Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52

Thread: 2010.05.03 Steph Watts/Blogtalk radio -Brad Conway talks about Casey Anthony Case

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,560

    2010.05.03 Steph Watts/Blogtalk radio -Brad Conway talks about Casey Anthony Case

    Hi All

    Brad Conway is a guest on tonight's show among others, some interesting points discussed and well worth a listen to.

    Casey Anthony discussion starts at 11.53

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/watts-u...s-up-with-this
    Last edited by darnudes; 05-03-2010 at 04:53 AM. Reason: edit title - will need to pm a mod :)

  2. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to darnudes For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,560
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaniestone218 View Post
    I think you mean 5-3.
    Thanks Steph, had a feeling I was going to messing up the dates. I'll need to PM a mod though as I can't edit it.

    I think one of the most interesting things to come out of the show was when Brad Conway stated he will probably have to file a motion on behalf of the Anthony's to allow them to be abel to attend court to view all the proceedings even though they will more than likely be called as witness's.

    It hadn't occurred to me that as witness's they would not be allowed in the courtroom until they had testified.

    That will be an interesting hearing - especially if it is denied.


  4. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    10,426
    I want the A's to be able to hear everything. I think they need to if they are ever going to accept what has happened.

  5. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to strawberry For This Useful Post:


  6. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,821
    Quote Originally Posted by strawberry View Post
    I want the A's to be able to hear everything. I think they need to if they are ever going to accept what has happened.
    But witnesses are not allowed to hear what everyone else is saying. Of course, the A's want to be treated differently...


  7. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    10,426
    Quote Originally Posted by ZsaZsa View Post
    But witnesses are not allowed to hear what everyone else is saying. Of course, the A's want to be treated differently...
    What if they were called early on? Would they be able to hear the rest?

  8. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to strawberry For This Useful Post:


  9. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,821
    No, they are witnesses. Why should an exception be made for them?

  10. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to ZsaZsa For This Useful Post:


  11. #7
    Once they have testified and all cross examinations have occurred I think they will allow them into the courtroom. Otherwise, I doubt it. Witnesses are not allowed to be in the courtroom. I think Brad can forget it.

    ABC provided $200,000.00 to
    Casey Anthonys defense!
    The MURDERED should not be USED to pay for the MURDERERS DEFENSE!

    American Tragedy: The defense of Casey Anthony.

    Juror No. 11 somehow made the journey from Casey is the one on trial to George may be a murderer, based on how George acted on the stand? 3 years of evidence against Casey and he throws George under the bus. Makes sense?
    What evidence indicated that George might be a murderer? Anyone?
    Weren't they to ONLY consider EVIDENCE?
    This NOT GUILTY verdict throws Caylee right back into the swamp she decomposed in. Thanks to this "impartial" jury.

  12. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to magic-cat For This Useful Post:


  13. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,269
    I can't imagine CA being told to do anything...I know it is law that witnesses can't be in the trial..but I can't get my brain wrapped around them not being allowed in the courtroom and CA taking it submissively.

    Do we have any other cases where the family was not allowed to be in the courtroom because they were witnesses?
    Sitting. on. hands.


  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Mamabear1963 For This Useful Post:


  15. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Cali
    Posts
    1,680
    I assumed this case would be televised on TruTVs "In Session". It never occurred to me it wouldn't!!!! (Pleeeeeeeaaaase televise it!) The A's will have the ability to watch the trial if it is televised won't they? How can you monitor what a witness does during a televised trial? I remember the witnesses in the Spector case being asked if they had been watching the coverage of the trial while on the stand (some admitted to watching "a little"). Sorry if this is too O/T.

  16. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Gma Kat For This Useful Post:


  17. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    10,426
    Quote Originally Posted by ZsaZsa View Post
    No, they are witnesses. Why should an exception be made for them?
    What about closing arguments then? At least they can hear a summary of what their dear daughter did to precious Caylee. I want them there not because I think they deserve an exception but because I want them to hear what this daughter that they are defending allegedly did to Caylee. I want them to hear the details. I want them to have to avert their eyes if crime scene photos are shown. If shown only to the jury I want them to have to see their horror.

  18. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to strawberry For This Useful Post:


  19. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Cali
    Posts
    1,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Mamabear1963 View Post
    I can't imagine CA being told to do anything...I know it is law that witnesses can't be in the trial..but I can't get my brain wrapped around them not being allowed in the courtroom and CA taking it submissively.

    Do we have any other cases where the family was not allowed to be in the courtroom because they were witnesses?
    Good question Mamabear. IIRC in both OJ and Scott Peterson's trial the family members of the victims testified. In Spector the daughter of the defendant testified. In Spector I know the daughter was not present throughout the trial and I'm positive she wasn't present prior to her testimony. In OJ and Peterson though I was under the impression the family was present in the courtroom from the very beginning. I wonder if there is a difference between being the victim's family and being a witness, or the defendants. I guess I'm off to the questions for the lawyers thread!

  20. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Gma Kat For This Useful Post:


  21. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    OK
    Posts
    3,323
    oh my, it might not be a given according to this:

    http://www.lawyers.com/~/link.aspx?_...34B82CDB3&_z=z
    Excluding Witnesses from the Courtroom
    In a criminal trial, either side can ask the judge to exclude witnesses from the courtroom while another witness testifies. This is usually done before the trial begins by filing a Motion for Sequestration.
    ---
    A more complicated question arises when determining if the crime victim should be excluded or exempted. With the recent push for victims’ rights, several states exempt victims from exclusion orders. Nevertheless, a judge may exclude a victim if hearing other testimony might influence their testimony or if the defendant’s right to a fair trial is impaired.
    ...the humble opinion of Jo Schmo...0 number of Days Jury Deliberated for Caylee

  22. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to okiedokietoo For This Useful Post:


  23. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    12,219
    Personally, I think the judge should sequestor the Anthony's. IMHO, Cindy will not have the strength or willpower to avoid the TV or newspaper. Do we trust that she'll obey the judges orders?

    MOO

    Mel


  24. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    614
    slightly OT:
    I have a friend whose son was murdered 4 weeks ago. They caught a man and a woman FINALLY (hooray) (they look like scum in their mug shots). Well, I thought I saw that some sort of court thing was coming up on a specific date. I gingerly asked my friend if she would be there (I would be!) --she said the most remarkable thing..she said, Well, no one told me about any court thing, and I'm letting the authorities tell me what I need to do and where I need to be.
    WOW. I had to think how un-anthony a response that is....and how wise.


  25. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    the Plains & Jordan-Hare stadium
    Posts
    13,908
    Quote Originally Posted by Kentjbkent View Post
    If I am not mistaken, once a witness has testified, and has been cross examined, they may remain in the courtroom if the JUDGE HAS EXCUSED THEM.

    In some circumstances, either the prosecutor or the defense attorney can request that they be "held over", in the event that they may be called back to the stand later in the trial. In that circustance, the witness would have to leave courtroom to prevent them hearing testimony conducted after theirs.
    To the best of my knowledge, Kent is exactly right.

    I understand why others want them in the courtroom to hear everything, however, I can't think of any 2 people who need to excluded before testifying in full more than George & Cindy Anthony. For almost 22 months we've seen first hand their attempts at damage control anytime someone comes forward with testimony incriminating their daughter. CA & GA are an attorney's worst nightmare when it comes to client control. (just ask Mark NeJame ) If CA were allowed to sit in and heard another witness's testimony that she thought incriminated her daughter, it would not matter if she were asked on direct or cross - she would attempt to slip in her side of the story refuting such testimony. If that happened, JP would give her a nice little dressin' down, however like the old saying goes, "you can't unring a bell". I really don't think she could contain herself. Cindy is a control freak of the highest degree, however she has zero self-control. (e.g., the civil depo)

    That said, I suspect they will be called pretty early during the SA's case in chief. What remains to be seen, is if Judge Perry will excuse them.

    They will be admonished by the judge to not view the televised proceedings. Raise your hand if ya think they will comply with that order.
    Last edited by beach; 05-03-2010 at 12:48 PM. Reason: typo
    Never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake.


  26. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,821
    Quote Originally Posted by Mamabear1963 View Post
    I can't imagine CA being told to do anything...I know it is law that witnesses can't be in the trial..but I can't get my brain wrapped around them not being allowed in the courtroom and CA taking it submissively.

    Do we have any other cases where the family was not allowed to be in the courtroom because they were witnesses?
    Here is one case :-
    http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/new...9_7m1mudd.html

    I am sure this is the way it usually is..

  27. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to ZsaZsa For This Useful Post:


  28. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    the Plains & Jordan-Hare stadium
    Posts
    13,908
    Quote Originally Posted by Mamabear1963 View Post
    I can't imagine CA being told to do anything...I know it is law that witnesses can't be in the trial..but I can't get my brain wrapped around them not being allowed in the courtroom and CA taking it submissively.

    Do we have any other cases where the family was not allowed to be in the courtroom because they were witnesses?
    BBM

    The first one that comes to my mind is Denise Brown, Nicole Brown Simpson's sister.
    Never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake.

  29. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to beach For This Useful Post:


  30. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    somewhere between incredulous and disgusted
    Posts
    22,712
    It is pretty common that witnesses who will be called to the stand are not allowed to be in the courtroom during testimony being given by others in the case. If they WERE allowed to be present, imagine how their testimony could change based upon what they have heard other witnesses testify to with their own ears???? How could you ever find their tesimony credible if they have been given the opportunity to hear what everyone else has said and then change their testimony to either refute or back up prior witnesses?

    Judge Perry will not fall for this bull, and IMOO he won't even entertain the idea. This is (again IMOO) yet another example of the queen of control trying to exert her will on something over which she has ZERO ability to control.
    If no link is provided it's a good bet it's simply

    Those who try to bring you down are already beneath you.


  31. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,448
    I do believe JPJr. will not allow the Anthonys in the courtroom until after they've been excused as witnesses. GA for sure, since he is the one who kept telling LE about the smell from the car and especially since it was he who testified at the Grand Jury Hearing...

    CA will have to abide by the judges orders even though she will be unaccepting of it. Even as she states she wants the truth, IMO she will not accept the truth even when Inmate Anthony is found guilty. She is a loose cannon and the defense may even want her excused..wishful thinking but I can just see her trying for a mistrial with her shout outs for she can't contain herself. I'm surprised she's been this quiet for so long. I wonder how she'll react if she used as the pinnacle of why Inmate Anthony is the way she is...

    Judge Perry Jr. is about law and procedures he will do what's right, he's thinking about trial time and how he will handle the jurors and wants them sequestered during the trial and after as they deliberate on a verdict.

  32. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to LiveLaughLuv For This Useful Post:


  33. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    the Plains & Jordan-Hare stadium
    Posts
    13,908
    wayyy O/Tfor just a sec - I LOVE how LiveLaughLuv calls her 'Inmate Anthony'!
    I wish NG would adopt that and let go of 'Tot-mom'.
    Last edited by beach; 05-03-2010 at 04:14 PM. Reason: 'cause I can't type worth a flip today! lol
    Never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake.


  34. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,448
    I also don't feel BC has any credibility. He's already stated there was no duct tape over Caylee's face, he's went along with CA saying she doesn't read the discovery, yet she went with facts as she was being deposed by Morgan on the civil lawsuit. He's doing what MN refused to do and that is defend Inmate Anthony at any cost..

    Quote Originally Posted by beach2yall
    wayyy O/Tfor just a sec - I LOVE how how LiveLaughLuv calls her 'Inmate Anthony'!
    I wish NG would adopt that and let go of 'Tot-mom'.
    She is a convicted felon even though it's been a time served conviction. She is on probation for one year so, in all fairness, she is an inmate of Orange County jail and should be addressed as a felon, IMO...we must not foget, she is no longer a "mom", totmom or otherwise. She set out to complete what she wanted when she was hiding her pregnancy...that is to be free from parental incumrances...she didn't want the responsibility and she now is free from that...Inmate Anthony will not see a free day for the rest of her sorry life. Caylee deserves justice and justice is coming for her..

    Justice for Caylee!


  35. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The beautiful PacNW's Emerald City
    Posts
    660
    The Honorable Judge Perry Jr. is going to adhere to the letter of the law. The "I'm a grieving grandma" mantra from CA won't matter. A witness is a witness!
    I seriously doubt that CA and GA will be allowed to observe the trial prior to their testimony. I doubt they will fully excused from duty, as well, because I can easily see them recalled to the stand by the Prosecution if necessary.

    I understand that CA and GA are mourning the loss of Caylee, but they refuse to recognize her as the true victim in this case. The only one!! The victim of a homicide!! This trial is about Justice for Caylee.......not Inmate Anthony.

  36. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to RainyGirl For This Useful Post:


  37. #23
    whiteangora's Avatar
    whiteangora is offline I'm on the right track baby. I was "Born This Way"
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    5,778
    Quote Originally Posted by tlcox View Post
    It is pretty common that witnesses who will be called to the stand are not allowed to be in the courtroom during testimony being given by others in the case. If they WERE allowed to be present, imagine how their testimony could change based upon what they have heard other witnesses testify to with their own ears???? How could you ever find their tesimony credible if they have been given the opportunity to hear what everyone else has said and then change their testimony to either refute or back up prior witnesses?

    Judge Perry will not fall for this bull, and IMOO he won't even entertain the idea. This is (again IMOO) yet another example of the queen of control trying to exert her will on something over which she has ZERO ability to control.
    AFAIC, bottom line, it doesn't matter if C&G are in the courtroom or not. They will NOT abide by the rules and avoid watching the news, reading the newspapers, watching the televised trial at home, or being on the internet. Since when would we expect them to do what they are told? The only way to manage them would be to totally isolate them from all media until they testify and I don't see that happening.
    Neighborhood Watch is...
    NOT the Vigilante Police
    http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigati...PowerPoint.pdf





  38. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to whiteangora For This Useful Post:


  39. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    10,426
    Has anyone else listened to the interview? Can't listen to it at work; wondering what else BC said.

  40. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by mgardner View Post
    Personally, I think the judge should sequestor the Anthony's. IMHO, Cindy will not have the strength or willpower to avoid the TV or newspaper. Do we trust that she'll obey the judges orders?

    MOO

    Mel
    Nope, I'm willing to bet they will watch videos of the trial as it goes along and any other news about it ... they could even sit in the parking lot with a laptop and which it live ... the only way to prevent that is if they are sequestered ... so I don't see what good it will do to keep them out of the courtroom until their testimony and the judge excusing them after it ... It will be interesting to see how this will be handled ....

  41. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to denjet For This Useful Post:


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 2010-04-18 Steph Watts Radio Show tonight.
    By grandmaj in forum Haleigh Cummings
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: 04-19-2010, 07:52 PM
  2. The Steph Watts Show 3/28/2010
    By grandmaj in forum Haleigh Cummings
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 03-31-2010, 09:38 PM
  3. Replies: 193
    Last Post: 01-24-2010, 10:57 PM
  4. Attorney Brad Conway Released More Evidence In Anthony Case On 09/30/09 #2
    By Angel Who Cares in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 10-06-2009, 10:38 PM
  5. Attorney Brad Conway To Release More Evidence In Anthony Case On 09/30/09
    By Angel Who Cares in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 768
    Last Post: 10-01-2009, 08:54 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •