2011.06.25 Sidebar Thread (Trial Day Twenty-eight)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I see JB as very inexperienced. He has made some horrible mistakes, he cannot question a witness at all, he has no idea how to authenticate a document, how to impeach someone, etc. I also see him as too arrogant to realize his ignorance and that is very dangerous. A good attorney must be humble and realistic enough to know when they need practice, assistance, whatever.

However, I agree with you that JB is not a total idiot. After all, his sneaky efforts to make a point to a jury that he otherwise would not be allowed to make due to discovery rules or rules of evidence or the court, show a level of intelligence. An idiot could not do that.

But truly proficient attorneys do not need to resort to dirty tricks to do their job well. JB needs a personality adjustment or I do not see him becoming a better attorney. He needs to realize that having a JD and passing the bar do not make one truly qualified to try any case, especially not one of this magnitude.

A thought came to mind reading this: Street smart.

And my cousin is a defense atty and he doesn't play "dirty pool." Sometimes a dud is just a dud...
 
Even if LA and GA had disfunctional relationship and improper.. really what does that have to do with the body being in the trunk?? If GA was the one to dispose of Caylee wouldnt the defense just say yes the body was in the trunk and GA drove the car also.

I still think that even the molestation that they claim... why would GA ever in a million years cover up an accidental drowing? Makes no sence at all.. not one ounce of sence.
Accidental drownings normally have no penalty at all unless the mother was drugged out passed out at the time. I live in Florida and accidental drownings happen all the time.. even where the child walks out the door and drowns in a retention pond or lake.. it happens and I have yet to see a mother be charged very often unless it is in fact some foul play.

I still to this day wonder what the promise to CMA was at the memorial. Lee is hiding somthing for ICA. I think somthingto the extent of if you ever tell me the truth I will help you 100%. Perhaps LA went to JB and just laid it out that he will take the fall and so will the family regardless if they know the truth or not.

I still think the LA and ICA tears were due to the bond of CMA promise at the memorial. ICA was crying cause big brother is gonna come through for her. LA tears were that he has protected her probally for years in lie and ignored them when he knew she was wrong.. and yet in the end he is doing so even at the expense of justice for Caylee.
JMO. I ramble but that promise CMA means somthig in 'Code" just as in jail house recordings with ICA on video he was talking very careful.
The Anthony's are intelligent at talking in circles and making things very, very vauge.
 
What was the purpose of the police officer who was questioned yesterday, in reference to KC being handcuffed? I only saw part of it and it seemed as though the jury was instructed not to pay attention to why she was handcuffed.
 
Could the State depose Lee and Cindy to get to the bottom of what happened with Baez?

Or if they think the photo is not accurate could they subpena the original photo? And compare it to what they downloaded off the computer and camera during their search?
 
Didn't someone post on yesterday's trial thread that Cindy was comforting Lee in the elevator and George turned away?

Lee was back on the stand after lunch (after the breakdown) .Someone noted that after trial the A's were in the elevator together .Lee and CA were whispering and GA was turned away facing the wall.
Nothing about CA comforting Lee that I recall. JMO
 
Something's weird about Lee's testimony...over the top and if that was true what he said about them leaving him out of things then why or why did they name her Caylee?? Part his name and Caseys...

It seems to me that if the family thought Lee was the father they would not have named Caylee after him, that would create too much speculation.
 
Well....that Geraldo comment doesn't even mesh with the DT opening.

In opening...JB said LA wanted to follow in his fathers footsteps but didn't go as far. So......now we are to believe that JB is telling Geraldo that the parents feared LA was the baby daddy?

Ummmmmm nope.

The DT and their mouthpieces can't even keep their own lies straight!

I was thinking the same thing! GA forced oral on ICA, LA didn't go that far but got her pregnant? Did these people TAKE 5th grade health?:waitasec:
 
Could it have been a note from KC?


I understood that the deputy talked to them, handed her something and then a while later she left. Friend who was there said "she wasn't immediately upset." Maybe she got a parking ticket?
 
Yes, I just watched it and found it strange. What was more telling to me though was the crying ICA was doing and when he walked off, I see anger in her face. She gives someone a look. Perhaps a he didn't take the fall look??
JMO

Yes. That's the impression I got also. Baez asked the same question 3 times and Lee didn't answer what Baez/Casey wanted him to. The no hug from Cindy, in my opinion, is for that reason. He didn't follow the script. She has to rewrite that paragraph.
 
If I may "flesh" out your comment a bit - Lee testified on the stand he did not meet with the DT before the trial. And he got in touch with Baez to ask him specifically a question about something that came up in a conversation with his parents. A question....

Actually...He said he got some information in a discussion with his parents that he was present for, and he felt that Baez should know this information. Not a question. He was giving Baez info.
 
Could the State depose Lee and Cindy to get to the bottom of what happened with Baez?

In an alternate universe where Anthony speak is fully understood?

I don't think the State would get a clear answer, and reading between the lines is either clear as a bell to the State or not worth the effort. I am not certain whatever Lee offered was worthwhile, but who knows?

ETA: If you are speaking of the Caylee at the glass door photo, I don't think that holds much water. Every 2 year old can reach a door knob.
 
Is this someone's opinion or a reporter? TIA

I asked that same question this morning. Why didn't Baez come right out and ask Lee if he molested Casey? He was too afraid because with the A's it could go either way. You just never know. They obviously have no problem lying on the stand.

What has bothered me more is why the prosecution didn't ask him. They asked George, why not Lee? It may be that attorneys aren't supposed to ask questions when they don't already know how the witness will answer.
 
I know many companies offer comp time when salaried employees go over 40 hours..but I know of none this day in time that just take your word for it!

I am a bookkeeper and calculate payroll for my organization. We have exempt and nonexmpt employees. Exempt employees are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and are not paid overtime due to their exemption. If compensatory time is arranged between the employee and their manager, it must be tracked (internal rules).

Comp time must be tracked for several reasons. Some state taxes such as workers' comp are calculated by the number of hours the employee works. Also, some benefits such as pension contributions may be tied to number of hours worked. Most organizations have reports that employees fill out as to how they spent their working hours. These work reports often go to the organization's accountants, shareholders, boards, and some government entities. In addition, if comp time is not tracked an issue may arise between employee and employer as to how much comp time an employee has on the books. Like vacation and sick leave, comp time is a liability to the organization in that it is like accounts payable account that must be paid someday so it must go into the budget. CA may indicate that she can set her own hours, but the company and the state and local government has much to say about how exempt and nonexempt employees are paid and how their hours are tracked. By law, those records must be reproduced and kept for at least four years. Most companies and organizations keep records for 20 or more years, but at least the seven years which IRS uses for look-back years during audits.
Here is what the IRS states about exempt employees (e.g. CA) and recordkeeping:


Exempt Recordkeeping Laws
Exempt employees are those exempt from overtime pay under the FLSA. Most exempt workers are salaried and receive a fixed wage each pay period. The employer does not have keep a record of work hours for exempt employees, but for tracking purposes, it can if it wants to. The employer must, however, keep a record of the basis upon the which an exempt employee is paid. An employer can require an exempt worker to punch a time clock to ensure he’s arriving and leaving work as scheduled.

Payroll Tax Recordkeeping Laws
The IRS requires that the business keeps employment tax records for no less than four years. Records include Employer Identification Number (EIN); tips that employees report; dates and amounts of wages and retirement payments; employee names, addresses, social security number, and job titles; copies of W-2s and W-2 corrections (W-2cs) that were returned as undeliverable; employment dates; withholding forms, such as W-4, fringe benefits and reimbursement for employee expense; and earned income credit payment forms, such as W-5.



:maddening:
 
He was taking the Court Reporter into the jury room to explain he was letting them go until Monday.Anytime a judge talks to the jury it has to be on the record.
JMO

I know, but what seemed odd is that it happened very fast...the five talked at sidebar w/JP for about 2 minutes and it must have been decided right then that court had to be cxld....JP disappears with reporter and the lawyers wait a while, and then all five leave to be with JP for 30 minutes or so.

I thought he had released the jury after the long part, but he seems to have done it almost at once.
 
What was the purpose of the police officer who was questioned yesterday, in reference to KC being handcuffed? I only saw part of it and it seemed as though the jury was instructed not to pay attention to why she was handcuffed.

A rush to judgement attempt by the defense. It failed. He testified that the reason she was handcuffed was because Cindy accused Casey of credit card theft .
 
I hardly think the government wants their employees testifying to help defendants who might well be convicted of murder especially in a case like this. The government prosecutes crimes. They don't help murderers get off.

This guy seems to maybe have some issues. He doesn't ask the permission he knows he needs and he also lies on the stand about his background which he used to establish himself as an expert. I think the DOD will be cutting him loose in any case.




DOD is Federal not State... are you insinuating that the DOD will only let him testify for a prosecutor and not for the defendant?? Just curious.
 
Just seeing how many people here on WS, for example, can see something in totally different ways...makes me wonder how juries EVER agree. FWIW
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
180
Guests online
4,269
Total visitors
4,449

Forum statistics

Threads
592,376
Messages
17,968,186
Members
228,761
Latest member
buggy8993
Back
Top