Evidence Allowed/Not Allowed

New Posts

kaRN said:
Our astrologers have an incredible track record on these things but prayers are good too!!
O/T but are you located east, west or in the middle, north of the 49th lol!! Toronto says hello! :)
Click to expand...

Mississauga :seeya:

I read that whole forum this morning, and yes indeed accuracies have been astounding..just thought prayers might help :innocent:
 
LolaMoon08 said:
- 31 days (911 calls)

- Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez took Caylee (911 calls)

- Casey didn't call LE because she was doing her own investigation (911 calls)

- The smell of death in Casey's car (911 calls)

- The fact that Caylee Marie Anthony is deceased. Homicide by undertermined means (autopsy) and that she was found not even a mile from her home.

- The fact that duct tape was found around the lower part (mouth and nose area) of Caylee's skull.

- The fact that Caylee was found (parts of her) in 2 black trash bags very similar to those found in the Anthony home.

- The fact that Caylee was found (again; parts of her) inside a Whitney Design Laundry bag that matches one found in the Anthony's garage.

- A Winnie the Pooh blanket, that Cindy knew was missing from the Anthony home and never told LE about, was found with Caylee.

- The fact that Caylee was placed in those woods during early/middle stages of decomposition because animals ripped her apart. That she was found scattered over a large area because of this animal activity. That she had bite marks on her bones, from animal activity (autopsy)

- Tony's testimony at trial (Blockbuster video?)

- Amy's testimony at trial (dead squirrels?)

That is just the beginning. I will add to this list as more decisions are made and we know what can and can not be said? The most important thing for me to come in, is the phone call Casey made to the Anthony home... right now.
Click to expand...

Thanks Lolamoon, and a great start too..I am amazed how well Tony was able to avoid making any statements since the beginning...I for one look forward to his inputs..

I also assume Mr. Kronk's testimony on locating Caylee will come in..and I imagine he'll be on the stand a very long time !!

Will TES, Miller be a witness?..then what about the whole Padilla and Co. testimony??..

I read that the Pros. is going to try and keep their CIC as clean as possible and NOT get off on miscellaneous avenues??

Thankful this thread got started.....:seeya:
 
Intermezzo said:
Chiquita,
Thank you for starting the Thread..Yesterday I went in search of thread that we may have already started..but I didn't finish searching...

(thank you for suggesting it) :tyou:

LC
My intention, when I mentioned starting such a Thread, was to post the Evidence that will be allowed IN Trial.. we can go on forever about hopes and wishes :D

We are getting closer and closer to trial and I wanted Websleuths to have a a check list of what Evidence is allowed IN...

:blowkiss:
Thanks
Click to expand...

AZlawyer said:
Of course, just because a motion to keep evidence out is denied doesn't mean the evidence will definitely be allowed in. Other objections might be made at trial. I think that was what CM was getting at about the statements made to LE.
Click to expand...

RespectfullyQuoted :websleuther:

After people have posted at bit, we can go through and make a list of all that is (offically)in. ("Officially" referring to AZlawyer who reminds us this does not mean evidence "allowed in" will actually be heard in court. Out loud to a jury. Depending on objections). Which makes perfect sense to me, but being my first circus, something I would not have had in my thought processes while thinking about the evidence and how it gets presented at trial. Whew! Sometimes I bore myself.

For me, seeing both in and out gives me a bit of an idea as to what the jury may get to hear(or not hear)but "IN" definately has more appeal. :biggrin:

:twocents:
 
LyndyLoo said:
Thanks Lolamoon, and a great start too..I am amazed how well Tony was able to avoid making any statements since the beginning...I for one look forward to his inputs..

I also assume Mr. Kronk's testimony on locating Caylee will come in..and I imagine he'll be on the stand a very long time !!

Will TES, Miller be a witness?..then what about the whole Padilla and Co. testimony??..

I read that the Pros. is going to try and keep their CIC as clean as possible and NOT get off on miscellaneous avenues??

Thankful this thread got started.....:seeya:
Click to expand...

So am I! This can be a wonderful check point thread! :HHJP:
 
katydid23 said:
I was thrilled when we found that the 911 calls were going to be admitted. Two key things happen in that call, imo.
First, we have Casey spelling the nanny's name out to the dispatcher and so the phantom nanny will be included in the trial no matter what happens in these new motions.
Also, we hear Casey telling the lovely story of the nanny calling just the previous day, and how she talked to little Caylee who was just fine and wanted to talk about her mommy about her favorite book. Right. So right from the start we see Casey trying to convince LE NOT to look for her daughter.
Click to expand...

Your post reminded me of something . . . in that "lovely story" from the previous day, KC also mentioned Caylee talked about her shoes. Shoes were the very thing that it appears Caylee didn't have at the time of death and/or disposal. Caylee's shoes were also the very thing CA attempted to donate for charity (an auction/raffle or something? IIRC) and people were outraged. To me this is a big deal. A nearly 3 year old child's remains found with a WTB blanket, but no shoes . . . . in the FL heat. I cannot imagine a child's tender feet could endure walking on the hot sidewalk for very many steps. This leads me to believe that a) Caylee was only being carried by an adult with her blanket outside when she was last alive or b) she was asleep or incoherent/incompassitated, etc. I think KC had a freudian slip about Caylee's shoes because it had value to her. (she realized this might be a clue leading back to KC's guilt).
I believe that the people of the jury would realize Caylee wasn't walking in the heat without shoes - and this would lead back to who would have been the primary caretaker. KC's own words tell there were only 2 careteakers to choose from, Zanny or KC.
 
Intermezzo said:
Chiquita,
Thank you for starting the Thread..Yesterday I went in search of thread that we may have already started..but I didn't finish searching...

LC
My intention, when I mentioned starting such a Thread, was to post the Evidence that will be allowed IN Trial.. we can go on forever about hopes and wishes :D

We are getting closer and closer to trial and I wanted Websleuths to have a a check list of what Evidence is allowed IN...

:blowkiss:
Thanks
Click to expand...

Thanks Intermezzo - yes, I thought you wanted to compile a document for us to refer to at trial, which is why I made my tongue in cheek comment. Maybe try again after these rulings we are waiting for - else we have our wish list.
 
AZlawyer said:
Of course, just because a motion to keep evidence out is denied doesn't mean the evidence will definitely be allowed in. Other objections might be made at trial. I think that was what CM was getting at about the statements made to LE.
Click to expand...

I'm curious. How does that work if the Judge has already ruled something admissible? During trial does the defense come up with an objection not made during the motion hearing? Are they holding an objection back now to bring up later? Or are they giving it their best shot now and hoping they'll have something germane when the time comes?

How does this work? The SA begins to introduce a piece of evidence (say a tape), the defense objects, they go to sidebar or (even worse) send the jury out of the courtroom and have another little mini motions hearing?

Would the judge overturn his original ruling without some new information?

Questions, questions... :)
 
jennyb said:
I'm curious. How does that work if the Judge has already ruled something admissible? During trial does the defense come up with an objection not made during the motion hearing? Are they holding an objection back now to bring up later? Or are they giving it their best shot now and hoping they'll have something germane when the time comes?

How does this work? The SA begins to introduce a piece of evidence (say a tape), the defense objects, they go to sidebar or (even worse) send the jury out of the courtroom and have another little mini motions hearing?

Would the judge overturn his original ruling without some new information?

Questions, questions... :)
Click to expand...

He's not ruling the evidence admissible. He's just ruling that it isn't INadmissible for the specific reasons raised thus far. The objections made at trial would normally be for some reason not yet raised, so the judge wouldn't be overturning his original ruling--he would be making a new ruling on a new issue. Yes, if there is any real discussion on trial objections, it would occur at sidebar or otherwise outside the presence of the jury. But many objections will go by fairly quickly and in open court, just as they did in the motions hearings.
 
1st 911 call

ICA "Give me one more day."

CA "Ive given you a month."
 
katydid23 said:
I was thrilled when we found that the 911 calls were going to be admitted. Two key things happen in that call, imo.
First, we have Casey spelling the nanny's name out to the dispatcher and so the phantom nanny will be included in the trial no matter what happens in these new motions.
Also, we hear Casey telling the lovely story of the nanny calling just the previous day, and how she talked to little Caylee who was just fine and wanted to talk about her mommy about her favorite book. Right. So right from the start we see Casey trying to convince LE NOT to look for her daughter.
Click to expand...

Bold mine

:truce: The story of Hi Mommy and talking about her shoes and the book happened at Universal. But Yes, she did tell the despatcher she talked to Caylee for "about a moment, a minute" from a number that is no longer in service. Later to Lee that number was just witheld/private. :bang:
 
AZlawyer said:
He's not ruling the evidence admissible. He's just ruling that it isn't INadmissible for the specific reasons raised thus far. The objections made at trial would normally be for some reason not yet raised, so the judge wouldn't be overturning his original ruling--he would be making a new ruling on a new issue. Yes, if there is any real discussion on trial objections, it would occur at sidebar or otherwise outside the presence of the jury. But many objections will go by fairly quickly and in open court, just as they did in the motions hearings.
Click to expand...

Interesting. So we shouldn't be celebrating if the Judge rules in the SA's favor next week. More to come.
 
AZlawyer said:
Of course, just because a motion to keep evidence out is denied doesn't mean the evidence will definitely be allowed in. Other objections might be made at trial. I think that was what CM was getting at about the statements made to LE.
Click to expand...

LOL to me that stinks. Because if it is ruled inadmissible it is out right? No attempting to get it back in the trial? But if it is ruled admissible then they get another chance.




Wasn't KC's response to the news of the finding a body near her home ruled out?
 
Snipped from the WESH article referred to in the "Today's News" thread:

The reports also reveal that the defense team's bug expert doubts Caylee's body was in her mother's trunk.

Dr. Tim Huntington testified that he would have expected to see "a whole slew" of insects in the trunk that feed on decomposing bodies if that were true.

The state plans to counter with Huntington's longtime mentor, Neil Haskell, who claims Anthony's car still smelled like death months into the case. He said he found evidence of coffin flies in the vehicle.

A comment from a poster there states the same thing I immediately thought when I read this. She/he said:

'Gee, Dr. Tim Huntington...perhaps there wasn't a 'slew of coffin flies' in the trunk because the A's CLEANED the trunk out????'

What the poster said makes a whole lot of sense to me. We know that Cindy and/or George cleaned that trunk and even vacuumed it. So I don't get how the defense is going to get the jury to believe their argument at all. This seems so weak to me and shows yet another "grasping at straws" attempt by them. :waitasec: How on earth do they think they'll be able to successfully argue this?? :banghead:
 
mysteriew said:
LOL to me that stinks. Because if it is ruled inadmissible it is out right? No attempting to get it back in the trial? But if it is ruled admissible then they get another chance.

Wasn't KC's response to the news of the finding a body near her home ruled out?
Click to expand...

Yes, if it is ruled inadmissible then it's out unless someone can get HHJP to change his mind. If it's ruled "not inadmissible for this specific reason" then it still might be out down the road if a new objection is raised.

KC's videotaped response to the body being found will not be coming in as evidence, because the State announced they would not use it.
 
Are we talking hard core evidence here...or admissibility of things like her relationship with TL while Caylee was missing?
 
Itsy said:
Snipped from the WESH article referred to in the "Today's News" thread:

The reports also reveal that the defense team's bug expert doubts Caylee's body was in her mother's trunk.

Dr. Tim Huntington testified that he would have expected to see "a whole slew" of insects in the trunk that feed on decomposing bodies if that were true.

The state plans to counter with Huntington's longtime mentor, Neil Haskell, who claims Anthony's car still smelled like death months into the case. He said he found evidence of coffin flies in the vehicle.

A comment from a poster there states the same thing I immediately thought when I read this. She/he said:

'Gee, Dr. Tim Huntington...perhaps there wasn't a 'slew of coffin flies' in the trunk because the A's CLEANED the trunk out????'

What the poster said makes a whole lot of sense to me. We know that Cindy and/or George cleaned that trunk and even vacuumed it. So I don't get how the defense is going to get the jury to believe their argument at all. This seems so weak to me and shows yet another "grasping at straws" attempt by them. :waitasec: How on earth do they think they'll be able to successfully argue this?? :banghead:
Click to expand...

Did they vacuum the trunk?? I thought that Cindy just took out what was in the trunk and sprayed Febreeze??

ETA: Or was that just Cindy-speak?
 
For me, the information coming in since the last hearings has been overwhelming. I thought the judge was going to rule on what was said at the hearings by the end of that week.

Did he? How did I miss that? :loser: TIA
 
Chiquita71 said:
For me, the information coming in since the last hearings has been overwhelming. I thought the judge was going to rule on what was said at the hearings by the end of that week.

Did he? How did I miss that? :loser: TIA
Click to expand...

Last week he said he would rule "by late next week". Which would be late this week. I'm hoping it's earlier though.
 
"Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. ruled that witnesses will not be allowed to give their opinion on Anthony's guilt or innocence, and they can not say or suggest that Casey is a liar. In addition, the judge will not allow testimony regarding accusations that staff at the Orange County Sheriff's Office purposely moved Anthony to a room where cameras recorded her reaction to news that her daughter's body was found. That tape will not be played in court."

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/anthony_case/031411-Witnesses-cant-suggest-Casey-is-a-liar

So let me get this right . . .
No witnesses can say kc is a liar . . .
But . . . .
1) CA wrote on the MS blog that KC is a liar, steals, and is jealous
2) YM etal, can attest to the Universal trip
3) LE can talk about the wild goose chase looking for Z the N's house and family homes
4) the infamous phone call from Caylee to KC the day before she was reported missing by CA, stating Caylee was talking about her shoes and her books - but no incoming calls confirming this from the cell pings

I doubt anyone NEEDS to say the words "KC is a liar" to the jury. Proof is in the Pudding.
5)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 56 more.
Total: 3,023 (members: 57, guests: 2,966)

Online statistics

Members online
57
Guests online
2,966
Total visitors
3,023
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,184
Messages
17,964,809
Members
228,714
Latest member
hannahdunnam
Back
Top