2011.06.13 Sidebar (Trial Day Seventeen)

[egnarts]

Can some one direct me to both sides OS's ? Either transctipts or videos would be appreciated. TIA!

 

[Elley Mae]

IIRC, ICA and Amy went to Target to purchase a gas can.

Oh Yeah, that is the day I wished I had been along for the ride. Casey going to the car at Amscot and it Not being where she left. Telling Tone that Dad would come get it, it was "broke down" Telling Amy it was "out of gas". I would love to know what she was going to do with the car after she put gas in it.

 

[lorann]

After the DT puts on their case and the State their rebuttal - closing arguments. As impressive as the States opening statement was, I think the closing will be just as impressive. Some jurors take many notes, some a few - but the State will remind them with a short recap of the evidence presented by each witness. This is what we know... That way, they can refresh their memories. I really am not hung up on her getting the DP - LWOP suits me just fine. I also think that CA,GA, and LA will plead for her life.

 

[wenwe4]

Can some one direct me to both sides OS's ? Either transctipts or videos would be appreciated. TIA!

I believe WFTV has them or you can find them in our media links on the front page of the Caylee' Forum @ the top section....there are also witness testimony transcriptions by members during the trial to review as well.

 

[GetSmart]

Was the Gatorade bottle and needle ever brought into evidence?

 

[MidAtlanticNative]

oooh, that's interesting, I hope it is him. And that he has something really good to say. Was there ever a depo released of MH?

Here's a link to the statement(s) provided by Hawkins to NCIS:

http://www.wesh.com/download/2011/0311/27161404.pdf


Someone may have linked this already; I didn't read ahead.

FWIW, I don't think there's any reason to actually call Hawkins as a witness. I can't imagine he'd have anything to offer over and above his sworn statement - just my .02...

 

[sorrell skye]

That's what she said but there is no proof of residue being on the tape. Why didn't the trace evidence dept. see the residue? Too bad a picture wasn't taken or some kind of test performed on the residue. It could have been heart shaped and she assumed it was a sticker. I have no idea. It just bothers me that the hair clip was found and was not compared to the heart shape on the tape.

It's hard for me to believe that in the FBI lab, if you see something unexpected, you move on to conduct your normal routine. I gasped when she said that - the FBI!
Do they have fricken robots working there? This is hard for me to comprehend.

ITA. If, during a routine examination of potential evidence, an analyst discovers something unexpected & beyond the scope of their examination, that piece of potential evidence should then be examined by someone else under whose scope it would fall before that unexpected piece of potential evidence is destroyed & irretrievable.

But to proceed - and then later claim "When I looked at it again, it wasn't there. It's not my fault - I was tasked to look for latent finger prints."

Sounds like CYA and sloppy work, IMO.

I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't at least one juror who feels the same way.

We're talking the Death Penalty. If I'm a juror - I want solid, irrefutable work from ALL witnesses whose testimony I'm being asked to consider.

 

[faefrost]

I'd like to see that from the DT too but, under law, they are not required to prove their case. If I were a Juror, it would have to make sense to me though -
not just because they said so.

That's the key word bolded there. This thought that the defense is "not required to prove their case" really is something of a myth. The defense does not technically have to prove that the crime did not occur. They do not have to prove that their client is innocent. They simply have to show that the state has not proven their case or cast doubts on the states case. So yes the onus of proof is on the prosecution. But while the defense does not have to provide concrete proof of their clients innocence, they do have to provide proof or at least some substantiation of their claims. Once they put it out there, they have to back it up. Otherwise the jury is perfectly free to disregard everything that the defense says or puts forward. Simply put while the defense is not required to prove their case. the jury is not required to believe a word the defense says without some sort of substantiation.

 

[suzihawk]

On the Tat artist: he may just say how good a mother Casey was during the visit. So no need. But, personally, I love the tat evidence and expect it to be mentioned in CA.

I have mixed feelings about the tat evidence. I mean, it's pretty darn clear to me what the tat represented to ICA. BUT, it could come across as a tribute to Caylee. Especially if the tat artist testitfies what a good mother she was, as I think he's stated. I think it may be best left out.

 

[katydid23]

I'm prepared to accept what happens and try not to notice who believes what cuz I don't even know what I believe! Gemini rising!

Oh, gotcha. Then I won't bother arguing with you because you will probably change your mind a few more times anyway. [ my DD is double gemini]
:croc:

 

[Previous Admonitions]

I have 3 issues, hope someone can clarify for me...

first....is there really a home depot video or is that pure wishful thinking or speculation on our part?

second...the SA couldn't call any other witnesses today and/or tomorrow morning like the tattoo artist? is this witness they're waiting on their last witness?

third....was the diary of days ever entered into evidence? The blog entry or note or whatever that ICA allegedly wrote that says something like "trust no one, only yourself, everyone lies, everyone dies" etc?

Regarding the Home Depot video .... I have a hard time believing the state has some kind of "smoking gun" evidence that has yet to come out in discovery or more importantly, in their opening statement. No reason to hold anything back at that point IMO.

And the tattoo artist ... I have thought for a while that the SA may save him as their final witness, kind of mapping the chronology of their opening statement, which ended with the "motive" idea that ICA wanted to live the beautiful life. He of course would not be the one who is flying in from out of town, but JA didn't say that person was their last witness IIRC. They could have two or three more witnesses, who knows .... just that they may finish tomorrow afternoon.

 

[Lera213]

I am still not convinced either that the duct tape came BEFORE Caylee's death...in fact, I wrote this earlier in the week and am just putting the theory out there again...
Has anyone else considered that maybe Casey's "sickness" was real---because she realized after hearing the testimony that the child who she had accidentally drugged and thought she had killed had actually STILL BEEN ALIVE when she wrapped that duct tape around her little head?? and ... Just think, if it were an accident (meaning she meant to knock her out with chlorAform, not kill her) and that when she could not wake her, mistakenly thought she was dead, and then in part of her hurried frantic attempt at covering up her crime, actually did kill her--and imagine all this time she thought she was dead BEFORE the tape and only learned yesterday, that she actually was not. Now wouldn't that be a serious Mind**** for Casey?

what you described is child abuse which caused death so murder1 with DP.

 

[Elley Mae]

Regarding the Home Depot video .... I have a hard time believing the state has some kind of "smoking gun" evidence that has yet to come out in discovery or more importantly, in their opening statement. No reason to hold anything back at that point IMO.

And the tattoo artist ... I have thought for a while that the SA may save him as their final witness, kind of mapping the chronology of their opening statement, which ended with the "motive" idea that ICA wanted to live the beautiful life. He of course would not be the one who is flying in from out of town, but JA didn't say that person was their last witness IIRC. They could have two or three more witnesses, who knows .... just that they may finish tomorrow afternoon.

Good Post, Welcome to the forum. I as well thought I heard there would be more the one more witness.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Yes, and the tatoo then as well, there is the incident w/casey and george as well,george chasing her down the street,though toll booths, iirc

I don't think that was ever able to be substantiated. There's a thread on that and the toll pass times didn't substantiate the story.

If you know different, can you provide a link?

 

[suzihawk]

Can some one direct me to both sides OS's ? Either transctipts or videos would be appreciated. TIA!

Videos for both opening statements are listed on this page. Day 12 - May 24th

http://www.wftv.com/caseyanthony/28083402/detail.html

 

[MsFacetious]

Hmmmm....................you might be onto something here!

I seem to remember that ICA asked Amy if she had a gas can she could borrow, and didn't Amy say she might have one in her storage unit. And they ended up going somewhere and purchasing a gas can? I wonder if the Home Depot video has to do with this.........or is the video from an earlier date, prior to Caylee's death, and is the purchase of ingredients for making chloroform?

Do they not have gas cans at every gas station in Florida? :waitasec:

Every state I have been in there are gas cans you can buy right there at the gas station.

So Amy could have just taken her to the gas station, gotten the gas can and filled it up.

Which makes far more sense to me than taking her to home depot to get a gas can, then to the gas station.

Unless you had another reason to go to home depot... but even then why not just get the gas can while at the gas station? (I have never needed to do this, I have NEVER run out of gas, thank you very much.)

What am I missing here? :waitasec:

 

[beach]

Can some one direct me to both sides OS's ? Either transctipts or videos would be appreciated. TIA!

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138104"]http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138104[/ame]

 

[joypath]

:twocents: Each state has specific statutes that define what cases of death are considered medical examiner cases, i.e. those deaths which must be at least reviewed by the OME. Most states demand that ALL "unattended deaths" (those in which the decedent had NOT been under the direct care of a licensed physician/HCP(healthcare provider) within a certain time frame by EACH state jurisdiction (average being 2 weeks to 30 days antemortem) be REFERRED TO the OME. Specific "out" clauses do exist where the OME may choose to NOT perform an autopsy and just issue a death certificate (ie. sudden natural death in an elderly person who has underlying health issues (chronic but not actively in the healthcare system), a sudden death of a terminally ill person, again not under active healthcare).
MOST states have a subset of "must do" autopsies and for the sake of brevity, that subset includes deaths of those under the age of majority within the jurisdiction.
As usual, I've :innocent: probably rambled but you all get the point that EVEN the accidental drowning victim of 2 years and 10 months SHOULD HAVE BEEN reported, autopsied and received a death certificate so a proper body disposal could occur.:rocker:

 

[Elley Mae]

I don't think that was ever able to be substantiated. There's a thread on that and the toll pass times didn't substantiate the story.

If you know different, can you provide a link?

No, just thought I remembered George saying that in a taped interview.

 

[Shadow5618]

I want to see the prosecution end this case like LDB ended her recross of the computer forensic guy when he said ICA had visited the website for how to make chloroform 84 times! I want a STRONG ending, and right now I'm feeling like they're going out with a whimper instead of a bang. Even Jane Valez Mitchell said earlier today that there were many other things the prosecutors could bring in! I'm afraid they're trying to go so fast that they're going to let Jose out of the trap!