2011.06.25 Sidebar Thread (Trial Day Twenty-eight)

[FLmom777]

Originally Posted by ~PrinceSSa~

It would be great to have a support thread for the jurors as it must feel they are the ones in jail!
If there already is such a thread, then...

I work for Disney (yes, I do believe in fairies). I am sending a request to the powers that be to provide free admission to the jurors and their families to attend once this trial is over. I don't know if it will happen but I feel it would be a nice gesture to thank them for their personal sacrifice. Disney has to be careful of what the perception would be to do this.

[FedRafaFan]

Originally Posted by sleutherontheside

To play defense attorney for a moment.....unless there is a video of photo of HHJP and Geraldo chatting or appearing to chat.....it's circumstantial evidence and we must assume it has no value.

Isn't this Geraldo telling us what he saw? Wouldn't that be direct evidence?

[Beyond Belief]

Jim Hoover one of witnesses out waiting in hall this morning.

[passin_through]

Originally Posted by coloradoteacher

What did Geraldo say? He spoke to JP? What about?

I am going second hand here--but apparently he didn't really say, but hinted/teased--but it was yesterday on O'Reilly with Juan hosting (love Juan) that this was stated.

Geraldo's show is on Sat, I believe. He was teasing to up his ratings or he did do whatever it is he insinuates. Either way, it appears to lack in ethics, imo.

Though FOX doesn't have any O'Reilly transcripts up for Thurs. *scream*

[sleutherontheside]

JVM just said they are trying to solve this mystery with deductive reasoning.

Wouldn't that qualify as a "FIRST"?

[SCWldneart]

Quote:
Originally Posted by grandmaj View Post
OK the Court Oficer is on the phone.... with someone behind the Casey door. Next thing you know all of the lawyers go out back where Casey is. At about the 11:00 mark look at the interaction between Baez and Casey. It looks strained.

http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-ex...teractive.html
Sure do wish I could lip read but one thing I pretty certain of is approx. 39:30 on this tape, something is said to KC by the woman with the long hair and KC says "That's exactly what I'm talking about". Right after that, KC gets up and she and that woman go into the room where the atty's are.
Edit/Delete Message

All of this has me thinking this all has something to do with something ICA/paralegal 'discovered' and has pointed out to no avail.

[faefrost]

Originally Posted by Rallihanna

Okay so Geraldo went and tried to get JB a mistrial? Pretty sure they're not going to pull the judge off the case.

The SA would be deeply involved in any such discussions and it would not be sealed.

[MaryAnn]

Originally Posted by bananarama

I did the same thing yesterday when everyone was saying Caylee looked too tall. 36-39" is average height for a three yr old toddler. I do agree with others that the tennis shoes look wrong. I don't think I've ever seen any photos of Caylee in shoes like that.

I feel like there is definitely something wrong with this picture too. Where did it come from? I think someone on this board would have that pic if it were real. You know what can be done on a computer now with morphing software and photoshop!! I wonder if the photo has been verified to be real? It doesn't look like Caylee to me.

[faefrost]

Originally Posted by sleutherontheside

JVM just said they are trying to solve this mystery with deductive reasoning.

Wouldn't that qualify as a "FIRST"?

I took it to mean that she has the intern reading here

[SCWldneart]

I smell a plea deal in the works. Is that at all possible, at this late stage?

[wishuwerehere]

Could this be a photo of ICA when she was a child?

[cleo612]

Originally Posted by faefrost

yeah I am reading that as Mason wants out.

If that is the case, then it makes sense that Judge Perry would have sealed the transcripts from the in camera discussions. Judge Perry would have to have asked Mason his reasons for wanting out. He certainly would not want any mention of possible impropriety on the part of Baez to be made public at this juncture.

(Obviously, my thoughts are centered on Mason being disgusted by Baez's behavior, and potential lack of ethics. I do not have any confirmed evidence either that this is why Mason called for the sidebar and then was overheard talking in a loud voice behind the courtroom doors, nor do I have any confirmed evidence that Baez has done anything unethical. I do, however, have VERY strong suspicions.)

[grandmaj]

OK I have no direct knowlege of Geraldo's statements on Bill O'Reilly last night. Here is a thread we locked until we can see a transcript. Go for it everyone. Find the transcript if it exists.

geraldo rivera said he has spoken to Judge Perry about this case - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

geraldo rivera said he has spoken to Judge Perry about this case - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

[Katana]

Originally Posted by scotslass

somehow i can see it being the other way around ICA wants to testify and the DT are trying to stop her... JMO

I was just thinking this, also. Would explain the body language and behavior today. Why would court not continue today with the already planned witnesses? Hmm I suppose mason wants time to get her prepared for testimony.

[cluciano63]

How could the fact that the defense does not seem to be meeting its "theory" of the case, be enough to stop court like this? And since he isn't done yet why would this even be an issue? Not to mention, very few DT's end up meeting the theories they put forward, which is why we are always laughing at the ridiculous things defense lawyers say...it is part of defending guilty clients...

[sleutherontheside]

Originally Posted by FedRafaFan

Isn't this Geraldo telling us what he saw? Wouldn't that be direct evidence?

IMO....NOTHING out of Geraldo's mouth should be considered.

[MissJames]

Originally Posted by Concerned Papa

IDK, but this seems off base. If so, why would ICA be upset?





I agree. IMO, there's no way HHJP would give the time of day to Geraldo during the course of this trial.

It's possible they said hello to each other passing in the hallway .Beyond that,No.

[JusticeSeeker1960]

Originally Posted by Studio_Medic

Hope this helps...

Somehow I don't see Caylee wearing sneakers with a little dress like that....she seemed more like the cute dainty sandle type! First thing I noticed was the shoes.

[faefrost]

Originally Posted by FedRafaFan

Isn't this Geraldo telling us what he saw? Wouldn't that be direct evidence?

I'm not sure that Geraldo makes a particularly credible or believable witness.

[kaRN]

Originally Posted by Mountain_Kat

So if CM were out, who on the DT would be dp qualified? Is this possibly why JB called some show to state his qualifications?

AF is but she was brought in for the penalty phase. I'm sure she's up to speed on all the evidence but with her not having been there since jury selection I'm not sure she could or would want to just slip in and carry on.

[Softail]

Originally Posted by sleutherontheside

Excellent point. We know CM is fond of "showboating" and "strutting" even without a jury present. Given the sealing of the transcripts, I agree it is something he did not want "out there" yet.

A new bigger bolder lie?

I still think it has something to do with sexual abuse. This would be a reason for sealing, and ICA crying.

[JustMeDeb]

[quote=GennyMac;6762230]I went back and watched the video of what little bit of proceedings we had this morning and was caught by the following. Video Here: http://www.youtube.com/user/weshtv?f.../l/XZ_qhfMF2oM

JA again has to bring attention to another possible discovery infraction by JB




The DT all walks directly into the holding area with ICA, whereupon a conversation about some serious subject begins. The courtroom (Kathy B reports) can hear Mason's raised voice at his team. They return, another convo takes place, all gods children go into chambers with HHJP. During this one of the junior attys tells ICA they need to go back into the holding area, ICA tries to put her off so she can read the live transcript of what is going on in chambers, but junior atty will not be put off and ICA is marched back into holding for a convo (putting some documentation together?) with junior atty.

I think this is telling. ICA going into holding cell with entire DT. No SA, no HJBP, no court reporter.

[cluciano63]

Originally Posted by SCWldneart

I smell a plea deal in the works. Is that at all possible, at this late stage?

They can do that, right up until the verdict is read...

[pcrum12]

Originally Posted by bonjoviblonde

Huh? Do you really think JA would lie about something regarding the DOD????
I really can't understand why some people are saying JA did anything wrong in regards to this. He is the one who stood up and told the court about the phone call that he received. How in the world is that withholding anything? I am really confused on this matter and can't figure out why some people are saying JA didn't tell about the phone call.

My understanding is that he rec'd call, took deposition, asked court for additional time to review depo he took and THEN he informed the court of call. I might be wrong but thats what I'm getting out of it.

[heartfortruth]

Originally Posted by TxJan1971

BBM - FWIW - On several of the juries I have served on, a preliminary poll was taken in the very beginning of deliberations as to whether each juror felt the defendant is guilty or not guilty to try to establish a baseline as to where the majority of the jurors stood. Usually the preliminary vote was done blindly (i.e. by writing your vote on a piece of paper unanimously). The foreperson would tally the results and that's when deliberations began. There was only one case where every juror voted the same (guilty) - which was easy to go from there. Even in that case, all evidence presented during the trial was re-reviewed just to make sure that everyone truly felt the defendant was guilty and that nothing was missed.

The majority of times; however, there was an "initial" split - it tended to be more like an 85%-90% vote one way and the remainder either "undecided" or the opposite of the majority. (Of note: The majority of the times it was determined that the undecided or opposing jurors were split because they had simply misinterpreted evidence that was presented or missed a critical piece of the evidence/testimony, or didn't understand what was said, etc.)

Once the preliminary vote was determined, the foreperson would start by reviewing each piece of evidence presented and promote a discussion as to what jurors thought about it and ask jurors to pose any questions for group discusison. All evidence was reviewed (sometimes so much so that you got sick of hearing it again) and sometimes questions were submitted to the baliff if jurors needed more information. After reviewing all evidence and hearing each jurors thoughts/opinions, another vote was taken blindly. A lot of times, after the foreperson facilitated review of the evidence and group discussion, some jurors would change their vote voluntarily (unanimously).

There was always one person (or two) who held out longer than the majority - but a lot of times it was felt that the juror was holding out for no real reason other than to be temporarily ornery. LOL I relate it to the posters on here who sometimes try to play devils advocate to stir people to think outside the box and are not so quick to agree with the majority even though they may secretly agree. Although it did cause blood pressures to rise and some jurors to become "passionate" - everyone was entitled to their opinion and the evidence in question was represented, rediscussed as many times as necessary to try to prevent a hung jury. There were two occasions when it was felt that we would have a hung jury, but both times it always worked itself out after the juror who was holding out stated his/her reasons for feeling the way he/she did and others would merely play devils advocate back to that juror with the juror ultimately changing his/her vote. In my experience, no juror was ever belittled or bullied into changing their vote!

Deliberations went on for as long as it took to try to reach a fair and true verdict, whether guilty, not-guilty, or unable to reach a decision.

It is a very thorough process, very time consuming, very passionate, with clear leaders, clear followers, clear stubborn folks, and even those with their own agenda. In the end, however, I truly believe that the verdicts were done thorougly and "fairly" with every sincere regard to the "innocent until proven guilty" right of the defendant. JMOO

By the way, the shortest deliberations I was involved in was 3 1/2 hours (all voted guilty initially and upon re-review of evidence), and the longest was 6 days for a murder case.

And even though in each case jurors were tired and wanted to go home as soon as possible, it was my experience that all jurors took the job VERY seriously and stuck to their belief that they held someone's life in their hands and took the time to methodically go through piece by piece of evidence/testimony - no matter how long it took - until a fair decision was reached!

Thank you so much for this informative post; it was very helpful and easy to follow. It bears a repeat here, I think.