Has The Defense Changed Your Mind About ICA's Guilt?

[katydid23]

I found the defense's opening statements to be very powerful. I also noticed that GA's testimony showed a lot of signs of dishonesty. When asked some questions he immediately broke eye contact, which is a significant sign that someone is lying. Additionally, GA responded to some questions with "I did not," which is another indicator of dishonesty. People who are being honest and sincere are more likely to say, "I didn't," and use contractions. People who are being dishonest also try to "dance" around any questions that they think might expose their lies by trying to evade or avoid answering a direct question with long explanations. GA did all of these things when asked if he molested KC and the whole duct tape/gas can questioning. I tune in to watch proceedings when I'm able and every time GA is on the stand I notice these dishonesty cues coming from him.

If you ask someone if they took 20 bucks out of your wallet, then it might be more honest if they said ' No, I didn't.' I understand your point.

But if the question is " Did you rape your daughter and kill your granddaughter---then I would wholly expect the answer to be " NO, I DID NOT."

The reason George gave long explanations was because Baez was trying to trap him into weird yes or no questions. George was trying to avoid the traps so he kept explaining himself. I think George is uncomfortable partly because he did lie in the beginning to try and help Casey. So now he is in a real pickle. But I do not think he is guilty of the BS the DT is trying to pin on him.

 

[miss plum]

According to the current results of this poll 6.09% of respondents, which is equivalent to 0.7308% of 1 juror out of 12, have changed their mind about ICA's guilt. That is not a very worrying figure considering this poll was started shortly after JB's dramatic opening statements, dramatic statements which are going to be strongly challenged by the evidence and the prosecution, and then considered by jurors who will have been firmly instructed by HHJBP about the difference between an unsubstantiated claim and proper evidence.

 

[gxm]

IMO the defense has carefully concocted this story because they have to deal with two overwhelming facts: Caylee is dead and her mother knowingly lied about Caylee's whereabouts the entire time she was missing. So they had to come up with a story that took both of these facts into account because the evidence is indisputable.

So right out of the gate they say that Caylee's death was an accident. But why bring GA into it? Because he was the last person to see her alive, leaving the house with her mother. They know that GA's testimony will contradict their story. So they have to discredit him. What better way to discredit him and present an excuse for KC's happy party girl lifestyle immediately following the death of her child than to claim (in graphic terms) he has molested her since she was a child? And, it provides distraction. It shifts people's attention away from ICA to GA. I hate to admit it but it's probably the only choice they had. It was the last time Caylee was seen alive and only ICA and GA were there, so GA becomes the fall guy.

Originally, I was inclined to believe that Caylee's death could have been an accident due to her mother's neglect. But the story the defense has presented now leads me to believe that ICA is capable of premeditated murder. The elaborate finger pointing smacks of desperation. We'll see if the defense presents a witness to corroborate their story, but for now I believe she's guiltier than ever. The defense has managed to make her even more unsympathetic to me. And that's saying a lot.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I found the defense's opening statements to be very powerful. I also noticed that GA's testimony showed a lot of signs of dishonesty. When asked some questions he immediately broke eye contact, which is a significant sign that someone is lying. Additionally, GA responded to some questions with "I did not," which is another indicator of dishonesty. People who are being honest and sincere are more likely to say, "I didn't," and use contractions. People who are being dishonest also try to "dance" around any questions that they think might expose their lies by trying to evade or avoid answering a direct question with long explanations. GA did all of these things when asked if he molested KC and the whole duct tape/gas can questioning. I tune in to watch proceedings when I'm able and every time GA is on the stand I notice these dishonesty cues coming from him.

That's pretty subjective imo. Different people act and react differently to things.

 

[rbrnmw2]

http://www.wftv.com/video/17461496/index.html

The entire Universal Interview IMO is good evidence of ICA's total guilt

 

[GutFeeling!]

http://www.wftv.com/video/17461496/index.html

The entire Universal Interview IMO is good evidence of ICA's total guilt

I cannot believe her. I would be shaking in my boots if detectives were on my case like that. She is so damn confident even when her lies are proven.

I hadn't listen to that for ages ..... can't say anymore - too many mods check LOL

 

[star444]

The opening statement by the defense did not change MY mind, but... I could definitely see how it could paint "reasonable doubt" for a juror who was unfamiliar with the case. I truly hope that does not happen, but, it makes me a little concerned.

 

[rbrnmw2]

I cannot believe her. I would be shaking in my boots if detectives were on my case like that. She is so damn confident even when her lies are proven.

I hadn't listen to that for ages ..... can't say anymore - too many mods check LOL

ICA almost sounded happy in some parts of the interview I didn't catch it before when I listened it gave me chills

 

[Spangle]

The defense has not changed my mind, however, my mom who doesn't know anything about this case listened to the defence and said I dont think she is guilty, I think the baby drowned. Because I have followed the case and know how JB is I dont buy it, but it concerns me that someone who hasn't followed it could beleive it, because the jury might buy it, all they need is one to buy it.

a friend watched him and believed him. Thinks what he said was factual statements. GA is guilty of SA. And that played heavy in it. Not even thinking about that this SA charge hasn't been proven or even officially claimed.

Anyone who doesn't want to believe a young Mother can/would kill their child, they are going to use JB's opening statements to solidify that belief. By the time it comes to him having to prove his statements.. I wouldn't be surprised if they had all ready forgotten his statements exactly and no longer expect those statements to be proven.

To My friend, I pointed out LE knew how to do cpr and would have at least tried to save that baby. He would know that some drownings where saved later. So he would have called 911. He would also know, that and accident could be explained with a slap on the hand, compared to this. His level of knowledge of the legal side of this would have made him aware of the holes in trying to hide the body, etc. Nor would he have hid the body in the trunk until it started decaying, before hiding it. And, if she got him to do it later, well after the fact... It would have made him an accomplice at most, not the Murder. The point of the trial is about wither or not ICA killed caylee. Not who helped her during or after the fact.

JB made claims that can not be proven. He has turned over no evidence that would help his claims. And he cannot just slip it in later. But I've got this feeling that some folks will not even be looking for proof of JB's statements.

 

[magnolia]

a friend watched him and believed him. Thinks what he said was factual statements. GA is guilty of SA. And that played heavy in it. Not even thinking about that this SA charge hasn't been proven or even officially claimed.

Anyone who doesn't want to believe a young Mother can/would kill their child, they are going to use JB's opening statements to solidify that belief. By the time it comes to him having to prove his statements.. I wouldn't be surprised if they had all ready forgotten his statements exactly and no longer expect those statements to be proven.

To My friend, I pointed out LE knew how to do cpr and would have at least tried to save that baby. He would know that some drownings where saved later. So he would have called 911. He would also know, that and accident could be explained with a slap on the hand, compared to this. His level of knowledge of the legal side of this would have made him aware of the holes in trying to hide the body, etc. Nor would he have hid the body in the trunk until it started decaying, before hiding it. And, if she got him to do it later, well after the fact... It would have made him an accomplice at most, not the Murder. The point of the trial is about wither or not ICA killed caylee. Not who helped her during or after the fact.

JB made claims that can not be proven. He has turned over no evidence that would help his claims. And he cannot just slip it in later. But I've got this feeling that some folks will not even be looking for proof of JB's statements.

Although by law, opening statements are not considered evidence, you can't unring a bell.

 

[Spangle]

Based upon what we knew, I thought she was guilty. But I"m one of those folks that do like to hear the other side. I've been waiting to hear her side. They didn't give me anything to use to help consider her innocent.

The GA stuff is just a smoke screen. The SA charges might be helpful in the next phase, but it doesn't prove innocent in this phase. If he did help her move the body, that would only prove accomplice, not that she is innocent. Many thought she had help with that anyway.

That just leaves the drowning theory. He left alot of holes in that one too. And nothing that can be proven. After all the lies and 3 years later, I need SOME proof in her story. He will need to test the bones to prove it happened. IF he says that the ME should have.. Well, I sucks to be working for a known lier. Cause he is the one that needs it, not the state. The state doesn't need to prove she did or didn't drown. They got alot of proof for their theory.. Where is the DT proof??

So, the opening statements pretty much showed me what the DT is going with. Since I know that it's impossible, it pretty much does it for me. I totally believe she is guilty now. I doubt they come up with anything to support their case. I would listen to it, but I highly doubt they got it.

 

[Spangle]

Although by law, opening statements are not considered evidence, you can't unring a bell.

True.

But it's a game that is played. Making statements in court that you KNOW the Judge will not allow. How then tells the jury to ignore the statements. But, once it's implanted in the mind....

Like right now, with all the spankings JB is getting. How does the jury see it? Could he try to play victum and claim that the SA and Judge will not let him really show the evidence. That he is being cut of from showing them the truth?

The jury will not know that the reason he is being cut off is he is trying to get the witness to word things in a way that he can twist in a whole different meaning. Or slip in things that are known to be nonfactual or untruthful.

As noted, this whole poll is about wither or not our views on Casey's guilt or innocents has changed, based upon the opening statements. IF those statements are not to be considered factual, then how can our opinions change?? And we here pretty much knows the evidence and will use it at this point. But the jury?? My friend?? All they got is those opening statements.

And they will expect those statements to be proven and will
not expect those statements to be lies. They will be going on good faith. And THAT will color how they look at evidence. By the time they look at what the DT has, they will have already looked at the SA's with a negative and highly critical eye. I bet the plan will be to just point out that the SA has 'nothing', without even attempting to prove his opening statements. IF the jury doesn't believe the SA's case is sound, it will not matter if those opening statements are factual or not. <wink>

 

[Pink Panther]

Drama is drama. The Defence so far, is wreaked in it. The other side, perhaps less entertaining, is methodically bringing out FACTS. No drama there. Juries see through this stuff. The only person they're confused about right now is GA. And the SA has already begun to build their trust in FACTS. They know that for some reason the SA is defending GA. (JB let them know this loud and clear when he admonished GA stating "Mr. A cannot hlep you here" (or something like that). Stoopid move on Mr. Baez's part. That will bite him in the butt big time. JB's tone and questioning comes off as amateurish at best with a tinge of "swindler" thrown in. JA's questioning is respectful if not a bit prudish. Who am I (juror who knows very little at this point) going to listen to? hmmm....Let me think about that.

moo

 

[minazoe]

The prosecution flicked Baez off like a gnat today....the sheer breadth of Cindy's testimony could only be matched by the seemingly infinite span of Casey's lies, uncoiling...year after year.

my god.

and then there is the un-ending display of Casey's feelings with all of the explosions at the defense table....

my god...guilty.

guiltier than before...frankly...it's more of a DP case now...I see why the prosecution is so rabid to get her....I would go after her too...like no body's business.

so heinous...

 

[Mohabi]

I voted YES. The defense has finally convinced me that KC is GUILTY.

 

[ella971]

Guilty! No reasonable doubt !!!!!!!!

 

[ella971]

http://www.wftv.com/video/17461496/index.html

The entire Universal Interview IMO is good evidence of ICA's total guilt

Thank you.

 

[cluciano63]

I can't help wondering about the one juror, the one the state tried to dismiss...what is she thinking about all of this, what we have heard to date?

 

[Linda7NJ]

The defense removed any doubt I had. I had been atleast willing to consider it was a tragic accident and Casey just panicked. Not because she was scared of her parents but didn't want to hurt them.

Casey's blaming the ENTIRE family for the death of her child, her lies and the cover-up??? No friggin way!

Casey is her own worst enemy.

 

[Turnadot]

I found the defense's opening statements to be very powerful. I also noticed that GA's testimony showed a lot of signs of dishonesty. When asked some questions he immediately broke eye contact, which is a significant sign that someone is lying. Additionally, GA responded to some questions with "I did not," which is another indicator of dishonesty. People who are being honest and sincere are more likely to say, "I didn't," and use contractions. People who are being dishonest also try to "dance" around any questions that they think might expose their lies by trying to evade or avoid answering a direct question with long explanations. GA did all of these things when asked if he molested KC and the whole duct tape/gas can questioning. I tune in to watch proceedings when I'm able and every time GA is on the stand I notice these dishonesty cues coming from him.

I never believed in that stuff; it's total bunk, IMO.

"I did not" has been used by people who are being honest and want to be emphatic in their honesty. I've done it. I know people who have done so when asked a question, and they were being honest. Lots of people. People I've interviewed, people I personally know, etc. I put it right up there with "reading" body language. To each their own, and I respect those who do believe these things, I simply think they're just hype, no substance.