Sidebar for Caylee Anthony's forum #14

[RR0004]

I hope this is okay to say...Baez's opening statement was complete and utter BS!!! In my opinion, of course. LOL

PS- even his co-counsel was surprised at his opening statement and said he wouldn't have okayed it. (in so many words)

 

[Pattymarie]

Well, it was nice to see you all again and experience the comraderie we once shared, but it didn't last long before, well you know...signing off...will continue to watch and hope for any form of justice.

 

[RR0004]

Come to think of it, I wish this search had been brought up at trial. I would have loved to hear about Cindy's mad rush to get home to research how to suffocate her plants...or the d*mn bamboo, for that matter.

 

[AZlawyer]

As long as you add "In my opinion" or "It's my belief that" or something to quantify that it only conjecture on your part, your ok. AZL may be able to clarify that for us.

The laws on defamation are different from state to state, but IN GENERAL you can't sue for defamation if something is clearly expressed as an opinion.

Ok...I'm reading backwards...there are two interesting point you've made here: 1) SO knew about the search (so who the heck on the PT read Jose's cr*ppy book??!!), and 2)WTH!!! OSCO only gave them partial results??!!

PS- just realized...it was because they didn't get into FF.

The SO checked and found the search after JB's book was published, yes. Linda apparently asked them about it after reading news stories about JB's book.

The SO did get into the Firefox history before trial--some of it was released to the media long long ago--so I don't know what they're trying to say now about data they couldn't extract. It makes very little sense to me. What they told me was that they had the data but didn't read through it except when they were specifically asked to look for something.

Shortly before trial, Linda apparently asked them for the "internet history" for June 16, and they only gave her the Internet Explorer history. According to the media, the SO now says that's because they couldn't get into the Firefox history. :waitasec:

I don't know if the media is misunderstanding the explanation given by the SO, or what. If it had really happened that way--Linda asked for internet history, the SO could only extract 2% but not the Firefox portion (98%)--I have no doubt whatsoever that the SO would have said to Linda, "We have a problem fulfilling your request. We could only access a small part of the data." :waitasec:

IMO the most likely explanation is that the SO did have the Firefox data but didn't go through it except as specifically requested, that the SA didn't think to ask for the data for 6/16/08 until shortly before trial, and that someone at the SO read that request somewhat carelessly and produced only Internet Explorer data without thinking.

I would love to get JWG's take on this when he has time.

 

[AZlawyer]

I so wish the evidence had been presented, but I do not think it would have changed the outcome of the trial. Not with the jury in this case. The mere fact that the "Casey" account was used by family while Casey herself used a separate accounted labeled "Owner" is something the jurors would have used as reasonable doubt that Casey did the searches. IOW, without corroboration that Casey was really "Owner" on that computer, there would be room for doubt. And who would corroborate? Cindy? George? Lee? Yeah, right.

Unless the computer data is such that it clearly proves Casey was "Owner" to the point where it could not be denied in any way, I believe the jurors would have bought any assertion from the defesne that "Casey" is Casey, and "Owner" is...whoever owns the computer.

Just my take based on how other evidence was viewed by the jurors.

Yeah, I don't care much about the use of the "owner" account either. The login to AIM, acceptance of a Facebook friend and checking of a MySpace comment all within the same 2 minutes that the search took place are more interesting IMO.

 

[CaptainKangaroo]

In the end, I think Cindy opted to blame Caylee for her own death. Hence the photos she provided Baez of Caylee "opening the sliding door" etc.

I guess Cindy figured Caylee was gone and she didn't matter anymore.



ETA I really don't think this info about the internet searches would have mattered. It does however matter to me that they weren't brought up and used in court. I might be wrong and it might have made a difference. And more importantly, this was a child murdered.....the staff involved in this should have been more dedicated to doing a thorough job as they only get one shot.

 

[logicalgirl]

You are probably right. But I always thought that she never fessed up and that although they knew Caylee was dead they continued to delude themselves about who was responsible until they found out what Jose was going to say in court. As soon as they knew she was saying Caylee drowned, all doubt about who was responsible was gone.

And yet they still helped her.

Yes, I thought so too and still do. I think they kept hoping against hope that it wasn't FCA who killed Caylee. George less so - he wanted to believe but I think deep down he'd known for a long time.

I think what George wanted was for none of it to be true, not Caylee dead and FCA the murderer. He would have given anything to make that time come back.

 

[Joanner]

"Dinosaur" just posted this over at Hal's blog at the Orlando Sentinel:

O/T:From the Clerk’s Site:

11/15/12-Amended Notice of Hearing 12/18/12@9:30am
**
11/21/12-Notice of Withdrawal of Witnesses

 

[katydid23]

Jose did not commit perjury in his opening statement[/B]. He wasn't under oath, he wasn't testifying, he wasn't saying that he knew this information personally. I don't think people should throw around the word "perjury" when they mean "presented a defense that ought to have made him feel morally queasy."

Also, in my experience, many (perhaps most) attorneys are very very good at fooling themselves into believing the positions they present in court. This is a useful skill in some ways (e.g., helping you present the position with passion and credibility), but less useful in other ways (e.g., anticipating the other side's positions). Perhaps Jose does believe what he said in his opening statement.


.

I should not have used the term 'perjury.' My mistake.

It still bothers me that attorneys are not under oath and testifying when they make their opening statements. It 'seems' like they are and juries take them at their word, imo. He made such graphic accusations and so boldly and aggressively.

But you are correct. I should have said that Baez "presented a defense that ought to have made him feel morally queasy."

 

[CaptainKangaroo]

I don't like to hear that the story about the problems with the internet activity that day changes. Not that it matters at this point.

I know Baez didn't commit perjury with his OS, but AZ, didn't he shift the burden of proof? If I am correct, he should have put Casey on the stand. I realize that she has the right not to and could have backed out on him, but I don't believe he ever meant to put her on the stand. What I believe really doesn't matter though.

I also don't think that he believed the fairy tale he told, but again, what I think doesn't matter.

ARGH! LOL

 

[krisskross]

IMO the most likely explanation is that the SO did have the Firefox data but didn't go through it except as specifically requested, that the SA didn't think to ask for the data for 6/16/08 until shortly before trial, and that someone at the SO read that request somewhat carelessly and produced only Internet Explorer data without thinking.

I would love to get JWG's take on this when he has time.

snipped

Have been pretty much lurking since the trial but just wanted to congratulate AZLawyer and JWG for their fantastic work and dedication.

Re Bold
Yep that sounds a plausible explanation but someone at the Sheriff's Office had obviously and a long time ago, extracted/decoded data for part of the 16th because for a long time pre-trial, we were aware that she was on her computer that morning chatting to witeplayboi and checking out pics of shotgirls. Seems extraordinary that if that data was extracted on the request, of the SAO, why would they not ask for the afternoon's activity also? Surely the State had long speculated that she had killed Caylee after George went to work. This is incredulous to me.

The other thing that I'd love to hear opinions on is why Baez chose to risk revealing this information in his book, even making it a highlight while promoting it. Cos essentially he started the chain of events that brought us to where we are today, with the nearest to a 'smoking gun' you could get against Casey Anthony. Was he really that confident that George did the search? Did no-one in the defense team see the huge clues within the data that this was Casey? :waitasec: What' is clear to me is that I will never be able to work out Jose Baez's motivation for anything. I do know he is ruthlessly ambitious and craves the spotlight but could he really be this dumb? :waitasec:

Anyhow, it would have been something to witness the biggest hissy fit imagineable when Casey turned on her computer a couple of days ago and started to read that a couple of those no life cat loving bloggers had managed to do what the SAO and OCSO failed to do and that was expose to the world that on June 16th, 2008 Casey Anthony had murder on her mind. :what: Wonder if she needed a sedative? :floorlaugh:

Once again Kudos to AZ and JWG

 

[CaptainKangaroo]

I, too, question why Baez put this in his book.

Except, I think he thought people would just read the book and take his word that it pointed to George and not Casey. I don't think he expected anyone to get the records and call his bluff. After all, the case is over and he won.

I said "call his bluff". It is entirely possible that he believed what he wrote. If so.........well, nevermind.

 

[Macara]

Wanted to share with you Websleuthers, what I did today. I haven't posted much, because I read everyone's thoughts and their sleuthing. I have followed this case since day 1.

During the case I had 2 dreams, that if I had followed that dream, she would have been maybe found sooner. These dreams were documented and discussed with my daughter, who was willing to drive me to those places. I guess what I am trying to say, I sense things. Only Websleuths people would understand.

I was in Orlando today and decided to visit where Caylee was found. :-( One see's on the map, where she was. But to see it in person, how close she was to the street. It is hard to express into words. :-(

I went to the Cross that someone placed there. Didn't look like anyone had been there recently to place an item. But the feeling I sensed. It was so ominous. Had a heavy, dark feeling.... Someone is not at peace.

I couldn't handle it so I went back to the car. My husband asked if I was ok and I just bursted into tears....

I just want to say thank you to AzLawyer and JWG for all you did. I know justice is going to come for that little girl named Caylee someday. It may not be court justice but it will be justice somehow, someday. She needs to rest in peace and it's because of people mentioned above, will make it happen.

 

[RR0004]

Wanted to share with you Websleuthers, what I did today. I haven't posted much, because I read everyone's thoughts and their sleuthing. I have followed this case since day 1.

During the case I had 2 dreams, that if I had followed that dream, she would have been maybe found sooner. These dreams were documented and discussed with my daughter, who was willing to drive me to those places. I guess what I am trying to say, I sense things. Only Websleuths people would understand.

I was in Orlando today and decided to visit where Caylee was found. :-( One see's on the map, where she was. But to see it in person, how close she was to the street. It is hard to express into words. :-(

I went to the Cross that someone placed there. Didn't look like anyone had been there recently to place an item. But the feeling I sensed. It was so ominous. Had a heavy, dark feeling.... Someone is not at peace.

I couldn't handle it so I went back to the car. My husband asked if I was ok and I just bursted into tears....

I just want to say thank you to AzLawyer and JWG for all you did. I know justice is going to come for that little girl named Caylee someday. It may not be court justice but it will be justice somehow, someday. She needs to rest in peace and it's because of people mentioned above, will make it happen.

I know EXACTLY how you feel. That feeling is very real...and it will lift...when it's the right time...when the right thing has happened. And then, all will be well.
I pray Caylee's soul will rest.

 

[neesaki]

---------------
Hi Katydid, one thing I noticed right away, day of his "speech"" is Baez said
"could have, not would have". There is a big difference.:furious: he chose his
words well. :seeya:

I understand what you're saying here. He did choose his words well. But are our courts that dumbed down not to be able to read between the lines?
I just have a real problem with our court system allowing fables and fairy tales to be substituted for facts, evidence, aka the truth, all with only one purpose in mind, to mislead the jury.

I mean, when did it become acceptable in the courtroom for an attorney to spin such a tale, with nothing to back up the false allegations. He might as well have been reading Mother Goose, IMO. I just have a really big problem with the whole thing. But, I guess that's just me...

 

[Tricia]

Hi Everyone,

I'll be on Levi's spreecast at 10 PM Eastern tonight. In about 10 minutes.

Hope you join me.

http://www.spreecast.com/events/fridays-with-tricia-griffith--3

Tricia











````````````````

 

[JWG]

The SO did get into the Firefox history before trial--some of it was released to the media long long ago--so I don't know what they're trying to say now about data they couldn't extract. It makes very little sense to me. What they told me was that they had the data but didn't read through it except when they were specifically asked to look for something.

Shortly before trial, Linda apparently asked them for the "internet history" for June 16, and they only gave her the Internet Explorer history. According to the media, the SO now says that's because they couldn't get into the Firefox history. :waitasec:

I don't know if the media is misunderstanding the explanation given by the SO, or what. If it had really happened that way--Linda asked for internet history, the SO could only extract 2% but not the Firefox portion (98%)--I have no doubt whatsoever that the SO would have said to Linda, "We have a problem fulfilling your request. We could only access a small part of the data." :waitasec:

IMO the most likely explanation is that the SO did have the Firefox data but didn't go through it except as specifically requested, that the SA didn't think to ask for the data for 6/16/08 until shortly before trial, and that someone at the SO read that request somewhat carelessly and produced only Internet Explorer data without thinking.

I would love to get JWG's take on this when he has time.

The SO (Sheriff's Office) was clearly able to do at least a cursory read of Firefox v2 data early on in the case, because that is how they discovered the Google searches for chloroform in September of 2008. So even if their tools were broken with respect to time stamps, visit counts, and other details, they worked well enough to tell them what sites were visited on what dates.

If they had run those files even through their flawed tools, they would have seen that someone did a Google search for fool-proof suffocation on June 16. They would also have seen that the same someone was very active that day on social media.

At the end of the day it seems that the investigative protocol at OCSO did not involve timeline reconstruction. I know we at Websleuths devoted a great amount of time trying to reconstruct the timeline for June 16 and July 15 / 16, as well as June 17, 18, 19, and 20. We also worked to establish behavior patterns prior to June 16 to see if, for example, the "flurry of phone calls" on late afternoon June 16 was unusual or not (it was not).

As a layman, all I can say is that it seems there was a lack of curiosity on the part of the SO as to what Casey was doing on the days from June 16 to July 16. They did not seem to try to marry the cell phone, computer, and interview record together in a cohesive manner.

 

[neesaki]

I should not have used the term 'perjury.' My mistake.

It still bothers me that attorneys are not under oath and testifying when they make their opening statements. It 'seems' like they are and juries take them at their word, imo. He made such graphic accusations and so boldly and aggressively.

But you are correct. I should have said that Baez "presented a defense that ought to have made him feel morally queasy."

BBM. I agree. It's also a tragedy that this jury did not seem able to understand the difference in fact versus opinion as presented by JB, who obviously had a biased opinion of the case. I'm not sure if this shortcoming was a failure of the court in allowing the presentation as it was, or if these jurors were just that naive... or was it a little of both.

 

[Nore]

I know EXACTLY how you feel. That feeling is very real...and it will lift...when it's the right time...when the right thing has happened. And then, all will be well.
I pray Caylee's soul will rest.

--------------
I have felt like that each time I see the place where Caylee was found. Somehow I dont think it is Caylee feeling unrest. Maybe she now knows what will come of all this someday and is at peace. No one has ever mentioned KC visiting this spot. I think she is the one. She is afraid of something we know nothing of. Only my opinion..( but I'm usually right).LOL. God Bless Caylee Baby..:rose:



:seeya:

 

[AZlawyer]

I don't like to hear that the story about the problems with the internet activity that day changes. Not that it matters at this point.

I know Baez didn't commit perjury with his OS, but AZ, didn't he shift the burden of proof? If I am correct, he should have put Casey on the stand. I realize that she has the right not to and could have backed out on him, but I don't believe he ever meant to put her on the stand. What I believe really doesn't matter though.

I also don't think that he believed the fairy tale he told, but again, what I think doesn't matter.

ARGH! LOL

Well, he couldn't shift the burden of proof, because it was all on the prosecution (as it should have been) from the beginning.

BUT ethically he needed to have some belief that the evidence would actually show what he said--because he was planning on putting Casey on the stand, or thought George might "crack" on the witness stand, or...something, anyway. Maybe he explained this in his book. I don't know.

The SO (Sheriff's Office) was clearly able to do at least a cursory read of Firefox v2 data early on in the case, because that is how they discovered the Google searches for chloroform in September of 2008. So even if their tools were broken with respect to time stamps, visit counts, and other details, they worked well enough to tell them what sites were visited on what dates.

If they had run those files even through their flawed tools, they would have seen that someone did a Google search for fool-proof suffocation on June 16. They would also have seen that the same someone was very active that day on social media.

At the end of the day it seems that the investigative protocol at OCSO did not involve timeline reconstruction. I know we at Websleuths devoted a great amount of time trying to reconstruct the timeline for June 16 and July 15 / 16, as well as June 17, 18, 19, and 20. We also worked to establish behavior patterns prior to June 16 to see if, for example, the "flurry of phone calls" on late afternoon June 16 was unusual or not (it was not).

As a layman, all I can say is that it seems there was a lack of curiosity on the part of the SO as to what Casey was doing on the days from June 16 to July 16. They did not seem to try to marry the cell phone, computer, and interview record together in a cohesive manner.

Thanks, JWG.

And as I said, the SO did not suggest to me that they had experienced any difficulty extracting the data. The explanation given to me (once I worked up the courage to ask lol) was that they simply didn't read through the internet history data because the prosecutors did not ask them to do so.