2010.12.21 Stream of Motions - General Discussion

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?
 
a response in 10 days which brings us to 12/31...which makes me think they planned on filing these today all along, regardless of the fallout from yesterday's hearing. pushing the envelope yet again. gah.

these are ridiculous... but they obviously put more than 30, i mean 5, minutes into them, they cite case law and everything (wow). definitely not written by JB.

maybe its timed to distract from krystal's audio with LE, those were very iincriminating imo.
I think the Judge was aware yesterday of all the motions being filed.
 
According to Click Orlando, there were 2 separate motions on the sexual history issue? One for Tony L and one for Tony R.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/26210142/detail.html


Wonder if they'll be almost identical?

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?" :dance:

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!
 
I KNOW!!!!! I'm just seeing the prosecution taking new notes now...way to put blinking neon signs over some issues that have might have passed by as not much of any sort of serious issues, Baez. Sheesh.
That's what just leaves me curious, and curiouser. You have a shovel, a knife, sex, lying, and stealing in one day and you don't think folks are gonna wake up and take notice? Even if we didn't actually get the chance to read these motions...they're on the Court docket. Oh Baez, you can't blame the Sunshine Laws for preventing your client from getting a fair trial...you've now just blazed an amazingly brutal picture on my brain.
 
Okay, just found it, its the Tim Miller one. Got it. Will this trial never happen? So tired of JB and the dream teams smoke and mirrors. Face it Baez, EVERTYHING is gonna look bad to the jury. You can file motioin after motion in limine, and you may even get a few of them ruled your way, but bottom line, you can't put enough lipstick on this proverbial porcine.
 
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!
 
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....
 
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?" :dance:

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...
 
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.
 
Interesting - can you think of a motion they might win? I'm guessing you are talking about excluding evidence..
 
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" :martini: 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 . . .?" :nerves:
 
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.
 
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
 
I love it, Purple Iris!! These "Eggnog Motions" :martini: 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 . . .?" :nerves:

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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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? :sick::sick:

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
 
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.:sick:

Unless acts of sex with Casey consists of alil chloroform :waitasec:.
 
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
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
178
Guests online
1,541
Total visitors
1,719

Forum statistics

Threads
589,984
Messages
17,928,691
Members
228,033
Latest member
okaydandy
Back
Top