What would the state like to show in opening arguments?

[BD1]

Per the questions asked of HHJP yesterday at the conclusion of court. State indicated they had not entered a display or photograph into evidence yet, but would likely enter it into evidence. What do you think the display is of?

 

[KMouse]

I think the display will be Caylee's body/bones as they were found in the garbage bag. That will be burned into the juror's minds.

As much as JB would like to sugarcoat his client seeing the result of her crime will be dramatic and tearful. Maybe they will play the sunshine video and then cut to the pictures of what happened to her.

From there the state can pick ICA away lie by lie.

The forensic evidence is going to be difficult for some of the jurors to understand so the state is going to have to figure out when the best time to fit it into the testimony is. We want alert jurors!

 

[AliGirl]

I think they might want to show a video, or maybe a photo slide show. I have to say, I don't think they should be allowed to show the remains in opening statement. That will come in time, and it will def. get the point across when it does. I just think everything needs to be done fairly, or there will be problems later. MOO

 

[Hexxgurl311]

I agree that they should play a video. I think they should play the one of her with her great grandfather. It's really touching especially when she gives him a hug and a kiss.

 

[mysteriew]

Probably a photo slide show of KC in her party photos

 

[daisy.faithfull]

I think the display will be Caylee's body/bones as they were found in the garbage bag. That will be burned into the juror's minds.

As much as JB would like to sugarcoat his client seeing the result of her crime will be dramatic and tearful. Maybe they will play the sunshine video and then cut to the pictures of what happened to her.

From there the state can pick ICA away lie by lie.

The forensic evidence is going to be difficult for some of the jurors to understand so the state is going to have to figure out when the best time to fit it into the testimony is. We want alert jurors!

I think you could be right.

Whenever Nancy Grace has anything about Caylee on the show she always starts of with "breaking news tonight in the case of [Caylee]" and then describes how the remains were found, and that Caylee was "thrown away like she was trash." It disturbs me, it upsets me, it makes me mad. Especially since I spend so much on this site where I see so many beautiful pictures of Caylee.

I hate that imagery. I don't need it to drive home for me that whoever (IMO ICA) murdered Caylee is a monster. I know all that already. I pause and fast forward through that part. I hate listening to it because it is so effective, KWIM?

So it could be helpful to make that point clear to the jury who is not so familiar with the case. Showing graphic pictures of Caylee's remains sure seems to me a very effective way of heightening people's emotional response to the crime and the accused killer (IMO ICA). IMO showing pictures of Caylee alive and beautiful intensifies those emotions.

When Nancy is discussing whether or not ICA should be executed she uses verbatim a part of what she says at the beginning of the show. It works effectively there too. NG is a former prosecutor so she probably is a good example of what works.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

I think they might want to show a video, or maybe a photo slide show. I have to say, I don't think they should be allowed to show the remains in opening statement. That will come in time, and it will def. get the point across when it does. I just think everything needs to be done fairly, or there will be problems later. MOO

I think this is a good point too, pictures of Caylee's remains could be too intense to use in an opener. Facts are important and I'd think the prosecutors want the jury to have a very clear understanding of them.

It seems like a fine line to walk, don't you think? Everyone here makes good points about what should be used in opening statements. I can't imagine what the process to create them is like. So many decisions, so much is at stake. Hats off to the prosecutors for all the hard work they put into getting justice for Caylee.

I also appreciate the jurors as well. Their sacrifices are many, but more than anything else they are going to have to look at evidence that I would just be devastating for me to see. That really is a great burden for them to bear in bringing Caylee's killer to justice. They're heros.

 

[shana]

I doubt we will see photos of the remains (bones or at autopsy) although the jury might. I base this opinion on the many cases I've watched on tv.

 

[Leila]

Per the questions asked of HHJP yesterday at the conclusion of court. State indicated they had not entered a display or photograph into evidence yet, but would likely enter it into evidence. What do you think the display is of?

I'm hoping the display is a slide presentation of Caylee ending with the video of Caylee singing "You Are My Sunshine" to her great-grandpa. The would be the perfect introduction to the start of the state's opening statement.

Edited to add...............this would turn the focus to Caylee, where it should be. This is what the trial is all about, a beautiful 2-year-old child that was murdered.

 

[GutFeeling!]

I thought the photos of the remains were already in.

Great question.

For the life of me I cannot think of what JB will say that will change my mind, based on all I have read and seen ... that and 31 days. No matter how hard I try and think of a reason they may have, be it molestered as a child or anything, I can't get past 31 days.

When I think of that 31 days I think back to when I had a 2-year-old that wandered off at an outdoor shopping centre. It happened in a minute and I didn't find him for about 5 minutes ... in that 5 minutes I had alerted security, looked high-low and asked everyone around me to help. Even now, 23 years later, that thought makes me sick to the stomach.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

I'm hoping the display is a slide presentation of Caylee ending with the video of Caylee singing "You Are My Sunshine" to her great-grandpa. The would be the perfect introduction to the start of the state's opening statement.

Edited to add...............this would turn the focus to Caylee, where it should be. This is what the trial is all about, a beautiful 2-year-old child that was murdered.

I'm not sure what ICA's reaction will be to images like that. ICA does seem pretty transparent though, so ICA's coldness may be on display for the jury to see.

Are GA and CA going to be in the court? If so they will probably be upset if they see those memories of Caylee. Could be an interesting comparison for the jury.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

I thought the photos of the remains were already in.

Do you know someplace specific to look for that?

 

[GutFeeling!]

Do you know someplace specific to look for that?

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/23631487/detail.html

I have not seen those photos, I have seen the duct tape etc but I am sure I have read it in the evidence (that document is over 500 pages long but interesting)

 

[GutFeeling!]

I'm not sure what ICA's reaction will be to images like that. ICA does seem pretty transparent though, so ICA's coldness may be on display for the jury to see.

Are GA and CA going to be in the court? If so they will probably be upset if they see those memories of Caylee. Could be an interesting comparison for the jury.

GA and CA will be in court.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

Here an except from an article at the Orlando Sentinal:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2011/05/casey-anthony-wftv-previews-opening-statements.html

*snip*
"Sheaffer predicted an unusual high-tech presentation — audio, video, photos — from the prosecution. “I would expect the first thing they want to do is put a face to this young child, and what a face Caylee has,” Sheaffer said. “Then they’re probably going to play that 911 call from Cindy Anthony.”

Sheaffer said he believes the prosecution will show some of the Casey party pictures, but not dwell on them.

And Sheaffer predicted that the defense team will deliver on its promise in the opening statement to explain why Casey didn’t reveal Caylee was missing for 31 days. ”This is the burning question in this community,” Sheaffer said. “Why did a mother of 2-year-old child that goes missing for 31 days not tell law enforcement? And then on top of that she tells lie after lie after lie?”

The defense must confront those issues in the opening statement, Sheaffer said, while raising doubt." *snip*

So, this legal analyst thinks that pictures of Caylee's remains won't be shown.

There are some comments on the piece. One looks like it is from an MC Hammer fan. :floorlaugh:

 

[GutFeeling!]

I can't imagine remains being shown in opening statements, and shame on the State if they do.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/23631487/detail.html

I have not seen those photos, I have seen the duct tape etc but I am sure I have read it in the evidence (that document is over 500 pages long but interesting)

:doh: I thought that when you were saying that such photos are "in" I thought that you were saying that there was confirmation photos of the remains were "in" the prosecution's opening statement.

Well I went looking for that confirmation anyway and didn't find anything, so that means we do have confirmation... just confirmation that we don't know what will be in the prosecution's opening statements.

 

[GutFeeling!]

:doh: I thought that when you were saying that such photos are "in" I thought that you were saying that there was confirmation photos of the remains were "in" the prosecution's opening statement.

Well I went looking for that confirmation anyway and didn't find anything, so that means we do have confirmation... just confirmation that we don't know what will be in the prosecution's opening statements.

I may have confused remains photos with autopsy photos too. They are sealed and the state wanted them in.

 

[katydid23]

I think the state should be clear, concise, and lay out a solid timeline and explain the evidence which will be shown to support their theory of events. They should not show anything shocking or say anything shocking or mean or exaggerated because that will give JB a chance to say that they are being unfair and biased.

I do not think the state needs to do anything other than briefly explain the over view of the basic facts. Child was last seen with her mother on June 16th, no one has seen her since. On the evening of the 16th she went out on a date, without her child, and said she was at her nannys. Now we know there was no nanny, so where was her child that evening. She has never answered that question. etc. etc.

I do not think they need to emphasize the partying and drinking and tattooing during the opening statements. That will all come in soon enough. I think just the fact that she NEVER reported her missing, and when she was confronted, she lied and said her child was fine. I cannot wait to hear both sides opening arguments. Tuesday cannot get here soon enough.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

I may have confused remains photos with autopsy photos too. They are sealed and the state wanted them in.

I didn't know that. I know that they have shock value, but I'm not sure that it is like the exploitive shock value the media employs. There is a reasons why the pictures could help to convict ICA. I'm sure that the defense does not want them to be included for those very reasons.

Perhaps since the pictures provoke so much emotional motivation to find ICA guilty, to be fair they should not be used. Convictions should be the result of objective analysis of the facts.

There was a little girl murdered in CA a couple years ago, Sandra Cantu. The records were sealed, but IIRC the media had requested they be unsealed. The media did get them unsealed but I didn't look at the autopsy because I didn't need to know the specifics, especially the details of her sexual assault.

I was watching a show on Sandra and they did include details of her sexual assault. It was very upsetting to me. I don't think that it was needed in the show, it wasn't something was essential in proving Melissa Huckaby raped and killed Sandra. Why was included?

The show even said at the beginning that some details were changed and I caught those changed details. They could have glossed over or not included the details of her sexual assault too. Those facts were never needed by a jury in the case because Huckaby pled guilty and there was no trial.

It really angered me that those pics were released for no good reason. I can't even imagine how much it hurts Sandra's family to have those details available to the public and in the media.

In cases where those kinds pictures and/or details are presented to them, I don't know how juries get through it. Its like adding to the perp list of people that have been hurt and victimized as a result of the crime.