Page 12 of 86 FirstFirst ... 2 10 11 12 13 14 22 62 ... LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 1281
  1. #166
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    6,719
    Quote Originally Posted by logicalgirl View Post
    Wait a minute, never mind your fonicks - just who was it who actually passed sexual relations?
    Now I'm wondering what he means by this - was this sex test and only these guys failed it? Or does he mean passed as in passed STD's? Give us some clarification, Baez! Er...or not! Nevermind, ew!


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


  3. #167
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Eidetic View Post
    This one I find highly offensive!

    "The shovel has not been linked by witness or any forensic evidence whatsoever to and aspect of this case and, accordingly, is irrelevant and immaterial."

    "he noticed nothing unusual about the shovel or Ms. Anthony's demeanor."

    Therein lies the importance of a witness statement who has known the Anthony's for years with no reason to be untruthful. A shovel is just a tool until (since you've probably never picked one up in your life) you decide to "borrow" one during the time frame your daughter is missing and you are supposed to be away from your parents home at Hopespring Drive and since forensics has pinpointed decomposition of your murdered child... then it's use is for something sinister. But the shovel itself won't look any different or more evil, it's the forced-smiling face at the door reaching for it and handing it back to it's rightful owner that holds the truth and all the evidence throughout the crime.

    Prosecution and Caylee (along with our members at Websleuths and a lot of America) feel the shovel is very relevant. How dare you defense team?
    Of course it's relevant. That's why they want it out....


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


  5. #168
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    16,024
    Quote Originally Posted by Itsy View Post
    Yep, they pretty much are identical, right down to the "passed sexual relations"...someone probably just used a spell checker & didn't catch this. Or did they mean to imply these sexual relationships were like "ships passing in the night?"

    I do believe we're going to see a LOT more of these type of motions introduced in the coming months. They're going to try to get anything & everything tossed out, IMO. Just you watch & see!

    But but but - wait a minute - you mean there were no gold stars being passed out? Because they passed sexual relations? Not even the Police Academy? That doesn't seem right...


  6. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to logicalgirl For This Useful Post:


  7. #169
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Liverpool Branch
    Posts
    5,256
    IMO this is just the phase pre-trial where the Defense needs to get as much eliminated from trial as possible. Business as usual.

    It is interesting to see the first wave of motions but are these significant and/or important or are they just noise and a second wave may contain gold nuggets?

    The Defense mission is to rule out as much as they can before trial to improve their chances of saving ICA, the Prosecution mission is to keep it ruled in ... whether they need it or not.

    The Defense will shower the court with Motions, some un-necessary to get as many through as they can ... and hope some of those that get through are key.

    The Defense will win some and lose many.
    Disclaimer: All posts are my own humble opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.



    Justice for Caylee


  8. The Following 19 Users Say Thank You to cyberborg For This Useful Post:


  9. #170
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    16,024
    Interesting - can you think of a motion they might win? I'm guessing you are talking about excluding evidence..


  10. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to logicalgirl For This Useful Post:


  11. #171
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Purple Iris View Post
    EGGNOG!!! ~ Tis the season and all that, and since they are working their hineys off and maybe even staying after hours, they've combined work with their annual staff Christmas Party this year ~!

    Let the eggnog fly ~ Wonder what will be filed tomorrow???
    I love it, Purple Iris!! These "Eggnog Motions" all have one thing in common; they're each designed to chip away, bit by bit, at that huge, vivid picture that the entirety of the circumstantial evidence paints. The defense is attacking any and every fact they can in order to deconstruct the overall view.

    How many times have we said, in one way or another, ". . . but when you put the whole picture together . . .?"
    The heart of the pure can see, but my eyes have never seen the unicorn . . .


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


  13. #172
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by tlcox View Post
    12/21/2010 Motion In Limine
    Regarding Speculation as to Defendant's Knowledge

    Um, Defendant's knowledge of what exactly? That seems a bit broad. Anyone read the actual motion yet? This one has me curious. The others are mostly what I would expect defense to try and keep out but this one is just really vague sounding?
    Knowledge of where she put her dead child.......Tim Miller implied that George straight out asked her to put an X on the map. And it wasnt to show Zanny's apartment. Im a little vague as to her reaction, but seems this is when Cindy threw everyone out of the house.

    I always felt this was a major reason Baez wanted to and will continue to try and "body slam" Tim Miller. Miller would also likely testify that he wasn't allowed to question the mother of this missing child he had been asked to find and that same mother showed no interest in finding her daughter.
    "I need someone that'll take the information that I'm giving them" Casey Anthony July 25th 2008


  14. The Following 18 Users Say Thank You to krisskross For This Useful Post:


  15. #173
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,863
    Quote Originally Posted by cyberborg View Post
    IMO this is just the phase pre-trial where the Defense needs to get as much eliminated from trial as possible. Business as usual.

    It is interesting to see the first wave of motions but are these significant and/or important or are they just noise and a second wave may contain gold nuggets?

    The Defense mission is to rule out as much as they can before trial to improve their chances of saving ICA, the Prosecution mission is to keep it ruled in ... whether they need it or not.

    The Defense will shower the court with Motions, some un-necessary to get as many through as they can ... and hope some of those that get through are key.

    The Defense will win some and lose many.
    I agree we are just seeing the preliminary "noise" but as as noted upthread, there were some deadlines to be met and I am curious to see if these are sum total (not) of the defenses objections to the "non-expert" witnesses. I am very interested in what was not addressed, and why.

    I think the defense strategy will reveal itself in the next round. As you say, they will win a few and lose a few - but why were these the first salvo? What can be gained by these motions being denied? Little stuff outta da way? Appellate issues? What's next? And they'd better hurry.

    Sigh. I'd like to believe this trial will begin in May, but I'm thinking...

    Well, I'm just thinking


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


  17. #174
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    16,024
    Quote Originally Posted by ExpectingUnicorns View Post
    I love it, Purple Iris!! These "Eggnog Motions" all have one thing in common; they're each designed to chip away, bit by bit, at that huge, vivid picture that the entirety of the circumstantial evidence paints. The defense it attacking any and every fact they can in order to deconstruct the overall view.

    How many times have we said, in one way or another, ". . . but when you put the whole picture together . . .?"
    Yup - you've got it alright. All bricks in the great wall that is going to keep her in LWOP for the rest of her natural life.


  18. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to logicalgirl For This Useful Post:


  19. #175
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Liverpool Branch
    Posts
    5,256
    Quote Originally Posted by logicalgirl View Post
    Interesting - can you think of a motion they might win? I'm guessing you are talking about excluding evidence..
    Yes ... excluding evidence (testimony and tests). There are some where a claim of unfairly 'prejudicial' to client 'might' win, although ICA is highly controversial with her bare faced 'mistruths', actions and, fairy tale friends.

    Good luck with that JB!

    You have a classic un-defensible client who quite clearly is sooooo guilty, so much evidence so little time ... her only chance is plea for mercy. You can play on her notoriety but that's what got her where she is today and will remain.
    Disclaimer: All posts are my own humble opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.



    Justice for Caylee


  20. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to cyberborg For This Useful Post:


  21. #176
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    16,024
    You know, when I start thinking about this trial, and all the criss-cross of evidence and what could be testified to and/or will be testified to, my head just starts to buzz. And not in a good way.

    I think I'd better rejoin my gym. I think I'm going to need to bulk up (in a good way) to have the stamina to stay on top of Baez's games at trial. Whew!


  22. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to logicalgirl For This Useful Post:


  23. #177
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    19,951
    Quote Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
    "Although evidence tending to prove or disprove one material element of an offense is relevant, whether Ms. Anthony engaged in passed (sic) sexual relations with Mr. Lazaro (sic) ......"

    Page 3, Paragraph 1

    http://www.docstoc.com/docs/67721098...xual-Relations
    Seems to me they're trying to paint this picture white...pearly white.

    Ok...I believe THAT!!


  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RR0004 For This Useful Post:


  25. #178
    Quote Originally Posted by Soju View Post
    These motions are a joke. Full of the usual spelling and grammar errors, "Passed sexual relations", etc. Anyway, what kills me is how at the end, he asks Perry to order the prosecution to respond "within 30 days" and set a hearing, etc. But the deadline for these to be heard is in just 3 days, right?
    Oh No - Tony passed away and she did him after the fact?

    Oh, I get it ............ since the deadline is almost passed and the secretary and the team never past English this means something totally different. Kinda like a half truth. Whewwwww, sure wish I had a reference manual for this stuff. Might be a fun thread! LOL



  26. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to A_News_Junkie For This Useful Post:


  27. #179
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by whiteangora View Post
    This may be just the beginning of a long list that JB wants to keep out of the trial. I'm surprised that her party pics with TonE aren't on the current list.
    I don't see any problems with what Brian Burner had to say, he seems credible, could it be that he was not clear enough about the actual date she borrowed the shovel?
    As for the sex talk, leaving that out would do me a big favor.
    Unless acts of sex with Casey consists of alil chloroform .


  28. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Brattigirle For This Useful Post:


  29. #180
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wild Midwest!
    Posts
    789
    Quote Originally Posted by FaerieB View Post
    This is an incredible list of motions to be filed today. Do you think that HHJP scared Mr. Baez yesterday with his insistence that deadlines will be followed?

    I don't have any problem with them excluding any testimony about sexual acts, but I really wonder why they're trying to block BB's testimony in regards to the shovel. And she's already pled guilty and been sentenced for theft, so I don't know how they'll exclude that.
    who is BB please, I so wish we could use real names? sorry


  30. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bathbuddys For This Useful Post:


Page 12 of 86 FirstFirst ... 2 10 11 12 13 14 22 62 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. List of Motions/Links to Court Documents **NO DISCUSSION HERE PLEASE**
    By JBean in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 399
    Last Post: 09-26-2011, 06:57 PM
  2. 2010.05.23 ~ Misty Jailhouse videos released: General Discussion
    By doubletrouble in forum Haleigh Cummings
    Replies: 186
    Last Post: 06-01-2010, 08:15 PM
  3. Replies: 158
    Last Post: 05-28-2010, 01:03 PM
  4. Replies: 516
    Last Post: 05-26-2010, 05:39 PM
  5. General discussion about the drug busts on Jan 20, 2010
    By Kimster in forum Haleigh Cummings
    Replies: 526
    Last Post: 01-26-2010, 12:08 PM

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
  •