Frustration!

[Melanie]

I, too am very concerned at what the state is NOT asking witnesses.

I am concerned at how much the judge allows Baez to badger. I think part of his strategy is to bore and exhaust, to the point where the longer he badgers, the more long-winded confusion he creates.

Yes, that reminded me of another thing. Jose is alllll over the place. Do you notice how he changes the subject, then comes back to his original subject, leaving the witness with a WTH look on their face. Half the time I can't figure out what he's on about. He spends quite a bit of time saying "I'll get back to that" - "let me rephrase that" - "let me strike that" - "can you give me a moment" - "Judge, can we have a sidebar".

I think once he's done with those witnesses, they must run to the nearest bar. I know I would

MOO

Mel

 

[The Eunice Burns]

If the option "Mistakes By The State" were not a choice, I'd love for an option to be "All Of The Above". Sidebars, JB's behavior, the whole DT bugs the carp out of me. And add Geraldo too. Bleh.

 

[Reality Orlando]

I think Baez is making a huge mistake when he tries to twist witnesses statements around to say what HE wants them to say. I think the jurors are going to see that as more lying associated with the defendant and come to the conclusion that everything associated with KC is fabricated to cover up her crime.

 

[Reality Orlando]

Yes, that reminded me of another thing. Jose is alllll over the place. Do you notice how he changes the subject, then comes back to his original subject, leaving the witness with a WTH look on their face. Half the time I can't figure out what he's on about. He spends quite a bit of time saying "I'll get back to that" - "let me rephrase that" - "let me strike that" - "can you give me a moment" - "Judge, can we have a sidebar".

I think once he's done with those witnesses, they must run to the nearest bar. I know I would

MOO

Mel

"I'll get back to that..." ugh. I think the jurors are on to that.

 

[Coldpizza]

My only frustrations are the inaccuracies that are portrayed in some of the media reporting. There are certain talking heads I call them "bobble heads" that I want to throw something at the TV.

OH and I would love to hear what is going on at sidebar!

 

[Sleuth5]

An "All of the Above" works for me.

I would have to say the number one source of frustration for me is JB's total inability to make a coherent point. Watching him come up to the podium is like a mini-death for me, as I know what awaits. Tortured, convoluted, completely nonsensical logic, a point buried in there somewhere, struggling to detect said point, and then reflexively realizing that the point wasn't worth detecting. For the life of me, I would swear he was one of my freshmen if I didn't know better.

All MOO. Unfortunately, all actually experienced. More to come, sad to say.:banghead:

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

I think once he's done with those witnesses, they must run to the nearest bar. I know I would Mel

Respectfully snipped and BBM. I'm seriously contemplating sending the jury a case of bubbly or fine wine when the trial is over. They'll have earned it. :toastred:

 

[21merc7]

I vote all of the above! Guess I could check other but I didn't, scratch that, checking other now. I must say as frustrating as it is, it makes it a bit more interesting. It is not just cut and dry, so you never know what you are going to get moment to moment. My blood pressure does not agree, but any health issue would not agree with that "box of chocolates" that you end up with in life.

I am happy to have to stop watching and work sometimes. It can be a bit too much. I don't know how this trial will look in history, but I am certain there are many lessons within it for many.

 

[angela s]

All of the above... PLUS, lately, Jose has been driving me insane with his smarmy look when he says "good morning" or "good afternoon" to the jury.

 

[Sleuth5]

All of the above... PLUS, lately, Jose has been driving me insane with his smarmy look when he says "good morning" or "good afternoon" to the jury.

Oooooh, you struck a nerve there. A "Thanks" was not enough. :furious:

 

[katydid23]

It is almost 'All of the above' but i am not frustrated by any mistakes by the state so far. I think they have been pretty steady and very convincing and consistent overall.

I almost chose the DT's OS, but then realized it was the best thing that Baez has ever done to benefit the prosecution so far. Sure, he got an initial boost, from the shock and awe. But once people began to look at the theory with reason or logic, it all fell apart.

 

[RR473]

I voted Other and have stopped to follow the full coverage. Reason? The SA's.

Introducing so many trivial details and doing bookkeeping in front of the jury.
They showed tens of items to Dr. Voss just to say that he found ONE decomposing hair.
For hours they introduced dog pictures, unrelated dog video and dog certificates just to say the dog found cadaver odor in car trunk and in the backyard.

Furthermore this showed me that the state is desperately short of evidence and the judge is NOT impartial. He is clearly favoring the SA. Baez rightly objected to the cadaver dog 101 but the judge dismissed it. Then why not let Baez take same number of hours and talk about the unreliability of cadaver dogs? If SA may educate the jury why not DT to do the same?

 

[RSDhoping for a cure]

I had to hit other because "all of the above" wasn't an option

 

[Aedrys]

The sidebars drive me crazy. And not only that, but Jose's objections (which wasn't an option up there). I think he actually did less today, which was so shocking, but he usually objects to EVERYTHING. I understand he has to do his job, but his objections are OVERKILL!!!!! And also highlight that whatever is being said is bad for the defense!

Oh, that's another thing that bothers me, the way he crosses. He is ALWAYS helping the state more. I swear, I'd like to send him a Crossing Witnesses for Dummies book!

 

[Aedrys]

I voted Other and have stopped to follow the full coverage. Reason? The SA's.

Introducing so many trivial details and doing bookkeeping in front of the jury.
They showed tens of items to Dr. Voss just to say that he found ONE decomposing hair.
For hours they introduced dog pictures, unrelated dog video and dog certificates just to say the dog found cadaver odor in car trunk and in the backyard.

Furthermore this showed me that the state is desperately short of evidence and the judge is NOT impartial. He is clearly favoring the SA. Baez rightly objected to the cadaver dog 101 but the judge dismissed it. Then why not let Baez take same number of hours and talk about the unreliability of cadaver dogs? If SA may educate the jury why not DT to do the same?

The SA HAS to do that kind of bookkeeping for legal reasons. This isn't Law and Order where a case is decided in one hour. It may be tedious, but they have to do it. They have no choice or this evidence may get thrown out. They are methodically laying out their case, and yes it's boring, and yes it seems like some details are trivial, but it has to be done. And they are slowing tying everything together. I'd rather them do that than try please a bored public, rush, and have evidence thrown out because of not checking it in properly. They are laying a good foundation, which is what they have to do to get their case across. It's called knowing their jobs and doing their jobs well. Unlike someone else...

There was hearing about the cadaver dogs before the trial, so believe me, he had plenty of opportunity to dispute the cadaver dogs. He was turned down then because he doesn't know how to argue any issue to save his life. It's not the SA's fault that he can't formulate a GOOD argument for keeping any evidence out. He can't educate the jury either because he doesn't know how. He would just babble and go on and on and not make one good point. So he should be allowed to waste the jury's time doing that? I don't think so. The SA knows how to educate the jury and that is why they are allowed to do it.

The state is NOT short of evidence at all. They are methodically going through their case, and have checked in over one hundred pieces of evidence so far. They have talked about a lot of that evidence too. I don't understand where the attitude that they have little evidence is coming from.

Someone on another forum said it's like Daffy Duck versus Einstein, and that is exactly what it is. Be irritated at Baez, not the SA's. They are doing their job. He is clearly not, and keeps getting away with it, which burns me to no end.

 

[spartanmom]

I voted sidebars but Mr Baez's objections to everything (most all overruled) is driving me insane!

Doesn't he do that for the chance of an appeal, I do not know that for sure, but, I do agree with you, it is very annoying!!
:maddening:

 

[katydid23]

I voted Other and have stopped to follow the full coverage. Reason? The SA's.

Introducing so many trivial details and doing bookkeeping in front of the jury.
They showed tens of items to Dr. Voss just to say that he found ONE decomposing hair.
For hours they introduced dog pictures, unrelated dog video and dog certificates just to say the dog found cadaver odor in car trunk and in the backyard.

Furthermore this showed me that the state is desperately short of evidence and the judge is NOT impartial. He is clearly favoring the SA. Baez rightly objected to the cadaver dog 101 but the judge dismissed it. Then why not let Baez take same number of hours and talk about the unreliability of cadaver dogs? If SA may educate the jury why not DT to do the same?

That is exactly what the SA HAD TO DO. They did not do it that way because they wanted to waste any one's time. It is what the court demands of them. They had to lay the foundation and introduce each and every piece of evidence, one by one. If they didn't they would not be able to use any of it in their case or in their closing statements.

 

[dr dona]

All the above but LKB and her Smarmy attitude in defending ICA is making me drink tonight. This trial is about the murderof a 2 year old child!!!! I have never seen ICA get in the least bit misty eyed when Caylee is mentioned. Most parents never recover from the death of their child!!!
Gonna pour some pinot grigio.

 

[celticthyme]

With all the attention this case is getting, many folks are getting a first hand look at our justice system. The opening statements of Baez, (how much of it was true ?), lack of professionalism, disrespect for the court and expert witnesses, ineptitude and his lack of experience is just embarrassing. As has been mentioned by some, at least OJ had Barry Scheck,with his forensic expertise... what expertise does the DT have to try this very complicated case? Given the IT and Scientific / chemical and biologic evidence that will come into play, it is not an easy case to try. Though the State's case in chief is tedious, they are laying out all the pieces of the puzzle in a methodical and chronological way, and hopefully the jurors are able to understand and make some sense out of it all.

 

[Caligram]

The DT needs a disclaimer on any recorded events in which they appear. It should be a warning to viewers stating that watching them may be hazzardous to your health. The state witnesses have been treated with incredible rudeness, sarcasm and sneers. The trial has continued to proceed slowly as JB objedcts to anything that shows his client is guilty. JB apparently reads from the same material that he used during the Frye hearings. The statement he frequently uses to a witness to explain to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury ......is an obvious attempt to discredit any further words from the witness. Now, (another JB sentence-starter) since I have expressed only a few of my frustrations, I suppose this won't stay posted here....but you did ask us, didn't you? Sorry, I'm hanging in here for justice for Caylee Marie but this wait is excruciating.