Thanks so much for your time and attention on this thread. It is absolutely great to have this resource available.
Why would she do that, how does it help her? I can't imagine her doing it otherwise.
I know you have stated that Baez might end up with a week or so in jail for breaking the court order 3 times. That doesn't seem like a lot to me for AT LEAST 3 transgressions. Is there anything a judge can do (other than contempt charges) if an attorney just continues to ignore court orders or otherwise steps out of line? I am beginning to believe that isn't out of the realm of possibility here, unfortunately. It really seems like with it being the defense lawyer he is really being put in an extremely difficult situation.
She signed up for the 2-way discovery because it gave her access to a lot more information than the SA is otherwise constitutionally required to provide.
HHJP could certainly exclude evidence, etc., but only at the price of a likely reversal of any conviction.
Hi All,
I am from u.k and only recently been "glued" to this case courtesy of a tweet from Piers Morgan. I googled (my best friend) Casey Anthony and well, here I am. Apologies if I am repeating an already asked question, so here goes. I have watched both sides O/S and would like to know, does Baez have to "show" proof of the "accidental drowning" and "sexual abuse", or just hope that the jury have "forgotten" his O/S lol? Surely the only person who can state this as fact is Casey Anthony on the stand. Thankyou
The defense doesn't have to prove anything. On the other hand, if they don't, and if they promised to do so, the jury is more likely to find that the State has sufficiently proved its case.
I think this is very important point.
He said on the stand that she didn't open the skull per his protocol.
That is why JA wanted him to say where that was written.
TH did not catch this and are not talking about it.
Thank you so much for bringing this up.
I'm sure this is the first time AZ has every been wrong.
OK, here's the language from the report again:
"The skull had not been opened, at the first autopsy, in accordance with normal protocols as when dealing with skeletal remains"
My reading of that somewhat awkward sentence, given the context in which it appeared (a report criticizing the first autopsy) was "the skull had not been
opened in accordance with normal protocols," not "
in accordance with normal protocols, the skull had not been opened." See the difference?
I believe the SA did depose Spitz, so I'm sure if they didn't understand the sentence in the report, they understood it by the time the depo was over, which is all that was required by the judge's order. In fact, there were lots of media reports about Spitz's criticism of Dr. G's failure to open the skull--not sure if those stories resulted from the release of Spitz's expert report or from the release of his depo.
