Sidebar for Caylee Anthony's forum #14

[PrincessSezMe]

For me it was when I saw her smirk. She had just been arrested and was coming out in handcuffs, wearing that stupid blue hoodie. She saw the cameras and started to smile and thought better of it, but she couldn't avoid a smirk. She was the mother of a missing child who had not even bothered to report her missing, and there is something amusing here? I knew at that moment and have never doubted that she killed Caylee. Her only emotion was irritation that her day had been interrupted...

Ah yes, the infamous "perp walk". She looked like she thought she was strutting the red carpet at a hollywood screening, rather than being booked on serious charges related to her child's disappearance. A complete narcissist who thrives on her own imagined importance. What a waste, a huge waste.....of skin.

 

[ZsaZsa]

BBM Proof? Please post a link that shows JB perjured himself. Maybe in your opinion, there is no proof he did so. Or maybe the prosecution and judge were to inept to catch it?

Brad Conway would not agree with you. He complained to OC Sheriff dept that Baez lied to Judge Perry when he told him that Conway had seen evidence showing that Caylee was not in the woods four months before her remains were found there.
He told investigators "I certainly did not see that, wasn't aware of it.
Conway said he was thinking at the time "Bull****, that didn't happen."

Have you also forgotten about the letter Mr Stogsdill wrote to the court re Baez and his lies to Judge Perry about payment for Court reporting services..
Last but not least, remember when Judge Perry said to Baez "Y'all lied to me. I can't trust one thing your side says anymore!"
That was typical of their exchanges. Judge Perry knew he was being lied to on a daily basis. He caught them and so did we..

 

[krkrjx]

Excellent post! Thanks button just wouldn't do.

JB repeatedly perjured himself in court and because he is a defense attorney, that's just fine.

True justice would require that regardless of the trial outcome, an attorney be held responsible for misconduct, which SHOULD, but sadly doesn't include, telling baldfaced lies that contradict each other in a court of law.

JB ought to be punished for his lies. But he won't be.

I agree, and my point remains that our Constitution allows defense attorneys to do things in court that, basically, pull the wool over the eyes of the jury. What JB did in court was not illegal. Immoral yes, but not illegal.

To take this further, often at trial a victim's past is brought up and sometimes some very ugly insinuation is made about said victim. But the defendant's past cannot be brought up by the prosecutors, even if that defendant is a convicted felon. Now, in this trial, the defense did not malign the victim because she was only two and had no "past" but we must remember that Casey was a convicted felon when she went on trial for murder. Not only was she a felon, her convictions arose from behaviors that were relevant to the case on trial, even if indirectly. But sadly, a victim's past is fair game while that of the defendant is prohibited.

Our Constitution was written with the intention of protecting all citizens. It being legal for a court to deem evidence too inflammatory to be presented by prosecutors just blows me away. And that the defense has leeway in court to say and do whatever they deem necessary, including calling a witness they know is going to lie under oath, with their only motive being to pull the wool over the jury's eyes--certainly that was never the intent of our forefathers.

I believe in a fair trial for the accused, but not at the expense of the victim's rights.

We need reform, and we need it sooner rather than later. One step in the right direction, IMO, would be to allow both sides the right to appeal. In most cases appeals go nowhere, but to completely deny one side legal recourse that is readily accorded the other is just one example of how our Constitution provides some citizens substantially more rights than others.

 

[Just Jayla]

Plus I do not think JB is permitted to make a statement that he knows is false. jmo

Unfortunately, though, we know that lawyers do, and to some it is not wrong unless they are caught. The Westerfield attorneys were caught. How may other counselors are not caught?
I am not challenging the integrity of all attorneys, I am saying there are bad apples in every bunch. And based on some of the courtroom behavior, I see that JB skates the line of integrity and ethics often. At least one judge thought so, because JB was reported to the bar. I would venture to say that it is rare amongst attorneys to be reported to the bar, and I think AZ has clarified that stat elsewhere on this board.
So, the chances increase that JB is the kind to attempt a bamboozlin'.

 

[neesaki]

I agree, and my point remains that our Constitution allows defense attorneys to do things in court that, basically, pull the wool over the eyes of the jury. What JB did in court was not illegal. Immoral yes, but not illegal.

To take this further, often at trial a victim's past is brought up and sometimes some very ugly insinuation is made about said victim. But the defendant's past cannot be brought up by the prosecutors, even if that defendant is a convicted felon. Now, in this trial, the defense did not malign the victim because she was only two and had no "past" but we must remember that Casey was a convicted felon when she went on trial for murder. Not only was she a felon, her convictions arose from behaviors that were relevant to the case on trial, even if indirectly. But sadly, a victim's past is fair game while that of the defendant is prohibited.

Our Constitution was written with the intention of protecting all citizens. It being legal for a court to deem evidence too inflammatory to be presented by prosecutors just blows me away. And that the defense has leeway in court to say and do whatever they deem necessary, including calling a witness they know is going to lie under oath, with their only motive being to pull the wool over the jury's eyes--certainly that was never the intent of our forefathers.

I believe in a fair trial for the accused, but not at the expense of the victim's rights.

We need reform, and we need it sooner rather than later. One step in the right direction, IMO, would be to allow both sides the right to appeal. In most cases appeals go nowhere, but to completely deny one side legal recourse that is readily accorded the other is just one example of how our Constitution provides some citizens substantially more rights than others.

I agree, at least in cases when there is new evidence such as this or new DNA evidence, etc. Has to be a way to correct a miscarriage of justice IMO.

 

[mysterymom7]

I agree, and my point remains that our Constitution allows defense attorneys to do things in court that, basically, pull the wool over the eyes of the jury. What JB did in court was not illegal. Immoral yes, but not illegal.

To take this further, often at trial a victim's past is brought up and sometimes some very ugly insinuation is made about said victim. But the defendant's past cannot be brought up by the prosecutors, even if that defendant is a convicted felon. Now, in this trial, the defense did not malign the victim because she was only two and had no "past" but we must remember that Casey was a convicted felon when she went on trial for murder. Not only was she a felon, her convictions arose from behaviors that were relevant to the case on trial, even if indirectly. But sadly, a victim's past is fair game while that of the defendant is prohibited.

Our Constitution was written with the intention of protecting all citizens. It being legal for a court to deem evidence too inflammatory to be presented by prosecutors just blows me away. And that the defense has leeway in court to say and do whatever they deem necessary, including calling a witness they know is going to lie under oath, with their only motive being to pull the wool over the jury's eyes--certainly that was never the intent of our forefathers.

I believe in a fair trial for the accused, but not at the expense of the victim's rights.

We need reform, and we need it sooner rather than later. One step in the right direction, IMO, would be to allow both sides the right to appeal. In most cases appeals go nowhere, but to completely deny one side legal recourse that is readily accorded the other is just one example of how our Constitution provides some citizens substantially more rights than others.

I would love nothing more than to see some future change in the way the justice system in run. I'm currently following another case full of obvious, blatant lies, misinformation, corruption, and flat out idiocy from the Police Department, the Police Commissioner, the District Attorney's office, right on up to the politicians who elect these "officials". It amazes me what these people in "power" are capable of and LEGALLY allowed to do.

I'm not sure how LIES benefit our legal system, on EITHER side. I thought that was the point of our legal system for TRUTH and justice? If the truth doesn't benefit the accused, such is life.

I think "TRUTH AT ALL COSTS" should be the motto of the legal system instead of "CONVICTION" or "AQUITTAL" at all costs. It's destroying this country's faith in the legal system.

 

[krkrjx]

:waitasec:

 

[neesaki]

I agree, and my point remains that our Constitution allows defense attorneys to do things in court that, basically, pull the wool over the eyes of the jury. What JB did in court was not illegal. Immoral yes, but not illegal.

To take this further, often at trial a victim's past is brought up and sometimes some very ugly insinuation is made about said victim. But the defendant's past cannot be brought up by the prosecutors, even if that defendant is a convicted felon. Now, in this trial, the defense did not malign the victim because she was only two and had no "past" but we must remember that Casey was a convicted felon when she went on trial for murder. Not only was she a felon, her convictions arose from behaviors that were relevant to the case on trial, even if indirectly. But sadly, a victim's past is fair game while that of the defendant is prohibited.

Our Constitution was written with the intention of protecting all citizens. It being legal for a court to deem evidence too inflammatory to be presented by prosecutors just blows me away. And that the defense has leeway in court to say and do whatever they deem necessary, including calling a witness they know is going to lie under oath, with their only motive being to pull the wool over the jury's eyes--certainly that was never the intent of our forefathers.

I believe in a fair trial for the accused, but not at the expense of the victim's rights.

We need reform, and we need it sooner rather than later. One step in the right direction, IMO, would be to allow both sides the right to appeal. In most cases appeals go nowhere, but to completely deny one side legal recourse that is readily accorded the other is just one example of how our Constitution provides some citizens substantially more rights than others.

Also, in cases such as this in which the defense goes to the extent that JB did, of creating a complete fairy tale, fictitional scenario in an attempt to prejudice the jury. I'm not an attorney, but as far as my layman's good ole common sense will take me, that seems to qualify as fraudulent, IMO.

And how is it 'justice' when a conviction is reached based on fraudulent accusations?

 

[kkdj]

The judicial system is looking for the truth I believe.
The evidence must support it. It only makes sense.
The facts (IMO) supported this, but were distputed, effectively.
Had the prosecution been correctly advised of the Internet searches, I believe the whole course of the trial and the evidence would have had a different outcome. It's so obvious!
Jmo

 

[katydid23]

I don't believe that the "Defence" can charge GA of anything. She (KC) can but she hasn't.

The defense team cannot charge anyone with anything. However, my father was a great defense attorney, and when defending a client, he would sometimes stumble upon the guilty party.

IF it was a case of child abuse or murder, he would turn his files over to the DA and tell them what he found out. Never could he discuss anything about a former client, but if he found out that one of his clients was being framed, he would tell the DA about it.

Defense attorneys are people too. And they are parents, and they do not side with child abusers or killers. So if Jose really thought that George had sex with Casey while she was waiting for the school bus each morning, he would have turned that evidence over to the DA.

 

[katydid23]

BBM Proof? Please post a link that shows JB perjured himself. Maybe in your opinion, there is no proof he did so. Or maybe the prosecution and judge were to inept to catch it?

That whole phony story of Casey being raped while waiting for the school bus in the morning....TOTAL PERJURY by Baez, imo.

 

[Steely Dan]

BBM I did not realize that the defense was given the entire hard drive, while the prosecution only got partial files. I don't fully understand how all of this works, so maybe I'm reading something into this that isn't there. I guess my question is, why was this the case and, could this have had any impact on the end results, i.e., on the fact that the foxfire browser "fool-proof suffocation" search was not discovered by the prosecution? :waitasec:

They both got the same exact thing. The defense was clever enough to get it all out. The prosecutions computer people could only pull out 2%.

 

[rossva]

BBM. Again, in your opinion. There is absutely NO proof it didn't happen. Period. And cause it's only an opinion, it's not perjury.

That whole phony story of Casey being raped while waiting for the school bus in the morning....TOTAL PERJURY by Baez, imo.

 

[katydid23]

BBM. Again, in your opinion. There is absutely NO proof it didn't happen. Period. And cause it's only an opinion, it's not perjury.

That is not an opinion. I cannot publicly accuse you of raping your child and then say it was ' just my opinion.'

 

[Steely Dan]

That whole phony story of Casey being raped while waiting for the school bus in the morning....TOTAL PERJURY by Baez, imo.

IIRC, I was told by one of the lawyers here during the trial that JB can't be sued for anything he says in the courtroom. That's why GA has no recourse against him.

 

[Steely Dan]

That is not an opinion. I cannot publicly accuse you of raping your child and then say it was ' just my opinion.'

I believe that by saying "in my opinion" you can pretty much say anything about anyone. I think there must be a line somewhere to cross, but that would have to be determined by a jury.

 

[RR0004]

For the simple reason that duct tape is sticky and will adhere to stuff. If it is wrapped around a body during decomposition, bits of skin and facial hair (stuff that is more resistant to decomposition) would have been attached to it and traces would still be there when it was recovered. They didn't find anything like that, where ever the duct tape was originally, it probably wasn't on her face.

Remember the hair with the "death ring" or whatever they called it? That doesn't happen right away, you have to have decomposition first. And if the body was contained in a bag, that hair could not have gotten out. In other words, if it really was a hair from her corpse, the corpse must have been somewhere outside the bag for a considerably length of time. That could not have been in the car itself because then body fluids would have been found, and they were not. So where the hell was it during that time?

So, for the hair to be in the car, and assuming the car was used to transport the wrapped body to the swamp, the body must have been lying in the house and decomposing for a long time. Remember, all the stuff used to contain the body apparently came from the house. The hair could have been then transferred to the outside of the bag during wrapping and subsequently deposited in the car. Note: the body must have been in the house for a considerable period of time for that to have happened. How can the parents have been unaware of that when they lived there? How could Casey have done that when her parents said she took off right after the last time they saw Caylee alive? The parents version of events is not credible, and they are the primary line of evidence implicating Casey.

The prosecutions own evidence proves that their theory of events could not possibly have happened the way they said.

I'm not going to belabor the point, but the elements removed any trace of evidence of decompostion (or skin, dna, etc.) from the tape.

 

[kkdj]

Actually, opposing some of my prior posts,
The very very simple fact of a mother that doesn't report her missing chil missing for 31 days is a Hey What???? Call!
They should have gone the mile.
Jmo

 

[RR0004]

Happy Thanksgiving.
I think we should focus on our family and friends today and not even think about KC and her defense team. Why let her spoil our time with loved ones?
Of course we will never forget Caylee.

You're very right. I was so angry that I had to take a breather. Happy "Belated" Thanksgiving, everyone!! I consider you all in what I am most thankful for.

 

[kkdj]

IIRC, I was told by one of the lawyers here during the trial that JB can't be sued for anything he says in the courtroom. That's why GA has no recourse against him.

IMO
George was in on the game.
jmo