd degree to prevent trial from happening..imo...)

BBM
Honestly..that would really make me angry! What would be the maximum sentence she would receive?