2011.06.25 Sidebar Thread (Trial Day Twenty-eight)

[GiantPickle]

Caylee found with NO SHOES:
When the young woman, GF of TL's roommate, said Caylee was on the TL's balcony alone and thenwhen when Caylee came in she asked for help putting on her shoes. The GF did this because the defendant didn't help Caylee.

If the defendant had a habit of not assisting Caylee with her shoes then that might point to the fact that ICA was the last person to see her. Why dress Caylee but leave off her shoes unless this was not something you typically took responsibility for?

SNIPPED....

The no shoes thing suggests to me that Caylee was killed at home where she would have comfortably removed her shoes (or not put them on yet for the day). We don't wear our shoes inside (I have a 3 and 2 year old).

 

[Soulmagent]

Slightly OT:
Inaccurate Reference to Dates by JB:
Did anyone notice that JB, when questioning Yuri Melich, he kept saying July 16th for when Yuri returned to the Anthony house with the defendant. In fact, the date of the initial 911 calls was 7/16/2011. LE arrived late that night and Melich was there after midnight so it was actually July 17th.

JB has consistently referenced the wrong dates and witnesses have agreed...they didn't seem to notice and no one corrected them (except when LA said 2008 when he meant 2006) or objected to the inaccuracy. It seems that this is very intentional.


Caylee found with NO SHOES:
When the young woman, GF of TL's roommate, said Caylee was on the TL's balcony alone and thenwhen when Caylee came in she asked for help putting on her shoes. The GF did this because the defendant didn't help Caylee.

If the defendant had a habit of not assisting Caylee with her shoes then that might point to the fact that ICA was the last person to see her. Why dress Caylee but leave off her shoes unless this was not something you typically took responsibility for?

Yuri actualy made a point to tell Baez the date was the 16th and keeps saying early morning hours on the 16th. later in the day on the 16th etc.etc. Was the call made late on the 15th maybe?

 

[SMK]

It seems IS is saying this concerns a possible withholding of information by JA regarding a phone call from the DOD saying if a witness testifies he will be fired.
If this is true it could lead to a mistrial I presume. I sincerly hope the State has not done something improper.

I know, this worries me , too. Wish we knew.....

 

[sleutherontheside]

I'm wondering if Mason has just had enough of being associated with Baez. He asked HHJP for a sidebar and said it has nothing to do with the witness being discussed. When they all went to sidebar and then the later close up pic of Baez and Mason looked a bit contentious.

Then we have HHJP, DT, Casey and court reporter going to chambers without the prosecution team. Back and forth a couple of times with Casey coming in and out. Baez did not look happy at all when he finally came back in. Simms looked worried.

My gut feeling is whatever has happened has nothing to do with witnesses, testimony, motions, etc otherwise the prosecution team would not have been excluded from the chambers meeting at all. They went back there for a brief period of time it looked like but they were not back there the entire time the DT was back there.

I'm wondering if Mason has put his foot down <finally> and said enough with the shenanigans of Baez and him having to be associated with it and potentially held accountable to the court for it.

Whatever it is, it is not because of this witness issue this morning. The judge said so and based on tweets, we know there were other witnesses out in the witness holding area.

All just MOO

DCS was seen talking to the SA's at one point.

 

[Liz]

JimLichtenstein

We're waiting outside for the lawyers... #caseyanthony
http://t.co/MnDcflo
half a minute ago via Twitter for iPad

 

[tragco]

The Judge clearly stated it had nothing to do with Dr. Furton. It was also reported there were numerous LE officers in the hallway waiting to testify so it's not like they didn't have any other witnesses for today. I would love to know what the heck is going on.

That's what's wierd. Also HHJP says it's a legal matter, meaning nobody got sick. Maybe some of our board attorneys can figure out what it might be based on what we know it isn't? What could close court for the whole day?

 

[Linda7NJ]

I'm wondering if Mason has just had enough of being associated with Baez. He asked HHJP for a sidebar and said it has nothing to do with the witness being discussed. When they all went to sidebar and then the later close up pic of Baez and Mason looked a bit contentious.

Then we have HHJP, DT, Casey and court reporter going to chambers without the prosecution team. Back and forth a couple of times with Casey coming in and out. Baez did not look happy at all when he finally came back in. Simms looked worried.

My gut feeling is whatever has happened has nothing to do with witnesses, testimony, motions, etc otherwise the prosecution team would not have been excluded from the chambers meeting at all. They went back there for a brief period of time it looked like but they were not back there the entire time the DT was back there.

I'm wondering if Mason has put his foot down <finally> and said enough with the shenanigans of Baez and him having to be associated with it and potentially held accountable to the court for it.

Whatever it is, it is not because of this witness issue this morning. The judge said so and based on tweets, we know there were other witnesses out in the witness holding area.

All just MOO

wasn't it Mason yesterday that opened the door for Casey's stealing money?

 

[hpvdr]

My guess is that it has something to do with the Motion that accuses the United States of America Department of Defense of conspiring against ICA that the DT filed yesterday.

As if they've got nothing better to do.

I must have missed this whole discussion...and what exactly did the DOD do or what are they being accused of doing??

 

[pcrum12]

Slightly OT:
Inaccurate Reference to Dates by JB:
Did anyone notice that JB, when questioning Yuri Melich, he kept saying July 16th for when Yuri returned to the Anthony house with the defendant. In fact, the date of the initial 911 calls was 7/16/2011. LE arrived late that night and Melich was there after midnight so it was actually July 17th.

JB has consistently referenced the wrong dates and witnesses have agreed...they didn't seem to notice and no one corrected them (except when LA said 2008 when he meant 2006) or objected to the inaccuracy. It seems that this is very intentional.


Caylee found with NO SHOES:
When the young woman, GF of TL's roommate, said Caylee was on the TL's balcony alone and thenwhen when Caylee came in she asked for help putting on her shoes. The GF did this because the defendant didn't help Caylee.

If the defendant had a habit of not assisting Caylee with her shoes then that might point to the fact that ICA was the last person to see her. Why dress Caylee but leave off her shoes unless this was not something you typically took responsibility for?

Actually, YM was there early morning on the 16th not the 17th. JB kept saying the next day (meaning after daylight) and YM kept correcting him it was the same day. FWIW

I think IMO where JB is going with the no shoes is that 1-the accident may have happened in the morning before caylee was dressed for the day to go out with Casey at 12:50 per GA and 2 - to infer GA is lying

 

[Oakley]

It seems IS is saying this concerns a possible withholding of information by JA regarding a phone call from the DOD saying if a witness testifies he will be fired.
If this is true it could lead to a mistrial I presume. I sincerly hope the State has not done something improper.

Consider the source. IS is about as biased toward the defense as you can get, and becoming more so each day, IMO.

Didn't this witness commit perjury on the stand by falsely claiming to be a co-founder of the Body Farm?

That would be reason enough for his employer to order his not testifying. :cow:

 

[okiedokietoo]

At the end, as people were leaving...WFTV still had camera on SA....DS came over and was talking to JA and LDB. DS seemed like she was trying to somehow "make peace", so to speak by discussing something. The convo started getting JA animated and DS had a funny look on her face....NOW...WFTV feed stopped...started somewhere else...when they went BACK to JA/LDB/DS....DS was flashing the lanyard around her neck up...and it looked like some sort of "badge"....like an "official" type....
This is what "I" saw....and believe was seen by "me"....

This is what I saw also. And right before that she was talking to JB and appeared to be asking a serious question with a point and JB shook his head "no"

I think JB is in serious trouble with HJBP, so serious that the Judge would not announce it in open court at this time.

 

[SyraKelly]

You should tell her. She'll be the guest on WS radio Sunday night.

Thanks maybe I will try!

 

[WillenFan21]

I do not believe the State has done anything wrong.

 

[Bullwinkle]

MarkNeJame

Twitter - 1 minute ago

"Tony Pipitone reports that the attorneys are ordered not to discuss the matter. Transcript is sealed and so are attorneys' mouths."

 

[Marple]

My guess is that it has something to do with the Motion that accuses the United States of America Department of Defense of conspiring against ICA that the DT filed yesterday.

As if they've got nothing better to do.

Well, since all those troops are pulling out of Afghanistan, what else is there to do now but focus on ICA? :innocent:

 

[LongtimeMedic]

JMO... does anyone think that JP heard something contradictory from the DOD regarding what JA stated about Dr. Rodriquez being threatened with his job if he testified as JA had said? moo

 

[Whisperer]

Let the record reflect:

"Does both sides concur that a legal issue has arisen unrelated to the issue that we talked about first thing this morning dealing with Dr. Furtone that would necessitate us recessing for the day."

 

[kaRN]

Apparently it's pretty serious. Rodriqueze(sic) did not request permission to testify which is in direct violation of DOD's rules. If the defense elects to go after this expert witness things could get pretty nast. The federal legal dept. could step in to represent the DOD in dealing with the DT and more than likely the expert would be forced to retain personal legal counsel.

It explains to me why he mentioned he was a Pro-Bono expert before anybody ever asked. :crazy:

 

[Oakley]

MagpieFromHinky Pamela
Cindy George & kc were crying?
31 seconds ago
»
Pamela
MagpieFromHinky Pamela
Tony Pipitone is saying this was completely different. The atty's came out of chambers with poker faces on. No eye rolling etc
1 minute ago Favorite Retweet Reply

 

[Shelby1]

Ok, I have a question. I was half listening this morning and maybe I misunderstood.

Did JA deliberately withhold the fact that the DOD guy was going to get fired if he testified?