Casey's Lies, Stealing, Social/Sex Life: "Irrelevant and Scandalous"

[Macushla]

After reading the motion about her lies and stealing for about the 6th time, it seems that the defense does not want any witness to talk about the fact that she lied and stole 'in the passed' this of course will not preclude Det. Melich, Sgt. Allen, Cpl. Edwards, etc. from testifying to all the lies she told them and the details of the financial case (stealing) that was also investigated.

I wonder if the Judge can limit the testimony of witnesses to June 16th and after? We would still get to hear Cindy talk about KC's trip to Tampa, trip to Jacksonville, George talk about the gas can incident, etc. That would be ok with me, because THOSE are the lies that will prove her guilt. I don't care whether the jury hears about lies she told when she was 15, 16, etc. I want them to hear the ones that prove she didn't give a tinker's da*n about Caylee.

 

[strawberry]

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/67721098...xual-Relations

Page 3: "...whether Ms. Anthony engaged in passed sexual relations..."

Who wrote this? They actually think "past" is "passed"?

ETA: See I am not the only one to catch this...just saw Masuchla's post above.

 

[strawberry]

[O/T: Every time I read one of strawberry's posts, I hear it in a "Sally Brown" voice in my head.]

On-topic:

"Casey's Lies, Stealing, Social/Sex Life": Irrelevant, No. Scandalous, Yep!

And I can hear Snoopy crunching on those bones! LOL

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/67721098...xual-Relations

Page 3: "...whether Ms. Anthony engaged in passed sexual relations..."

Who wrote this? They actually think "past" is "passed"?

ETA: See I am not the only one to catch this...just saw Masuchla's post above.

Spelling errors, grammatical errors, you'd never think these lawyers went to college. Such silly errors and with word check readily available...Unreal...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

 

[Melanie]

Okay, help me out here. JB wants to bring in Kronk's prior bad acts, AND excuse Caysey's prior bad acts.

Yuppers, that makes a whole lotta sense to me. Wonder how Judge P is going to take this. I'm afraid he might fall out of his chair.

MOO

Mel

 

[my_tee_mouse]

Spelling errors, grammatical errors, you'd never think these lawyers went to college. Such silly errors and with word check readily available...Unreal...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

And therein lies the problem of relying on spellcheck: it picks up misspelled words, but both "past" and "passed" are correctly spelled words. Spellcheck doesn't help much with proper usage...folks still need to use their brains for that type of thing!!! (I actually typed out the sentence in my word processor, and the "grammar bot" does not recognize anything odd about the wording. So again...brains, people! Brains!)

 

[Marshmallow]

if the past sexual habits of Casey are erased, that also erases her habit of bringing Caylee along on her sleepovers and sleeping in a bed with a man, Caylee, and herself.

 

[faefrost]

LOL. I saw the title and was like, oh boy, this is big ol' can of worms opening up! But I'll be good, I promise.

I think, at the very least, her having sex with Tony, what was it the night of the 16th, should come in to show how little she regarded Caylee. Where was Caylee while this was going on, Casey? Obviously you weren't doing the deed right in front of her...

The only way I can definitely see past sexual experiences coming in is if the state is going to try and show a pattern to Caylee's care and Casey's activities to show what a not great mom Casey was to Caylee. Basically, bring it in to undercut MOTY's credibility. Now she lied so much during the investigation and was convicted of theft, so I can't see those not coming in. That would surprise me. Anyway, I'm not sure they need the past sexual stuff with everything else in this case, but I can see them considering it, especially if Baez tries to say Casey is pure as the driven snow and would never do anything wrong, including lying, stealing, and killing Caylee.

I really really REALLY hope he's that stupid in court. That opens the door to the state bringing in a lot of stuff to prove him wrong...including the fact that she's, oh, CONVICTED of stealing. Gonna be hard to get past those what, 7 counts on the record right now? And she lied to LE, who would be happy to get on the stand and testify about that. The lying and stealing have to be in. The past sexual stuff is a maybe to me at this point.

Isn't there a ruling to that effect that can be brought up? Some evidence can only be brought in the defense opens that door? I know that's not the legalese wording, sorry...

I think this is dead on. sex will be limited to direct witnesses after Caylee was last seen. Particularly TL's activities with her on june 16 2008, and some of the clubbing stuff. Past history will not be allowed.

Lies? I don't see that there really is any way to exclude them. she was obviously lying throughout the investigation. Constantly. her patern is so pervasive.

The stealing is going to come in 100%. At least the stealing from Grandpa and the stealing from Amy. Those are elements of this crime. One was what led to her big fight with CA (always denied) the other is how she was supporting herself once she left CA's house. Prior thefts such as taking money from Lee or her parents probably will not come in.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

How can her behavior during the 31 days be separated from the 31 days themselves? The jurors will NEED to know what was going on during the time she wasn't reporting her daughter missing - considering that she, to this day, has not told anyone where she left Caylee or what happened to her. All of her stories were as close to being proven false as you can get.

Her priorities were "boys" tattoos and Fusian parties.

 

[strawberry]

if the past sexual habits of Casey are erased, that also erases her habit of bringing Caylee along on her sleepovers and sleeping in a bed with a man, Caylee, and herself.

Actually, if the "passed" sexual habits of Casey are erased, then Caylee is erased.:waitasec:

 

[LadyL]

The defense moves to have KC's sex life, and tales of her lying & stealing excluded from testimony.

Story here:
http://www.wftv.com/news/26198041/detail.html

Does anyone else find this laughable? I can't wait to see JP's reaction!!

[bbm]

yes, and I can't stop grinning

 

[faefrost]

Actually, if the "passed" sexual habits of Casey are erased, then Caylee is erased.:waitasec:

Keeping the defendants past sexual habits out of the courtroom and away from the jury has always been a valid concern. We have always known that no sane judge would allow anything on this subject from prior to June 2008 into the courtroom. With the exception of KC's relationships to witnesses such as JG and TL. The state will not seek to bring this information in. They want to try and convict her for the murder of her 2 year old daughter. They do not want the jury deliberating on whether or not she is a "*advertiser censored*".

The whole "sex" motion is probably one that the defense needs to make to preserve the issue for later, and insure that they have grounds to argue for a mistrial should a witness stray into inappropriate territory. So this motion, even given the usual poor writing wording and references of JB, actually almost makes sense. From our point of view this is a good thing. It's a motion asking for something that we knew was going to be the case anyway, so it really gains them nothing. But it adds to the pile of work evidence that will act as a bulwark against the inevitable appeal based on incompetent or ineffective council. Remember we are not here to simply ridicule the defense. We are hoping for a clean and legally appropriate process that results in a clean conviction and minimizes appeals. We want her attorneys to file motions, lots and lots of motions. We wish for them to put forth a vigorous defense. and we hope for them to score some legally valid points in order to insure a fair and proper trial. We are watching the long game here. Not the insane motion of the day.

 

[cindysnow3]

Actually, if the "passed" sexual habits of Casey are erased, then Caylee is erased.:waitasec:

The way I see that also is that since she can't say who Caylee's dad is .... We can all see her "passed" sexual life.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Keeping the defendants past sexual habits out of the courtroom and away from the jury has always been a valid concern. We have always known that no sane judge would allow anything on this subject from prior to June 2008 into the courtroom. With the exception of KC's relationships to witnesses such as JG and TL. The state will not seek to bring this information in. They want to try and convict her for the murder of her 2 year old daughter. They do not want the jury deliberating on whether or not she is a "*advertiser censored*".

The whole "sex" motion is probably one that the defense needs to make to preserve the issue for later, and insure that they have grounds to argue for a mistrial should a witness stray into inappropriate territory. So this motion, even given the usual poor writing wording and references of JB, actually almost makes sense. From our point of view this is a good thing. It's a motion asking for something that we knew was going to be the case anyway, so it really gains them nothing. But it adds to the pile of work evidence that will act as a bulwark against the inevitable appeal based on incompetent or ineffective council. Remember we are not here to simply ridicule the defense. We are hoping for a clean and legally appropriate process that results in a clean conviction and minimizes appeals. We want her attorneys to file motions, lots and lots of motions. We wish for them to put forth a vigorous defense. and we hope for them to score some legally valid points in order to insure a fair and proper trial. We are watching the long game here. Not the insane motion of the day.

Wouldn't it be relevant to illustrate how neglectful she was of Caylee that she took her to her trysts and even had her sleep in the same bed?

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Motion will be denied.
It's important for the jurors to get a clear picture. ICA's love interests were more important than finding Caylee. It goes to state of mind. Her conduct was inconsistent with a distraught mother who was endlessly trying to locate a missing child. Instead, ICA's love interests took top priority. I don't want to hear details of her sexcapades, neither would the jury. The state needs to show state of mind, and at that time ICA's mindset was on her BF du jour, not an allegedly missing Caylee...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

 

[LancelotLink]

I'm pretty sure this motion may have more to do with her use of the endearing term "Snot Head" for the AR testimony.

 

[LancelotLink]

Promiscuity Beginner Course 101, Intermediate 201 and Advanced 301. She passed these classes. Awww, she DID graduate!

 

[BondJamesBond]

Keeping the defendants past sexual habits out of the courtroom and away from the jury has always been a valid concern. We have always known that no sane judge would allow anything on this subject from prior to June 2008 into the courtroom. With the exception of KC's relationships to witnesses such as JG and TL. The state will not seek to bring this information in. They want to try and convict her for the murder of her 2 year old daughter. They do not want the jury deliberating on whether or not she is a "*advertiser censored*".

The whole "sex" motion is probably one that the defense needs to make to preserve the issue for later, and insure that they have grounds to argue for a mistrial should a witness stray into inappropriate territory. So this motion, even given the usual poor writing wording and references of JB, actually almost makes sense. From our point of view this is a good thing. It's a motion asking for something that we knew was going to be the case anyway, so it really gains them nothing. But it adds to the pile of work evidence that will act as a bulwark against the inevitable appeal based on incompetent or ineffective council. Remember we are not here to simply ridicule the defense. We are hoping for a clean and legally appropriate process that results in a clean conviction and minimizes appeals. We want her attorneys to file motions, lots and lots of motions. We wish for them to put forth a vigorous defense. and we hope for them to score some legally valid points in order to insure a fair and proper trial. We are watching the long game here. Not the insane motion of the day.

Thank you, faefrost. Very well said.

Wouldn't it be relevant to illustrate how neglectful she was of Caylee that she took her to her trysts and even had her sleep in the same bed?

IMHO, there isn't a mountain of overwhelming evidence to suggest to a jury that Casey was neglectful BEFORE Caylee was allegedly kidnapped. Rather, from some of the earliest interview transcripts most described her as taking care of Caylee's needs well enough. IIRC, one of Tony's roomies, Nate(?) indicated he'd only seen Casey get mildly upset w/ Caylee for drumming on her leg w/ a drumstick while @ the apartment. Otherwise, they noted that Casey fed Caylee, kept her clean, etc.

Of course, it seems Cindy & George were doing the basic providing while Casey was irresponsible financially. So, Caylee's extended family helped to make most outward appearances fine w/o any obvious neglect.

So...not sure there'd be much to be gained...yet definitely some risk involved...in calling Casey an unfit mother to impugn her character in the courtroom and support her as a murderer. IOW...the charge is murder...stick to proving that one. Keep the most important thing the most important thing. Much, much easier for the jury to consider her behavior AFTER Caylee was allegedly kidnapped to pass their judgement, IMHO.

 

[logicalgirl]

I put a lot of faith in what Faefrost has to say. But in this case I still have questions because for me -

ICA IS Lies, Stealing and Promiscuous - this is who she is. She was like this before she killed Caylee, and this was her continued behavior after she killed Caylee. So I do not understand how you can erase a personality because that person is on trial.

ICA's stealing is relevant to me because it seems to be the event that precipitated the fight with Cindy and getting tossed out of the house. Stealing =fight=get out = not taking "snothead with me. To me it's a pretty clear pattern of thought. And she is a convicted felon - is she not? Convicted of stealing.

ICA IS a liar - again, even she admits she lied to the LE at Universal. She lied about the sitter, she lied about having a job, etc. etc. She lied constantly for 31 days before she was forced to admit she no longer had Caylee "in her care". It is a major personality trait. How can this possibly be erased?

And for me - her sex life is tawdry and kind of boring. Being the flavor of a nanosecond doesn't impress me at all. But while she was Tony's little toy, where was Caylee? The defense is also going to state ICA was a very good mother, but three in a bed as a regular and recurring thing will not go over well with any jury.

Not doubting the word of our WS well-informed. but I definitely need more legal information to understand excluding this "history".

 

[Just Jayla]

I think this is dead on. sex will be limited to direct witnesses after Caylee was last seen. Particularly TL's activities with her on june 16 2008, and some of the clubbing stuff. Past history will not be allowed.

Lies? I don't see that there really is any way to exclude them. she was obviously lying throughout the investigation. Constantly. her patern is so pervasive.

The stealing is going to come in 100%. At least the stealing from Grandpa and the stealing from Amy. Those are elements of this crime. One was what led to her big fight with CA (always denied) the other is how she was supporting herself once she left CA's house. Prior thefts such as taking money from Lee or her parents probably will not come in.

Past history re: Tony Rusciano has to be allowed-Not only did KC refer to Caylee as a snothead in IM's to AR, she used the name Zanny in those same exchanges (On 05/06/08, IIRC)-
Problem with the exchanges are that every other sentence is about sex. In order for the state to present these two things about KC's references, they almost have to include the fact that KC had sex with AR. Otherwise, they'd have to redact all of the content/context.