Lippman filed a motion to be discussed on Tuesday 5/31/11

[minazoe]

If I remember correctly, Casey floated abuse allegations to Jessie Grund...if I remember correctly...the same kind of vague feel up story...with a maybe this or that....

she has probably been using this lie to elicit sympathy or manipulate for years...

I don't buy what she's selling for one minute...after what we witnessed yesterday.

Baez wants fame...and is enjoying the attention.

Casey needs a death penalty lawyer...and if Baez throws this trial it can go on forever.

Baez's only defense for Casey so far is that opening statement....he's trying to put GA on trial...and all he has is that Casey is possibly living a fantasy.

well duh....not a defense...not even an insanity defense. the sexual abuse defense woked for the Menendez brothers because they confessed.

according to Baez...George did everything...all Casey did was leave the ladder up.
so basically Casey has been in jail for three years because of George.

and I am the Queen of England.

 

[marlap]

If I remember correctly, Casey floated abuse allegations to Jessie Grund...if I remember correctly...the same kind of vague feel up story...with a maybe this or that....

she has probably been using this lie to elicit sympathy or manipulate for years...

I don't buy what she's selling for one minute...after what we witnessed yesterday.

Baez wants fame...and is enjoying the attention.

Casey needs a death penalty lawyer...and if Baez throws this trial it can go on forever.

Baez's only defense for Casey so far is that opening statement....he's trying to put GA on trial...and all he has is that Casey is possibly living a fantasy.

well duh....not a defense...not even an insanity defense. the sexual abuse defense woked for the Menendez brothers because they confessed.

according to Baez...George did everything...all Casey did was leave the ladder up.
so basically Casey has been in jail for three years because of George.

and I am the Queen of England.

I totally agree.

I think this is her "go to manipulation" so guys she's dating won't feel comfortable asking her to go home for a couple of nights.

 

[hotmomma35]

so there will be no court monday?

 

[minazoe]

so there will be no court monday?

no babe...tuesday morning....withdrawal?

 

[minazoe]

also in the Menendez case the perpetrator of the supposed abuse is dead...so there is no one to refute the allegation.

actually there was really no one to support it either...but Leslie Abrhams got them life in prison.

in this case it's very close to slander...I would like Casey to testify that George put his ____is in per mouth before she went to school every morning.

Then I want to see what the abuse experts come up with....what a joke.

the truama causes Casey to shop at Target incessantly with stolen checks to buy push up bras...this is normal behaviour for abuse survivors....


good lord.

 

[Ricki]

this was just so disgusting....it made me almost hurl when i heard it.I was thinking this guy is as wacko as his client....

The response that you have about JB's opening statements is the same response that many others share but it is the exact response JB was going for. Portraying GA as a vile, disgusting, swarmmy pervert. Who could trust someone like that? When all is over hopefully the jurors will feel that the disgust, vile and swarmminess belongs to JB and team. IDK about the pervert part.

 

[Eric's_Iguana]

I don't know if this is even legally possible, but could the Anthonys be asking to be released from their sworn depositions,, stating they were under stress and trying to protect their daughter, and now want to testify truthfully?

One can hope!

 

[GetSmart]

O/T but I totally agree. She kept me from getting a T/O one time & I have come to admire and respect her unconditionally.

This post is really not about the quoted post ..although it is a great quoted post LOL


This is about total burn out....
As I began to read Tulessa's post my mind read it like this...I KID YOU NOT !!

Oh Tay....
(Buckwheat Voice)

 

[RR0004]

Hope it's ok to post this, from Richard Hornsby,

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/

Thanks for this. I'm wondering if it was a strategic move on both parties part (the As and the State) to have the motion filed by the "injured" party. Remember, the opening statement is not considered evidence. The DT can say whatever they want and it will only hold weight if they can back it up with evidence. If the State were to have made the motion, would it have called too much attention to George from the outset? Aren't we as impartial onlookers making assumptions every time the DT makes an objection? IOW, I don't entirely agree with RH's position that the State should have made the motion...especially so early on. Their case isn't about George Anthony. The focus should be on the defendent.
JMVHO

 

[ThinkTank]

The State DID file a Motion in Limine and it was GRANTED.
The State mentioned this matter in open court on Thursday May 27, 2011, and the Judge GRANTED it in open court the next day Friday May 28, 2011 (even though there is nothing on the Clerk's docket - yet)

Trial Thursday May 26, 2011
Ashton - we have motion in limine, was going to file in writing - ask court require defendant to proffer questions, before they elicit hearsay statements of defendant, so we don't have questions and objections all the time
Judge now or in the morning 8:30?
Baez - motion in limine in middle of trial? certainly past your deadline
Ashton - based on conduct of counsel in trial
Judge - file motion, I decide if it's timely and go from there

Trial Friday May 27, 2011
State's motion in limine
LDB - statements from witnesses w/o proffer to court as to admissibility of info in the question
counsel has been asking witnesses things that the defendant may or may not have said to them, clear violation of evidence code, exceptions for hearsay
causes us repeatedly, once the question is out, to object to this type of ... detrimental to our position in front of the jury
we are not asking that you prohibit the question, asking that counsel be ordered to proffer any time he wants to ask question about defendant's hearsay

Baez - untimely motion, perfect timing for prosecution, parading witnesses... now preclude that might hurt their prosecution, smart and strategical move, limits cross exam based on....
defense, there are topics that are sensitive in nature, come close to being objectionable, limiting our cross exam clearly obstructs truth finding process, issues that ....
don't need advance notice what witness testify to, not a scripted event, not know what witness testify to or change once take stand, require proffer, allow state witness to give prosecutor advance preview of what cross exam is going to be, defense prejudiced, the state has been impermissibly been allowed to introduce...
we have theory of defense, right to explore it, have witnesses on the spot and ask specific questions, if objection to question, prosecution capable of objecting, not require us stopping, preferring, and giving them advance notice of what asked of particular witness

Judge - Ch 90 FL evidence code, framework was evidence is admissible, , must meet requirement of ch 90, this motion deals with attempts by defense to elicit statements by defendant from other witnesses, those under evidence code self serving, when attempted by the defense, basically 3 exceptions to that, not go into may permit some of these. Under those 3, foundation requirements must be asked before those questions asked, as of yet no attempt to establish those foundational requirements, not admissible , State motion in limine statements of defendant be proffered will be granted

 

[ThinkTank]

If I remember correctly, Casey floated abuse allegations to Jessie Grund...if I remember correctly...the same kind of vague feel up story...with a maybe this or that....

she has probably been using this lie to elicit sympathy or manipulate for years...

I don't buy what she's selling for one minute...after what we witnessed yesterday.

Baez wants fame...and is enjoying the attention.

Casey needs a death penalty lawyer...and if Baez throws this trial it can go on forever.

Baez's only defense for Casey so far is that opening statement....he's trying to put GA on trial...and all he has is that Casey is possibly living a fantasy.

well duh....not a defense...not even an insanity defense. the sexual abuse defense woked for the Menendez brothers because they confessed.

according to Baez...George did everything...all Casey did was leave the ladder up.
so basically Casey has been in jail for three years because of George.

and I am the Queen of England.

only they say that CINDY left the ladder up ... and now Cindy feels overwhelming guilty because of that ....

 

[nursebeeme]

The State DID file a Motion in Limine and it was GRANTED.
The State mentioned this matter in open court on Thursday May 27, 2011, and the Judge GRANTED it in open court the next day Friday May 28, 2011 (even though there is nothing on the Clerk's docket - yet)

Trial Thursday May 26, 2011
Ashton - we have motion in limine, was going to file in writing - ask court require defendant to proffer questions, before they elicit hearsay statements of defendant, so we don't have questions and objections all the time
Judge now or in the morning 8:30?
Baez - motion in limine in middle of trial? certainly past your deadline
Ashton - based on conduct of counsel in trial
Judge - file motion, I decide if it's timely and go from there

Trial Friday May 27, 2011
State's motion in limine
LDB - statements from witnesses w/o proffer to court as to admissibility of info in the question
counsel has been asking witnesses things that the defendant may or may not have said to them, clear violation of evidence code, exceptions for hearsay
causes us repeatedly, once the question is out, to object to this type of ... detrimental to our position in front of the jury
we are not asking that you prohibit the question, asking that counsel be ordered to proffer any time he wants to ask question about defendant's hearsay

Baez - untimely motion, perfect timing for prosecution, parading witnesses... now preclude that might hurt their prosecution, smart and strategical move, limits cross exam based on....
defense, there are topics that are sensitive in nature, come close to being objectionable, limiting our cross exam clearly obstructs truth finding process, issues that ....
don't need advance notice what witness testify to, not a scripted event, not know what witness testify to or change once take stand, require proffer, allow state witness to give prosecutor advance preview of what cross exam is going to be, defense prejudiced, the state has been impermissibly been allowed to introduce...
we have theory of defense, right to explore it, have witnesses on the spot and ask specific questions, if objection to question, prosecution capable of objecting, not require us stopping, preferring, and giving them advance notice of what asked of particular witness

Judge - Ch 90 FL evidence code, framework was evidence is admissible, , must meet requirement of ch 90, this motion deals with attempts by defense to elicit statements by defendant from other witnesses, those under evidence code self serving, when attempted by the defense, basically 3 exceptions to that, not go into may permit some of these. Under those 3, foundation requirements must be asked before those questions asked, as of yet no attempt to establish those foundational requirements, not admissible , State motion in limine statements of defendant be proffered will be granted

thank you for bringing this up! I have wondered about it as well.... would be good to ask RH when he is on the radio show with Tricia tonight jmhoo

 

[wandering]

only they say that CINDY left the ladder up ... and now Cindy feels overwhelming guilty because of that ....

I respectfully disagree. I am speculating that Cindy is feeling guilty because she didn't babysit Caylee that night, and if she had, Caylee might still be alive.

 

[Just Jayla]

did HCJP reside over the grand jury?

Yes, and when he was dismissing the grand jury, he kindly and eloquently thanked them for their time, reminding them of the important role they had played. I remember, at the time, thiking that KC was lucky she has Stan Strickland instead of HHJP, cause HHJP seemed all serious and judicial-like.

 

[RR0004]

The State DID file a Motion in Limine and it was GRANTED.
The State mentioned this matter in open court on Thursday May 27, 2011, and the Judge GRANTED it in open court the next day Friday May 28, 2011 (even though there is nothing on the Clerk's docket - yet)

Trial Thursday May 26, 2011
Ashton - we have motion in limine, was going to file in writing - ask court require defendant to proffer questions, before they elicit hearsay statements of defendant, so we don't have questions and objections all the time
Judge now or in the morning 8:30?
Baez - motion in limine in middle of trial? certainly past your deadline
Ashton - based on conduct of counsel in trial
Judge - file motion, I decide if it's timely and go from there

Trial Friday May 27, 2011
State's motion in limine
LDB - statements from witnesses w/o proffer to court as to admissibility of info in the question
counsel has been asking witnesses things that the defendant may or may not have said to them, clear violation of evidence code, exceptions for hearsay
causes us repeatedly, once the question is out, to object to this type of ... detrimental to our position in front of the jury
we are not asking that you prohibit the question, asking that counsel be ordered to proffer any time he wants to ask question about defendant's hearsay

Baez - untimely motion, perfect timing for prosecution, parading witnesses... now preclude that might hurt their prosecution, smart and strategical move, limits cross exam based on....
defense, there are topics that are sensitive in nature, come close to being objectionable, limiting our cross exam clearly obstructs truth finding process, issues that ....
don't need advance notice what witness testify to, not a scripted event, not know what witness testify to or change once take stand, require proffer, allow state witness to give prosecutor advance preview of what cross exam is going to be, defense prejudiced, the state has been impermissibly been allowed to introduce...
we have theory of defense, right to explore it, have witnesses on the spot and ask specific questions, if objection to question, prosecution capable of objecting, not require us stopping, preferring, and giving them advance notice of what asked of particular witness

Judge - Ch 90 FL evidence code, framework was evidence is admissible, , must meet requirement of ch 90, this motion deals with attempts by defense to elicit statements by defendant from other witnesses, those under evidence code self serving, when attempted by the defense, basically 3 exceptions to that, not go into may permit some of these. Under those 3, foundation requirements must be asked before those questions asked, as of yet no attempt to establish those foundational requirements, not admissible , State motion in limine statements of defendant be proffered will be granted

Do you think this is what RH was referring to?

 

[RR0004]

i respectfully disagree. I am speculating that cindy is feeling guilty because she didn't babysit caylee that night, and if she had, caylee might still be alive.

absolutely!!

 

[Just Jayla]

I respectfully disagree. I am speculating that Cindy is feeling guilty because she didn't babysit Caylee that night, and if she had, Caylee might still be alive.

Which night? (Butting in )

The night of the 15th, there was no need for CA to babysit, the night of the 16th KC had already told her parents she was not coming home (premeditation).
Unless you mean that KC wanted to stay out the night of the 15th for "work," but I don't remember KC claiming she was working that night.

 

[ThinkTank]

Originally Posted by ThinkTank
only they say that CINDY left the ladder up ... and now Cindy feels overwhelming guilty because of that ....

I respectfully disagree. I am speculating that Cindy is feeling guilty because she didn't babysit Caylee that night, and if she had, Caylee might still be alive.

BBM - that opinion was stated by Baez in his opening statements ... it is not my own personal opinion....

I personally do not believe Cindy left the ladder up .... and has nothing to feel guilty about in the death of Caylee.

 

[ThinkTank]

Originally Posted by wandering
I respectfully disagree. I am speculating that Cindy is feeling guilty because she didn't babysit Caylee that night, and if she had, Caylee might still be alive.

Which night? (Butting in )

The night of the 15th, there was no need for CA to babysit, the night of the 16th KC had already told her parents she was not coming home (premeditation).
Unless you mean that KC wanted to stay out the night of the 15th for "work," but I don't remember KC claiming she was working that night.

Cindy's testimony on Saturday:
Cindy said that KC could not bring Caylee up to Cindy's work for her to watch her like she usually did, because June 16th was a MONDAY, and Mondays are tough days for Cindy because of staff meetings and she has to work late on Mondays. KC said she would just take Caylee to Zanny's on June 16th.

LDB - you left for work on June 16, 2008 and worked normal shift?
Cindy - yes normal for a Monday
LDB - talk to KC on June 16, 2008?
Cindy: yes throughout day left her messages or she left msgs, as far as speaking with her - brief conversation, late in afternoon 4:00ish few seconds
LDB - that conversation include discussion of plans for that day?
Cindy - yes she going to spend night at Zanny's - KC couldn't drop Caylee off at my work - KC had to go into work early, typically Caylee could spend time with me, but Mondays are difficult staff mtg - so, KC said she would take Caylee to Zanny's and probably just crash at Zanny's when she [KC] got off work she [KC] had early morning at work - so made sense to just spend night with Zanny and Caylee

LDB - George had to work that Monday - 3-11 normal work hours
George working and you working late that Monday - neither one could watch Caylee?
Cindy - I could have later in the evening, but it made sense for them to spend night with Zanny
LDB - expecting they return home June 17th? yes, but they did not

 

[stmarysmead]

Originally Posted by wandering
I respectfully disagree. I am speculating that Cindy is feeling guilty because she didn't babysit Caylee that night, and if she had, Caylee might still be alive.



Cindy's testimony on Saturday:
Cindy said that KC could not bring Caylee up to Cindy's work for her to watch her like she usually did, because June 16th was a MONDAY, and Mondays are tough days for Cindy because of staff meetings and she has to work late on Mondays. KC said she would just take Caylee to Zanny's on June 16th.

LDB - you left for work on June 16, 2008 and worked normal shift?
Cindy - yes normal for a Monday
LDB - talk to KC on June 16, 2008?
Cindy: yes throughout day left her messages or she left msgs, as far as speaking with her - brief conversation, late in afternoon 4:00ish few seconds
LDB - that conversation include discussion of plans for that day?
Cindy - yes she going to spend night at Zanny's - KC couldn't drop Caylee off at my work - KC had to go into work early, typically Caylee could spend time with me, but Mondays are difficult staff mtg - so, KC said she would take Caylee to Zanny's and probably just crash at Zanny's when she [KC] got off work she [KC] had early morning at work - so made sense to just spend night with Zanny and Caylee

LDB - George had to work that Monday - 3-11 normal work hours
George working and you working late that Monday - neither one could watch Caylee?
Cindy - I could have later in the evening, but it made sense for them to spend night with Zanny
LDB - expecting they return home June 17th? yes, but they did not

Am I confused? According to Baez, Caylee was dead by that time. Why is Casey needing a babysitter?