Tim Miller: Possible Lawsuit against Casey

[logicalgirl]

Actually this is a very interesting discussion. Please continue. In particular, if the admission is binding on the defendant, then that is terrific news (if it is considered an admission). We need an attorney!! Where's Arizona!!

Bayouland - you may not have noticed but MiraclesHappen is also a practising criminal attorney....verified on WS...

 

[NavySubMom]

Actually this is a very interesting discussion. Please continue. In particular, if the admission is binding on the defendant, then that is terrific news (if it is considered an admission). We need an attorney!! Where's Arizona!!

I agree we need an attorney (I believe MiraclesHappen who I quoted is an atty??), and these questions need to go to the lawyer's thread. I was just trying to explain, in this thread where I made my posts, what I have been trying to get across..... and I guess only a few people are allowed to use the head-banging icons??, myself not being one of those people?

IMO, MOO, etc.

 

[bayouland]

Bayouland - you may not have noticed but MiraclesHappen is also a practising criminal attorney....verified on WS...

Thanks for the info!!!!! No, I didn't notice.

 

[bayouland]

I agree we need an attorney (I believe MiraclesHappen who I quoted is an atty??), and these questions need to go to the lawyer's thread. I was just trying to explain, in this thread where I made my posts, what I have been trying to get across..... and I guess only a few people are allowed to use the head-banging icons??, myself not being one of those people?

IMO, MOO, etc.

I give you permission
(who am I anyway)!

Bang away!!! LOL. I'll join you! :banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[logicalgirl]

I agree we need an attorney (I believe MiraclesHappen who I quoted is an atty??), and these questions need to go to the lawyer's thread. I was just trying to explain, in this thread where I made my posts, what I have been trying to get across..... and I guess only a few people are allowed to use the head-banging icons??, myself not being one of those people?

IMO, MOO, etc.

....:waitasec: ...you are banned from head-banging icons? How is this possible?

 

[LinasK]

I am saying they WERE considered "legal" evidence in a Court of Law, per Judge Perry. For trial purposes, they WERE considered EVIDENCE. That was my point.

I was not stating my OPINION, as you are, that the photos and CA testimony were "evidence" IN THIS TRIAL! :banghead:

If you do not submit evidence regarding something that you as an attorney state during opening statements (i.e., GA molestation theory, NO evidence was presented, therefore the Judge did NOT let JB argue molestation in Closing Arguments), you cannot argue about it or MENTION it even during Closing Arguments.

Judge Perry DID let JB argue about the drowning in closing arguments as JB did present evidence about it. No matter how good or bad the evidence was, JB did present evidence regarding a drowning.


JB's evidence passed the legal test per the Judge, and was EVIDENCE IN THE TRIAL is what I was saying.

Whatever......you are not seeing what I am saying at all.


IMO, MOO, etc.

Okay then, please define the term "evidence" for me. I see evidence as things that can be proved, e.g. DNA, fingerprints, Cindy's time logs, eyewitness testimony, photographs of things that occurred such as an accident/autopsy...

 

[LinasK]

Caylee being in the pool and being assisted up the ladder at some time is NOT evidence that she drowned. I have pictures of my son in a car, that doesn't mean he died in a car accident.

That was my point!

 

[logicalgirl]

I agree we need an attorney (I believe MiraclesHappen who I quoted is an atty??), and these questions need to go to the lawyer's thread. I was just trying to explain, in this thread where I made my posts, what I have been trying to get across..... and I guess only a few people are allowed to use the head-banging icons??, myself not being one of those people?

IMO, MOO, etc.

I was kind of chuckling in a sympathetic way at your frustration and thinking it's a good thing you weren't around in the early days - a post could be ignored for three or four days if something else bigger was going on or else you'd have eight or ten people saying link? don't agree because..or just plain not agreeing.

Gee, I remember when I said I thought people should give Cindy a break the day she had her testimony about the 911 call, that maybe we were wrong about her completely. And then she proved me so . very. w-r-o-n-g.....ACK! It still gives me the heebie jeebies just thinking about it. It was like a deep freeze around here everytime I came on the board and some of my very good friends thought I'd drunk the Koolaid and crossed over. Fortunately most forgave me and except for a few - like my darling MissJames who give me a poke to remind me of my big pratfall when I get too big for my britches - thank god!

Whoops went sideways there - the point being - you can't assume nobody is listening to you - they maybe don't know the answer or are still in "think" mode...not necessarily disagreeing with you.

And as you know perfectly well, a small percentage will always disagree with you - that's a given.

 

[LambChop]

I was kind of chuckling in a sympathetic way at your frustration and thinking it's a good thing you weren't around in the early days - a post could be ignored for three or four days if something else bigger was going on or else you'd have eight or ten people saying link? don't agree because..or just plain not agreeing.

Gee, I remember when I said I thought people should give Cindy a break the day she had her testimony about the 911 call, that maybe we were wrong about her completely. And then she proved me so . very. w-r-o-n-g.....ACK! It still gives me the heebie jeebies just thinking about it. It was like a deep freeze around here everytime I came on the board and some of my very good friends thought I'd drunk the Koolaid and crossed over. Fortunately most forgave me and except for a few - like my darling MissJames who give me a poke to remind me of my big pratfall when I get too big for my britches - thank god!

Whoops went sideways there - the point being - you can't assume nobody is listening to you - they maybe don't know the answer or are still in "think" mode...not necessarily disagreeing with you.

And as you know perfectly well, a small percentage will always disagree with you - that's a given.

Oh, and sometimes you know what you want to say and it just does not come out right but you keep trying and it seems you keep getting everyone even more confused until someone who has been reading for awhile finally breaks in and explains it in a logical way. And you think.....now why couldn't I have thought of that. lol

I remember those days about CA. You had to feel sorry for her at first and even now you look at those jail videos with KC baiting her and telling her what she wants to hear and you have to feel a bit sorry for them at that particular moment. Then you slap yourself to snap out of it. jmo

 

[logicalgirl]

Okay then, please define the term "evidence" for me. I see evidence as things that can be proved, e.g. DNA, fingerprints, Cindy's time logs, eyewitness testimony, photographs of things that occurred such as an accident/autopsy...

Seriously Kids I think we should move this to the legal thread - we can guesstimate until we turn blue...but I think as non legal minds we have no way of knowing if what Baez said in his OS and then moved into the evidence part of the thread started out as a theory and stayed one or became "real" and evidence as he continued to use it as a statement of fact in the body of the trial - do we?

I'm starting to see signals of :slapfight: about this :worms: and I don't know how we can come to decision about "what is" without some legal input.
Do ya think?

 

[NavySubMom]

Okay then, please define the term "evidence" for me. I see evidence as things that can be proved, e.g. DNA, fingerprints, Cindy's time logs, eyewitness testimony, photographs of things that occurred such as an accident/autopsy...

I consider FCA's written statement given to police the night of June 15, stating that she gave Caylee to the Nanny, and whatever else she wrote on her written statement, as evidence submitted by the prosecution. That statement may be a pack of lies, but it was evidence for the trial......

IMO, the trial judge finds evidence either admissible, or non-admissible. the PT could have objected to those "drowning" photos, and then I guess there would have been a hearing or some kind of discussion as to whether or not they could be used. They PT was not allowed to use ALL of the "partying" photos of FCA that they wanted because JP ruled they were not relevant in time for this case, as they were before the 31 days, therefore they could not be submitted as evidence in this trial.

IMO, to me, CA's "mis-truth" testimony about the chloroform searches was evidence presented by the DT to bolster or further their case. CA's whole testimony, for both the PT and the DT, was "evidence" in this case.

IMO The jury is supposed to weigh all of the EVIDENCE presented by both sides in their deliberations. It does not have to be only be expert testimony ........ The testimony of every witness in a trial is considered evidence for the purpose of that trial.

IMO opening statements are not considered "evidence", facial expressions by the attorneys or the defendant, etc. is NOT evidence, etc.

I am looking purely at evidence presented during a trial as a legal term here, technically, what was evidence......what was admitted by the Judge and presented by both the DT and the PT at the trial.

or am I totally wrong here?? maybe I am, this is just what I see as evidence.

IMO, MOO, etc.

ETA: I was just answering a question here, will not post in this thread about this any longer,........

 

[logicalgirl]

Oh, and sometimes you know what you want to say and it just does not come out right but you keep trying and it seems you keep getting everyone even more confused until someone who has been reading for awhile finally breaks in and explains it in a logical way. And you think.....now why couldn't I have thought of that. lol

I remember those days about CA. You had to feel sorry for her at first and even now you look at those jail videos with KC baiting her and telling her what she wants to hear and you have to feel a bit sorry for them at that particular moment. Then you slap yourself to snap out of it. jmo

....... :silly: sure you do or in my case your peeps on the board do it for you! :ufo:

 

[bayouland]

Seriously Kids I think we should move this to the legal thread - we can guesstimate until we turn blue...but I think as non legal minds we have no way of knowing if what Baez said in his OS and then moved into the evidence part of the thread started out as a theory and stayed one or became "real" and evidence as he continued to use it as a statement of fact in the body of the trial - do we?

I'm starting to see signals of :slapfight: about this :worms: and I don't know how we can come to decision about "what is" without some legal input.
Do ya think?

Ok Mom

 

[logicalgirl]

Ok Mom

LOL - Hey - I'm Canadian! Kombaya and all that! :woohoo: I can't help it! :floorlaugh:

 

[bayouland]

Oh, and sometimes you know what you want to say and it just does not come out right but you keep trying and it seems you keep getting everyone even more confused until someone who has been reading for awhile finally breaks in and explains it in a logical way. And you think.....now why couldn't I have thought of that. lol

I remember those days about CA. You had to feel sorry for her at first and even now you look at those jail videos with KC baiting her and telling her what she wants to hear and you have to feel a bit sorry for them at that particular moment. Then you slap yourself to snap out of it. jmo

And sometimes you're a relative newbie here but nevertheless have strong opinions from following the case on yourr own. Then, people long timers (you know who you are) come along and give you these friggin rational opinions that blows holes in your comfort zone. You get aggravated, first at them, and then at yourself for not seeing what they saw looking at the same thing.

Gosh, I really love this place.:crazy::crazy::crazy:

All of you are wonderful!

 

[bayouland]

bayouland[/B]7263449]This doesn't make me happy but talking heads on TV have said all along that you don't have to prove anything in the opening statement and that it is not evidence.

It makes sense, otherwise he would have been reported to the Bar. He may have, but this wasn't the two issues that are now moving forward.

My question is the closing arguements. Didn't Judge Perry tell Baez he couldn't go the molestation route because there was no evidence regarding it but allowed the drowning theory because CA had testified about it.[/QUOTE]

bbbluemeYes, absolutely, this is what I have been talking about. Thanks.

drowning OK to argue in closing per Judge Perry because "evidence" was presented by JB,

GA Molestation = NOT OK to argue in closing per Judge Perry because NO evidence was presented.

IMO, MOO, etc.

IMO, MOO, etc.

Ok, I am following you now on the ending. So am I correct that your only other question is was or was not the opening statement and other references made by Baez to Caylee drowning evidence or not? Is that it?

 

[logicalgirl]

And sometimes you're a relative newbie here but nevertheless have strong opinions from following the case on yourr own. Then, people long timers (you know who you are) come along and give you these friggin rational opinions that blows holes in your comfort zone. You get aggravated, first at them, and then at yourself for not seeing what they saw looking at the same thing.

Gosh, I really love this place.:crazy::crazy::crazy:

All of you are wonderful!

Now that really made me laugh! And I did a post in the legal thread so a couple of you might want to piggyback off of mine in case this isn't what you wanted to know at all...:waitasec:

 

[logicalgirl]

I consider FCA's written statement given to police the night of June 15, stating that she gave Caylee to the Nanny, and whatever else she wrote on her written statement, as evidence submitted by the prosecution. That statement may be a pack of lies, but it was evidence for the trial......

IMO, the trial judge finds evidence either admissible, or non-admissible. the PT could have objected to those "drowning" photos, and then I guess there would have been a hearing or some kind of discussion as to whether or not they could be used. They PT was not allowed to use ALL of the "partying" photos of FCA that they wanted because JP ruled they were not relevant in time for this case, as they were before the 31 days, therefore they could not be submitted as evidence in this trial.

IMO, to me, CA's "mis-truth" testimony about the chloroform searches was evidence presented by the DT to bolster or further their case. CA's whole testimony, for both the PT and the DT, was "evidence" in this case.

IMO The jury is supposed to weigh all of the EVIDENCE presented by both sides in their deliberations. It does not have to be only be expert testimony ........ The testimony of every witness in a trial is considered evidence for the purpose of that trial.

IMO opening statements are not considered "evidence", facial expressions by the attorneys or the defendant, etc. is NOT evidence, etc.

I am looking purely at evidence presented during a trial as a legal term here, technically, what was evidence......what was admitted by the Judge and presented by both the DT and the PT at the trial.

or am I totally wrong here?? maybe I am, this is just what I see as evidence.

IMO, MOO, etc.

ETA: I was just answering a question here, will not post in this thread about this any longer,........

NavySubMom - how about this - why not go directly to the legal thread and post on top of what I have posted - cause all of us really need the answers here! I've probably missed part of what you want to know or want confirmed... and here - have a thwartcake too :cupcake:

Wah! where oh where is my A_News_Junkie these days? Miss her!

 

[Steely Dan]

Huh? :waitasec: Sure there were!

These were the charges against her;

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/july/275300/

Count Charge Verdict Sentence
1 First-degree murder Not Guilty N/A

2 Aggravated child abuse Not Guilty N/A

3 Aggravated manslaughter of a child Not Guilty N/A

4 Providing false information to a law enforcement officer 4 Guilty 1 year in prison, $1,000 fine

5 Providing false information to a law enforcement officer 5 Guilty 1 year in prison, $1,000 fine

6 Providing false information to a law enforcement officer 6 Guilty 1 year in prison, $1,000 fine

7 Providing false information to a law enforcement officer 7 Guilty 1 year in prison, $1,000 fine
Total sentence: 4 years in prison, $4,000 fine

IIRC, one of the criticisms of the prosecution is that they didn't include lesser charges like involuntary manslaughter.

 

[Steely Dan]

FYI. KC is not trying to overturn the lying verdict. She is only trying to have the four charges reduced to one claiming it was one continuous lie, not four different lies. It has nothing to do with her civil suit so taking the 5th would not affect her appeal, from what I understand. jmo

You're right it doesn't have any bearing on it. According to this people can plead the 5th in Civil Lawsuits;

"The privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it."

See McCarthy v. Arndstein 266 U.S. 34, *40, 45 S.Ct. 16, 17 (U.S. 1924).

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_plead_5th_amendment_in_civil_law_suit_deposition#ixzz1bSXi5GMD