All defense lawyers are slimy worms, and many prosecutors are the same.

He is still trying to get her off, eventually he will turn to mitigating the charge when it is clear that he can't win acquittal.

Right now it's still ⁵⁰⁄₅₀ that there is enough "doubt" that the jury won't be able to convict "at least they can't if they stick to the meager evidence the prosecution has brought forth in their case", hang maybe but not convict.

To be honest they barely have enough evidence for an arrest let alone a conviction, they caught CA in some lies and appearance problems, but they have failed to actually tie her to the death and subsequent dumping of the body.

That's the problem with a liar, questioning is useless, and then the sociopath personality CA exhibits makes it impossible to appeal to the emotional side of her with the the death of her daughter.

It's tough to prosecute a case with a defendant like that, it takes hard evidence to make it stick when the death penalty is on the table.

I think the charge and the penalty are the biggest mistake the pros. made in this trial, they went after the notoriety of the case and not something more reasonable for a jury to convict on.

Christ, baez literally put me to sleep . i just woke up and got back here. makes me wonder about his 'impact' on the jury.

as usual Dick i disagree with you .
this is a circumstantial case, the state had PLENTY and presented it in a cogent way. they wisely left out a lot of superfluous stuff that may have muddled the jury and muddied the water. and despite what many think, circumstantial evidence is GOOD evidence. scott peterson was convicted and sent to death row with less.

and mitigation does not enter equation until penalty phase. after a conviction.

circumstantail evidence did not convict scott peterson, I know people like to say that but they had more than enough physical evidence to tie him to the crime and the dumping of the body and lets not forget he was arrested while fleeing the country.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

I vote for myself.

The same jury does the penalty phase, mitigation will start in the defence case within the trial.

THANK GOD THE WITNESS HAS BEEN EXCUSED!!!!!!

Dick:
I vote for myself.


what are you running for? :bad tongue:


what physical evidence did they have for peterson? it was ALL circumstantial. and fleeing, while evidence of knowledge of guilt, didn't make that case.

(06-16-2011, 02:13 PM)IMaDick Wrote: To be honest they barely have enough evidence for an arrest let alone a conviction, they caught CA in some lies and appearance problems, but they have failed to actually tie her to the death and subsequent dumping of the body.

But she was the last person who had physical custody of Caylee.

Remember, this isn't a teenager gone missing.

"Now you see her . . . now you don't."

Maybe not enough for the needle, in these juror's minds, but NOT a pass for an arrest and prosecution.

Tiki, she's arrested and being prosecuted, I just thought you would like to know that.

I voted for my senario.

was she the last to have physical custody? I don't remember the state proving that.

casey was busy screwing her father and brother simultaneously so she left the baby with the imaginanny. the imaginanny then drowned the child in the pool and got a passing meter-reader, kronk, to hide the body in the palmetto scrub. later the ex-con found the body and wrapped duct tape around her face. then george came along and put her in trash and laundry bags from their house. then he put her in the trunk of the car for a few days to frame casey.

casey was forced to go look for Caylee in a nightclub in orlando every night, and fuck all the males and some of the females to interrogate them. it was a great sacrifice for her.

baez spells DNA correctly---->

WHAT THE FUCK has BOZO shown this court so far? How he can put people to sleep by his stupidity??

I just woke up. Anything happen? Baez is the new Ambien

It was unfortunate that the 20 year veteran "document expert" contaminated the duct tape with her own dna. I thought they were supposed to wear gloves to prevent such things.

Anyway, aside from that unbelievable rookie mistake, she said she did not find evidence of a heart shape & or sticker residue on the duct tape, so was reasonable doubt created, yes?

baez wasted the jury's day, the Judge's day, the state's day and even the public's day on red herrings.
he is trying for the o.j. defense, discredit the forensics. it's not going to work. but i guess he had to do something.
he is saving the "bombshell" Perry Mason stuff for george and perhaps kronk.



just saw your post Cars...you answered your own question. the 'rookie' missed the residue. humans are not infallible. but i slept through that, sorry. hahaha
i am going to post soon about what reasonable doubt really means. it is not beyond all reason.

(06-16-2011, 03:21 PM)IMaDick Wrote: Tiki, she's arrested and being prosecuted, I just thought you would like to know that.

I voted for my senario.

was she the last to have physical custody? I don't remember the state proving that.

Hey . . .douchetard.

Your position was they had barely enough evidence to arrest her.

Bullshit. Her kid is gone and her gums are flapping in the breeze. A child this age doesn't run away from home like a teenager.

NO corroborating evidence to back her statements as to her kid's whereabouts. NOTHING.

And . . . uh . . . yeah. I believe during her several police interviews, she stated she passed off her daughter to either : a.) Zanny b.) "kidnappers" - because Zanny thought she was an "unfit mother".

That would be her arms. Not George's or Cindy's.

I don't recall the defense nullifying these statements on cross.

Stick by the phone, I'm sure Geraldo will be getting in touch.

best part of trial is in sidebars:

Orlando Sentinel
June 15, 2011
A newly obtained transcript of a sidebar conference from last week shows why Chief Judge Belvin Perry allowed jurors in the Casey Anthony trial to hear gruesome details about animals chewing on her daughter Caylee's bones.

The sidebar conference came last Friday during a highly emotional day in which photos and evidence of Caylee Marie Anthony's remains were shown to jurors.

There was graphic discussion about what animals did to the child's remains after being placed in the woods off Suburban Drive in 2008 and before their discovery on Dec. 11 of that year.

University of Central Florida forensic anthropology professor John Schultz at one point in his testimony described Caylee's bones and said "these have actually been chewed on by animals."

During his testimony, the defense objected and a sidebar conference was called so that jurors and others in the courtroom could not hear the conversation. A 7-page transcript of the conversation captures several interesting points.

Here's one part of the exchange:

Defense attorney Cheney Mason: "Talking about animal chewing is not probative of any issue in this case … It's scandalous or shocking and emotional, but it doesn't prove anything. There's no question that the child is dead, that these are her bones. But to start talking about animal chewing, I think is inflammatory and we object to it."

Assistant State Attorney Jeff Ashton: "It is my understanding that the defense's position is that these bones were moved, placed into this location at some later date. The fact that the bones were scattered by animals and chewed on is probative of the length of time that they had been present."

Judge Perry: "Well, but for your argument and suggestion that somebody kept the bones and moved them about, I would sustain your objection. But in view of the fact that that's your theory, that Mr. [Roy] Kronk took the bones and took them somewhere and kept them, it has relevancy in that standpoint."

Soon after, the parties discussed what defense attorney Jose Baez said regarding Kronk during his opening statement. Mason reminds the others that Baez said "the bones were dragged and moved."

Later he adds, "Does it prove that defense counsel made an opening statement decision that may have not been prudent? Perhaps."

Perry said, "Before Mr. Baez made his statement, I told you I would…sustain the objection," Perry said. "But when you talk about somebody moved and kept bones for the purpose of getting a reward, I mean … it's a whole line of questioning that you've just opened a can of worms up on."

Then Mason asked whether the Baez opening statement opened the door to all of this.

Perry responded by saying Baez had questioned a crime scene investigator and a deputy about this long after his opening statement.

At this point Baez says, "The gnawing of bones does not – does not give any indication as to how long remains would be there."

But Perry ultimately said, "animal activity has to do something with the timeline in this case … it's an issue that the defense raised."

Perry said he would overrule the defense objection, but cautioned the prosecution not to get "too enthused and turn it into a horror movie with Frankenstein appearing."

Ashton said they would discuss the distribution of bones and the consistency with it being done by animals. He warned, "It's not going to be pleasant."

Ashton also raised the issue of defense attorney Dorothy Clay Sims consoling Casey Anthony.

"Ms. Anthony gets upset. And that's fine. We can't do anything about that," Ashton said. "But I do think that counsel's constant arm around the back, patting, needs to not be done in front of the jury."

He was concerned the display "has the potential of influencing the jury and getting sympathy. So we would ask that counsel stay out of it and leave the consolation for the breaks."

Perry said he was watching this and observed "it hasn't reached to the point where it appears to be staged, no more than the natural facial expressions that human beings have; that you even have sometimes, Mr. Ashton."

Perry then advised the defense not to "overdo it."

After this sidebar, they all took a break.

(06-16-2011, 02:29 PM)Lady Cop Wrote: scott peterson was convicted and sent to death row with less.

Hey Dick!

a few words about reasonable doubt. this is a brief definition:

The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.



i would add...there was an old rule that also defined it as what the generic "reasonable man" would find. not some pie-in-the-sky incredible scenario such as baez has presented in openings. a reasonable doubt does not mean ALL reason or ALL doubt.

Did anyone hear about a defence star witness giving an interview on wed before he flew to Orlando to testify. I believe he gave it to Wesh ch 6.
Not 100% sure, but could of forced defence to change things up a bit till they see if any damage was done. Star witness was an old guy and was suppost to challenge dr G's testomony.

Did anyone see that funny little moment today? Baez was questioning an expert( i think it was the first guy)and asked him about why he wears gloves and a mask when he is testing such and such..then he asked "why don't you talk when you do it"? The man responded "because I am the only one there" It was good for a laugh!