2009.03.25 - Motions Hearing

[ecs5298]

Look too young to me? Or is that my age showing?

(Pass me the skin cream, pls.)

Would that be the AFRC? You'll have to ask Roze. :crazy:

 

[trixi491]

When KC was asked questions by the judge it REALLY looked as if she was trying to get right in front of the camera. First she stood up when not even asked to. Then she moved her chair in closer so JB wasnt blocking her. Come on!

 

[Formynextnovel]

I have the docs for the Nilton Diaz case and have forwarded them to another poster on WS. He will try to publish them in the next few days. I also have the interrogation videos of the defendent and mother of the child. The poster will work on that also.

Sweet. That could use it's own thread for sure.

 

[ThoughtElf]

For anyone who missed the fiery ending, you can view it here:
http://www.wftv.com/video/19010429/index.html

Worth watching. Note that Macaluso doesn't seem as impressed with JB's antics. Gave him the raised eye-brows. And KC appeared to think it was quite amusing.

 

[weasel]

Well, I just have to say.... the more Baez shows his butt the more satisfying and gratifying it will be when the gavel drops after she's been convicted. Then we can compare before and after pics. LOL. Even better when she's sentenced.

 

[warbuckle]

When KC was asked questions by the judge it REALLY looked as if she was trying to get right in front of the camera. First she stood up when not even asked to. Then she moved her chair in closer so JB wasnt blocking her. Come on!

You are suppose to stand when you address the judge. It is respectful.

 

[Paintr]

Who are these people, and why bring youths to this hearing? Are these the mystery benefactor people from Connecticut?

http://media.myfoxorlando.com/photogalleries/032509anthonyhearing/1/lg/38.htm

Possibly a laywer showing his kids the proceedings or a teacher showing his top students?

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

(bold mine) I believe that the SA is fair and honest and motivated by justice for Caylee. I don't view today's motion to be "throwing stones." I believe it was a necessary step to sew up any little holes through which the defendant might slip, later on. I think any prudent SA would have done the same.

It's a shame they must face such odious adversaries, because it must be terribly difficult not to rise to the bait. But I certainly don't think any less of the prosecution when I do see that they are invested--even if that means there are occasional flares of temper.

Give me an honest SA who cares--even if he gets ticked off now and then-- over a smirking, bloated bottomfeeder any day.

I think you have all missed the point I was trying to make. I am talking about getting a conviction from a jury and how I think they have the best chance of achieving that, and in my opinion, if they look like they are harboring a personal resentment of JB and/or his client, the jury may query what the SA's motivations are.

ETA...I should have added that I bet if you polled 10 defence lawyers, at least 9 would tell you their ideal opponent in a Court Room in a jury trial is a prosecutor who appears over zealous. I've seen more than 1 prosecutor lose a case by appearing that way to a jury. Jurors know egos play a big role in things for lawyers and aren't necessarily persuaded by a SA's "passion" for a conviction.

 

[dax]

He has said all of that but what gets me the most is he knew what he said to the Judge today in a court of LAW is a bold-faced LIE!..

That is a good point...

I don't think he knows that what he should be saying "on the record" and what he says in interviews is not the same thing. Even the Judge was not amused...!

 

[Whisperer]

Clear to me....the Ant's are in charge of the money. If Cindy handles her new found company the way she handled her house finances, Baez will be a long time collecting. Conway is there to protect G & C's money. This is now a game of spin the money.

They started a trust fund for Caylee, didn't they, at least at one point, I recall hearing about that. All monies steered to that, I suppose. Maybe Milstead left Lee in charge of his foundation's income and all is well.....poor Caylee..she is forgotten by the family.

I once, read that the house is paid off....true? I think so. Cindy may have put it up for collateral. Jackie Peterson did that...so have many others. Jackie lost it too. The Peterson's lost over a million dollars on the defense. The Anthony's appear to be doing just "fine", don't they?

 

[Formynextnovel]

For anyone who missed the fiery ending, you can view it here:
http://www.wftv.com/video/19010429/index.html

Worth watching. Note that Macaluso doesn't seem as impressed with JB's antics. Gave him the raised eye-brows. And KC appeared to think it was quite amusing.

Man Macaluso did look embarassed. KC was trying to supress her smirk.

 

[warbuckle]

I think you have all missed the point I was trying to make. I am talking about getting a conviction from a jury and how I think they have the best chance of achieving that, and in my opinion, if they look like they are harboring a personal resentment of JB and/or his client, the jury may query what the SA's motivations are.

I agree with your point. I am starting to think that the state doesn't have as good of a case as they say because they keep raising this issues with JB.

 

[ecs5298]

Possibly a laywer showing his kids the proceedings or a teacher showing his top students?

They looked to be high school age to me. Maybe it was an honors class field trip.

 

[TURBOTHINK]

Is this really a possibility?

Incompetent counsel rarely works except in trials where the public defender was appointed for a perp. KC has the right to fire her counsel at any time if she considers him not doing his job, so she would have no basis for appeal on that ground. I am sure they are looking at other areas and trying to set them up because they already know she is going to be convicted.

 

[TURBOTHINK]

Clear to me....the Ant's are in charge of the money. If Cindy handles her new found company the way she handled her house finances, Baez will be a long time collecting. Conway is there to protect G & C's money. This is now a game of spin the money.

They started a trust fund for Caylee, didn't they, at least at one point, I recall hearing about that. All monies steered to that, I suppose. Maybe Milstead left Lee in charge of his foundation's income and all is well.....poor Caylee..she is forgotten by the family.

I once, read that the house is paid off....true? I think so. Cindy may have put it up for collateral. Jackie Peterson did that...so have many others. Jackie lost it too. The Peterson's lost over a million dollars on the defense. The Anthony's appear to be doing just "fine", don't they?

Where did you read that? When they were in the first hearing the house was going into foreclosure.

 

[ThoughtElf]

I think you have all missed the point I was trying to make. I am talking about getting a conviction from a jury and how I think they have the best chance of achieving that, and in my opinion, if they look like they are harboring a personal resentment of JB and/or his client, the jury may query what the SA's motivations are.

ETA...I should have added that I bet if you polled 10 defence lawyers, at least 9 would tell you their ideal opponent in a Court Room in a jury trial is a prosecutor who appears over zealous. I've seen more than 1 prosecutor lose a case by appearing that way to a jury. Jurors know egos play a big role in things for lawyers and aren't necessarily persuaded by a SA's "passion" for a conviction.

BunnyP,

I don't think that many here have missed the point. You're simply veiwing it from a much different angle than most readers here might be. I think that it just appears to many that it is more the defense than the State that is being over zealous in their mud-slinging.

I don't discount your knowledge on this and appreciate your efforts to educate, it is simply that to non-legal eagles, in this instance I have a hunch that potential jurors find JB's ego and antics to be far more unappealing than the State's.

Any passion that the State displays for Justice for Caylee without the defense's circus antics will work for them with Joe Average, not against them.

There is an inherent love of a good defense by defense lawyers, and an inherent love of the State with the public when a case is so heart-wrenching as this one is.

In other words - I get your point, and bet many others do, too, but thus far, the State is still looking good. JB et al, is not. :crazy:

 

[Paintr]

Well, that was interesting. We still don't know anything that we didn't know before it started, except that the Judge says 'no conflict', the SA is human, and JB can give a great impression of the north end of a south bound goat.

I still want to know who is paying. (sigh)

 

[RR0004]

I think you have all missed the point I was trying to make. I am talking about getting a conviction from a jury and how I think they have the best chance of achieving that, and in my opinion, if they look like they are harboring a personal resentment of JB and/or his client, the jury may query what the SA's motivations are.

ETA...I should have added that I bet if you polled 10 defence lawyers, at least 9 would tell you their ideal opponent in a Court Room in a jury trial is a prosecutor who appears over zealous. I've seen more than 1 prosecutor lose a case by appearing that way to a jury. Jurors know egos play a big role in things for lawyers and aren't necessarily persuaded by a SA's "passion" for a conviction.

IMO, it's very smart "lawyering" on the State's part. There will be many issues brought up on appeal if/when Casey is convicted. Fortunately, this issue won't be one of them.

 

[sarah7855]

Incompetent counsel rarely works except in trials where the public defender was appointed for a perp. KC has the right to fire her counsel at any time if she considers him not doing his job, so she would have no basis for appeal on that ground. I am sure they are looking at other areas and trying to set them up because they already know she is going to be convicted.

Thanks That made me feel a whole lot better! :blowkiss:

 

[sarah7855]

Where did you read that? When they were in the first hearing the house was going into foreclosure.

I also thought I read that CA refinanced the house not too long ago. Maybe in Shirley's recent interview?