Caylee Anthony. NO JUSTICE

[Adub]

Imo, the State keeps asking the witness about casey being mirandized because this issue came up in pre-trial hearings. Baez wanted all the statements thrown out. The judge ruled against Baez and the statements are in.

But Geraldo agrees with you, Ima. If that is any consolation.

[IMaDick]

The judges ruling is the basis for the appeal.

[Duchess]

Don't appeals take many years? She's not going anywhere, she'll never walk free again.

[Adub]

The judges ruling is the basis for the appeal.

It may be, but if those statements were excluded would the trial have a different outcome? All those statements proved was that Casey is a liar. Which the defendant has admitted.

[IMaDick]

The appeals process can take years, but if she gets convicted with the death penalty the first appeal is automatic. the course from there can take years with many new appeals being filed and heard.

[IMaDick]

The judges ruling is the basis for the appeal.

It may be, but if those statements were excluded would the trial have a different outcome? All those statements proved was that Casey is a liar. Which the defendant has admitted.

The statements are an irrelevant part of the appeal, it's the civil rights and legal rights that will be scrutinized by the appeals court.

[Duchess]

The appeals process can take years, but if she gets convicted with the death penalty the first appeal is automatic. the course from there can take years with many new appeals being filed and heard.

I guess I don't understand why some are expressing concern. *shrugs* She's not going anywhere ever again.

[Lady Cop]

again...the number of cases reversed on such a lame appeal is miniscule. it won't happen. she was not in custody, and she was being questioned about their suspect, zanny. geraldo is a dumbass and he sucks bozo's dick regularly, while stroking his ego.
not to mention again,the judge has written an opinion on this non-issue that will stick.
if casey is convicted of course there will be years of appeals. on anything they can pick out of the trial transcript. they will fail miserably, like baez.

The trial judge held an evidentiary hearing and decided the evidence showed that Ms. Anthony was not in custody at the time and was not entitled to Miranda warnings. That is a finding of fact, and appellate courts will not reverse a finding of fact if it is supported by competent, substantial evidence. It is unlikely the appellate court will reverse on this issue. -- Judge O.H. Eaton

[BlueTiki]

and what the fuck is the having CA raise her hand and swearing to everything being true on the tape? that's some bogus bullshit, and they did it twice on the same day.

So . . . there is case law prohibiting this type of police "questioning"?

How about departmental policies?

Any cases overturned because of the "raising of hand and swearing" procedure?

"If it ain't broke . . . the appeal's a joke."

[IMaDick]

Time will tell, she is bound to be convicted no doubt, but I see a new trial in her future.

[IMaDick]

The police do not swear in people when they start an interview or when they end an interview.

[Lady Cop]

The police do not swear in people when they start an interview or when they end an interview.

oh really? maybe not in your jurisdiction, but when i was a florida LEO, people had to swear to all affidavits i took. and i'm sure they were taking statements/affidavits re: her missing child. pretty reasonable i'd say. and so would an appeals court.

[IMaDick]

Really LC, were they taking affidavits? did she write her statements? are the police sworn takers of oaths?



sorry it was bogus bullshit.

[Lady Cop]

yes. we had authority to swear peoples' statements/affidavits. and this is a florida case. wouldn't you have taken her statements in writing as well as tape?
this was still an urgent search for a missing child.

[JsMom]

LC, What do u think of Vass's testimony? Do you think his testimony is creditable? I'm just curious. (IMO) i think he has explained himself very well.

[Lady Cop]

yes i find him credible. and so will the jurors.

this is a new test/evidence, never been used. but precedents do get set in trials.

unless baez can discredit him i see it as being useful. i hear from courtroom tweets that baez is boring the snot out of the jury and making an ass of himself.

Vass is the innovator of this science. he is currently the accepted expert.

[LytoMe]

I just love how this extremely smart scientist makes Biaz look like a bigger moron then he already does!!! Haha

[IMaDick]

and what the fuck is the having CA raise her hand and swearing to everything being true on the tape? that's some bogus bullshit, and they did it twice on the same day.

So . . . there is case law prohibiting this type of police "questioning"?

How about departmental policies?

Any cases overturned because of the "raising of hand and swearing" procedure?

"If it ain't broke . . . the appeal's a joke."

If you say so, but the courts frown on LEO's taking their place.

The written statement papers that you see the cops give out do not contain the signature of the officer, they use a legally binding sentence and the signature of the writer of the statement.

No written affidavits have been submitted into evidence, they would take priority over the tape recordings, trust me no one has to tell the police the truth.

So far the tapes prove she lied to the cops ,shocking to say the least.

[Lady Cop]

baez is tripping over his own dick. he claims george took the body and hid it. that it was in the trunk of the car. that would fit his "theory". so WTF is he doing trying to discredit Vass?

[LytoMe]

baez is tripping over his own dick. he claims george took the body and hid it. that it was in the trunk of the car. that would fit his "theory". so WTF is he doing trying to discredit Vass?

That is a very good question, and do you really think you could discredit such an intelligent man. I LOVED the part when Vass laughed at him, during the questioning. haha