2goldfish
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Messages
- 3,979
- Reaction score
- 52
Why isnt KC crying and shaking when TL is saying no abuse took place?
cause the jury wasnt there
Why isnt KC crying and shaking when TL is saying no abuse took place?
No, it's not. The defense is only required to hand over evidence (or discovery) of what they might use during trial. This includes witnesses as well. The Defense as well as the State is not required to provide the other side with HOW they intend to use the evidence in the trial (as in their theory).
So the State got wind of what they believed to be their theory via the two additional witnesses the DT tried to introduce in regards to the GUILT phase. Adding those two witnesses allowed the State to request a deposition. We later learned that both witnesses were withdrawn from the defense list. One during the MIDDLE of the states deposition of them, and then the other shortly thereafter.
The only reason the DT wanted to get them in as witnesses is that it allows them to sell ICA's story of abuse and testimony without actually getting her on the stand so she doesn't have to be cross examined. Which is not allowed.
We also learned from the Anthonys atty that the State called the Anthonys and provided them with the testimony and gave them a heads up to just what their daughter intended to do to her family.
smoke breaks? Medication? Incontinence? Any number of private/personal things?
One question I have: What is this special 'reason' the judge hints at to take breaks? He will ask, 'do we need a 'special' break? You folks know what I'm talking about.'
And I'm shaking my head and saying, "No, no I don't know what you're talking about!"
Can someone enlighten me please?
Me too. Also, can this be viewed anywhere. CNN cut out before this began...
One question I have: What is this special 'reason' the judge hints at to take breaks? He will ask, 'do we need a 'special' break? You folks know what I'm talking about.'
And I'm shaking my head and saying, "No, no I don't know what you're talking about!"
Can someone enlighten me please?
If I was on the jury, I'd have the opinion that JB is too sneaky to be trusted. Yesterday he brought forth the fact that people rode in Casey's car and didn't smell anything. The SA clarified it was before Caylee was reported missing. Sneaky sneaky.
I really have to wonder if CM asking for a mistrial this early means that even the DT can't swallow this baloney they are spewing.
Perhaps they are looking for a "Do-over".
OK - just to let you all know the level of my obsession.....we had to leave work early due to bad weather. So on my 30 min drive home, my daughter had her phone up to the speakers and I had my phone on speaker LISTENING to the end of the day.
I seriously am going to have to have an intervention after this trial.
That's was my understanding...not having to pay to get TL to come back..because as JB said today..ICA is indigent...
I just reached 5000.... :cheer:
toilet break, I find it quite childish, he should just say we are having a break
The jury wasn't in the room to play to??
That wasn't what I got from it at all.
That's was my understanding...not having to pay to get TL to come back..because as JB said today..ICA is indigent...
I just reached 5000.... :cheer:
One question I have: What is this special 'reason' the judge hints at to take breaks? He will ask, 'do we need a 'special' break? You folks know what I'm talking about.'
And I'm shaking my head and saying, "No, no I don't know what you're talking about!"
Can someone enlighten me please?