2011.06.03 SIDEBAR THREAD (Trial Day Nine)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Umm, hi. I've read WS on and off for years, (used to read the CourtTV boards) but i didn't register untill the other day when Baez tried to discredit Yuri for "blogging" here. These daily threads really move fast!

I did wonder if Judge Perry had allowed the posts in, would the fact that Baez and the court repeatedly called it "blogging" be a legal technicality later? A message board isn't a blog but I don't know if a court would consider this an issue. I know it's moot since the posts weren't allowed in.

I followed the case back in 2008 and used to watch Nancy Grace so I remember him being on every 5 seconds. What exactly was the deal with Leonard Padilla?

WELCOME GREYCOUPON

Leonard is a self-professed media w*ore
 
Jean C. said that Casey said on the jail tape heard today "when this goes to trial"...not sure I recall hearing that but it is an interesting comment for Casey to make so early on...
 
Here's something for fun and games......let's make some arbitrary comments that the defense could pick up on and then see if they use them AGAIN...only this time....let's blow our own smoke and mirrors and make stupid compliments. HAHA



JK of course.

Oh bummer! That sounds like fun! :giggle:

I was thinking about that the other day! How fun it would be to make up a bunch of stuff, just to see if they use it! :giggle:
 
OMG! I feel like I was taken off life support. My electricity just came back on after 4 hours!! Can somebody give a brief rundown on what happened today??:banghead:
 
Umm, hi. I've read WS on and off for years, (used to read the CourtTV boards) but i didn't register untill the other day when Baez tried to discredit Yuri for "blogging" here. These daily threads really move fast!

I did wonder if Judge Perry had allowed the posts in, would the fact that Baez and the court repeatedly called it "blogging" be a legal technicality later? A message board isn't a blog but I don't know if a court would consider this an issue. I know it's moot since the posts weren't allowed in.

I followed the case back in 2008 and used to watch Nancy Grace so I remember him being on every 5 seconds. What exactly was the deal with Leonard Padilla?

Hi there! :wave:

So sorry about your home message board closing, but I'm so glad you chose to join us here at Websleuths!

:welcome:


You'll probably get a kick out of my sig line. ;)
 
I ran to the grocery store during the lunch recess and the lady behind me in line was buying People magazine with Caylee on the front. Our eyes met and we both knew we were fellow trial watchers out to quickly run errands so as not to miss any of the trial! We chatted for about 15 min about todays testimony etc and got a good laugh out of our meeting!
 
:welcome4:
Umm, hi. I've read WS on and off for years, (used to read the CourtTV boards) but i didn't register untill the other day when Baez tried to discredit Yuri for "blogging" here. These daily threads really move fast!

I did wonder if Judge Perry had allowed the posts in, would the fact that Baez and the court repeatedly called it "blogging" be a legal technicality later? A message board isn't a blog but I don't know if a court would consider this an issue. I know it's moot since the posts weren't allowed in.

I followed the case back in 2008 and used to watch Nancy Grace so I remember him being on every 5 seconds. What exactly was the deal with Leonard Padilla?
 
I hate to do this, but Dr. Lee was being sarcastic about the crate of oranges. In Chinese symbolism oranges are for wishing good luck.

Here is one example:

"The orange is a prayer or wish for good fortune. That is why it is probably the most common food offering. As a harbinger of wishes for good luck, they are often eaten on the second day of the New Year. Why not the first, because once an Emperor distributed oranges to his officials on the second day of the New Year. Thus you are also wishing for officialdom if you eat them on this day."

http://www.flavorandfortune.com/dataaccess/article.php?ID=27
 
Regarding no smell detected in courtroom from spare tire cover....

Without researching our threads here - help me with this, please - wasn't the "outline" that we have studied on the trunk liner primarily and not the tire well cover? Isn't the part of the cover that was cut out what we thought was the "knee" in the outline?

If my memory is correct - perhaps that's why there was no odor detected today. Perhaps there will be if they introduce the entire trunk liner?

One last thought...if there were leaves in the spare tire well - betcha there were leaves in the trunk, too, before it was cleaned by CA. All moo.
 
Dr Lee has talked publicly about this case ,on the NG show in particular, several times, and each time his comments were at variance with his previous appearance. Even NG, who is usually deferential with him was rolling her eyes at his comments about the extra 17 hairs he found. She could NOT get a straight answer from him and he came off as an expert doofus.

I addressed this earlier Dr. Lee did NOT find 17 hairs, he found one in the car and 3 in the partially processed trash bag, when they got around to processing the bag LE found 13 extra hairs, Baez often lumps this into HL's total hair count.
 
Regarding no smell detected in courtroom from spare tire cover....

Without researching our threads here - help me with this, please - wasn't the "outline" that we have studied on the trunk liner primarily and not the tire well cover? Isn't the part of the cover that was cut out what we thought was the "knee" in the outline?

If my memory is correct - perhaps that's why there was no odor detected today. Perhaps there will be if they introduce the entire trunk liner?

One last thought...if there were leaves in the spare tire well - betcha there were leaves in the trunk, too, before it was cleaned by CA. All moo.

I think you are correct.
 
Time will only tell, and Im just speculating but would explain KC's animations after the documentation of that debris in that trunk....Whats the chances that they ended up LINKING that debris to the "Dump Site"??? It would also suggest KC is unaware of ALL the evidence against her:rocker:

We should be prepared, though it should come as no surprise that the DT are going to try and link George to the car....Casey did make up a story and accuse him in a text to Amy about hitting the squirrel when he used the car...

Yes, Baez made a big point out of GA having a set of keys to the car.
 
I hate to do this, but Dr. Lee was being sarcastic about the crate of oranges. In Chinese symbolism oranges are for wishing good luck.

Here is one example:

"The orange is a prayer or wish for good fortune. That is why it is probably the most common food offering. As a harbinger of wishes for good luck, they are often eaten on the second day of the New Year. Why not the first, because once an Emperor distributed oranges to his officials on the second day of the New Year. Thus you are also wishing for officialdom if you eat them on this day.

http://www.flavorandfortune.com/dataaccess/article.php?ID=27

but it wasn't Dr. Lee that suggested it - CM said it in open court - see Strickland's recusal note http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedfiles/Stories/Local/Order%20on%20Defendant%27s%20Motion%20to%20Disqualify%20Trial%20Judge.pdf
 
Anyone have a link to the Casey-cam while she was watching the video of the visit with George/Cindy when she said "why is she crying?" I haven't seen it on HLN yet and want to see Casey's reaction. TIA.
 
Yes, the "crate of oranges" was probably meant to be facetious; it's still a funny footnote in this mess though, IMO, so I like bringing it up, with a wink and a nudge. IIRC, it was Mason who brought it up, not Dr Lee, though I may be misremembering.


:D
 
Here are my "mock juror" comments on the afternoon session:

1). I do believe that Bloise knows what human decompostion smells like, and I do believe him when he states that he smelled human decompostion in ICA's car.

2). I didn't really understand the explanation of the difference between bluestar and luminol, but I'm also not sure it is neccesary for me to understand the difference. The point, as I understood it, was that there was no blood evidence retrieved from ICA's car. I never expected that there would be.

3). I am convinced that Bloise very thoroughly went over ICA's car for evidence. My impression of him is that he is very competent.

4). I am bothered by Bloise's statement that he didn't wear a hair net. I wish that were a requirement, but if the state can show me, through DNA, that the hairs in evidence are connected to this case, my concerns about the hairnet thing are a moot point.

5). I initially thought JB scored a point when talking about Bloise's notes about finding animal hairs in the car. I was especially bothered by the fact that Bloise went on to say he destroyed those notes. VERY bothered by that. I was also bothered by the fact that I couldn't understand Bloise's explanation of WHY he destroyed those notes. On redirect, LDB got a clear explanation of the note destruction out of Bloise, and I was satisfied with that. On re redirect, JB was not able to convince me that there had ever been animal hairs retrieved from the trunk of the car, nor was he able to convince me that Bloise had ever taken notes about animal hair. So...I'm disregarding the animal hair issue altogether.

6).The stain on the trunk liner was barely touched upon, so I'm setting that on the backburner until it is covered more thoroughly.

7). I found the evidence from inside the trunk to be very compelling, but am hoping for more information. I'm sure that's coming.

This concludes your "mock juror" report for today. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
160
Guests online
545
Total visitors
705

Forum statistics

Threads
626,027
Messages
18,515,874
Members
240,896
Latest member
jehunter
Back
Top