Accident or Intentional; Evidence and Debate

[ZsaZsa]

It was the jail video that was withheld because it was prejudicial. My point is that prejudice is not an automatic exception to the Sunshine Laws--a motion had to be filed, and therefore we knew about the request.

But in any event, "prejudicial" is not the same thing as "really really bad for the defendant." "Prejudicial" basically means "really really bad for the defendant in a way that might be unfair." I believe what the judge was saying was that he MIGHT exclude the video from evidence at trial because it MIGHT not be relevant (i.e., does Casey's reaction tend to prove guilt, or is it consistent with shock?), but he didn't want to decide that yet--so IN CASE he ended up excluding it as evidence, he didn't want 80% of Florida to have already watched it and have to be disqualified as jurors LOL.

Here's an exception: autopsy photos. We've already seen that one at work here.

Thanks and I understand his caution.
I think the obvious reason most are curious is that a comparison between her reaction when JB park was being searched and her reaction when the remains were found would be illuminating. No one knew whose remains they were, but her reactions ( as they have been related to us) would indicate that she did.

 

[LinasK]

I know this is off topic, however I believe it will play the biggest role in this whole trial. So I am giving my 2 cents. A Judge should never make a comment like this before the investigation is finished. Judges have super power. People just simply believe Judges flat out. Their word is gold. That statement has set the tone for this entire pretrial timeframe. It is obvious that the Judge feels the defendant is guilty from the get go. The Judge does not believe in innocent until proven guilty. There is no way possible that Kc can get a fair trial. Furthermore the Judge has ruled accordingly. I respectfully disagree with a comment like this from any Judge in any trial. I want Judges to be impartial. He may follow the letter of the law and look like he is being fair, but I can't help but think that he is leaning the states way, based on his own beliefs of what he feels Kc is. He should have removed himself after saying that. I hope he does not become the trial Judge. IMO

Ps I realize that I will get responses from posters that I am a Judge basher. I am not a Judge basher. I respect Judges and it is because I do not see them doing things like this. Most Judges are way above this kind of behavior. IMO

MMMMMmmm, NO!:snooty: If you watched Judge Seidlin in the Anna Nicole custody of remains issue, you'd have seen what an idiot he was, crying and cutting off Daniel's father when he said, "Buried together, IN TEXAS". Judge Seidlin cut him off before the "In Texas" part, but I listened to it over and over and he clearly said it!

 

[Dignity4Victims]

MMMMMmmm, NO!:snooty: If you watched Judge Seidlin in the Anna Nicole custody of remains issue, you'd have seen what an idiot he was, crying and cutting off Daniel's when he said, "Buried together, IN TEXAS". Judge Seidlin cut him off before the "In Texas" part, but I listened to it over and over and he clearly said it!

And Judge Ito, who had absolutely no control over his court room whatsoever.

 

[LambChop]

Thank you very much.

I didn't know Caylee had medical care, I thought I'd read somewhere that she wasn't current on her immunizations. Even so, all the more reason for Cindy to have had the edge when going for custody. I'm sure she could have won and saved little Caylee's life, jmo.

You know I hope CA was challenged on that. When you look at the latest pictures of Caylee, around the eyes in particular, she did not look well. Circles in many of them. Also KC claiming that she was having trouble with Caylee sleeping. I can't imagine anyone who would not go to the doctor's office before they are 7 months pregnant would necessarily make sure her daughter was seen by a doctor regularly. It would be interesting to see if Caylee was, in fact, seen on a regular basis for her normal check-ups. Doctor's are usually pretty good at spotting neglect. JMO

 

[darnudes]

It can still be an accident and one that Casey could quite happily live with, especially if that accident was the result of inattention on the part of the mother.

 

[beach]

You know I hope CA was challenged on that. When you look at the latest pictures of Caylee, around the eyes in particular, she did not look well. Circles in many of them. Also KC claiming that she was having trouble with Caylee sleeping. I can't imagine anyone who would not go to the doctor's office before they are 7 months pregnant would necessarily make sure her daughter was seen by a doctor regularly. It would be interesting to see if Caylee was, in fact, seen on a regular basis for her normal check-ups. Doctor's are usually pretty good at spotting neglect. JMO

Exactly! Lord knows, I was only citing the docs. Please don't hold me responsible or interpret it as vouching to the truth of anything CA says!

 

[LambChop]

Exactly! Lord knows, I was only citing the docs. Please don't hold me responsible or interpret it as vouching to the truth of anything CA says!

No, wasn't doing that. I was just saying that I would hope SA checked out the child's doctor because if he/she had seen Caylee lately they may have noticed something. Her eyes bother me towards the end.

LOL Do we really believe anything CA says? I would think SA would want this info but I don't remember seeing anything that has been released so far. Do you think this would be a "Bombshell" if Caylee had not been seen for say a year? That's a long time. There has never been any mention of a doctor for Caylee. CA claims KC had a job which probably came with insurance. Is it possible CA thought KC was bringing Caylee to the doctor and there was no doctor? And, defense. Have they asked for records and would these have to be disclosed to SA? JMO

ETA: Actually beach2yall I really don't have a mean bone in my body.....well, I'm a sockpuppet so I really don't have any bones in my body. LOL Have a good night.

 

[Aedrys]

No, wasn't doing that. I was just saying that I would hope SA checked out the child's doctor because if he/she had seen Caylee lately they may have noticed something. Her eyes bother me towards the end.

LOL Do we really believe anything CA says? I would think SA would want this info but I don't remember seeing anything that has been released so far. Do you think this would be a "Bombshell" if Caylee had not been seen for say a year? That's a long time. There has never been any mention of a doctor for Caylee. CA claims KC had a job which probably came with insurance. Is it possible CA thought KC was bringing Caylee to the doctor and there was no doctor? And, defense. Have they asked for records and would these have to be disclosed to SA? JMO

ETA: Actually beach2yall I really don't have a mean bone in my body.....well, I'm a sockpuppet so I really don't have any bones in my body. LOL Have a good night.

I have a mother who's a nurse and a dad who's a doctor, so neither I nor my siblings saw a doctor for anything unless it was absolutely necessary and/or something my mom or my dad could not treat at home. If Cindy thinks she's a super nurse, I'm betting she just took care of any problem Caylee had instead of letting her see an actual doctor. Cindy couldn't let a doctor document actual abuse and tarnish her perfect family image. I bet that's also why Caylee never had any playdates. Cindy couldn't let other parents see how dysfunctional her own family really is.

 

[beach]

No, wasn't doing that. I was just saying that I would hope SA checked out the child's doctor because if he/she had seen Caylee lately they may have noticed something. Her eyes bother me towards the end.

LOL Do we really believe anything CA says? I would think SA would want this info but I don't remember seeing anything that has been released so far. Do you think this would be a "Bombshell" if Caylee had not been seen for say a year? That's a long time. There has never been any mention of a doctor for Caylee. CA claims KC had a job which probably came with insurance. Is it possible CA thought KC was bringing Caylee to the doctor and there was no doctor? And, defense. Have they asked for records and would these have to be disclosed to SA? JMO

ETA: Actually beach2yall I really don't have a mean bone in my body.....well, I'm a sockpuppet so I really don't have any bones in my body. LOL Have a good night.

You're too cute!

nah, I knew exactly the point you were making and I concur. I just wanted to make sure stephaniestone understood that I was only repeating what CA testified to under oath. In fact, as I type this now, I remember that is how it came into the civil depo - Mitnick(?) was reading the MySpace message slowly and asking her to confirm parts of it.

It is curious that at this stage of the game we haven't seen any of Caylee's med records.

 

[ZsaZsa]

No, wasn't doing that. I was just saying that I would hope SA checked out the child's doctor because if he/she had seen Caylee lately they may have noticed something. Her eyes bother me towards the end.

LOL Do we really believe anything CA says? I would think SA would want this info but I don't remember seeing anything that has been released so far. Do you think this would be a "Bombshell" if Caylee had not been seen for say a year? That's a long time. There has never been any mention of a doctor for Caylee. CA claims KC had a job which probably came with insurance. Is it possible CA thought KC was bringing Caylee to the doctor and there was no doctor? And, defense. Have they asked for records and would these have to be disclosed to SA? JMO

ETA: Actually beach2yall I really don't have a mean bone in my body.....well, I'm a sockpuppet so I really don't have any bones in my body. LOL Have a good night.

In the Post Mortem report Dr Garavaglia states that Caylee has no known medical history. I do not interpret that to say that she was healthy, but that she had not had any medical care that has been documented.

 

[LolaMoon08]

In the Post Mortem report Dr Garavaglia states that Caylee has no known medical history. I do not interpret that to say that she was healthy, but that she had not had any medical care that has been documented.

Aren't there shots kids need within the first year? I don't have children but I know both of my nieces went for shots at least twice before they were three years old.

So, does this mean that Caylee was never given her regular shots either?

I will say that my youngest niece (just turned 5) really wasn't around a lot of kids other than family the first four years of her life and she was sick maybe once... my sister still took her for regular checkups, but now that she is in pre-K she is always sick. Dr.'s say it should last about a year in order to build up her immune system.

I just can't imagine a child, almost three, hadn't been to a Dr. not even once since leaving the hospital at birth?

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I can see her asking for a do over if found guilty and saying then, wait, it was really an accident.

Can't vote for the DP yet, though.

I've thought that too. She could have gone for the 'accident' idea and gotten the ire of her family and possible light criminal charges, but she wants to get off scot free - to be a 'great mom', a victim, and found not guilty of murder.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

And she said herself that she was lying.

And, NTS, I think I answered this one for you on your visitor messages a long time ago. We should try to stay OT for this thread.

Here is the problem though. If you can just pick and choose which lies fits your story and not allow someone to ask you for specifics, then how can we get to the truth? There are many people now saying that the defense lies. Jb Lies, the Anthony's lie. I can accept that there were a lot of lies, but I do not accept that absolutely everyone on the defense side lies. We do not have a liscense to call all of the defense liars here. It is important to be specific when you are making a point. I feel I have a right to look into a matter and ask questions if I don't know the answer.

If posters begin to base their beliefs on Kc's lies, they will never get to the truth. IMO

Are we on a merry-go-round? I must be off in some parallel world today because I cannot make heads nor tails of this. What is being asked for in this post?

It starts by saying the truth can't be found if only certain lies are used to support a premise, without being questioned. Then the complaint that some feel the defense lies, followed by an admonition on being too general and instructions to be more specific. Next another call on the right to question.

And then, all tied up in a big bow with a warning that the truth will never be found if we base our beliefs on Casey's lies. (I thought we were just being scolded for believing her defense team lies too much, let alone her!)

What? What is the point of this post other than seeming to be critical, contradictory and peevish? What is any possible sensible reply? I can't see any ideas being exchanged here. What is the intent? All I can see is oke: or :trout: Forgive me if I missed the point and I would love it if anyone, especially notthatsmart, can enlighten me. :banghead:

 

[notthatsmart]

Are we on a merry-go-round? I must be off in some parallel world today because I cannot make heads nor tails of this. What is being asked for in this post?

It starts by saying the truth can't be found if only certain lies are used to support a premise, without being questioned. Then the complaint that some feel the defense lies, followed by an admonition on being too general and instructions to be more specific. Next another call on the right to question.

And then, all tied up in a big bow with a warning that the truth will never be found if we base our beliefs on Casey's lies. (I thought we were just being scolded for believing her defense team lies too much, let alone her!)

What? What is the point of this post other than seeming to be critical, contradictory and peevish? What is any possible sensible reply? I can't see any ideas being exchanged here. What is the intent? All I can see is oke: or :trout: Forgive me if I missed the point and I would love it if anyone, especially notthatsmart, can enlighten me. :banghead:

That is my point exactly. And thank you for this post. If all we do is sling mud at people and attack posters, how will we ever get to the truth? If someone lies, thats fine, just reference it somehow. Instead we get upwards of five attack post. Just answer the silly question and move on. That would be much more productive. IMO

 

[ZsaZsa]

I've thought that too. She could have gone for the 'accident' idea and gotten the ire of her family and possible light criminal charges, but she wants to get off scot free - to be a 'great mom', a victim, and found not guilty of murder.

I call it malignant arrogance. It seems to be a familial trait.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Aren't there shots kids need within the first year? I don't have children but I know both of my nieces went for shots at least twice before they were three years old.

So, does this mean that Caylee was never given her regular shots either?

I will say that my youngest niece (just turned 5) really wasn't around a lot of kids other than family the first four years of her life and she was sick maybe once... my sister still took her for regular checkups, but now that she is in pre-K she is always sick. Dr.'s say it should last about a year in order to build up her immune system.

I just can't imagine a child, almost three, hadn't been to a Dr. not even once since leaving the hospital at birth?

Don't know but it does seem odd that Dr G says NO known Medical history. I expected to see a summary of Caylee's prior health outlined there....
Maybe it's just the terminology she uses...?

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Are we on a merry-go-round? I must be off in some parallel world today because I cannot make heads nor tails of this. What is being asked for in this post?

It starts by saying the truth can't be found if only certain lies are used to support a premise, without being questioned. Then the complaint that some feel the defense lies, followed by an admonition on being too general and instructions to be more specific. Next another call on the right to question.

And then, all tied up in a big bow with a warning that the truth will never be found if we base our beliefs on Casey's lies. (I thought we were just being scolded for believing her defense team lies too much, let alone her!)

What? What is the point of this post other than seeming to be critical, contradictory and peevish? What is any possible sensible reply? I can't see any ideas being exchanged here. What is the intent? All I can see is oke: or :trout: Forgive me if I missed the point and I would love it if anyone, especially notthatsmart, can enlighten me. :banghead:

That is my point exactly. And thank you for this post. If all we do is sling mud at people and attack posters, how will we ever get to the truth? If someone lies, thats fine, just reference it somehow. Instead we get upwards of five attack post. Just answer the silly question and move on. That would be much more productive. IMO

notthatsmart, the point of my post was that I don't understand the logic of your post (and feel it was critical and not constructive). . . and you're thanking me and saying that was your point exactly? And please do note that I took great thought and care not to attack you but only the facts I understood from your post. So where does the "sling mud and attack posters" come from?

What was the silly question? That's what's missing.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

. . . so, I think it was intentional.

 

[Nore]

. . . so, I think it was intentional.

---------------
HI, I think it was intentional also.

 

[tracy87]

In the Post Mortem report Dr Garavaglia states that Caylee has no known medical history. I do not interpret that to say that she was healthy, but that she had not had any medical care that has been documented.

i realize i am jumpin' in kinda late here, but...

i am a registered nurse, "no known medical history" is a VERY COMMON and ACCEPTED terminology used by medical providers. it has always meant that the patient/person has not been DIAGNOSED with any medical problems such as diabetes, hypertension, carcinoma, cardiac disease, congenital malformations, metabolic disorders, etc.

(self limiting conditions such as sore throat, common cold, and ear infections are generally not considered a "medical problem" unless chronic and/or affects the patient in a long term manner.)

"no known medical history" does NOT mean the patient has never been seen by a medical provider or imply that the patient has NOT had routine physical examinations.

i have been an RN for 12 years and have worked in hospitals and in private practice. i have seen this term "no known medical history" hundreds if not thousands of times.

again, i apologize for jumpin' in.