2011.03.02 Motions Hearing - #2 (PM)

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
5 minute warning! Grab your java, one last bathroom break !

Oops (twice today sorry) is it 1:20 or 1:30?

If it's 1:30 amend my above statement to 15 minute warning!
 
I firmly believe that after seeing this behavior and the conflicting accounts given in todays testimony alone....the Judge will NOT make an exception to the rule of sequestration for the "grieving grandparents".

He seems committed to preserving the integrity of the trial, and IMO the grandparents are not trustworthy enough to make the exception.
 
Random :waitasec: here. Both GA and CA made sure to represent that they had not reviewed their own depositions or other documents in the case prior to being called to the stand today. That just seems so very far-fetched to me. Wouldn't a good lawyer, prepping their client for the stand, try to make sure that they had reviewed the record, and had more than a vague recollection of what they had said earlier?
 
First 911 Call Cindy Anthony made 07/15/2008
Credit and Thanks to acandyrose :blowkiss:

http://www.acandyrose.com/caylee_anthony_transcript_1st_911Call071508.htm

Operator: Hello

Cindy Anthony: Hi, I drove to the police department here on Pershing but you guys are closed. I need to bring someone into the police department. Can you tell me where I can? the closest one I can come too.

Operator: What are you trying to accomplish by bringing them to the station?

Cindy Anthony: I have a 22-year-old person that has um grand theft sitting in my auto with me.

Operator: So the 22-year-old person stole something?

Cindy Anthony: Yes

Operator: Is this a relative?

Cindy Anthony: Yes

Operator: Where did they steal it from?

Cindy Anthony: Um, my car and also money

Operator: OK. Is this your son?

Cindy Anthony: Daughter

Operator: OK, so your daughter stole money from your car?

Cindy Anthony: No. My car was stolen. We've retrived it, today we found out where it was at. We've retrieved it, I've got that. And I've got affidavits from my banking account. I want to bring her in. I want to press charges.

Operator: Where, where did all of this happen?

Cindy Anthony: Oh, it's been happening.

Operator: I know, but I need to establish the jurisdiction is what I'm trying...

Cindy Anthony: Oh well I live in umm..in Orlando

Operator: Yup, but what address did these thefts occur at?

Cindy Anthony: Um, well I guess my residence.

Operator: That's actually going to be in the jurisdiction of the sheriff's office, ma'm, not the Orlando Police Department.

Cindy Anthony: Alrighty...

Operator: Let me transfer you over to the communication section for Orange County.

Cindy Anthony: Okay, now so...is the Orlando Sheriff's Department the one on 436? Is that open this afternoon or this evening?

Operator: Um, the substation you're at off Pershing,if it's Orlando Police...we're open primarily in the day, but that's not the sheriff's, that's the city police which does not have jurisdiction for your address.

Cindy Anthony: I know the sheriff's department on 5th, I mean on 436.

Operator: What I'm gonna do is I'm gonna transfer you to the sheriff's communications section and you can...determine that.

Cindy Anthony: OK.

{Dial tone}
{Phone dialing}
{Phone ringing}

Cindy Anthony: My next thing will be child's thing and we'll have a court order to get her if that's what you wanna play. We'll do it and you'll never...

{Casey inaudibly talking}

Cindy Anthony: Well then you have...no I'm not giving you another day. I've given you a month.

Orange County Operator: Orange County Sheriff's Office
(end)

:websleuther:

Jurisdiction. If someone was speaking to me about jurisdiction(s), I would know we are talking about arrest. Only an officer from her/his jurisdiction has the power of arrest. As Cindy said, "for grand theft auto and stealing money."
 
Just popping in to say THANKS to all who are watching and posting...

I did get to watch a bit of LDB questioning Cindy...and IMO we have been given a preview of how Cindy will Look and Act in front of the Jury during Casey's trial..
IMO She wants to come across as a demure, weak, grieving, suffering Grandmother and the big bad ASA Linda is intimidating her with her angry tone
:twocents:
 
I can't remember the exact words HHJP used this morning when he said something like "I am still waiting to find out why she had handcuffs on". Anyone else think his tone didn't sound real good.

God forbid he doesn't allow any of her statements in that she made prior to her arrest!
 
ynotdivein said:
Random :waitasec: here. Both GA and CA made sure to represent that they had not reviewed their own depositions or other documents in the case prior to being called to the stand today. That just seems so very far-fetched to me. Wouldn't a good lawyer, prepping their client for the stand, try to make sure that they had reviewed the record, and had more than a vague recollection of what they had said earlier?
Click to expand...

especially since both of them alluded to the facts that they have notes about everything, if only they could look back on the script..oops..i mean their notes they could answer more directly.
 
ynotdivein said:
Random :waitasec: here. Both GA and CA made sure to represent that they had not reviewed their own depositions or other documents in the case prior to being called to the stand today. That just seems so very far-fetched to me. Wouldn't a good lawyer, prepping their client for the stand, try to make sure that they had reviewed the record, and had more than a vague recollection of what they had said earlier?
Click to expand...

ITA But, if they had prepped then they would have no excuse for contradicting themselves. It won't matter cause LDB is right there with their statements and depos!!:great:
 
ynotdivein said:
Random :waitasec: here. Both GA and CA made sure to represent that they had not reviewed their own depositions or other documents in the case prior to being called to the stand today. That just seems so very far-fetched to me. Wouldn't a good lawyer, prepping their client for the stand, try to make sure that they had reviewed the record, and had more than a vague recollection of what they had said earlier?
Click to expand...

It's also a different picture than the Cindy who at the civil depo with Fernandez cited rhyme and reason and page number for the atty :waitasec:
 
Cher352 said:
I can't remember the exact words HHJP used this morning when he said something like "I am still waiting to find out why she had handcuffs on". Anyone else think his tone didn't sound real good.

God forbid he doesn't allow any of her statements in that she made prior to her arrest!
Click to expand...

That's the whole point of this exercise - and it's going to be verrrry interesting and, sorry to say, I think a little bit dicey.
 
Cher352 said:
I can't remember the exact words HHJP used this morning when he said something like "I am still waiting to find out why she had handcuffs on". Anyone else think his tone didn't sound real good.

God forbid he doesn't allow any of her statements in that she made prior to her arrest!
Click to expand...
yes i caught that and was a little worried about it. hopefully the sa has a good reason this happened. i mean with all the craziness in that house who can blame a newbie for not knowing what to do and erring on the side of caution. for all he knew she was a thieveing car stealing kidnapping sweetheart. when they realized what was going down the handcuffs were taken off. thats my take on it and imo
 
ynotdivein said:
Random :waitasec: here. Both GA and CA made sure to represent that they had not reviewed their own depositions or other documents in the case prior to being called to the stand today. That just seems so very far-fetched to me. Wouldn't a good lawyer, prepping their client for the stand, try to make sure that they had reviewed the record, and had more than a vague recollection of what they had said earlier?
Click to expand...

BBM
IMO
They were both LYING, they would rather say I did not read it, I don't remember than tell the Truth.
I am sure they both, but especially Cindy, has kept detailed Records since day 31.
:twocents:
 
Thinking out loud here, but I don't think it is unusual at all for an officer to handcuff a potential suspect (CA calling to press charges re. stolen vehicle/money) when they are placing them in the back of a patrol car. It does not mean they are under arrest at the time. It is for their own protection. Not safe for the officers to have their backs to someone sitting in the back of a police cruiser.
 
Totally. Just seems such a minor, utterly unnecessary thing to lie about--typical I guess.
 
Cher352 said:
I can't remember the exact words HHJP used this morning when he said something like "I am still waiting to find out why she had handcuffs on". Anyone else think his tone didn't sound real good.

God forbid he doesn't allow any of her statements in that she made prior to her arrest!
Click to expand...

I do think that Judge Perry knows now why..that the officer who cuffed her thought it was a stolen car case..and cuffs were removed shortly thereafter by instructions of the superior officer..that this was NOT a Stolen Car Case..but a missing child case.....I also do not believe she was even questioned while hand-cuffed???..She was not held against her will, tho Cindy did say she would likely have SAT ON HER if she tried to leave....Hee Hee, me thinks Casey was more arrested by Mommy than any LE..:floorlaugh:
 
Chores are done...Dinners in the crockpot.
Lets roll.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 83 more.
Total: 3,943 (members: 84, guests: 3,859)

Online statistics

Members online
84
Guests online
3,859
Total visitors
3,943
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,418
Messages
17,986,891
Members
229,131
Latest member
Migrant
Back
Top