Defense files motion to vacate/motion for clarification?

  • #21
I was at first thinking this could be something ruled on before by SS, but the wording has me kerflunkled.
 
  • #22
  • #23
  • #24
  • #25
Yes, here it is - Tulessa has just posted the motion in Todays News - No Discussion.


http://www.wesh.com/pdf/27276629/detail.html

Casey Anthony Updates
New filing in the case:

The Defense is objecting to Dr. Hall's report being considered "opinion" rather than expert testimony.

Multiple posting - looks like I owe a Coke to Paintr and Yeknowaras
 
  • #26
Yes, here it is - Tulessa has just posted the motion in Todays News - No Discussion.


http://www.wesh.com/pdf/27276629/detail.html

Casey Anthony Updates
New filing in the case:

The Defense is objecting to Dr. Hall's report being considered "opinion" rather than expert testimony.

Multiple posting - looks like I owe a Coke to Paintr and Yeknowaras

Could I please have tea instead? :truce: I am not a cola fan. :)

I seriously can't see this motion swaying the Judge's opinion. I think I see a 'motion denied' in the defense team future.
 
  • #27
I thought this was argued by Simms orginally. Why is Mason filing the motion and not her? Does she perhaps not agree with him?
 
  • #28
I thought this was argued by Simms orginally. Why is Mason filing the motion and not her? Does she perhaps not agree with him?


Looks to me like Sims wrote it and Cheney claimed credit/responsibility. :waitasec:
 
  • #29
I thought this was argued by Simms orginally. Why is Mason filing the motion and not her? Does she perhaps not agree with him?

She doesn't appear to plY the same games as cm&jb, so perhaps pride???

As for cm filing....well as he is fond of saying he is old and confused (which begs one to question why the h$@@ anyone would want him to represent them
 
  • #30
Could I please have tea instead? :truce: I am not a cola fan. :)

I seriously can't see this motion swaying the Judge's opinion. I think I see a 'motion denied' in the defense team future.

Me either and sure - here you go!

.............. :coffeews: .................But be careful - we never know what we will see here! :silly:
 
  • #31
I am soooooooooooo confused. I have only glanced at this new motion to reconsider...but I thought Dr. Hall was a defense witness? From what I read it looked like CM shot down his own expert....or so called expert? I will have to go back and read this thread.
 
  • #32
  • #33
Why does it seem like the defense is trying to argue the motion "after" the ruling was already made? Reconsider, I will guess "no."
It's Cheney Mason...he seems to throw things at the wall to see if they will stick. Remember, this is "fun" for him. Mason thinks he is brilliant and very powerful, and sometimes things do stick, remember the whole Judge Strickland-has-to-recuse-himself thing? All Mason.
 
  • #34
It's Cheney Mason...he seems to throw things at the wall to see if they will stick. Remember, this is "fun" for him. Mason thinks he is brilliant and very powerful, and sometimes things do stick, remember the whole Judge Strickland thing?

I agree with others - it doesn't look like Mason was the author of this one, just the signature is his. Maybe Simms - she has a reputation for being feisty even when she is wrong.
 
  • #35
It's Cheney Mason...he seems to throw things at the wall to see if they will stick. Remember, this is "fun" for him. Mason thinks he is brilliant and very powerful, and sometimes things do stick, remember the whole Judge Strickland-has-to-recuse-himself thing? All Mason.

But, I'm thinking that Sims wrote much of this motion, even though Mason signed it.
 
  • #36
This is what I got in a 5-minute scan of what smells like pure Cheney Mason to me:

If hes an expert citing only his opinion and not using expert methods then:

Why is he referencing 28-year old research literature? (ohhhh, the irony IS rich)
Why is he using a ruler?
Why did he use the word "methodology" in a sentence during his deposition?
Wouldn't that make him an expert welding more than mere opinion?

Oh, and if he is not an expert, he is a layperson, and has no right being called as an expert. (that falls under pot, kettle in my book)

FAIL.

:shakehead:
 
  • #37
This motion reminds me of my 13 year old son trying to renegotiate a 'you're grounded' order from his parents. Mom, I carried the garbage out (there were 3 bags, he carried one) and I cleaned my room (he stuffed the clutter into the closet) so can I go out now? Huh? Please, Mom! :floorlaugh:
 
  • #38
It's Cheney Mason...he seems to throw things at the wall to see if they will stick. Remember, this is "fun" for him. Mason thinks he is brilliant and very powerful, and sometimes things do stick, remember the whole Judge Strickland-has-to-recuse-himself thing? All Mason.

He seems to be suffering under the illusion that he is witty and crafty. Maybe he was in another lifetime, but from what we have seen of him so far, he is well past his sell-by date and is looking more ridiculous with every appearance.
 
  • #39
Wow, and this folks shows you how much the defense needs the root growth testimony thrown out!!! The plant growth squarely puts Caylee being dumped around the last time she was seen alive which throws their some other person placed Caylee there while her mother was in jail. They need this testimony to go away because it seems one of their cornerstones to their defense is still that someone else placed Caylee on Suburban. Keeping this testimony in might be a huge blow for them!
 
  • #40
This is what I got in a 5-minute scan of what smells like pure Cheney Mason to me:

If hes an expert citing only his opinion and not using expert methods then:

Why is he referencing 28-year old research literature? (ohhhh, the irony IS rich)
Why is he using a ruler?
Why did he use the word "methodology" in a sentence during his deposition?
Wouldn't that make him an expert welding more than mere opinion?

Oh, and if he is not an expert, he is a layperson, and has no right being called as an expert. (that falls under pot, kettle in my book)

FAIL.

:shakehead:

It's also getting more surreal by the day.

"Motion to Vacate and in the Alternative Motion for Clarification" <--Wha?

I suppose the title makes sense if one considers this to be a motion that has a combination of purposes?

All the same, the motion seems surreal to me, especially given the content and gothic horror novel language of Defense's previous filings.

We've heard about the Phantom Heart Sticker. More recently, there's been Defense's attempt to exclude evidence of an "imaginary stain, silhouette or fantasy image" that appears to be the size of a basketball, but really isn't because it doesn't exist. lol Move over, Edgar Allan Poe ;)

(page 2, Motion and Memorandum...Exclude...Stain http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26331535/detail.html)

So, I suppose it should not be an additional stretch of credibility to see this motion, which I'm calling Defense's Motion to Vacate/Obfuscate/DillyDally. :)

CM has written 15 pages why Judge Perry should reverse his ruling that Dr. Hall's findings do not reach the Frye standard. So, what does this motion accomplish? It further annoys and irritates Judge P, who has just carefully 'splained why he made his rulings; it makes it more and more likely that Ashton is going to have an apoplexy from trying to contain his laughter; it wastes more court and case preparation time. Whatever. lol

jmo :)
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
129
Guests online
2,253
Total visitors
2,382

Forum statistics

Threads
632,826
Messages
18,632,327
Members
243,307
Latest member
Lordfrazer
Back
Top