Is the state's case effective so far?

I am very concerned about the States case. They seem to be plodding along very slow and are very boring. They need to pick it up and make it more interesting. They are also making a big mistake by ignoring Baez' contention that Caylee was already dead. They need to somehow address this throughout the trial. Ignoring the defense's position and pretending it doesn't exist is a mistake. There may be 1 or 2 jurors or more that believe his contention. And if Caylee was dead and they admitte there was no zanny then all that they are trying to prove is moot. They need to adjust their case.

NO!! I believe GA is now in Hot Water. By the look on CA face in the court sitting beside her husband she is starting to have her doubts that molestion happened.
GA in my opinion cant be trusted either. He had a gambling habit along with saying he was going to work just to go cheat on his wife while another woman paid him to miss work to spend days with her. What a real snake in the grass.

I think they need to adjust their case too. ICA has admitted she knew Caylee was dead on June 16 and that there never was a kidnapping.

kathyn2 said:

I am very concerned about the States case. They seem to be plodding along very slow and are very boring. They need to pick it up and make it more interesting. They are also making a big mistake by ignoring Baez' contention that Caylee was already dead. They need to somehow address this throughout the trial. Ignoring the defense's position and pretending it doesn't exist is a mistake. There may be 1 or 2 jurors or more that believe his contention. And if Caylee was dead and they admitte there was no zanny then all that they are trying to prove is moot. They need to adjust their case.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, adjust their case because of Baez's lies and fantasy in his opening statement?That would not be a good thing to do. They state needs to prove their case, so they are sticking with what they laid out in the opening statement for the jury. There is no need to adjust the case because Baez's horsepucky opening statements. It's Baez that is lost and bumbling along, asking stupid questions and making himself look like an idiot. He hasn't even established his opening "story" as fact yet. Not ONE iota of what he said is a fact in evidence! Why should the state adjust on lies and stories? They shouldn't.

To adjust to Baez is to give him power. All the state needs to do is prove their case to the letter, which is what they are doing, not react and adjust to the defense. For the state to go along with what the state laid out is to take that power away from Baez, which is needed. The state is methodically laying out their case against Casey. They don't need to grandstand or be flamboyant like Baez. I think they're doing a great job of just sticking with the facts. The jury definitely was happier with the state today than they were Baez.

I do wish we could see more of LDB and Ashton in action, though. But I do think FG is doing a good job. The reality is that this case will be more boring and dry because the prosecution is doing it's everyday job, which is not like television or the movies. It doesn't mean that Casey won't get convicted, though.

I hope you are right!

You're looking at the second day of trial... and these are people just establishing timelines. It's the expert witnesses that'll be where all the points are made. I wouldn't make too many judgements about who's winning points at this early stage of trial.

I think that they started out in the best manner. Anyone that understands having a child or loved one would understand that if they were missing, they wouldn't be carrying on like nothing happened. To me, this is critical information. Being a parent myself, I know when I lost my child for 30 seconds in a department store (while hiding under a rack), I almost died of a heart/panic attack.:twocents:

I don't know----> the state has to prove their case and the only way to do that is methodically. Going from the time they think it occurred and showing when Caylee stoppped 'appearring' with ICA and when ICA started staying at the apt. This was also the only way the party pics were going to come into trial - having the people testify that were there on those nights...at that location with ICA

ICA wrote out a sworn statement and has never done or said anything but to support that statment about what happened to Caylee. She had every police force in the country looking for the child. At Universal YM offerred her a graceful way out and she didn't take it - she stuck by her babysitter story.

JB can say what he wants in opening that doesn't mean it is what happened. He can hammer at people over and over again about ICA being a good mother and that doesn't change the facts of the case (circumstantial or not). Caylee is gone - caylee was in her custody when last seen - ICA was last in posession of a vehicle that smells like a dead body - ICA did not call the police (ever) her mother did AFTER they drug her back home 31 partying days later - ICA had access to the materials that were found with Caylee's body, and on and on.....

If ICA gets on the stand then the state can question her about this version of events that JB keeps spouting aout - until then - they need to continue on with their case, one step at a time just laying things out.

I Do think they needed to bring in the fact that her current 'friend' at the time TL didn't want Caylee staying overnight and if they don't that is a mistake - as ICA lived in such brief 'moments' of time that is an important motive.

Yes it is JB's job to provide a defense so yes he is going to keep going with what he has "did she have dirty clothes", "did she have food", "was she a good mother" when he has the chance to do so and we should all be glad.... less chance for an appeal... it is ALL he has! Is it frustrating to we who know the true facts, yes. Hopefully the jury takes it in stride as well and looks at the total case.

In general - I think the state has to keep going and present it's case. As JB kept saying the defense's job isn't to prove anything that is the prosecution's job. Therefore, the prosecution doesn't have to disprove what the defense is saying either - just prove it's own case and I have enough belief in them to think they can do that without getting sidetracked by opening statement 'bombshells'.

MOO
MOO

Too early to tell!

I was a little surprised FG questioned TL. I love FG but he doesn't seem to have the "punch" LDB and JA have. TL is a HUGE player in this case and I believe he should have been questioned by LDB or JA. But, he hardly remembered anything so maybe Im wrong and they prob knew TL wasn't going to be their "star witness."

Here's where I have a problem.... If I had to bet my paycheck on motive (and I realize the state doesn't have to show motive) I believe her new relationship with TL was at least part of it. Before TL, ICA pawned Caylee off on her parents, took her to parties, and didn't she even spend a lot of nights at her last bf's? IMO TL telling ICA he didn't feel comfortable with Caylee being around his apartment (party atmosphere) is HUGE! Im so upset this wasn't brought up (although I guess they have their reasons...)

I haven't given up on the state though... they know what their doing!

I don't think this case is being viewed as a popularity contest by the jury. That being said- I think the state's methodical nature is showing how serious they take this. I think the defense is coming off as if this is a joke.

Hoping that things will pick up a bit. Stipulation after stipulation, while each one is an admittance, keeps certain things from being stated on the stand b/c it is just "understood," and this, to me, takes some of the oomph out.

I'd hate to see the SA get tangled up in the DT's neverending loop of nonsense. They should stick with what they're doing - present it plainly and with common sense. The DT will only look more foolish in comparison, especially if we have more wtf moments involving actually asking a witness if ICA bought knives, guns and duct tape at Blockbuster. Seems like trying to address their nonsense will be a losing game.

kathyn2 said:

I am very concerned about the States case. They seem to be plodding along very slow and are very boring. They need to pick it up and make it more interesting. They are also making a big mistake by ignoring Baez' contention that Caylee was already dead. They need to somehow address this throughout the trial. Ignoring the defense's position and pretending it doesn't exist is a mistake. There may be 1 or 2 jurors or more that believe his contention. And if Caylee was dead and they admitte there was no zanny then all that they are trying to prove is moot. They need to adjust their case.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. I'm really concerned the State may lose this case. If Cindy goes along with the defense ruse, it's all over. IMO

MagicRose99 said:

You're looking at the second day of trial... and these are people just establishing timelines. It's the expert witnesses that'll be where all the points are made. I wouldn't make too many judgements about who's winning points at this early stage of trial.

Click to expand...

This jury is probably already bored silly, and "expert witnesses" are most likely going to present scientific evidence that will be cerebral and very tedious. If the jury isn't engaged now, I don't think the introduction of "expert witnesses" is going to suddenly spur interest. jmo

I think that they are doing just fine. I also don't think for a minute that they have forgotten about Tony not wanting Caylee around but I think that they will probably save that for later. I would think that one of the last things that they want the jury to leave the courtroom with in this case is motive. They are building foundation now about why the police investigated Casey and what makes her look guilty but they have just really scratched the surface of all the lies that she told.


I think that they did miss a chance to make a point when one of Tony's friends made the comment that Casey had a child when they were questioning him about the status of Tony and Casey's relationship though.

Too early to tell. This is only day 2. I'm not gonna get my panties in a wad just yet. I trust that they know what they are doing. This is a trial - They are establishing certain facts on the record.

If it is boring, then so be it. It isn't a TV SHOW or ENTERTAINMENT. It is a TRIAL, for the murder of a 2 yr. old child. Her name was CAYLEE!!!

GracieLu said:

Too early to tell!

I was a little surprised FG questioned TL. I love FG but he doesn't seem to have the "punch" LDB and JA have. TL is a HUGE player in this case and I believe he should have been questioned by LDB or JA. But, he hardly remembered anything so maybe Im wrong and they prob knew TL wasn't going to be their "star witness."

Here's where I have a problem.... If I had to bet my paycheck on motive (and I realize the state doesn't have to show motive) I believe her new relationship with TL was at least part of it. Before TL, ICA pawned Caylee off on her parents, took her to parties, and didn't she even spend a lot of nights at her last bf's? IMO TL telling ICA he didn't feel comfortable with Caylee being around his apartment (party atmosphere) is HUGE! Im so upset this wasn't brought up (although I guess they have their reasons...)

I haven't given up on the state though... they know what their doing!

Click to expand...

Just wait til they start introducing evidence...the jury has been instructed to determine the guilt or innocence of ICA based solely on evidence presented during the trial....and boy does the SA have some evidence!:rocker:

ETA: Testimony too and there is plenty of that yet to come as well....SA is gonna do great.

Isn't TL the one CA told that KC would take him for every penny he had or something to that effect? If so, wonder why that wasn't brought up?

I think the state is doing a good job. One thing I noticed is they are very professional, however Jose is doing a better job of being personable with the jurors, such as thanking them for being there, saying good morning to them, etc. The state has not done that much that I can see.

The state is setting the stage at this point so when they have done that and tied up the lose ends we will get to the meat and potato of the case.

If you think this is bad look at the DT's case, it's laughable, the SA are giving them nothing to work from and JB is floundering around making a a$$ of himself. As for his courtroom persona it is a huge turnoff for everyone. Oh wait, maybe Beth karas and Napolitano have been paid enough to lend some grudging support.