2009.05.05~ Casey Anthony Defense Team Deposition Of Tammy Uncer

New Posts

IMHO, the lack of an outcry from Casey to either Tammy or Billy after being exposed to the TV news (instead talked Football w/ Tammy...WTF?!?!? ) even a self-protecting statement of denial (e.g. "That couldn't be Caylee's body..it just couldn't! She has to be alive! ") is more telling than being able to watch her reaction.

IOW...after seeing the video the defense would simply tell the jury that the physical reaction Casey exhibited was natural under the circumstances - upon learning that potentially her child's body had been found near her home.

That Casey didn't show any emotion/concern to Tammy on the way over, after hearing of the nature of the news but not seeing/hearing the specifics of the location, reinforces that Casey's sole concern was for her own arse...not the least concerned 'bout the welfare of an allegedly-alive Caylee. :furious:

So...on the scary proposition that I was in the SA's chair...I don't need the video. I wanna put Tammy & Billy on the stand and ask them over, and over, and over...

Speculation...pure...fully-adulterated-speculation:

SA: When you arrived and greeted Casey for the first time...did she mention Caylee?
T/B: No.
SA: On the way to the clinic how many times did Casey mention her concern for Caylee?
T/B: Never.
SA: Not once?
T/B: No.
SA: Did Casey make any comments about Zenaida being capable of harming Caylee?
T/B: No, none.
SA: At this point Casey had not seen her child for almost 5 months and did she mention her name once?
T/B: No.
SA: After Casey learned of the location of some remains being found did she utter Caylee's name?
T/B: No.
SA: Not once?
T/B: No.
SA: Not a single statement from Casey regarding concern for Caylee's welfare?
T/B: No. Never.
 
Ok, I gave up around page 65. It took 35 pages to establish her (T.U) credentials and then I made it up for another 30 pages reading as Casey's lawyers were trying to trip her up and discredit her. All the time I was reading this, I thought this many pages of testimony (over 100) regarding one short incident on Dec. 11th? Can you imagine how long and dull this trial is going to be if that is the defense tactic: Finding fault with everyone involved in the case and then mind-numbing the jury to death.

And most importantly, wouldn't it be nice to be able to question Casey in the same detail?
 
But Tammy says she thinks what they did was mean!
uncerdepo.jpg
 
momtective said:
But Tammy says she thinks what they did was mean!
uncerdepo.jpg
Click to expand...

Saw that and was surprised that opinion came from a member of the LE community...if a corrections officer can be referred to as such (I mean NO disrespect...just not sure if this is technically correct). Still...she's entitled to her opinion.

I'm assuming defense is after establishing that Casey's basic rights were being violated (e.g. being subjected to mean=cruel punishment) and those rights are clearly delineated in the corrections facility procedures.

I'm also assuming SA would/will object that Tammy is not trained to render a professional opinion of what is and isn't cruel/mean...only that, as a trained corrections employee, Tammy is expected to follow the established procedures and carry out issued orders...not in her work scope to define those procedures or orders. Then call the facility staff responsible for making those decisions on the stand to render their professional opinion.
 
has anyone noticed that Tammy's story and Billy's story are different? or am i just going crazy??
 
Bttrcookie3 said:
has anyone noticed that Tammy's story and Billy's story are different? or am i just going crazy??
Click to expand...

...lookin' over my shoulder Bttrcookie and I don't see you...yet.

Just keep goin' until you see me. Then you'll know you've arrived in LooneyLand. :crazy:
 
I read Baez's motion earlier, and I am not sure how he came up with such a garbled mess when the Baden / Uncer deposition is so lucid.
 
BondJamesBond said:
That Casey didn't show any emotion/concern to Tammy on the way over, after hearing of the nature of the news but not seeing/hearing the specifics of the location, reinforces that Casey's sole concern was for her own arse...not the least concerned 'bout the welfare of an allegedly-alive Caylee. :furious:
Click to expand...

Just read that part in the depo and I find it quite damning. No wonder LKB skipped right on after Tammy mentioned it.
 
I was relieved to see the confirmation that Casey had been told "something" was going on by the other prisoners and that she definitely had been listening to reports on the radio. Thank God that they took her to "medical" so that she didn't flip out in her cell and hurt herself or collapse. Can you imagine what her defense team would be claiming then?
 
Is it legal for the sheriff's office to call the jail and ask them to do this - to put an inmate in an uncomfortable circumstance and note her reactions and report back? Notice I said uncomfortable and not mean or cruel. I don't think it was mean or cruel, but is it legal?
 
The top link to the depo won't load for me, I get a main news page instead :(

Did anyone see these anywhere else?
 
Insomnia Momma said:
The top link to the depo won't load for me, I get a main news page instead :(

Did anyone see these anywhere else?
Click to expand...

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3824176&postcount=3"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 2009.06.02 Today's Current News - ***NO DISCUSSIONS HERE PLEASE ***[/ame]

This post has links to both depositions released today.
 
I'm confused. Baez is trying to get the release of a tape, that has no audio, blocked yet he has no problem having two peoples description of the events, including what was said, released. Does anyone else see the problem with this?
 
nephers said:
I'm confused. Baez is trying to get the release of a tape, that has no audio, blocked yet he has no problem having two peoples description of the events, including what was said, released. Does anyone else see the problem with this?
Click to expand...

Yes. Last week I tried futilely to explain the problem I was having with it too. To me, the information gleaned from HIS OWN DEPOS is as bad or worse for his client as the non-audio videotape which the public has yet to see (and may never see).

But I think he was/is trying to get some big issues on appeal using some cooked-up violations of Casey's constitutional rights. Problem is, he's the only one at this rate putting forth information regarding the video and the "audio" (via depos) if the State is not using the video at trial. Note: No one from the media showed up to argue the defense's response to the motion because they were not noticed.

At this point (if the State does not put the video into evidence and if the media fails to get it released), he's the one polluting the jury pool to turn around and later claim the jury pool to be polluted. My opinion.
 
I don't like that they told anyone Casey asked for and received a sedative. Now, if Casey asked Uncer herself or said, "God, I need a sedative..." that would be one thing to tell everything Casey said.

But...to recollect that Casey asked the doctor for a "sedative" and received one from the doctor would seem a violation of her medical rights to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 252 more.
Total: 4,139 (members: 253, guests: 3,886)

Online statistics

Members online
253
Guests online
3,886
Total visitors
4,139
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,559
Messages
17,955,083
Members
228,536
Latest member
morbidlittlemind
Back
Top