Baez - Just Lost The Trial

[ZsaZsa]

I believe that JA was there when JB and his cohorts were standing outside the yellow tape, but I don't know if he was there every day during the entire procedure.

I think RK knew where the body was on August 11, 12 and 13, and at that point in time had the opportunity to remove the body.

As always my entire post is my opinion only.

You should read Valhall's assessment of the RK connection-
http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2011/05/28/caylee-anthony-case-review-of-trial-week-1/ the whole idea is preposterous. JB doesn't have holes in his defense he has bloody great craters and hopefully one of them will swallow him up.

 

[RevCrim]

I think so too. When I heard that Casey was desperately looking for someone to look after Caylee on June 16 so she could spend the night with her new boyfriend I wondered if that was the trigger ... that desperation to do what she wanted to do and no one was going to stop her.

Everyone once in a while we see a flash of that extreme anger in Casey's face and I suspect that is what she often felt around her daughter and especially just before the murder. She may have decided to sedate Caylee through the entire night and over-did it ... hard to say. We do know that after the murder she acted relieved and free of responsibility - free to live her pretend life.

Been thinking about this for a long time. I recall KC describing nanny's injuries to CA. A concussion and a laceration behind the ear. I often wondered if in one of her fits of rage over not getting her way, that KC either hit the child with something or shoved her into a table or something. Having a visible injury, KC would never allow her parents to see Caylee that way.
If the child was knocked unconscious, KC would not have called 911 nor taken her to a hospital, as her parents would have found out. If the child's injury did not involve the bone or skull to show damage or scarring, she still could have substained serious injuries, or bleeding internally. I believe KC could have panicked seeing what she did and rather than face her parents, she finished the child off by suffocating her with duct tape.

 

[fifteen89]

Forgive me if this has been answered, but Geraldo (aka Baez's sidekick or vice versa) was in the court room when the tow yard guy (names & initals are escaping me after pain killers & a glass of wine) testified that the trash bag did not weigh as much as 1/2 of a chicken. Like Baez, Geraldo is hearing only what he wants to hear.

As for the slutification of ICA... well, yeah... whatever... many pictures are worth millions of words

re: slutification
I get that there are two ways to look at allowing the photos into evidence: showing demeanor or showing bad character. But coming up with the word 'slutification', Geraldo? Really? It's not like the Prosecution knew who Casey Anthony was for those 31 days and somehow set up a trap to get her to go and participate in those activities just so that IF something happened and IF she was accused of being involved in some criminal activity they would have these entrapment photographs for all the world to see later on during her trial.

Someone needs to come up with a 'if ya do the crime, ya do the time' or 'if it doesn't fit, you must acquit' saying for the photos. If ya party and *advertiser censored* it up, photos may show up. If ya go around town sluttin' it up, expect the photos will show up. Doesn't quite do it.

Someone posted no offense to those who hang from a stripper pole - I'd have more respect for someone who is a stripper for a living. They have a survival/livelihood reason for doing it. Casey was just out 'having fun'. And it was either while he daughter was missing or dead. Can't get away from that either way you look at it.

 

[Broderick]

Been thinking about this for a long time. I recall KC describing nanny's injuries to CA. A concussion and a laceration behind the ear. I often wondered if in one of her fits of rage over not getting her way, that KC either hit the child with something or shoved her into a table or something. Having a visible injury, KC would never allow her parents to see Caylee that way.
If the child was knocked unconscious, KC would not have called 911 nor taken her to a hospital, as her parents would have found out. If the child's injury did not involve the bone or skull to show damage or scarring, she still could have substained serious injuries, or bleeding internally. I believe KC could have panicked seeing what she did and rather than face her parents, she finished the child off by suffocating her with duct tape.

They say there is truth in lies.

 

[Americka]

Talking of little gems. I sure hope the jury gets to hear this one.

LE secretly recorded ICA August 29th on her way to jail for the fraud charges. Det Appie Wells was in the car. :innocent: Maybe LE remembered how fond ICA was of him. :floorlaugh: Appie starts talking about Cindy' losing weight. Then unprompted ICA initiates a conversation about why no amber alert was put out for Caylee. Her coolness is breathtaking.

Baez claims all ICA is guilty of is not calling 911, and that she is a victim.
Well a certain prosecutor might couch this gem as a master manipulator trying to divert an investigation. :waitasec:

Baez imo has opened the door for this and most of the jail tapes to come in. Remember her giving out clues, writing secondary letters, :crazy: saying how they will all have their little girl back and she, ICA will be this crazy overprotective mom. IIRC she even talked about looking at work schedules. :Giggle:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiq6BEW7ygA

Is there anyway for these recordings to be brought into the trial? She is asking about an Amber Alert when she waited 31 days? Blaming LE for not following up on tips? Clouded judgement of LE? Seriously? ICA is one cold, calculating, and manipulative...chick.

 

[fifteen89]

When Casey was being "interviewed" by the police when they were at Universal Studios where the police were calling her on her lies, I thought she had said the last time she saw Caylee was on the 9th, then you have George seeing her the last time on the 16th, so, who is correct? or, is this simply a date mix up ... :crazy:

I don't remember where it was exactly, but I know she said the 9th somewhere. It's always bugged me too - did she have some reason for saying the 9th? Or she just made a mistake? How would you mistake the date you last saw your daughter some 30 days or so ago???

 

[ZsaZsa]

OMG. That has got to be the biggest hole in their theory. How could JB be so stupid?

Just when you think he can't get more ridiculous- he does.
Look at his opening sentence for example.

"Early morning hours, the exact time is not known....it could have been early afternoon....early morning..... actually it was the early morning hours".

Whaaaaat? Does that sound convincing?

 

[Americka]

BTW - HLN will replay the opening statements of the trial starting at 12 pm EST.

 

[Broderick]

I have to refuse to say Baez lost the trial at any point, until the verdict is read. Never know what is going to happen.

 

[fifteen89]

To be fair, they never thought they were trying to clear their daughter of murder. They thought they were clearing their daughter of being accused of a crime they were certain she didn't commit.
There is a difference between knowing someone did something wrong and trying to protect them from the consequences of their actions and believing that they didn't do something wrong and trying to convince people of their innocence. Not saying they were right but I am just trying to look at it from their perspective.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
The Prosecution team should use these exact words.

Not to be snarky, but there's also a difference between using a possible alternate theory and throwing every ridiculous idea your client gives you out and seeing what floats.

 

[fifteen89]

The 9th was the original date reported by ICA, and all... until the video & pictures of precious Caylee were discovered by LE.

So George, Cindy and Casey all said the 9th? Like whoever said it first, the rest just repeated the same date? Wonder which of them said it first....

 

[Broderick]

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
The Prosecution team should use these exact words.

Not to be snarky, but there's also a difference between using a possible alternate theory and throwing every ridiculous idea your client gives you out and seeing what floats.

It's like throwing crap against the wall hoping something will stick. There is always a residue though, so to speak. I hope CA, GA, and Lee recognize that. In this case, it becomes a "stigma".

 

[fifteen89]

.....<snipped>
There doesn't appear to be anything to suggest that Caylee drowned or that the death was accidental because accidental deaths are reported and cleared up right away. Parents of children that die because of their negligence suffer extreme guilt and do not go partying while telling lies to everyone who asks about the child.
<snipped>

What I can never seem to grasp is how she kept saying Caylee is here, she's there, she's with Zanny...... She knew eventually she wasn't going to be able to produce the child. What was her plan?

Or did she just think up the Zanny-kidnapped-her-and-gave-me-a-script-to-follow-and-I-searched-for-her-on-my-own story during the 30 days after Caylee died? All her fantastical lies and that's the best she could come up with?

 

[ZsaZsa]

To be fair, they never thought they were trying to clear their daughter of murder. They thought they were clearing their daughter of being accused of a crime they were certain she didn't commit.
There is a difference between knowing someone did something wrong and trying to protect them from the consequences of their actions and believing that they didn't do something wrong and trying to convince people of their innocence. Not saying they were right but I am just trying to look at it from their perspective.

Not so. They lied over and over -those lies are documented and they did so with the intent to obstruct the investigation and as they thought, to protect their daughter- but you don't have to manufacture lies to protect someone innocent. They knew from the very earliest that she had done something.

 

[ZsaZsa]

What I can never seem to grasp is how she kept saying Caylee is here, she's there, she's with Zanny...... She knew eventually she wasn't going to be able to produce the child. What was her plan?

Or did she just think up the Zanny-kidnapped-her-and-gave-me-a-script-to-follow-and-I-searched-for-her-on-my-own story during the 30 days after Caylee died? All her fantastical lies and that's the best she could come up with?

She knew Amy would be back on July 15th and her thefts from her would be exposed too. She knew she was guilty of murdering her child and was just living it up like it was just a matter of time until it all got found out....
she did have a call in to MH in California... I think if she could have talked him into paying for a plane fare she would have hitailed it out there and spun it out even longer.

 

[Poodleluver]

I had dinner with my 24-year-old son last night & my husband mentioned how obsessed I am with this case. He had no idea what we were talking about, knew absolutely nothing about it nor had he ever heard of KC Anthony. (Talk about the perfect juror for this case--too bad we live in RI!) Anyway, I was so excited to present the story to him & what the defense said in their OS to see what his opinion was as to her guilt & why. (Plus he is certainly one of her peers--only a year younger than her & he is a musician so he understands & likes the club/drinking scene).

After I presented everything he said of course she is guilty. The factor that he thinks proves it is the duct tape wrapped around her mouth. He almost gasped when I told him that part. He said he already thought she was guilty with all the lies, the partying, the staying at the boyfriend's house & not telling said boyfriend that she was "missing", the party pics that portrayed her the happiest she's ever been, etc. But he said the duct tape is just horrible & she is scum.

I do not believe in the death penalty & I don't think she should get it. My main reason being I don't feel it is the government's responsibility to decide if someone should live or die. His retort to that was well, he thinks she should be put to death because her 2-year-old daughter didn't have a say, her mother decided to take her life & the same should be done to her. I was very impressed he felt so strongly about sweet little Caylee. Made me feel good & I think now I agree. Death penalty!

 

[fifteen89]

I'm wondering if there isn't some entity that could step in and stop this right now. JB is in over his head and it's so obvious that if there is, in fact, a guilty verdict, Casey will be screaming "ineffective counsel". And she will be right, I'm sorry to say. This is so unfair to the taxpayers of Florida who are footing the bill to defend this poor excuse of a human being.

I haven't done my homework on CM, but perhaps he should take over.

Hopefully there were enough talking heads talking like his opening statement was possible or likely to thwart any attempt to get a mistrial. I was shocked listening to Geraldo last night. I caught a few minutes of Jeanine Pirro and Mark Fuhrman the night before.... They were talking like everything JB said in his opening statement was fact. When Taco Joe appeared to be the voice of reason, I turned the channel quick to prevent a massive heart and/or barf attack.

 

[Poodleluver]

Not so. They lied over and over -those lies are documented and they did so with the intent to obstruct the investigation and as they thought, to protect their daughter- but you don't have to manufacture lies to protect someone innocent. They knew from the very earliest that she had done something.

Exactly! And right after she "confessed" to Lee she hadn't seen Caylee in 31 days, Cindy walked in the room & saw the look on Lee's face & said to KC "What did you do?" She knew KC was capable of doing "something" to Caylee.

 

[fifteen89]

Ineffective counsel is one of the most common arguments made in appeal after conviction. However, it is not as easy to prove as many people think it would be. Counsel would have to be neglectful in presenting facts or evidence that might have made a difference in the verdict had they been presented, or witnesses that might have made a difference in the verdict had they testified. And it would have to be proven that counsel had access to such facts and witnesses before or during the trial but deliberately chose not to use them. Just naming an example.

Do I remember hearing years and years ago about a case where the lawyer was actually sleeping at the defense table and the defendant STILL didn't win the ineffective counsel argument? I'm thinking it was a show about Barry Sheck's Innocence Project maybe???

 

[Kimster]

This thread keeps going off topic and we have two conversations going on about the same issues now.

Please continue your thoughts here-----> [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137317"]BIG HOLES in the defense theory - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]