Tim Miller: Possible Lawsuit against Casey

[LinasK]

but unlike the GA molestation "theory", evidence in the way of CA testimony and photographs of Caylee going up a ladder and Caylee in the pool was presented, so IMO there WAS testimony that Caylee drowned in the pool.

IMO, the jury sure went for it......

and JB argued about the pool drowning in closing statements, because evidence was presented. He could NOT argue about the GA molestation, because NO EVIDENCE was presented about that.

that is how I see it, anyway.

IMO, MOO, etc.

This is NO proof!!! Neither is the sliding glass door photo, proves nothing...:snooty:

 

[cityslick]

He mentioned it in closing statement, too and during the trial as fact. He also told CA that KC had told him to tell her that Caylee had drowned. Was JB lying to CA and the court???? jmo

I don't know, but the fact remains it's not Casey Anthony testifying to this fact. It's her lawyer making statements in court, statements which are not testimony. Is there some sort of precedent of people getting sued successfully based on statements made by their attorneys?

 

[LambChop]

This is NO proof!!! Neither is the sliding glass door photo, proves nothing...:snooty:

This was presented by JB as evidence that Caylee could get into the pool herself if certain safeguards were not in place to back up his statement that Caylee drowned on June 16, 2008, such as the ladder being attached to the pool. There are no facts that point to this happening and even if KC testified in court it happened it could still be a lie (which is what most of us believe). But JB in his opening statement presented the drowning as a fact, KC having given him all the information about what happened with her dad finding Caylee. If KC never told JB this story then he falsely presented it to the jury as a fact. Judge Perry must have believed JB had been told by KC because he let the jury consider it and JB did not present it as a theory in his opening, during court and closing statements. jmo

 

[logicalgirl]

This is NO proof!!! Neither is the sliding glass door photo, proves nothing...:snooty:

Yeah really - the sum total of Baez's "proof" was there actually was in pool in the back yard...:furious:

 

[logicalgirl]

This was presented by JB as evidence that Caylee could get into the pool herself if certain safeguards were not in place to back up his statement that Caylee drowned on June 16, 2008, such as the ladder being attached to the pool. There are no facts that point to this happening and even if KC testified in court it happened it could still be a lie (which is what most of us believe). But JB in his opening statement presented the drowning as a fact, KC having given him all the information about what happened with her dad finding Caylee. If KC never told JB this story then he falsely presented it to the jury as a fact. Judge Perry must have believed JB had been told by KC because he let the jury consider it and JB did not present it as a theory in his opening, during court and closing statements. jmo

I wonder if that was because the State didn't challenge it in some way?

 

[LambChop]

I wonder if that was because the State didn't challenge it in some way?

That was not the issue that my answer to a post is based on. The issue is whether or not what JB used in his opening statement was theory about Caylee drowning because KC did not testify therefore she can't be held responsible for what her attorney claims in court. My point was JB did not present the drowning as a theory, he claims it happened. He does not say Caylee could have drowned he says she did and then goes on the give a detailed description of KC's reaction, etc. KC could have told a lie but JB was presenting it as a fact.

JB is not permitted to present a story unless he clearly states that this is what could have happened. He did not do that he stated it did happen and the only person who could have given him that information was KC. If he completely made up the story he is in big trouble because the judge let him use the drowning in his closing statement without any factual proof it happened, only that it could have happened. JP let JB use the drowning in his closing statement because JB did not say it could have happened he claims it did. jmo

 

[logicalgirl]

That was not the issue that my answer to a post is based on. The issue is whether or not what JB used in his opening statement was theory about Caylee drowning because KC did not testify therefore she can't be held responsible for what her attorney claims in court. My point was JB did not present the drowning as a theory, he claims it happened. He does not say Caylee could have drowned he says she did and then goes on the give a detailed description of KC's reaction, etc. KC could have told a lie but JB was presenting it as a fact.

JB is not permitted to present a story unless he clearly states that this is what could have happened. He did not do that he stated it did happen and the only person who could have given him that information was KC. If he completely made up the story he is in big trouble because the judge let him use the drowning in his closing statement without any factual proof it happened, only that it could have happened. JP let JB use the drowning in his closing statement because JB did not say it could have happened he claims it did. jmo

Yeah....That's right.....

...............how come I made you grumpy sounding?

 

[sleutherontheside]

There are so many differences between criminal and civil trials. I need to do some case law searches, but I would think:

While JB didn't present any evidence to PROVE a drowning, KC did not object to her counsel making their opening statement.....thus.......would she not have agreed to it?

OR

Was that mysterious end of trial motion to have KC deemed incompetent....just a legal maneuver to excuse her from the burden of objecting to the theory as presented? See where I am going?

Civil trials do not provide near the protection that criminal cases provide the accused. Was the infamous motion to declare her incompetent part of a "thwartation" plan for her subsequent cases???? See Judge......she can't be held to the defense theory because we tried to have her declared incompetent and though it failed...the issue was in fact raised.

 

[logicalgirl]

There are so many differences between criminal and civil trials. I need to do some case law searches, but I would think:

While JB didn't present any evidence to PROVE a drowning, KC did not object to her counsel making their opening statement.....thus.......would she not have agreed to it?

OR

Was that mysterious end of trial motion to have KC deemed incompetent....just a legal maneuver to excuse her from the burden of objecting to the theory as presented? See where I am going?

Civil trials do not provide near the protection that criminal cases provide the accused. Was the infamous motion to declare her incompetent part of a "thwartation" plan for her subsequent cases???? See Judge......she can't be held to the defense theory because we tried to have her declared incompetent and though it failed...the issue was in fact raised.

Sure I see your point except what theory would the DT or OCA prefer to present instead of the drowning? Back to the babysitter kidnapping her? Or just general SODDI?

 

[LambChop]

Sure I see your point except what theory would the DT or OCA prefer to present instead of the drowning? Back to the babysitter kidnapping her? Or just general SODDI?

I think the team was trying to prove she was crazy and therefore we can't believe anything she says. But we all know...she's not crazy....nor does she want anyone to think she is crazy. She had plenty of evaluations done and they all agree she is not crazy. Something to think about, though, I mean with her showing up in a disguise. JB must have been showing her the JW videos. lol

 

[MaryAnn]

I think the team was trying to prove she was crazy and therefore we can't believe anything she says. But we all know...she's not crazy....nor does she want anyone to think she is crazy. She had plenty of evaluations done and they all agree she is not crazy. Something to think about, though, I mean with her showing up in a disguise. JB must have been showing her the JW videos. lol

What are JB videos?

 

[LambChop]

What are JB videos?

JW videos. The lady who has been brought in under the "Baker Act) jmo

 

[NavySubMom]

This is NO proof!!! Neither is the sliding glass door photo, proves nothing...:snooty:

EGADS, I KNOW THAT!! You have to read the thread of posts I was responding to..........

It was stated that FCA NEVER LIED TO LE, that FCA NEVER SAID CAYLEE DIED IN THE POOL on June 16!! and it was stated in a post that there WAS NO EVIDENCE AT TRIAL stating that fact, that JB ONLY STATED IT IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT, that it could not be related back to FCA because it was ONLY a THEORY in JB's opening. My post was in relation to someone stating FCA NEVER ADMITTED CAYLEE DROWNED, but I was saying that SHE DID STATE IN FACT CAYLEE DIED JUNE 16, through her attorney.... and that evidence was submitted by her attorney, so, she in fact, stated that though her attorney.

A poster stated that opening statements ARE NOT EVIDENCE,

and I was stating that even though the opening statements ARE NOT EVIDENCE, that JB DID PRESENT EVIDENCE AT TRIAL re: the drowning, at nonsensical as that evidence was. So IMO FCA stated CAYLEE DROWNED ON JUNE 16, thereby she KNEW THAT, and thereby she MISLED TES, stating her child was missing.

I'm done posting here after being blasted like that.
IMO, MOO, etc.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

He mentioned it in closing statement, too and during the trial as fact. He also told CA that KC had told him to tell her that Caylee had drowned. Was JB lying to CA and the court???? jmo

Umm yes, of course he was. We know that for a fact. He did it throughout the trial.

 

[LambChop]

Umm yes, of course he was. We know that for a fact. He did it throughout the trial.

He can tell it as fact that KC told him, or he can present it as a theory in opening statements to be proven during trial with evidence. What he can't do is perpetrate a fraud on the court. It's a big, fat no no. So he can say, or infer, this is what KC told me but he can't just pick a story out of the thin air and pretend that KC told him. He has to say this could have happened not that it, in fact, did which is what he did with the drowning. Does not mean it is true just that KC had to have told him and he went with it. You know "This is my story, JB, and I'm sticking to it." What a shock it must have been for JB when they found Caylee's remains with the duct tape. jmo

 

[LambChop]

EGADS, I KNOW THAT!! You have to read the thread of posts I was responding to..........

It was stated that FCA NEVER LIED TO LE, that FCA NEVER SAID CAYLEE DIED IN THE POOL on June 16!! and it was stated in a post that there WAS NO EVIDENCE AT TRIAL stating that fact, that JB ONLY STATED IT IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT, that it could not be related back to FCA because it was ONLY a THEORY in JB's opening. My post was in relation to someone stating FCA NEVER ADMITTED CAYLEE DROWNED, but I was saying that SHE DID STATE IN FACT CAYLEE DIED JUNE 16, through her attorney.... and that evidence was submitted by her attorney, so, she in fact, stated that though her attorney.

A poster stated that opening statements ARE NOT EVIDENCE,

and I was stating that even though the opening statements ARE NOT EVIDENCE, that JB DID PRESENT EVIDENCE AT TRIAL re: the drowning, at nonsensical as that evidence was. So IMO FCA stated CAYLEE DROWNED ON JUNE 16, thereby she KNEW THAT, and thereby she MISLED TES, stating her child was missing.

I'm done posting here after being blasted like that.
IMO, MOO, etc.

No....don't leave. We need the Navy here.

 

[Friday]

Well, the the states case is predicated of the fact that she knowingly lied to LE and was found guilty of such. It's not been proven anywhere that Casey 'lied' to TES. Yes JB presented it as fact but it is not 'fact' in the eyes of the court.

I think we're overlooking the indisputable fact that KC's steadfast and untruthful claim back then was that Caylee had been kidnapped.

 

[Steely Dan]

EGADS, I KNOW THAT!! You have to read the thread of posts I was responding to..........

It was stated that FCA NEVER LIED TO LE, that FCA NEVER SAID CAYLEE DIED IN THE POOL on June 16!! and it was stated in a post that there WAS NO EVIDENCE AT TRIAL stating that fact, that JB ONLY STATED IT IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT, that it could not be related back to FCA because it was ONLY a THEORY in JB's opening. My post was in relation to someone stating FCA NEVER ADMITTED CAYLEE DROWNED, but I was saying that SHE DID STATE IN FACT CAYLEE DIED JUNE 16, through her attorney.... and that evidence was submitted by her attorney, so, she in fact, stated that though her attorney.

A poster stated that opening statements ARE NOT EVIDENCE,

and I was stating that even though the opening statements ARE NOT EVIDENCE, that JB DID PRESENT EVIDENCE AT TRIAL re: the drowning, at nonsensical as that evidence was. So IMO FCA stated CAYLEE DROWNED ON JUNE 16, thereby she KNEW THAT, and thereby she MISLED TES, stating her child was missing.

I'm done posting here after being blasted like that.
IMO, MOO, etc.

C'mon, stick around. She was a bit harsh but I think you both have points.

 

[bayouland]

There are so many differences between criminal and civil trials. I need to do some case law searches, but I would think:

While JB didn't present any evidence to PROVE a drowning, KC did not object to her counsel making their opening statement.....thus.......would she not have agreed to it?

OR

Was that mysterious end of trial motion to have KC deemed incompetent....just a legal maneuver to excuse her from the burden of objecting to the theory as presented? See where I am going?

Civil trials do not provide near the protection that criminal cases provide the accused. Was the infamous motion to declare her incompetent part of a "thwartation" plan for her subsequent cases???? See Judge......she can't be held to the defense theory because we tried to have her declared incompetent and though it failed...the issue was in fact raised.[/QUOTE]

Don't give them any ideas. :innocent:

 

[NavySubMom]

lol, SORRY for my ridiculous dramatic post!! I am back from my "not posting anymore" already.... goodness!

again, sorry, I haven't been feeling well at all, and I am WAAYY too sensitive right about now, I was being an a$$.

Anyway, thanks LambChop and SteelyDan for asking me to stick around.

Don't want to get the thread off-topic, so please just ignore me :crazy: :crazy: