Page 38 of 67 FirstFirst ... 282930313233343536373839404142434445464748 ... LastLast
Results 926 to 950 of 1652

Thread: Tim Miller: Possible Lawsuit against Casey

  1. #926
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7,916
    Quote Originally Posted by logicalgirl View Post
    Hi Chilly Willy - I saw your comment in the Legal Thread answering my comment but since I can't respond in the Legal I'm trying to see if I can catch you here.



    Yes, I heard Baez's statement about the abuse being a theory, but I did not hear him say the drowning was a theory after the trial.
    Thanks for bringing it over here. I could be remembering wrong but even if Baez only admitted that the abuse story was a theory, it still shows that the defense can present anything they can imagine as a defense with no evidence to back it up.

    The tip off that the drowning story is what Baez calls a theory (and the rest of us would call a lie) is that Baez didn't know what time of day it happened..."could have been morning, or afternoon....or...no, it was morning...we'll never know". Obviously if Casey told him Caylee drowned she also would have been able to tell him what time of day it happened.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Chilly Willy For This Useful Post:


  3. #927
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    CT/NC
    Posts
    20,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Chilly Willy View Post
    IMO, tracking dogs at that point would have been a waste, a huge waste. Tim knew the car smelled like decomp. He knew he was searching for a dead body, in spite of his claims that Casey fooled him by claiming Caylee was alive. He needed cadaver dogs.

    Is there a link to Cindy refusing to give Tim an item of Caylee's? I've only seen that mentioned here and I've noticed that sometimes information from here is not always totally accurate or fairly presented.
    I believe TM would have been the better judge of that and he did ask for an article of Caylee's so they could track. Only he would know whether or not it was worth an effort. TM made the claim on a video and it could be in his deposition. I have no idea if the video is still around. jmo
    A lie will go round the world before the truth gets its pants on - Charles Spurgeon

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to LambChop For This Useful Post:


  5. #928
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    16,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Chilly Willy View Post
    Thanks for bringing it over here. I could be remembering wrong but even if Baez only admitted that the abuse story was a theory, it still shows that the defense can present anything they can imagine as a defense with no evidence to back it up.

    The tip off that the drowning story is what Baez calls a theory (and the rest of us would call a lie) is that Baez didn't know what time of day it happened..."could have been morning, or afternoon....or...no, it was morning...we'll never know". Obviously if Casey told him Caylee drowned she also would have been able to tell him what time of day it happened.
    At the time I just took that as Baez forgetting his lines.....

    Which he did frequently in that trial....
    When there is Justice - there is Peace.

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to logicalgirl For This Useful Post:


  7. #929
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    16,018
    Quote Originally Posted by LambChop View Post
    I believe TM would have been the better judge of that and he did ask for an article of Caylee's so they could track. Only he would know whether or not it was worth an effort. TM made the claim on a video and it could be in his deposition. I have no idea if the video is still around. jmo
    Also - Tim gives me the impression he is pretty involved in each search he does and doesn't spend a whole lot of time getting to know a case before he rides into town to do a search. I think he was expecting to hear the details from the family and.....well we know the rest...
    When there is Justice - there is Peace.

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


  9. #930
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7,916
    Quote Originally Posted by logicalgirl View Post
    At the time I just took that as Baez forgetting his lines.....

    Which he did frequently in that trial....
    I think he made a mistake by bringing a time line into it and tried to cover for it by saying 'we'll never know." The prosecution could have thrown his drowning story out of the water, so to speak, if he had committed to any particular time of day that it happened.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Chilly Willy For This Useful Post:


  11. #931
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    CT/NC
    Posts
    20,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Chilly Willy View Post
    I think he made a mistake by bringing a time line into it and tried to cover for it by saying 'we'll never know." The prosecution could have thrown his drowning story out of the water, so to speak, if he had committed to any particular time of day that it happened.
    I was never able to figure out why SA didn't try and rebut the drowning because of the activity of the cellphones, pings and computer activity that morning. If there was a drowning the activities did not stop. KC was still on the phone, texting and on the computer. jmo
    A lie will go round the world before the truth gets its pants on - Charles Spurgeon

  12. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to LambChop For This Useful Post:


  13. #932
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7,916
    Quote Originally Posted by LambChop View Post
    I was never able to figure out why SA didn't try and rebut the drowning because of the activity of the cellphones, pings and computer activity that morning. If there was a drowning the activities did not stop. KC was still on the phone, texting and on the computer. jmo
    I've always thought the prosecution made a mistake in not presenting a time line of Casey's and the other A's activities that day. From what I've seen, it's very obvious that Caylee was killed in the middle of the afternoon, after the flurry of phone calls from Casey to her parents who were at work.

  14. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Chilly Willy For This Useful Post:


  15. #933
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Chilly Willy View Post
    Thanks for bringing it over here. I could be remembering wrong but even if Baez only admitted that the abuse story was a theory, it still shows that the defense can present anything they can imagine as a defense with no evidence to back it up.

    The tip off that the drowning story is what Baez calls a theory (and the rest of us would call a lie) is that Baez didn't know what time of day it happened..."could have been morning, or afternoon....or...no, it was morning...we'll never know". Obviously if Casey told him Caylee drowned she also would have been able to tell him what time of day it happened.
    What he said was -"Early morning hours, the exact time is not known,it could have been early afternoon, early morning,actually it was the early morning hours' - then he relates how Caylee was found drowned...
    He presents that information as fact.

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


  17. #934
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    7,266
    Quote Originally Posted by LambChop View Post
    I was never able to figure out why SA didn't try and rebut the drowning because of the activity of the cellphones, pings and computer activity that morning. If there was a drowning the activities did not stop. KC was still on the phone, texting and on the computer. jmo
    I think the simple answer here is the state's first (only?) obligation in trial is to try to prove their version of events, not try to disprove the defense theory. That in turn would take away from their own case that they are trying to prove.

    It was brought up in trial and probably is still true. If you start going down the road of what the defense is bringing in trial with no evidence to support it, then some way you are actually giving some sort of credence to the theory for the jury, since you are going out of your way to disprove something that's impossible to prove (since there's no evidence).

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cityslick For This Useful Post:


  19. #935
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    7,266
    Quote Originally Posted by ZsaZsa View Post
    What he said was -"Early morning hours, the exact time is not known,it could have been early afternoon, early morning,actually it was the early morning hours' - then he relates how Caylee was found drowned...
    He presents that information as fact.
    He's not presenting anything as fact (we've gone over this). It's up to the jury as to the finder of fact or not.

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cityslick For This Useful Post:


  21. #936
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,117
    Quote Originally Posted by cityslick View Post
    He's not presenting anything as fact (we've gone over this). It's up to the jury as to the finder of fact or not.
    I disagree- when he states "Actually it was the early morning hours" he is stating it as fact. Definition of Actually = fact. Existing, and not merely potential or possible. He did not say I have a theory about this, he told them what 'actually' happened..

  22. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ZsaZsa For This Useful Post:


  23. #937
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    7,266
    Quote Originally Posted by ZsaZsa View Post
    I disagree- when he states "Actually it was the early morning hours" he is stating it as fact. Definition of Actually = fact. Existing, and not merely potential or possible. He did not say I have a theory about this, he told them what 'actually' happened..
    Check out some of the latest posts in the lawyer thread, they go over this as far as JB statements in court.

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to cityslick For This Useful Post:


  25. #938
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    16,018
    Quote Originally Posted by ZsaZsa View Post
    I disagree- when he states "Actually it was the early morning hours" he is stating it as fact. Definition of Actually = fact. Existing, and not merely potential or possible. He did not say I have a theory about this, he told them what 'actually' happened..
    I heard it that way too ZsaZsa and now I am wondering how the jurors are feeling about the news that this was just a theory - read lie - and they seemed to have based their decision on the "hey - it could have happened that way" stories Baez came up with at trial....
    When there is Justice - there is Peace.

  26. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to logicalgirl For This Useful Post:


  27. #939
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    16,018
    Quote Originally Posted by LambChop View Post
    I was never able to figure out why SA didn't try and rebut the drowning because of the activity of the cellphones, pings and computer activity that morning. If there was a drowning the activities did not stop. KC was still on the phone, texting and on the computer. jmo
    Because they had overwhelming circumstantial evidence that no sane person would think the jury would ignore....
    When there is Justice - there is Peace.

  28. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to logicalgirl For This Useful Post:


  29. #940
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,117
    Quote Originally Posted by cityslick View Post
    Check out some of the latest posts in the lawyer thread, they go over this as far as JB statements in court.
    I don't need to read that thread, I was responding to Chilly Willy's post where she says Baez didn't know what happened and was presenting the drowning story as theory. I don't believe it was fact and we all know how well the Jury did in assessing what was factual, but what the record shows is that he presented it to them as a fact,not a theory as to what happened.

  30. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to ZsaZsa For This Useful Post:


  31. #941
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    7,266
    Quote Originally Posted by ZsaZsa View Post
    I don't need to read that thread, I was responding to Chilly Willy's post where she says Baez didn't know what happened and was presenting the drowning story as theory. I don't believe it was fact and we all know how well the Jury did in assessing what was factual, but what the record shows is that he presented it to them as a fact,not a theory as to what happened.
    You're arguing semantics and I'm arguing what it legally is, specifically as it related to TM's lawsuit. Yes, he presented it to them as if it was true, but that doesn't mean it is now fact as far as other lawsuits go.

  32. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to cityslick For This Useful Post:


  33. #942
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    CT/NC
    Posts
    20,130
    Quote Originally Posted by cityslick View Post
    You're arguing semantics and I'm arguing what it legally is, specifically as it related to TM's lawsuit. Yes, he presented it to them as if it was true, but that doesn't mean it is now fact as far as other lawsuits go.
    She will have to admit to something and can't just leave it in the air now that she can no longer hide behind the threat of being prosecuted. We know there is no evidence of any nanny. We know that all the circumstancial evidence only points to one person, KC. This is a civil case that has no threat of death if she testifies. She will have to have a position one way or another. The more she changes her story the worse off she will be in a civil court. Pressure will be off this next jury and hopefully the blinders, too. What will matter is what the jury's belief is. jmo
    A lie will go round the world before the truth gets its pants on - Charles Spurgeon

  34. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to LambChop For This Useful Post:


  35. #943
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,075
    Quote Originally Posted by cityslick View Post
    He's not presenting anything as fact (we've gone over this). It's up to the jury as to the finder of fact or not.
    Quote Originally Posted by ZsaZsa View Post
    I disagree- when he states "Actually it was the early morning hours" he is stating it as fact. Definition of Actually = fact. Existing, and not merely potential or possible. He did not say I have a theory about this, he told them what 'actually' happened..

    He cannot "legally" establish it as a fact via an opening statement.

    Ethically, an attorney is NOT permitted to present his or her own opinion to a jury.

    He is not permitted to use phrases like "I have a theory" when doing an opening.

    A lawyer doesn't say things like "I think the evidence will show you that...."
    Not an experienced trial attorney. Not allowed.
    opinion
    MH

    the standard definition of the word "fact" is not applicable to a jury trial.

  36. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MiraclesHappen For This Useful Post:


  37. #944
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    OK
    Posts
    3,393
    Quote Originally Posted by logicalgirl View Post
    I heard it that way too ZsaZsa and now I am wondering how the jurors are feeling about the news that this was just a theory - read lie - and they seemed to have based their decision on the "hey - it could have happened that way" stories Baez came up with at trial....
    I know and I have one heck of a headache right now - oh well - anyway the jurors should have addressed it in deliberation, he said this and that and was there any hard evidence to back it up, did he ever address it again after OS - but no-o-o-o I envision the deliberation conversations consisting of asking each other if "x" sandwich was good and if it came with fries?
    ...the humble opinion of Jo Schmo...0 number of Days Jury Deliberated for Caylee

  38. The Following User Says Thank You to okiedokietoo For This Useful Post:


  39. #945
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    OK
    Posts
    3,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Chilly Willy View Post
    Thanks for bringing it over here. I could be remembering wrong but even if Baez only admitted that the abuse story was a theory, it still shows that the defense can present anything they can imagine as a defense with no evidence to back it up.

    The tip off that the drowning story is what Baez calls a theory (and the rest of us would call a lie) is that Baez didn't know what time of day it happened..."could have been morning, or afternoon....or...no, it was morning...we'll never know". Obviously if Casey told him Caylee drowned she also would have been able to tell him what time of day it happened.
    Whatever JB said during trial had to be ok'd by fca - by law - unsaid understood by law
    ...the humble opinion of Jo Schmo...0 number of Days Jury Deliberated for Caylee

  40. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to okiedokietoo For This Useful Post:


  41. #946
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    CT/NC
    Posts
    20,130
    Quote Originally Posted by okiedokietoo View Post
    I know and I have one heck of a headache right now - oh well - anyway the jurors should have addressed it in deliberation, he said this and that and was there any hard evidence to back it up, did he ever address it again after OS - but no-o-o-o I envision the deliberation conversations consisting of asking each other if "x" sandwich was good and if it came with fries?
    You forgot...."what's for dessert?"
    A lie will go round the world before the truth gets its pants on - Charles Spurgeon

  42. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to LambChop For This Useful Post:


  43. #947
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    16,018
    Quote Originally Posted by okiedokietoo View Post
    Whatever JB said during trial had to be ok'd by fca - by law - unsaid understood by law
    Yes, MiraclesHappen just clarified that in the legal thread - I can calm down now!
    When there is Justice - there is Peace.

  44. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to logicalgirl For This Useful Post:


  45. #948
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    16,018
    And I understand why OCA is trying to avoid testifying at this civil trial - exactly what story will she come up with now that Morgan(s) aren't going to tear her apart limb by limb?
    When there is Justice - there is Peace.

  46. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to logicalgirl For This Useful Post:


  47. #949
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,117
    Quote Originally Posted by MiraclesHappen View Post
    He cannot "legally" establish it as a fact via an opening statement.

    Ethically, an attorney is NOT permitted to present his or her own opinion to a jury.

    He is not permitted to use phrases like "I have a theory" when doing an opening.

    A lawyer doesn't say things like "I think the evidence will show you that...."
    Not an experienced trial attorney. Not allowed.
    opinion
    MH

    the standard definition of the word "fact" is not applicable to a jury trial.
    I think you are missing the point (my point).....
    I do not think the drowning story was a fact.
    No Juror with two neurons should have believed it was a fact.
    I doubt sincerely it can be used as a fact to be relied upon in any other legal proceeding.

    What I stated was in contradiction to what Chilly Willy wrote- she said he ended his statement by saying "It could have been morning, we will never know". Nowhere that I can recall or find documented did he ever say 'We will never know', he ended that statement by saying "actually it was the early morning hours' (when the drowning occurred) which is meant to convey to the Jury that his words are fact.

  48. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to ZsaZsa For This Useful Post:


  49. #950
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    CT/NC
    Posts
    20,130
    Quote Originally Posted by ZsaZsa View Post
    I think you are missing the point (my point).....
    I do not think the drowning story was a fact.
    No Juror with two neurons should have believed it was a fact.
    I doubt sincerely it can be used as a fact to be relied upon in any other legal proceeding.

    What I stated was in contradiction to what Chilly Willy wrote- she said he ended his statement by saying "It could have been morning, we will never know". Nowhere that I can recall or find documented did he ever say 'We will never know', he ended that statement by saying "actually it was the early morning hours' (when the drowning occurred) which is meant to convey to the Jury that his words are fact.
    So what you are saying is that even though JB did not tell the jury "KC told me" he presented it in such a way to make them believe that she did tell him what happened. This is what I believe, too. How do you give such detail about what happened on that day, with the defendant sitting there in court, and still maintain it's only a theory? He either knew about these "great" details or he made them up.

    I can see this being a problem in both cases. As far as TM having to prove KC asked him to search for Caylee, I believe there were witnesses in the room when she asked him. jmo
    A lie will go round the world before the truth gets its pants on - Charles Spurgeon

  50. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to LambChop For This Useful Post:


Page 38 of 67 FirstFirst ... 282930313233343536373839404142434445464748 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 289
    Last Post: 05-31-2010, 01:52 PM
  2. Prayer Request for Georgeann Miller, Wife of Tim Miller
    By dreamweaver in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-11-2010, 04:59 PM
  3. Tim Miller
    By KOOL LOOK in forum Haleigh Cummings
    Replies: 163
    Last Post: 10-29-2009, 09:38 PM
  4. Tim Miller In the Hospital
    By mydailyopinions in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 138
    Last Post: 12-23-2008, 12:10 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
  •