If the Jury Believes George Anthony Was NOT Involved....

[BittysMomma]

Everyone knows what Baez said in opening statements about this being a horrible accident and George was involved and Casey saw George holding her dead body and took her from him (personally believe this is bs). If the jury does NOT believe George was involved and diregards what Baez said, will they disregard ALL of what he said about that or will they remember that he admitted Caylee died on June 16, 2008 and Casey both saw and held her dead body? Sorry for putting it that way but wasn't sure how to word it.

 

[Americka]

Everyone knows what Baez said in opening statements about this being a horrible accident and George was involved and Casey saw George holding her dead body and took her from him (personally believe this is bs). If the jury does NOT believe George was involved and diregards what Baez said, will they disregard ALL of what he said about that or will they remember that he admitted Caylee died on June 16, 2008 and Casey both saw and held her dead body? Sorry for putting it that way but wasn't sure how to word it.

I think they will hold Baez to his opening statement which includes his admission that Caylee drowned on June 16, 2008. They will weigh his opening statement against the evidence offered by the prosecution and countered by the defense. Remember, HHJP stated it is up to the jury to decide if they will give each piece of evidence great weight, little weight or no weight at all. HTH!

 

[pferrin]

I also think the jury will weigh the evidence and will see that baez did NOT bring forth any evidence or truth. NOONE covers up an accident to make it look like murder. NOONE. Dr. G summed it up best..In 100 percent of accidental drownings 911 is called. That means to me...not 99% but 100%. Dr. G would know.

 

[BittysMomma]

I guess the way I should have asked this is, if the jury believes that he was not involved because there was no evidence to support it, considering that he said she died on June 16th, it was an accident, George was the one that found her, Casey saw and held her dead body, pretty much all in the same breath, do you guys think the jury will take that whole statement with a grain of salt or does the part about her seeing and holding her stick out like a sore thumb. To me, what sticks out the most in that statement was that Casey saw and held her, not the date or that George was involved (though I never believed he was involved). I know this may sound like a dumb question but after the day of opening statements, no one seemed to make a big deal out of that and that's one of the things that I remember most in the trial and thought all of the media would be talking about it during the whole trial. I know there were tons that went on during this trial but that was and is one of the main things that stuck out to me. Maybe it's just my inexperience with trying to work these types of things out in my mind.

 

[GourmetSoy]

Baez didn't introduce 1 legit piece of evidence that supported the accidental drowning story or George being involved. Since opening statements are not evidence, there is none. On top of that, his client has lied about absolutely everything. In my opinion the jury will not believe the accidental drowning story.

 

[GourmetSoy]

I guess the way I should have asked this is, if the jury believes that he was not involved because there was no evidence to support it, considering that he said she died on June 16th, it was an accident, George was the one that found her, Casey saw and held her dead body, pretty much all in the same breath, do you guys think the jury will take that whole statement with a grain of salt or does the part about her seeing and holding her stick out like a sore thumb. To me, what sticks out the most in that statement was that Casey saw and held her, not the date or that George was involved (though I never believed he was involved). I know this may sound like a dumb question but after the day of opening statements, no one seemed to make a big deal out of that and that's one of the things that I remember most in the trial and thought all of the media would be talking about it during the whole trial. I know there were tons that went on during this trial but that was and is one of the main things that stuck out to me. Maybe it's just my inexperience with trying to work these types of things out in my mind.

I think I understand what you are asking is that if the jury does not believe George was involved, will they discount the entire story? My opinion is yes.

 

[Americka]

I guess the way I should have asked this is, if the jury believes that he was not involved because there was no evidence to support it, considering that he said she died on June 16th, it was an accident, George was the one that found her, Casey saw and held her dead body, pretty much all in the same breath, do you guys think the jury will take that whole statement with a grain of salt or does the part about her seeing and holding her stick out like a sore thumb. To me, what sticks out the most in that statement was that Casey saw and held her, not the date or that George was involved (though I never believed he was involved). I know this may sound like a dumb question but after the day of opening statements, no one seemed to make a big deal out of that and that's one of the things that I remember most in the trial and thought all of the media would be talking about it during the whole trial. I know there were tons that went on during this trial but that was and is one of the main things that stuck out to me. Maybe it's just my inexperience with trying to work these types of things out in my mind.

They will that whole statement with a grain of salt.

 

[Never4GetCaylee]

Baez didn't introduce 1 legit piece of evidence that supported the accidental drowning story or George being involved. Since opening statements are not evidence, there is none. On top of that, his client has lied about absolutely everything. In my opinion the jury will not believe the accidental drowning story.

And not even an innuendo that Roy Kronk found, hid and eventually put the body in those woods. He showed even less evidence about that than he did with George.

I will never, ever understand JB's OS. It made less sense at the end of the trial than it did at the beginning. It's like he wrote it on the car on the way to the courthouse.

 

[WillenFan21]

The defense has nothing to support their opening statement. Especially the abuse by George and Lee. I mean he didn't even ask them about that.

 

[Donjeta]

Well, if they find her guilty the part you mention might be the one thing that they accept from the OS. Casey would have had to see and hold Caylee's dead body to triple bag her and to throw her in the woods.

I don't know... I can only speak for myself but even though I reject the defense OS in its entirety I do consider JB admitting that Caylee died on the 16th in Casey's presence as a sign that it probably is true.

Another thing I consider as a possible grain of truth in the OS is JB slipping that it could have been early afternoon and changing it to early morning hours. It sounds like he couldn't keep the real story and the fake story apart for a second. So, did she die early afternoon?

 

[Tuffy]

The defense has nothing to support their opening statement. Especially the abuse by George and Lee. I mean he didn't even ask them about that.

I think this is important, and was noticed by the jury. He didn't ask them anything that might point in that direction. Nothing.

OT- thank you for posting the info about the iPhone app for watching the trial! I got to watch the trial last week while I was at work.

 

[donada]

I think that out of the whole OS that JB offered, there were 2 statements of fact: there was no nanny, and that ICA lies. I know they lost me with the time (it was early morning, maybe late morning, actually it was early morning), he couldn't even set the scene with a specific time. JMO

Just to add a bit about ICA'S reactions: When LDB was offering SA's OS right near the end she said something to the effect of...did Caylee have to die like this (or something like that) and ICA nodded as if to say yes. During the entire OS for the SA ICA shook her head no except this one time. It's in the video here, sorry I don't know how to post a link.





















sa

 

[Curious Me]

:tmi:It wasn't my idea to make an sensational statement in the Defense's Opening about a p3nis. I would think as a juror I'd now resent JB trying to shock jurors without later explaining and providing evidence to support that awful vision. They accused GA of everything. :saythat:

 

[BittysMomma]

I too believe that George was NOT involved and I do NOT believe she was molested. A few of you touched on what I was trying to get at lol. Sorry, did not word it very well in either post I made. Here's my reaction and I hope it helps. When Baez said all the stuff about George being involved, they molested her, she died on the 16th and Casey saw and held her. My very first reaction was OMG he just said admitted Casey had contact with Caylee after she died. Basically, even though I heard the rest, I didn't. Does that make sense lol? Ok, I'm sure I reacted that way because I already knew quite a bit about the case and had never heard an admission like that come out. I realize opening statements aren't considered evidence but lets face it, the jury heard that. So what I was wondering is how are the jurors going to take that statement after hearing/seeing all the evidence and they're in deliberations....weather it be outloud or in their own minds. I mean, even if they aren't supposed to use that because it's not evidence, it has to be in their mind, it would be in mine. LOL maybe I would never make a good juror.

 

[Never4GetCaylee]

Maybe I missed it, but did they ever say in court that George was also tested for paternity and he could not be the father either? I only remember when them talking about Lee and the FBI lady said Lee could not be the father. At the time I thought if I was on the jury I would think it was odd they didn't say anything about George, especially since he is the main one JB accused of actual molestation. I hope the jury isn't thinking something is being kept from them.

 

[pinkfly]

Very good thread....If the jury believes that GA was not involved in cover-up and did not molest ICA........GUILTY, 1st degree Murder.

 

[Marple]

I think the first thing they will talk about is the DT OS and they'll disregard the whole thing as hogwash.

 

[MissJames]

:tmi:It wasn't my idea to make an sensational statement in the Defense's Opening about a p3nis. I would think as a juror I'd now resent JB trying to shock jurors without later explaining and providing evidence to support that awful vision. They accused GA of everything. :saythat:

I think they were trying to shock the State,as well, and throw them off course.
Didn't work . They continued without a blip.

I believe that the jurors will dismiss the entire OS ,but it's an interesting thought.If the State didn't have such a strong case ,who knows?

 

[Nova24]

JB never even asked Lee about molestation and he was on the stand a million times. At least ask after the allege it.

 

[Just Jayla]

If the jury puts the pieces together, they will not believe Caylee drowned at all.

-KC stays in jail for three years, facing the DP over an accident? Why not admit an accident ealrier? Because...
-If she admitted it earlier, police would have asked her to lead them to the body where they would have discovered...
-Caylee with duct tape over her face and...
-Dr. G would have discovered, if it were early on, through a study of Caylee's organs, that Caylee did not drown.

And our very own CSI watchin, chloroform and neck-breaking plannin', spiteful bi%$h buddy knew that very well. So she never admitted it, never let Yuri break her, held her head high and all that blah blah blah.