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

Yeah, I'm not feeling it either.
Perhaps this will be the other half of the story. The Star Wars Defense. Obi Wen Kenobi will appear and wave his hand. "This is not the lying stealing muderer you are looking for," and we are compelled by the force to repeat. "She is free to go."
Move along...:leia::hypno:

No no no...not even Darth Vader or any Sith Lord is touching this one! We don't even need Obi Wan Kenobi saying "This is the lying, stealing murderer you're looking for." That's going to be painfully obvious to the jury.

Nope, the Force is definitely staying out of this one. I can't believe Baez is gong to allow this to go into a courtroom. It'll be the fastest conviction in history - "the jury was only gone five minutes!"
 
I put a lot of faith in what Faefrost has to say. But in this case I still have questions because for me -

[/b]ICA IS Lies, Stealing and Promiscuous[/b] - 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".

This is very very true. But the difference is that Lies and Stealing are some of the very crimes she has been either charged with, already convicted of, or are clear and direct components of the murder and coverup. They are a clear and compelling mater of law. The judge may allow everything regarding the lies and stealing in. But at a minimum it will absolutely be Grandpa and Amy's money, activities on CA's accounts and anything similar that clearly shows the timeline of the crime. The Lying will come from direct witness testimony. it is so pervasive that I don't think there is any way the judge could make a blanket ban on it should he be so inclined.

Whereas while her past sexual behavior is distasteful and is a clear element of her probably disfunctional personality, it is a moral judgement, not a legal one. So unless there is evidence that she was engaged in the illegal sex trade for money prior to Caylee going missing, any inclusion of her past sexual history will probably be limited to elements that have very clear and specific ties to the case and crime. Stuff such as asking TL or JG what their relationship was with the defendant. Questioning about where she spent specific nights in order to show a patern of movement throughout the timeline. Was Caylee with her those nights? where was Caylee? Can this be corroborated by anyone else. (ie if Caylee was supposedly with the Nanny then where was she? Where was the car parked? What was KC's demeaner? etc) While some testimony regarding sex history may be allowed (as you say its part of who she is) it cannot be the principle driving reason for the specific testimony. The prosecutor can't question a witness to specifically show or illustrate her promiscuity. (Now the jury can reach their own conclusions regarding that based on just what the relationships to the witnesses are and where she spent her time. It just probably cannot be spelled out for them.)

All of this goes out the window on June 15th 2008. The prosecutor will be able to fully grill witnesses concerning everything that she did with TL on the night of June 16th and going forward from there. As soon as the child cannot be accounted for it is an element of the crime.
 
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

---------------
Judge P is sure "gonna be arockin":floorlaugh:
 
I believe the Stealing and lying was the entire precursor to the murder.

IIRC, a few months before caylee's demise was when cindy officially changed her bank account ..so that casey could no longer easily access her greedy paws to her mothers funds...putting her in the red.

I do think past stealing is highly relevant. It's the Motive.
OMG! How many times did CA state that Casey's behavior had changed the months preceeding Caylee's death?! Of course, her behavior-all of it-is relevant.
 
This is very very true. But the difference is that Lies and Stealing are some of the very crimes she has been either charged with, already convicted of, or are clear and direct components of the murder and coverup. They are a clear and compelling mater of law. The judge may allow everything regarding the lies and stealing in. But at a minimum it will absolutely be Grandpa and Amy's money, activities on CA's accounts and anything similar that clearly shows the timeline of the crime. The Lying will come from direct witness testimony. it is so pervasive that I don't think there is any way the judge could make a blanket ban on it should he be so inclined.

Whereas while her past sexual behavior is distasteful and is a clear element of her probably disfunctional personality, it is a moral judgement, not a legal one. So unless there is evidence that she was engaged in the illegal sex trade for money prior to Caylee going missing, any inclusion of her past sexual history will probably be limited to elements that have very clear and specific ties to the case and crime. Stuff such as asking TL or JG what their relationship was with the defendant. Questioning about where she spent specific nights in order to show a patern of movement throughout the timeline. Was Caylee with her those nights? where was Caylee? Can this be corroborated by anyone else. (ie if Caylee was supposedly with the Nanny then where was she? Where was the car parked? What was KC's demeaner? etc) While some testimony regarding sex history may be allowed (as you say its part of who she is) it cannot be the principle driving reason for the specific testimony. The prosecutor can't question a witness to specifically show or illustrate her promiscuity. (Now the jury can reach their own conclusions regarding that based on just what the relationships to the witnesses are and where she spent her time. It just probably cannot be spelled out for them.)

All of this goes out the window on June 15th 2008. The prosecutor will be able to fully grill witnesses concerning everything that she did with TL on the night of June 16th and going forward from there. As soon as the child cannot be accounted for it is an element of the crime.

Thank you so much - you are a sweetheart for taking the time to explain the law in depth. While I accepted what you said in your previous post - I didn't understand it enough to be at peace with it. So again my thanks.
:blowkiss: :bow:
 
This is very very true. But the difference is that Lies and Stealing are some of the very crimes she has been either charged with, already convicted of, or are clear and direct components of the murder and coverup. They are a clear and compelling mater of law. The judge may allow everything regarding the lies and stealing in. But at a minimum it will absolutely be Grandpa and Amy's money, activities on CA's accounts and anything similar that clearly shows the timeline of the crime. The Lying will come from direct witness testimony. it is so pervasive that I don't think there is any way the judge could make a blanket ban on it should he be so inclined.

Whereas while her past sexual behavior is distasteful and is a clear element of her probably disfunctional personality, it is a moral judgement, not a legal one. So unless there is evidence that she was engaged in the illegal sex trade for money prior to Caylee going missing, any inclusion of her past sexual history will probably be limited to elements that have very clear and specific ties to the case and crime. Stuff such as asking TL or JG what their relationship was with the defendant. Questioning about where she spent specific nights in order to show a patern of movement throughout the timeline. Was Caylee with her those nights? where was Caylee? Can this be corroborated by anyone else. (ie if Caylee was supposedly with the Nanny then where was she? Where was the car parked? What was KC's demeaner? etc) While some testimony regarding sex history may be allowed (as you say its part of who she is) it cannot be the principle driving reason for the specific testimony. The prosecutor can't question a witness to specifically show or illustrate her promiscuity. (Now the jury can reach their own conclusions regarding that based on just what the relationships to the witnesses are and where she spent her time. It just probably cannot be spelled out for them.)

All of this goes out the window on June 15th 2008. The prosecutor will be able to fully grill witnesses concerning everything that she did with TL on the night of June 16th and going forward from there. As soon as the child cannot be accounted for it is an element of the crime.
ITA...the nature of the relationships...were they involved, where was Caylee when they went out, etc...is important...but the actual acts not so much. I'd also like to see them allow discussion of just where Caylee was when they went to AL's...especially during the "otherwise engaged" moments? If they throw out the mention of sex...would that have to go, too?
 
---------------
Judge P is sure "gonna be arockin":floorlaugh:

I'm thinking we ought to chip in and buy this man a new chair after this case is over. One of those massage chairs with temparture adjustment, a real fancy one! He's going to need it!
 
All of Casey's lies are relevent to this case... especially all lies she told to the 911 operator, the lies she wrote in her written police statement, and the lies she told to detectives at her home and at Universal... simply because they are in her own words.

Casey's written statement - July 16th, 2008

On June 9th, 2008 (LIE)between 9am-1pm, I Casey Anthony took my daughter Caylee Marie Anthony to her nanny’s apartment (LIE). Caylee will be 3-years-old on August 9th, 2008. She was born August 9th, 2005. Caylee is about 3 feet tall, white female with shoulder-length brown hair. She has dark hazel eyes (brown/green) and a small birthmark on her left shoulder. She was wearing a pink shirt, jean shorts, white sneakers, and her hair was pulled back in a ponytail.

On Monday June 9th, 2008 (LIE)between 9am and 1pm, I took Caylee to the Sawgrass Apartments located on Conway Rd. (LIE) Caylee’s nanny, Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzlez is twenty-five-years-old, and is from New York. She is roughly 5 foot 7 inches tall, 140lbs. She has dark brown, curly hair, and brown eyes. Zenaida’s birthday is in September (ALL LIES). I met Zenaida through a mutual friend, Jeffrey Michael Hopkins (LIE). She has watched his son, Zachary Hopkins for about 6 months to a year (LIE). I met Zenaida in 2004, around Christmas.

On the date listed above, June 9th, 2008, after dropping Caylee off at Zenaida’s apartment I proceeded to head to my place of employment Universal Studios Orlando (LIE). I have worked at Universal for over 4 years, since June of 2004 (LIE). I Left work around 5pm and went back to the apartment to pick up my daughter (LIE). However, after reaching the apartment I realized that neither Zenaida, Caylee, or her two roommates were home. I have briefly met Raquel Farrell (LIE) and Jennifer Rosa (LIE) on various occasions. After calling Zenaida to see where she and Caylee were, and when they were coming home I waited outside of the apartment - I had called Zenaida earlier that morning, prior to bringing Caylee over for the afternoon (LIE). When I called her that afternoon her phone was no longer in service. Two hours had passed, and around 7pm I left the apartment, and headed to familiar places that Zenaida would go with Caylee (LIE). One of Caylee’s favorite places is Jay Blanchard Park. I spend the rest of that evening pacing and worrying at one of the few places I felt “at home.” (LIE) My boyfriend Anthony Lazzaro’s apartment.

For the past four weeks, since Caylee’s disappearance, I have stayed at Anthony’s apartment, in Sutton Place. I have spent everyday since Monday, June 9th, 2008 looking for my daughter (LIE). I have lied and stolen from friends and family to do whatever I could by any means to find my daughter (LIE... as proven by the Target purchases with Amy's money). I avoided calling the police, or even notifying my own family out of fear (LIE). I have been and still am afraid of what has or may happen to Caylee (LIE). I have not had any contact with Zenaida since Thursday June 12th, 2008. I received a quick call from Zenaida. Not once have I been able to ask her for my daughter or gain any information on where I can find her. Everyday I have gone to malls, parks, any place I could remember Zenaida talking Caylee (LIE). I have gone out, and tried to find any information about Caylee, or Zenaida (LIE... as no one has ever heard of ZFG or did you ever tell anyone that this woman had your child). Whether by going to a popular bar, or restaurant. I have contacted Jeff Hopkins on several occasions to see if he had heard from or seen Zenaida (LIE). Jeff currently lives in Jacksonville, Florida.
On Thurday, July 15th, 2008, around 12pm, I received a call from my daughter, Caylee. (LIE)


With just her written statement the State has every right to give the jury details about what Casey had written. What was truth (her name, Caylee's name, and Caylee's birthdate are about the only truths in this statement) and what was proven to be untrue.

She readily admits to stealing from friends and family to find her daughter... which in return would give the State a relevent reason to bring in Casey's purchases with that stolen money... it wasn't money spent on finding Caylee... unless Zenaida wanted a 12-pack of Bud Light, bras, sunglasses, etc... in exchange for Caylee? That would be a unique ransom request wouldn't it?

Just look at all the lies in this one little statement. Lie after lie after lie. And to end the lies, she claims that she heard from Caylee just that afternoon... which is proven to be a LIE! It shows that she was desperate to convince LE that Caylee was still alive.
 
How Ironic that the defense wants to bring in all Kronk's prior bad acts but keep out all KC's prior 'bad acts'!

[snip]

Respectfully snipped.

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

ICA's whole life during the period that Caylee was around was all about faking a job, stealing money to get by and, lying. Lets face it, ICA even walked LE all the way down the corridor at Universal! How more bold face can you be?

Obviously the Defense want/need to remake ICA in the image of MOTY but ... absent prior bad acts even her actions and lies when Caylee being 'missing' was finally reported to LE are damning in of themself. It is/was all about ICA.

Ugly coping? Good luck with that!
 
Baez, your CLIENT is irrelevant and scandalous. Does that throw the entire case out for you? It should. Hell, her own family has made Caylee irrelevant and have been nothing but scandalous in doing so - you going to do a motion to throw them out too?

Irrelevant and scandalous. You're worried more about your already tarnished client being shown for what she truly is in court? In effect, you want to lie about who and what Casey is and steal Caylee's innocence and sweep her under the rug to try in vain to get that miracle acquittal? What a piece of work you are, Baez...you and Mason...

I hope HHJP gets so mad at them for doing this at the last minute that they get nothing but big fat denials for Christmas!



I <3 You Aedrys


Ps.. Fellow canuck here!
 
ITA...the nature of the relationships...were they involved, where was Caylee when they went out, etc...is important...but the actual acts not so much. I'd also like to see them allow discussion of just where Caylee was when they went to AL's...especially during the "otherwise engaged" moments? If they throw out the mention of sex...would that have to go, too?


I love this! Sorry I'm a bit nutty today with Christmas and all this action on the case. So, Tony, can you describe in detail, first you placed.......Eek - cover your eyes and ears!!! LOL
 
No no no...not even Darth Vader or any Sith Lord is touching this one! We don't even need Obi Wan Kenobi saying "This is the lying, stealing murderer you're looking for." That's going to be painfully obvious to the jury.

Nope, the Force is definitely staying out of this one. I can't believe Baez is gong to allow this to go into a courtroom. It'll be the fastest conviction in history - "the jury was only gone five minutes!"

BBM.

I agree. I am struggling with disbelief that the Defense are not seeking a Plea Deal and are taking this to trial ... walking ICA all the way down the corridor to the DP.

We are talking about a minor part of the circumstantial evidence against ICA and, of course, the Defense are going to get some things eliminated ... most likely things that the Prosecution were not planning to use anyway because they NEED to keep this plain and simple. So the Defense get some minor minor wins.

In the Grand Scheme of things ... the Defense really need to think if these Motions ... if their Strategy ... if their Defense has the slightest chance.

The Odds are not good, not good at all and the expected focus is on the Penalty phase. Why focus on this stuff when they should be focusing on saving ICA from the DP and negotiating LIFE with no admission of guilt?
 
This is very very true. But the difference is that Lies and Stealing are some of the very crimes she has been either charged with, already convicted of, or are clear and direct components of the murder and coverup. They are a clear and compelling mater of law. The judge may allow everything regarding the lies and stealing in. But at a minimum it will absolutely be Grandpa and Amy's money, activities on CA's accounts and anything similar that clearly shows the timeline of the crime. The Lying will come from direct witness testimony. it is so pervasive that I don't think there is any way the judge could make a blanket ban on it should he be so inclined.

Whereas while her past sexual behavior is distasteful and is a clear element of her probably disfunctional personality, it is a moral judgement, not a legal one. So unless there is evidence that she was engaged in the illegal sex trade for money prior to Caylee going missing, any inclusion of her past sexual history will probably be limited to elements that have very clear and specific ties to the case and crime. Stuff such as asking TL or JG what their relationship was with the defendant. Questioning about where she spent specific nights in order to show a patern of movement throughout the timeline. Was Caylee with her those nights? where was Caylee? Can this be corroborated by anyone else. (ie if Caylee was supposedly with the Nanny then where was she? Where was the car parked? What was KC's demeaner? etc) While some testimony regarding sex history may be allowed (as you say its part of who she is) it cannot be the principle driving reason for the specific testimony. The prosecutor can't question a witness to specifically show or illustrate her promiscuity. (Now the jury can reach their own conclusions regarding that based on just what the relationships to the witnesses are and where she spent her time. It just probably cannot be spelled out for them.)

All of this goes out the window on June 15th 2008. The prosecutor will be able to fully grill witnesses concerning everything that she did with TL on the night of June 16th and going forward from there. As soon as the child cannot be accounted for it is an element of the crime.

Caylee was almost three and her conversational skills were likely developing and improving every day.ICA obviously took Caylee along for some of the sleepovers and could expose ICA's lies to Cindy and George.
Do you think the SA might try to get the promiscuity in as a motive to kill Caylee? Caylee was becoming a real impediment to her lifestyle simply by being a witness to it.
 
Caylee was almost three and her conversational skills were likely developing and improving every day.ICA obviously took Caylee along for some of the sleepovers and could expose ICA's lies to Cindy and George.
Do you think the SA might try to get the promiscuity in as a motive to kill Caylee? Caylee was becoming a real impediment to her lifestyle simply by being a witness to it.

Caylee was becoming a threat to ICA's whole lifestyle ... including fake job.

ICA had lived in the Fantasyland since Caylee was born and her whole world was crashing down around her as CA belatedly became more strict and closed off more and more avenues ... trying to force ICA to become more responsible ... while ICA's path was towards more partying and fun.

CA allowed ICA to push the envelope beyond the point of no return.
 
Are they trying to erase her history of all these bad deeds in order to present the theory that "something" happened to Casey when Caylee was taken from her? They can't erase the lies that she, herself, put on official records but they might try to say Casey used to be a fine person but when she lost Caylee she suffered a break in reality?

Are they going to try to lead the jury to believe all the scandalous and inappropriate behavior only started because she, too, was a victim? (It so matches the Rapunzel hair!)

EU, haven't finished the thread yet, but I think you are spot-on here. They want to try and present her post-June 15 behavior as anomalous given her previous behavior. To do this they have to erase questions about her past sexual activity. However, I think the debacle of Rick P's wedding would IMO still be admissible.

Astounding, the lengths to which they are going for this woman, who, in the final analysis, just did what countless "mothers"-against-their-will before her did.
 
I briefly read a snippet from this motion last night. It said that testimony about her lying was irrelevant, and it mentioned charges of providing false information to police. Umm, color me clueless but how is lying irrelevant to lying??:waitasec:

Were talking a new theme park here
Caseyland.:snooty:
:cow:
 
How Ironic that the defense wants to bring in all Kronk's prior bad acts but keep out all KC's prior 'bad acts'!

I can see the Judge allowing all mention of her sex life prior to Jun 16th to be kept out, I think that is a possibility. However, from June 16th on, her behavior is extremely relevent as most of us have said here on WS over and over. I would not be surprised if the motion in regards to TonE was because they do not want him testifying about how she woke up in the middle of the night, sweating, crying and shaking (wasn't that what he said?)

I can see the Judge granting the motion about the other Tony, that really doesn't have anything to do with the case, more of a window into her 'normal behavior'.

Maybe that is what the State is trying to do with these guys and all the other witnesses about her lying and stealing! Showing that her behavior before Caylee went missing and her behavior after did not change in any way. She went right on doing what she had been doing all along with no concern for her missing daughter. You know that just might be what the defense is trying to prevent the jury from hearing and seeing.



If her sex life is left out prior to 6/16, then we have no Caylee being born?
imo
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
165
Guests online
3,990
Total visitors
4,155

Forum statistics

Threads
592,585
Messages
17,971,345
Members
228,830
Latest member
LitWiz
Back
Top