Wholehearted
New Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 721
- Reaction score
- 1
The way Casey looks at DS is just predatory.
2011.06.30 TRIAL Day Thirty-two (Afternoon Session)
- Thread starter beach
- Start date
- Status
KenoshaKid
All the darkness in the world cannot put out a sin
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,147
- Reaction score
- 0
"Everyone knew this was coming based on Ms Anthony's testimony". THANK YOU
Stella5
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,104
- Reaction score
- -19
Oh puhleeze!!! The DT doesn't deserve any time... they've had 3 years to go over Cindy's time card and JB all but admitted knowing she was going to LIE about her work hours! Let's get this done with and get these jurors back to their families!
MelissaLee
Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the m
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2011
- Messages
- 714
- Reaction score
- 0
KC giving sideways death glares to JB. JB smirking, red faced and doing the *blink blink* thing as HHJP talks.
momtective
Lifetime WS Non-Mod
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2008
- Messages
- 11,995
- Reaction score
- 26
:woohoo: Love me some HHJP!
BigFatMommyDog
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2008
- Messages
- 4,932
- Reaction score
- -25
As an officer of the court...
How much time to did to do what you need to do?
How much time to did to do what you need to do?
liltexans
Retired WS Staff
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 13,451
- Reaction score
- 25,895
The man has a prior engagement (doctor's appt.) but Perry says he will make him miss it. #caseyanthony -jfell
by cfnews13casey via twitter at 1:15 PM
"I don't think it's any big surprise that somebody wasn't going to to go out and get these records."
by judgeperrysays via twitter at 1:15 PM
I actually meant to say that #JoseBaez looks "defeated" but autocorrect changed it to "deflated." Either way.
by stevehelling via twitter at 1:14 PM
#CaseyAnthony This will help the state prop up it's contention that Casey was home to do the searches. Not Cindy as she claims.
by bobkealing via twitter at 1:14 PM
by cfnews13casey via twitter at 1:15 PM
"I don't think it's any big surprise that somebody wasn't going to to go out and get these records."
by judgeperrysays via twitter at 1:15 PM
I actually meant to say that #JoseBaez looks "defeated" but autocorrect changed it to "deflated." Either way.
by stevehelling via twitter at 1:14 PM
#CaseyAnthony This will help the state prop up it's contention that Casey was home to do the searches. Not Cindy as she claims.
by bobkealing via twitter at 1:14 PM
It's a great moment isn't it?
HOTNTX
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2008
- Messages
- 242
- Reaction score
- 11
That was her "court voice". Timid, meek and girl-like.
Her "real" voice is the one we saw in the jail tapes when she was going off on her parents. The voice that she used when she cursed at CA when she called her from jail and wouldn't give any info about Caylee and asked for Tony's number.
It's the voice we didn't hear, but could see, the other day when she was going off on JB to CM and bared her teeth.
It's also the last angry voice that Caylee got to hear as the strips of duct tape were put on her mouth and face.
Didn't Judge Perry say all of CA's testimony could be thrown out if she takes the 5th?
truthsleuth
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,946
- Reaction score
- 9
HHJP: Other than the possibility of her testimony being impeached. What would the defense suffer if this testimony comes in
JB: It would be severely punished. We took Mrs. A's representation that she was a salary employee when she ran these searches, and it was in the exact time frame of when this was done. What's to stop Mrs. A pleading the 5th amendment, and that opens up a whole new problem.
HHJP: All of her testimony would be stricken and the jury instructed to disregard.
JB: There's another problem. I think ... we're at the close of our case and they could have attacked this evidence in another manner ...
When someone tells you they are going to get up and lie, that's when a counsel gets into trouble, but unfortunately counsel can only rely on what a witness tells them. I would agree 100% but I would bring to light what this court often said, if we knew this was going to be an issue,
This was not intentional or willful. Ms. A defended her position quite vigorously and we followed up on it. I don't believe there's any prejudice here. I would never argue that Mr, Baez was trying to dupe the jury. It was inadvertent and they got the information as soon as I got it. The prejudice is only in that it opened a window that is currently before the court.
JB: Sometimes records and documents can cause confusion. We'd need our experts to review these records. This is NOT a simple issue.
Before Ms. A took the stand, did you know she was going to say what she said about her being at home and not at home as her employment records indicate.
These things were already in record. They are not something we disputed. But to bring in new stuff?
HHJP: Were you aware when Ms. A took the stand she was going to testify that despite the records show she was at work, those records were in conflict.
HHJP: But you knew she was going to testify to that? Now the work records introduced, were they computer generated?
LDB: We had time cards.
JB: Were they generated by use of he computer or were they manually done?
Did anyone have an expert look at those records or someone monkeyed with the records to coincide those records.
JB: Those records are of limited value. We believed there was an answer why Mrs. A said what she did about the accuracy of those work records?
Anything else?
Court's finding of fact. This was not a discovery violation. [!!!] The state of Florida sought those records and supplied those records to the defense.
Trials are supposed to be about a search for the truth. Jurors are supposed to received truthful evidence and speak a verdict that renders the truth. the court will instruct the jury about believability or non-believability of evidence. The remaining question is how much time does the DT need to adequately review these records and cross examine the witnesses supplying this testimony.
---
How much time do you need to do what you need to do?
DS: Maybe an hour or so. I'm not sure
JB: It would be severely punished. We took Mrs. A's representation that she was a salary employee when she ran these searches, and it was in the exact time frame of when this was done. What's to stop Mrs. A pleading the 5th amendment, and that opens up a whole new problem.
HHJP: All of her testimony would be stricken and the jury instructed to disregard.
JB: There's another problem. I think ... we're at the close of our case and they could have attacked this evidence in another manner ...
When someone tells you they are going to get up and lie, that's when a counsel gets into trouble, but unfortunately counsel can only rely on what a witness tells them. I would agree 100% but I would bring to light what this court often said, if we knew this was going to be an issue,
This was not intentional or willful. Ms. A defended her position quite vigorously and we followed up on it. I don't believe there's any prejudice here. I would never argue that Mr, Baez was trying to dupe the jury. It was inadvertent and they got the information as soon as I got it. The prejudice is only in that it opened a window that is currently before the court.
JB: Sometimes records and documents can cause confusion. We'd need our experts to review these records. This is NOT a simple issue.
Before Ms. A took the stand, did you know she was going to say what she said about her being at home and not at home as her employment records indicate.
These things were already in record. They are not something we disputed. But to bring in new stuff?
HHJP: Were you aware when Ms. A took the stand she was going to testify that despite the records show she was at work, those records were in conflict.
HHJP: But you knew she was going to testify to that? Now the work records introduced, were they computer generated?
LDB: We had time cards.
JB: Were they generated by use of he computer or were they manually done?
Did anyone have an expert look at those records or someone monkeyed with the records to coincide those records.
JB: Those records are of limited value. We believed there was an answer why Mrs. A said what she did about the accuracy of those work records?
Anything else?
Court's finding of fact. This was not a discovery violation. [!!!] The state of Florida sought those records and supplied those records to the defense.
Trials are supposed to be about a search for the truth. Jurors are supposed to received truthful evidence and speak a verdict that renders the truth. the court will instruct the jury about believability or non-believability of evidence. The remaining question is how much time does the DT need to adequately review these records and cross examine the witnesses supplying this testimony.
---
How much time do you need to do what you need to do?
DS: Maybe an hour or so. I'm not sure
KenoshaKid
All the darkness in the world cannot put out a sin
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,147
- Reaction score
- 0
So let DS leave and go meet with the guy and let us continue with someone else. 
strawberry
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2009
- Messages
- 12,052
- Reaction score
- 2,725
Sheesh I turned down work for Sat, when they said closing arguments tomorrow I reconsidered (in my mind) now I back to no work. I sure could use the money. Maybe I should go claim that body I've been hiding. :floorlaugh:
allycat1208
New Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,172
- Reaction score
- 1
What happened? I just got here. The State is going to bring in witnesses from Gentiva? Now the defense team has to analyze what?
- Status