2011.06.21 Sidebar Thread (Trial Day Twenty-four)

[strawberry]

What time is recess over?

 

[Softail]

WFTV showing Casey got checks from people in Alabama, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and one other state I missed.

She bought make-up!

 

[Niner]

Someone posted a pic of her and her new look. Maybe they'll post it again?

I'll try and capture that when KC stands up for the jury - otherwise I don't think you can 'see' how it looks!

 

[21merc7]

Simplest way to explain this:

Burden of Proof is always for the State, they must prove a person is guilty of "x" crime.

Defense is messing up and making Burden of Proof their own problem.

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

Still haven't gotten an answer to this: If a witnesses testimony is impeached, what does that mean? Are they no longer an expert? Is the jury supposed to ignore what they said? I'm not sure what the purpose of "impeaching" is.

to discredit - or render unreliable or worthless, I believe

 

[greycoupon]

Is what Casey buys in jail really relevant? Just seems to ridiculous to pick on that as I imagine Nancy Grace will, (I recall a past time she got mad Casey bought "cheese treats" and tampons)

Her demeanor is relevant but I don't think the snacks she buys are.

 

[JustMeDeb]

MagpieFromHinky Pamela
I just asked about Bolin. THe women who joined def. during jury selection. She had an affair & married a convicted felon. She's been removed

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

WFTV showing Casey got checks from people in Alabama, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and one other state I missed.

She bought make-up!

And gourmet chicken!

 

[grandmaj]

I hope someone explains what went on soon. I'm confused. Once again Baez hits a sour note.

 

[Disguiseduser0308]

I can't figure out how JB considered his OS and then did nothing with all the SA evidence to make it work in the DT's favor. Just where was Caylee's body supposed to be if not in ICA's car or in the woods since June/July? :waitasec:

He (DT) may not have to prove anything. The avenue they're taking makes no sense to me. I don't want to give them any ideas... let's just say I am shocked and beyond irritated. This is like a trying to build a puzzle with many pieces missing.

 

[21merc7]

to discredit - or render unreliable or worthless, I believe

You are correct

Court is back in

 

[Kenziema]

to discredit - or render unreliable or worthless, I believe

Is the jury told what impeach means? So when JA said something along the lines of, trying to impeach, they know what that means?

 

[Turnadot]

Melich for the defense ???

Yes, he's on the State's witness list, so my guess is Baez subpoenaed him.

My personal opinion is that Melich will eat Baez alive. Again.

 

[darnudes]

I think he did touch dna testing on the shorts and laundry bag(?) but found nothing. I think JB is trying to use the lack of dna to lead the jury to believe that the SA did do it's job in not testing the tape. Or something like that. Pffft, OTOH who knows at this point.

I can't take the credit for this but some smart person theorised that he only tested the shorts and the canvas bag in the hope of getting "someone" else's dna on there as that would be more likely.

 

[Novice Seeker]

Still haven't gotten an answer to this: If a witnesses testimony is impeached, what does that mean? Are they no longer an expert? Is the jury supposed to ignore what they said? I'm not sure what the purpose of "impeaching" is.

IIRC, if a witness is impeached then the individual looses the granted credibilty of being recognized as an expert with the court...

 

[faefrost]

Alrighty, somebody please tell me if I am reading this incorrectly...

But I actually have to agree with CM. As soon as the prosecution rested, the defense should have just rested. There was more chance of some degree of doubt concerning KC's innocense before JB started in on his Perry Mason routine.

 

[BG4pip]

OK, this is complicated, but here is what I think the issue is:

The defense does not have to prove anything (As CM frequently points out). So JA wanted the judge to "take judicial notice" (tell the jury) that JB got to send evidence to a US lab and chose not to send the duct tape. BUT that would imply (or might lead the jury to believe) that the defense had a burden to prove stuff and just chose not to. And they have no burden. And it is big error to imply they do. So JA is bascially screwed unless the judge can figure out a way to correct the mistaken impression JB left with the jury without making them think that the defense had to do anything with the evidence in terms of testing.

whew!!! I tried.


edited to add: And JB is kind of implying to the jury that he TRIED to prove something but was not allowed to. And that is dangerous for him because that might make the jury think that he HAS to prove anything.

If you're right, Ashton may have created a huge problem for prosecution on appeal. Because the harm is already done. Ashton got the witness to say
(1) he (the witness) told Baez he might find something if he ran his tests, and (2) Baez did not ask him (the witness) to run more tests.

Even more troubling, if I understand what just happened before the recess, Baez contends that the inference Ashton wanted the jury to draw -- that the defense really doesn't want to know what's on the tape (since it is probably incriminating) -- is false, in that the defense actually wanted the witness to run more tests, but the prosecution's objection was sustained

 

[Mgorules]

Am I the only one who wonders what the jury is eating every day? :crazy:

Also, is it too early for a glass of wine?

No, I've been wondering that too.

And no, not too early-- I mean, it's technically fruit juice :crazy:

 

[fifteen89]

I'll try and capture that when KC stands up for the jury - otherwise I don't think you can 'see' how it looks!

see post #30 here: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140963&page=2

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

here is the wormhole: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140963&page=15 (trial thread) so we don't loose anyone ;-)

come on everybody!