2010.12.21 Stream of Motions - General Discussion

New Posts

Soju said:
question re the motion about sex with tony lazarro: JB says throughout the motion that he wants Perry to exclude "prior sexual relations" "past sexual relations" "previous sexual relationship" between tony and casey, does he mean prior to caylee going missing? It's weird and makes no sense. If he means that he wants to exclude any mention of the fact that they ever had sex, including after june 16th, good luck.
Click to expand...

I agree. The fact that she had sexual relations with him the entire time Caylee was "missing" IS relevant IMO.

He'll testify about her waking up with nightmares a few times. Why will the jurors think she was sleeping in his bed? Or is that next?
 
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?
 
one would think jb might want to include tony r's sexual history with casey as an excuse for her not trusting LE and lying to them. oh well. i guess that's what jesse is for. sigh...
 
Well here they go again, this attempt at having the sexual relationship with Tony precluded the Defense is only drawing more attention to it, and they will no doubt lose. She did have a sexual relationship with him, it is relevant because that is whence she ran straight after the murder, and goes a long way towards explaining her behavior and state of mind at the time she murdered Caylee, and for the month afterwards.

Screenshot2010-12-22at100746AM.png


Screenshot2010-12-22at100849AM.png


So very much looking to the prosecution response to these motions.
 
Moreover, I think it can be demonstrated that she consistently placed her sexual relationships ahead of the welfare of her daughter
 
Mrs G Norris said:
Well here he goes again, this attempt at having the sexual relationship with Tony precluded Baez is only drawing more attention to it, and he will no doubt lose. She did have a sexual relationship with him, it is relevant because that is whence she ran straight after the murder, and goes a long way towards explaining her behavior and state of mind at the time she murdered Caylee, and for the month afterwards.

Screenshot2010-12-22at100746AM.png


Screenshot2010-12-22at100849AM.png


So very much looking to the prosecution response to these motions.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that's their strategy, to see how the State plans on presenting these witnesses and evidence?
 
OT - Muzikman, did you happen to get the order for Expert Travel issued today?
 
CarolinaMoon said:
Well, I can't understand how they can omit Casey's history of lying. Some of her charges are there because she LIED to the investigatiors!

Also, I can't imagine how there can be no testimony about Casey's lying. She made her life a total lie.

Imagine this:

LDB: What did Casey tell you about Caylee?

JG: She told me she was my child.

LDB: And what did you learn through the paternity test?

Baez: Objection!

Just for starters...
Click to expand...


Exactly. When I started to run down the list of preclusions to my boyfriend, he added, "... the fact that she had a daughter in the first place...".
 
ON the knife.....all these references to burglaries in the motion have me thinking did she use the knife to break into the shed, did she use the knife to break into Tony's neighbors apartment....as always every time the defense attempts to have something excluded you just end up thinking 'Well I wasn't interested in this item before, but I most CERTAINLY am now!!'
 
nums24 said:
Perhaps that's their strategy, to see how the State plans on presenting these witnesses and evidence?
Click to expand...

Ah yes, that makes sense.....gives them (and us) a little preview and a chance to come up with arguments ahead of time. Question: would the state be locked into whatever they say at a hearing in regards to each piece of evidence, or can they switch it up a little come trial?
 
Mrs G Norris said:
Ah yes, that makes sense.....gives them (and us) a little preview and a chance to come up with arguments ahead of time. Question: would the state be locked into whatever they say at a hearing in regards to each piece of evidence, or can they switch it up a little come trial?
Click to expand...


Great question! I think your question should be posted in the legal thread! I have no idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 91 more.
Total: 3,178 (members: 92, guests: 3,086)

Online statistics

Members online
92
Guests online
3,086
Total visitors
3,178
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,284
Messages
17,966,610
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top