2011.07.03 Defense (CM) Closing Arguments #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Please bring in Cayles's rights.....

The SA will take care of it. I hope they show tons of pictures of Caylee and point out all the rights she was denied...Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...she was denied her most basic right under our Constitution...her life.
 
I actually don't mind them dragging it out... I REALLY don't want them to get the case until Tuesday.

I have said numerous times... too many cases of "speeding up" the deliberations to get home for a holiday. If they get the case Monday morning even... there is still time to have a quick deliberation and get done.

They may forget all about the sentencing. They may just think "if we are out of here by this time, we can make it home for fireworks." Or something...

As long as she's found guilty I have no problem what their reasoning or timing is!
 
This guy sounds like he's preaching.
 
I thought they weren't allowed to bring up her NOT testifying...or was that just meant for the State?
 
We need to bring LDB up and wake this jury up!!!
 
:eek: CM says the elephant in the room is Casey not testifying. Way to point it out! :lol:
 
I'm fast becoming that elephant in the room. Just hit the fridge - again.
 
lol...

when CM said try to rise above bias.. it sounded like try to rise above 'baez' LOL
 
:lol: Did he say ICA was the elephant in the room... :lol:
 
This closing argument sounds more like a typical closing arguments I've heard in other cases. It's more "traditional" sounding to me.
 
he thinks the elephant in the room is that ICA did not testify...ha the tapes spoke for her

yes why not remind them 6 more times that the state has the burden of proof
 
Whoa, he just grabbed the mic. Lots of static sound. CM just said they don't have to buy the expert's testimony just because Judge Perry anointed them an expert.

Now the elephant in the room - Casey not testifying. CM is reminding them that she doesn't have to testify, and they cannot hold that against her.
 
That wasn't the elephant in the room that came to my mind.
 
As I said, I sat through this lecture as a law student, however, I did so voluntarily and paid dear $$$ to do so. Not so for this jury.
 
Funny if a juror threw something and hit him upside his head. You know that has crossed their mind.
 
As I sit here 8 and a half months preg with my 3rd son, I cannot fathom being wrongly accused of killing one of them. I would scream to the heavens above that I was innocent, I would take the stand in a heartbeat, and I most certainly would contemplate joining my child in heaven rather than going out for a drink. ICA is a different breed thats for sure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
122
Guests online
3,938
Total visitors
4,060

Forum statistics

Threads
592,631
Messages
17,972,164
Members
228,845
Latest member
Sally43
Back
Top