Evidence Allowed/Not Allowed

New Posts

wenwe4 said:
"Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. ruled that witnesses will not be allowed to give their opinion on Anthony's guilt or innocence, and they can not say or suggest that Casey is a liar. In addition, the judge will not allow testimony regarding accusations that staff at the Orange County Sheriff's Office purposely moved Anthony to a room where cameras recorded her reaction to news that her daughter's body was found. That tape will not be played in court."

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/anthony_case/031411-Witnesses-cant-suggest-Casey-is-a-liar

So let me get this right . . .
No witnesses can say kc is a liar . . .
But . . . .
1) CA wrote on the MS blog that KC is a liar, steals, and is jealous
2) YM etal, can attest to the Universal trip
3) LE can talk about the wild goose chase looking for Z the N's house and family homes
4) the infamous phone call from Caylee to KC the day before she was reported missing by CA, stating Caylee was talking about her shoes and her books - but no incoming calls confirming this from the cell pings

I doubt anyone NEEDS to say the words "KC is a liar" to the jury. Proof is in the Pudding.
5)
Click to expand...

Absolute nonsense. The judge did not say this. Apparently the Fox Orlando reporters cannot read.
 
AZlawyer said:
Absolute nonsense. The judge did not say this. Apparently the Fox Orlando reporters cannot read.
Click to expand...

Well I did notice that Holly Bristow appeared to be sleeping through one of the hearings. Maybe she didn't catch it all?
 
Here's the order regarding liars:

Item No. 3 in motion: Any testimony or argument of counsel expressing a personal opinion that the witnesses are "liars" or words to that effect. GRANTED (except whre evidence exists in support of such information).

The way I interpret the above is that the attorneys cannot outright state that a witness is a liar, which would be expressing a personal opinion.

But, if an attorney asked a question of a witness, and the answer was different than the answer given by that witness in a deposition or other testimony relevant to the case, the attorney could point that out, asking the witness why his answer differs from a previous statement they gave.
 
wenwe4 said:
"Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. ruled that witnesses will not be allowed to give their opinion on Anthony's guilt or innocence, and they can not say or suggest that Casey is a liar. In addition, the judge will not allow testimony regarding accusations that staff at the Orange County Sheriff's Office purposely moved Anthony to a room where cameras recorded her reaction to news that her daughter's body was found. That tape will not be played in court."

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/anthony_case/031411-Witnesses-cant-suggest-Casey-is-a-liar

So let me get this right . . .
No witnesses can say kc is a liar . . .
But . . . .
1) CA wrote on the MS blog that KC is a liar, steals, and is jealous
2) YM etal, can attest to the Universal trip
3) LE can talk about the wild goose chase looking for Z the N's house and family homes
4) the infamous phone call from Caylee to KC the day before she was reported missing by CA, stating Caylee was talking about her shoes and her books - but no incoming calls confirming this from the cell pings

I doubt anyone NEEDS to say the words "KC is a liar" to the jury. Proof is in the Pudding.
5)
Click to expand...

wenwe4 said:
Oh boy, that is really different from what the judge ordered . . . thank you AZ for pointing out that Fox got it wrong (somehow I know this isn't the first time).
see item #3 on pg 2/5

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=73675695&key=MWNhZWVlMzUt&pass=MzM2ZC00MjJk
Click to expand...

WOW! I didn't get what MyFox got out of that AT ALL! I am reading that the DEFENSE can't call any of the STATES witnesses liars or accuse LE of doing things that they can't prove or leaking information. NOT that no one can call KC a liar! Thats like saying you can't call air "air"! WTF! How could they get that so wrong? :waitasec: Or is it just me?
 
strawberry said:
Last week he said he would rule "by late next week". Which would be late this week. I'm hoping it's earlier though.
Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying that. I was under the impression he would rule by the end of "that" week (which would have been last friday) and I have been checking and checking to see if there was a ruling. I know when one is given it will be posted here right away. I LOVE WS.
 
In going back and re-reading some old threads and some old transcripts, it dawned on me how MUCH those of us who read here know about this case vs. what the jury will actually see and hear.

If I understand correctly they will not be sitting at trial watching the complete LE interviews of GA, CA, an LA. Nor the FBI interviews, nor the ZFG depositions? They will not get to see ALL of the "blue dress dance performance at Fusion". They will not get to see ALL of the photobucket images - the skeletons heads, etc?

We have gained so much understanding of the folks involved by watching these videos, reading the transcripts, viewing the photobucket images.

I would like to know what all the jury will and will NOT see or hear. Anyone?
 
Unfortunately, neither the Jury or the public will ever know what REALLY happened to Caylee. KC will never admit the truth.
 
All of those skanky pictures taken pre-murder.

Probably nothing about the break-ins at TL's and his neighbor's.

There will be various different things we have threaded here that are based in theory, everything from the baby daddy to KC pre-meditating the murder of GA and CA, that the jury will never hear. Even though they are only theories, we do seem to develop a better sense of KC with every avenue we explore, dead end or not. The jury won't have that kind of time or nuanced information to tawk amongst themselves like we have.
 
The jailhouse video of ICA's reaction to Caylee being found. :(
 
I think that is both the Beauty and the Ugliness of our trial system. A man can be sitting in court being tried for the rape of a child. The jury may not ever be told that he has been arrested for several rapes previously, because that is too prejudicial. That is the beauty of our system if he is innocent. But it is not so great if he is guilty. imo
 
I don't think the jury will hear that Casey told Amy that her parents were getting a divorce and her mother was moving into an apartment and leaving her the house, at which point Casey told Amy she could move into the house with her and Caylee. Amy took it seriously and was making plans to move into the Anthony home.

Nor will the jury hear that Casey canceled a trip with Amy (to Jacksonville?) saying that her father had a stroke and was in the hospital.
 
The jury will never hear all of the lies/half truths ICA CA & GA have told thus far as no trial could be that long.. I am curious as to which ones will be chosen by the state (aside from the obvious nanny did it )to paint the picture that we all see so clearly.
 
Yes, I guess my concern is will the Prosecutors be able to effectively "paint the picture" of what actually went on?

It took me quite a while to realize what a schemer Cindy was. Because I didn't want to believe a loving grandmother of a dead child would do anything to help the murderer of the child. But maybe it doesn't even matter what Cindy did or did not do.

The SA makes their opening statement, saying "Here is what we think happened and we will prove it" and then they call witnesses to back up their theory, right? So I guess the whole infinite amount of time we all spent wondering what the heck was going on is kind of "short cutted" during a trial.

I do know that I thought Casey murdered her child from very, very early on. And yes, I know that being a liar doesn't make somebody be a murderer. But I also know that most murderers lie.
 
I don't think they will ever hear George yelling at the protestors that "the body in my granddaughters trunk, is not my granddaughter."

Oh many other things they have said in their media interviews. I don't know if they will be relevent? :banghead:
 
We won't get to hear a lot of things. The prosecution has to cut down the amount of information they present to weave the tapestry that is their case. There will be boring times when chain of custody evidence is introduced. We won't get to hear most of the text messages, only key ones, for example. There is so much testimony that could be used, but isn't necessary to move the case forward.

There will be times when we'll want to throw our popcorn at the screen (no butter, please) when we KNOW there is more to the story! That's the worst part about spending nearly 3 years studying the case.
 
AlwaysShocked said:
Yes, I guess my concern is will the Prosecutors be able to effectively "paint the picture" of what actually went on?

It took me quite a while to realize what a schemer Cindy was. Because I didn't want to believe a loving grandmother of a dead child would do anything to help the murderer of the child. But maybe it doesn't even matter what Cindy did or did not do.

The SA makes their opening statement, saying "Here is what we think happened and we will prove it" and then they call witnesses to back up their theory, right? So I guess the whole infinite amount of time we all spent wondering what the heck was going on is kind of "short cutted" during a trial.

I do know that I thought Casey murdered her child from very, very early on. And yes, I know that being a liar doesn't make somebody be a murderer. But I also know that most murderers lie.
Click to expand...

I too have thought that she murdered her own child from the beginning. Most murderers do lie and we all know she is a liar. I have seen no true sign of remorse from her at all.
 
Great thread idea AS! I've been wanting to ask this question for awhile: will the jury see all the photobucket images, esp. the one of the little girl and the teddy bear hanging that says 'why do people kill people who kill people to show that killing people is bad' (I'm paraphrasing but it was something like that).... also what about all those phrases that were on all her pictures (a fellow websleuther had the whole list on another thread)... the phrases like 'i'm not the girl next door i'm the b*tch down the street', and "deny everything". etc.etc.

:waitasec::waitasec::waitasec:

To me these items show MOST STRONGLY why ICA cannot claim that Caylee died of an accident, which to me is the only plausible avenue she'll have at trial time to explain how this all happened... i think they'll go with accident + too scared to tell her parents. :twocents:

ps- hey how about we all change our avatars when the trial starts to a pic of caylee? just an idea!

thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 152 more.
Total: 4,275 (members: 153, guests: 4,122)

Online statistics

Members online
153
Guests online
4,122
Total visitors
4,275
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,535
Messages
17,970,550
Members
228,798
Latest member
Sassyfox
Back
Top