Psychologists Dr. Jeffery Danziger; Dr. Alan Berns; Dr. William Weitz; Dr. Harry Kro

[RR0004]

Thanks to all of you who will be able to watch and keep everyone informed tomorrow. Sorry I'll miss this hearing...imagine it will probably be one of the last. I can't believe we're so close to seeing justice served. Caylee's life had meaning. I know her presence will be felt by all in that courtroom...especially the jury. Let the defense say or claim whatever they want...not one bit of it is believable...not one bit.

ETA: Good night...I hope this hearing goes easier on you all...get some rest.

 

[strach304]

Won't the State most likely object to testimony or pics about the protesters as not relevent? I don't see how the defense can bring them in.

I never thought about this before. You may be right. Remember HHJP isn't allowing prior bad acts against RK so I wonder if that would apply to GA? The story where he threw his father through a door or window was a long, long time ago. George is considered a witness.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

I may need a lawyer here after I finish writing this.
Do you suppose Jose, who claims he will address why ICA didn't search for her child or share the disappearance with anyone, will use the alleged PTSD as an excuse in his opening statement for ICA's behavior those 31 days?

What I need a legal boost with is this: In an opening statement doesn't whatever the attorney presents have to be part of the case, things he or she will bring in witnesses or evidence to prove? It can't just be the attorney's opinion of what did happen.
Calling all attorneys for help.

jmo

Yes, you're correct. The opening statement is the statement of what the evidence will show--what you will prove or disprove. Keep in mind that the defense doesn't have to make an opening statement or prove anything. If they do however, it would be improper for them to claim, for instance, there was an accident, if they knew they would not be presenting any evidence of an accident. That said, re my accident hypothetical, they could say there was an accident knowing they wouldn't be introducing direct evidence of an accident and then try to prove it by indirect evidence. Not sure how strict JP would be along these lines. I noted that when one of the female attorneys during the last hearing tried to insert into a hypothetical that 'kc put caylee's wet bathing suit in the trunk of the car' the court disallowed it because there would be no evidence offered to support that occurred.

 

[LolaMoon08]

I always wondered about that scenario Tony testified to, where he said he woke in the middle of the night and ICA was looking at the video of Caylee on Father's Day, and he thought she was sobbing. That is what I recall. What if she wasn't sobbing. Wouldn't it be more logical that she was chuckling, gloating about having eliminated the little "snothead".
ICA doesn’t demonstrate any regrets regarding Caylee. On the other hand, she appears to be smugly satisfied that she had the last word in her final fight with CA. ICA took away CA’s sunshine, forever. ICA struts into the courtroom, knowing that the camera is on her.
Possible scenario: The jury, carefully observing ICA for the first time as she struts happily into the courtroom, might find it hard to believe that this young nice-looking woman with her hair down to her butt is anything but an innocent college student. But, no buts about it, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this here is the main attraction of the circus, folks. This living-breathing human you see before you is a cold-blooded unremorseful killer. Her beautiful daughter Caylee is no longer living and breathing. Her mother intentionally placed duct tape over helpless little Caylee's nose and mouth, intentionally stuck her in trash bags and intentionally disposed of her like garbage. Intent is the key word.

Tony also says that Casey would wake up in cold sweats after having nightmares. I don't think Casey expected Caylee to decompose the way she actually did. Silly girl watched too much CSI and not real life crime documentaries. I can only imagine what she saw. What she removed and what she cleaned up. Of course it would trigger nightmares. I think she watched the video of Caylee to try and get the last image she had of Caylee out of her mind. She didn't watch that video in order to mourn Caylee and feel remorseful for what she did... her watching that video was self serving and she had already deleted all those pictures of Caylee and this was the only way to get that image of Caylee decomposing in her trunk out of her head.

 

[kaRN]

I find it hard to believe that a woman presumed innocent in the eyes of the law, suffering from PTSD, would not receive regular counseling in the 2.5yrs she's been incarcerated. Maybe in the developing world, but in the US? Not likely.
How completely irresponsible of her lawyer to allow this to go untreated until......wait is she even being treated for it now??

 

[strach304]

Tony also says that Casey would wake up in cold sweats after having nightmares. I don't think Casey expected Caylee to decompose the way she actually did. Silly girl watched too much CSI and not real life crime documentaries. I can only imagine what she saw. What she removed and what she cleaned up. Of course it would trigger nightmares. I think she watched the video of Caylee to try and get the last image she had of Caylee out of her mind. She didn't watch that video in order to mourn Caylee and feel remorseful for what she did... her watching that video was self serving and she had already deleted all those pictures of Caylee and this was the only way to get that image of Caylee decomposing in her trunk out of her head.

That's an amazing conclusion! Really I would have never thought of that but after reading your post I think you are 1000% accurate. Some how some way the SA needs to tell the jury this. That realization and following visual has a horrific impact on me and I think the jurors would feel similar if not the same. OMG!

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Whatever is said, ICA needs to say it...it will hold no water coming from counsel, ICA will have to tell it...Also wonder how they are going to fit ZFG in the mix....

Defense Strategy May Require Casey's Testimony
Mental Health Experts Deposed Thursday In Case
WESH.com
updated 4/7/2011 5:15:36 PM ET 2011-04-07T21:15:36
Share Print Font: +-WESH.com

ORLANDO, Fla. --

Prosecutors in the case against Casey Anthony questioned two mental health experts under oath Thursday.

Both experts were late additions to the witness list submitted by Anthony's defense team.

In court filings, her defense said they want the two to testify to rebut allegations about Anthony's so-called "consciousness of guilt."

The defense claims the psychiatrists will help them explain Anthony's behavior during the time when prosecutors claim she lied to her families and investigators.

"I've got to think what these people are being deposed about is what (defense attorney) Jose Baez said he would reveal in the first two minutes of his opening statement -- about why Casey took 31 days to report this to her family," said Orlando criminal defense attorney Richard Hornsby, who is not affiliated with the case.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42481231

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

The Defense still has several hurdles to get over.... the State will insist on having their own mental health expert examine the Inmate and I doubt they will arrive at a diagnosis of PTSD at the time Caylee was murdered.

The Defense does not even want the State expert to examine their client.
They have to wait to see what Motions the State files, and how the Judge rules on that issue.
Finnell was saying there is no Statute which would apply to allow the State to have the Defendant examined by a State expert, because the Defense is not claiming a mental health "defense" to murder, and is not claiming diminished capacity.

I believe the Defense will try to say that PTSD is the reason the Defendant did not act appropriately when SOMEONE ELSE killed Caylee ... not that PTSD caused the Inmate to kill Caylee.

The Defense has to wait to see if the Judge will allow them to add the PTSD doctor late - Dr. Weitz. The Judge may not agree that the "good cause" the Defense offered is good enough and not allow this doctor to be added to the witness list or to testify.

The Defense still has a long way to go to even get any PTSD testimony before the jury.

ThinkTank thank you for your passion in finding justice for Caylee....great timeline and how do you keep up with it...

The defense might try to say, Caylee got into the pool, by the time ICA realised Caylee was not in the home, she found her face down in the pool and this might have caused the PSTD, which is why she went directly into coverup mode, since her parents never answered her flurry of calls...and came up with this kidnapping scenario but ICA still has alot of explaining to do...

I don't believe ICA is capable of accepting any responsiblity regarding Caylee's demise...I just can't find an acceptable, reasonable reason WHY she didn't alert authorities for that shows consciousness of guilt...her state of mind is guilt because I truly feel this was a deliberate act on a precious child who became too bothersome to deal with...especially since grandma didn't want to babysit for ICA to run around at night...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

 

[TotallyObsessed]

So....was she suffering PTSD for the months BEFORE Caylee went missing when she was lying about the imaginanny to friends and family? When she was engaged to JG? She invented the nanny as a result of PTSD MONTHS before she actually killed Caylee? How conveeeeeeeenient

 

[zoey]

Tony also says that Casey would wake up in cold sweats after having nightmares. I don't think Casey expected Caylee to decompose the way she actually did. Silly girl watched too much CSI and not real life crime documentaries. I can only imagine what she saw. What she removed and what she cleaned up. Of course it would trigger nightmares. I think she watched the video of Caylee to try and get the last image she had of Caylee out of her mind. She didn't watch that video in order to mourn Caylee and feel remorseful for what she did... her watching that video was self serving and she had already deleted all those pictures of Caylee and this was the only way to get that image of Caylee decomposing in her trunk out of her head.

You know after watching her on so many court dates....trying to get to see some emotion for her baby....I was watching insessions yesterday a bit for the "highlights" of Wednesday---during jb closing statements when he mentioned he was trying to save a life --- anytime it showed the potential of HER getting death she would take a big gulp...much more reaction over that than anything I saw when they were discussing root growth thru her baby bones....I'm just saying --- she is there for herself

I also remember during one of the jail house tapes she mentioned something like she wanted Caylee back, just as she was....

 

[strawberry]

Hypervigilance! Yes, another common symptom of PTSD. Allow me to quote Wikipedia, as we all know it's the DT's favorite reference site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervigilance

Hypervigilance is an enhanced state of sensory sensitivity accompanied by an exaggerated intensity of behaviors whose purpose is to detect threats. Hypervigilance is also accompanied by a state of increased anxiety which can cause exhaustion. Other symptoms include: abnormally increased arousal, a high responsiveness to stimuli and a constant scanning of the environment for threats

I would say that our inmate, with her nose in her legal pad, has not spent much time scanning the environment for threats. :crazy:

(of note: that is something else that plagued me. I had to keep my back to the wall at all times. Could not sit in a restaurant if I was seated with other tables behind me. In any room, I found a space next to a wall to stand or sit)

Yep, my friend would spend all night checking the house for intruders. And he always would sit with his back to a corner.

 

[LambChop]

I never thought about this before. You may be right. Remember HHJP isn't allowing prior bad acts against RK so I wonder if that would apply to GA? The story where he threw his father through a door or window was a long, long time ago. George is considered a witness.

Isn't that "hearsay"? The only people willing to come forward and state that are CA's family members so there's no proof it ever happened. GA's father would have to testify which I doubt he would. jmo

 

[ThinkTank]

THANK YOU MUZIKMAN!!

04/08/2011 Motion for Examination by Mental Health Expert

2011.04.08 SA Motion for Exam by Mental Health Expert
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/75720807/20110408-SA-Motion-for-Exam-by-Mental-Health-Expert

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

04/08/2011 Notice of Filing

2011.04.08 Defense Notice of Filing - Mitigation Docs
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/75730356/20110408-Defense-Notice-of-Filing---Mitigation-Docs

Jeffrey Danziger - CMA
William Weitz - 7-16-09
William Weitz - CA School Records
William Weitz - Mitigation Videos - MPG, MOV, WMV

 

[Sun]

The newest Baez Firm attorney, William Slabaugh, appears to have failed to write in the date above his signature scrawl. Guess nobody at the "firm" is supervising his work.

 

[ThinkTank]

The newest Baez Firm attorney, William Slabaugh, appears to have failed to write in the date above his signature scrawl. Guess nobody at the "firm" is supervising his work.

And who wrote "NO ATTACHMENTS RECEIVED" on the edge of the document?
Does that mean the Defense did not file the items listed in this document, with the Clerk?
Would the items be sealed?
Looks like Casey's school records? and some kind of videos?

 

[katydid23]

And who wrote "NO ATTACHMENTS RECEIVED" on the edge of the document?
Does that mean the Defense did not file the items listed in this document, with the Clerk?
Would the items be sealed?
Looks like Casey's school records? and some kind of videos?

I bet those high school records show that CA has been lying about the ' half a credit ' short scenario. NOBODY misses graduation by a half a credit and then never bothers to make that up. It would be one semester of summer school or one night class in jr college to make that up.

 

[Sun]

And who wrote "NO ATTACHMENTS RECEIVED" on the edge of the document?
Does that mean the Defense did not file the items listed in this document, with the Clerk?
Would the items be sealed?
Looks like Casey's school records? and some kind of videos?

The "no attachments received" appears that it would have been written by the clerk. It's puzzeling to me.

 

[Capri]

 

[Capri]

filed by JA

mods if either of these is blowing the margins feel free to adjust, or let me know and I'll try

 

[logicalgirl]

So I have copied out some information from the Florida College of Advanced Judicial Studies re conducting the penalty phase of a capital case because I believed this was where the defense was heading for the mitigation phase. It looks like we could have some interesting discussions about it this week.

I can see all kinds of things they try to introduce here - however it may turn out to be a book when posted - then mods please go ahead and delete.

(Quote:
6.8.3 – Extreme mental or Emotional Disturbance

The capital felony was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance

This mitigating circumstance does not require the establishment of insanity, or lack of legal responsibility. It can be argued to the jury and the Court, with or without expert testimony, if the facts of the defendant’s behavior show his mental condition contributed to his criminal behavior. For example, the fact the defendant was intoxicated or under the influence of narcotics can support establishment of this factor.
When experts testify as to this mitigating factor and their opinions conflict with the jury, and ultimately the sentencing judge, must reconcile these conflicts. If, after considering the conflicting testimony, the trial judge determines this mitigating factor does not exist, that finding will generally not be disturbed on appeal. If the testimony is not in conflict, it may be error for the trial judge not to find this mitigating factor. However, in more recent opinion, the Supreme Court of Florida held, “Even uncontroverted opinion testimony can be rejected, especially when it is hard to reconcile with other evidence presented in the case. But there must be “other evidence” in the case to make the reconciliation “hard”. In “Crook vs. State” the uncontroverted evidence established the defendant had a well-documented head injury at the age of five when he was hit on the head with a pipe. After that time, he exhibited signs of neurological damage because he switched from being right handed to being left handed and was found not to be tracking visually. Testimony established that the defendant had frontal lobe damage that caused “difficulty in controlling his behavior and was prone to impulsive and aggressive behavior including rage.” One expert opined that the defendant’s brain was “broken”. The trial court rejected the brain-damage testimony. The Court disagreed stating, “Whenever a reasonable quantum of competent, uncontroverted evidence has been presented, the trial court must find that the mitigation has been proved. All “believable and uncontroverted mitigating evidence contained in the record must reject proffered mitigation if the record provides competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s decision. The court considers “brain damage” to be a “significant mitigating factor”.

In the Crook case, the defendant was also borderline mentally retarded. The decision in Crook predated the United States Supreme Court’s decision finding it unconstitutional to execute a mentally retarded defendant. It also predated the recently enacted Florida Statute that deals with the subject. However, since Crook’s I.Q. was around 70, he might not have met the requirements under the Florida’s statute. Interestingly, a Social Security evaluation established Crook was incapable of maintaining employment within a competitive work setting due to his severe cognitive, emotional and behavioral defects. The trial court erred in failing to consider Crook’s mental retardation.

Crook’s case was remanded for a new sentencing hearing and Crook was again sentenced to death. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for the imposition of a life sentence with out the possibility of parole because, in spite of strong aggravation – murder committed in the course of a sexual battery, pecuniary gain and HAC- it was accompanied by extreme mitigation including frontal lobe damage, diminished control over inhibitions, disadvantaged and abusive home life, substance abuse that aggravated mental deficiencies and age of 20 at the time of the killing.

The weight to be given this circumstance is up to the jury and the sentencing judge. :Quote)