What's missing for Prosecution?

We have to rememeber though that just because the prosecution is resting it's case it doesn't mean that they are all done.
They have crossed their T's and all that jazz so far . They will be prepared and then some for the defense . They don't need to call the people that they know the defense is calling . I don't think JB is suddenly going to tuen into an awesome questioner . If anything I think once the defense is on he is going to be very aggressive and obnoxious while the SA will be calm and cool and know what questions they are going to ask far in advance AND know the answers beforehand .
We have had alot of faith these years in the SA for a reason.
 
The stain in the trunk.

The Gatorade bottle and syringe.

Kiomarie and the pet cemetary.

Confession to Robyn she drugged Caylee.

Where ICA's car was for that month.

I think the other things prior posters mentioned don't follow what the prosecution has put forth so far. They don't want to confuse the jury with all the twists and turns of this case.

They want to show ICA and only her as being responsible. To bring up the fight on the 15th can put doubt in their minds. To add JG who had nothing to do with Caylees actual death is just adding an extraneous topic. If they mention anything about any GA "what-ifs" they put him on the jurors mind. Or even Kronk for that matter...they don't need him to tell the jurors that Caylee was found where she was..they had the experts for that.
 
What the prosecution is leaving out so far is- motive. Do we know who the witness is tomorrow?
 
Excellent points! These are vital to the case IMO. Im very surprised. It feels like there are pieces missing for the jury.

The major piece missing,imo, is real motive for her to kill the child, and also, if you want to claim she drugged someone with something, you need more than a computer search, yes, I know, 84 times, but it wasn't 84 different days, it was one day, and who knows how many tabs she had open and who knows how many time it refreshed on its own.

There is a pattern of her not handling things normally.
 
Also, did the prosecution ever show where Casey got chloroform? Did she have the ingredients needed at her house? Did she buy something somewhere? Did they look for anything? They didn't even tie her to the chloroform that she ever had any or the ingredients to make it in her home.

Plus the jury doesn't know how simple the recipe is. I think they need to know it has just a few ingredients and is not terribly difficult to make.
 
Plus the jury doesn't know how simple the recipe is. I think they need to know it has just a few ingredients and is not terribly difficult to make.

Well, I dont think the chloroform would sustain in a gatorade bottle, I could be wrong. I heard it needs a dark container. If the State had that container with her prints on it, that would be great.
 
The major piece missing,imo, is real motive for her to kill the child, and also, if you want to claim she drugged someone with something, you need more than a computer search, yes, I know, 84 times, but it wasn't 84 different days, it was one day, and who knows how many tabs she had open and who knows how many time it refreshed on its own.

There is a pattern of her not handling things normally.

The owner of the chloroform web site said it does not automatically refresh. You can read his comments on www.thehinkeymeter.com. The chloroform search was done in one day and bookmarked. I don't think Bradley said the 84 visits occurred in one day.
 
Yes he would have, while he dismissed ICA to call 911. Had anyone performed CPR the ME would have found signs of skeletal trauma to Caylees ribs and sternum but didn't.

Respectfully, I'm not sure it's possible to say with certainty what any person would do in a traumatic scenario such as this, especially when it involves a family member. I had a near drowning call about 10 years ago and arrived to find the mother sitting on the ground, frozen while untrained bystanders attempted CPR based on the dispatchers instructions. I later found out that the mother was an ICU nurse. Also, CPR doesn't always cause fractures, especially in kids because their rib cages and sternums are much more pliable than adults. I certainly don't think that's what happened in this case, but an absence of rib or sternum trauma isn't definitive proof. MOO

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196064496701373
 
Bob Kealing is reporting that the DT have filed papers today regarding witnesses from the Body Farm they want to question...
 
I'm surprised we have not heard from J Grund and the friend who said her and KC used to bury their pets with stickers in that same spot in the woods.

JG, in my opinion, would do very little to further the State's case as he has stated he believed Caylee could've accidentally drowned. Casey's friend also has a credibility problem with her "story" appearing in a tabloid, IIRC.
 
A lot of these witnesses are on the DT's witness list. I do believe the state is going for the rebuttal testimony and or refuting a lot of these witnesses on the DT's list.
 
I would really love:
Henkel duct tape guy

for the final (1st Degree*) nail would be if ANY of those videos show her buying acetone. The type you need to make chloroform has to be the paint-stripper kind, and I don't recall ICA taking on any home-improvement projects that Spring.

*I really think the duct tape is plenty for 1st degree, but I have much more info than the jury--I'm totally biased.

My opinion about the State's case ending seemingly early---they already have PLENTY. I believe the SA have purposely gone far enough, without wasting the jury's time. AND I believe it was a strategic decision based upon the horrific quality of ALL cross-exams by DT. They have put the ball in Baez' court, and I think his only real option is to put ICA on the stand. SA knows that not only have the jury watched hours of ICA lies, they know they have ALL the impeachment evidence they need to discredit ICA if she does try to testify.

This way, as the days drag on, the jury will see Baez as the big time waster, as his every defense is refuted. If he had been doing better thusfar, SA might have gone into smaller incriminating details already. But unlike Baez, I think they really know how to quit when they're ahead. If ICA does not testify, she's toast. If she does, she'll probably get the needle. I just don't see a 'win' in all this for ICA at all.
Feel free to disagree, anyone...
 
A lot of these witnesses are on the DT's witness list. I do believe the state is going for the rebuttal testimony and or refuting a lot of these witnesses on the DT's list.

Smart; the pros continues to let the DT put on the State's case. I mean putting Casey at the scene of the death was not enough, imo.
 
They need to bring up all the people she conned into babysitting for free saying she had jobs that didn't exist just so she could go out and party ...starting with the Grunds . This was pretty much a constant from the time Caylee was born

While I agree with your statement that she conned a lot of people - it does not connect ICA to the crime scene. No fingerprint, etc. The most we can hope for is connection to the trunk. The non-existent job, stolen checks, multiple sexual partners, do not connect her to murdering Caylee Marie (as far as physical evidence). The SA didn't even bring into the 6 felonies or the stolen checks.

I do believe the answer lies with the relationship between CA and ICA, and what happened when CA supposedly choked ICA one night. It was a revenge killing (IMHO).

Yes, I agree she was a con, and she conned her mother into thinking she wasn't PG for 7 months (hello - CA was a nurse for God's sake)! Maybe she thought she could get away with Caylee Marie missing for 7 months as well. She fooled her parent for SO long, what's one more thing!

A lot more needs to be brought in to wrap it up for me (as far as the jury goes). Especially the fight, and how CA talked to a counselor to kick ICA out of the house, and to request custody of Caylee Marie. The jury hasn't a clue about this info.

MOO - please and thanks.

Mel
 
I have asked part of this to our wonderful attorney's who answer our legal questions but if I'm a juror and I listened to everything that the prosecution has presented I would be able to without a doubt vote guilty as charged because.......I cannot shake the fact that she stayed in jail for three years and waited for her attorney to say that Caylee accidentally drowned. WHO stays in jail for three minutes when its an accident. I don't think as a juror I have to justify my vote (sort of the part I asked our attorney's) so I honestly believe with all of the scientific evidence and the fact that the defendant stayed in jail all this time, and never said it was an accident until day one of her trial she is guilty.
On a Side Note: I also believe that JB will continue to help the jury come to the same conclusion I have, with all of his experts and I'm sure his long list of character witnesses who are waiting in line to help Casey....The prosecution presented their evidence in a very precise and understandable manner, and did not waste the juror's time - not sure I can say the same about about JB.
 
While I agree with your statement that she conned a lot of people - it does not connect ICA to the crime scene. No fingerprint, etc. The most we can hope for is connection to the trunk. The non-existent job, stolen checks, multiple sexual partners, do not connect her to murdering Caylee Marie (as far as physical evidence). The SA didn't even bring into the 6 felonies or the stolen checks.

I do believe the answer lies with the relationship between CA and ICA, and what happened when CA supposedly choked ICA one night. It was a revenge killing (IMHO).

Yes, I agree she was a con, and she conned her mother into thinking she wasn't PG for 7 months (hello - CA was a nurse for God's sake)! Maybe she thought she could get away with Caylee Marie missing for 7 months as well. She fooled her parent for SO long, what's one more thing!

A lot more needs to be brought in to wrap it up for me (as far as the jury goes). Especially the fight, and how CA talked to a counselor to kick ICA out of the house, and to request custody of Caylee Marie. The jury hasn't a clue about this info.

MOO - please and thanks.

Mel

Remember, the Defense has yet to ask George or Cindy any Direct Questions.
During cross-examination, Baez has thusfar only been allowed to ask about what the witness testifies to in Direct. Certainly, in Direct Questioning of GA & CA, Baez will try to get them to say Casey was a great mother and/or discuss the dynamics within the family, so the SA will THEN be allowed to bring up the fight, the jealousy, the 'unfit' in THEIR cross...see what I mean? These details will erase Baez' Direct, and he'll look like a time waster.
JMO.
 
Frankly, I think the biggest troubling deficit in the state's case is the lack of any tangible evidence linking directly to KC. It is almost inconceivable that no trace of a fingerprint remained on the tape, no minute speck of DNA. It's as though the heavens conspired to help her escape detection.

The heavens did intervene...in the form of a tropical storm. What kind of evidence could survive that?
I have heard many times that there is no evidence linking ICA to the crime. Respectfully, I disagree. ALL the evidence in the car is directly linked to ICA. I don't care that GA had keys. GA and CA would not have been so shocked that the car had been impounded for two weeks without them noticing if he regularly accessed the car. LA testified that it was casey's car- the title was just in the parents' name.
The biggest link to me is who did not report their own daughter missing? who had access to all of the items found with the remains? (and it has been proven that she regularly accessed the house without her parents knowing)
Who could they prove was the only one who did those internet searches?
It is hard to believe that CA or GA would do anything to Caylee let alone leave her out in the woods for that long. That leaves Casey.
Circumstantial means that there might not be a direct link, but common sense makes that link.
I actually had jury duty today (I was not ultimately chosen :))and part of the instructions said to use common sense when analyzing the evidence. I think the jurors in this trial will too.
 
I have asked part of this to our wonderful attorney's who answer our legal questions but if I'm a juror and I listened to everything that the prosecution has presented I would be able to without a doubt vote guilty as charged because.......I cannot shake the fact that she stayed in jail for three years and waited for her attorney to say that Caylee accidentally drowned. WHO stays in jail for three minutes when its an accident. I don't think as a juror I have to justify my vote (sort of the part I asked our attorney's) so I honestly believe with all of the scientific evidence and the fact that the defendant stayed in jail all this time, and never said it was an accident until day one of her trial she is guilty.
On a Side Note: I also believe that JB will continue to help the jury come to the same conclusion I have, with all of his experts and I'm sure his long list of character witnesses who are waiting in line to help Casey....The prosecution presented their evidence in a very precise and understandable manner, and did not waste the juror's time - not sure I can say the same about about JB.

Ummm... What would coming forward and saying it was an accident have accomplished once she was charged with murder? Other than giving away the defense's (IMO lousy) strategy? I see where you're coming from, but I don't think this would have any bearing on my decision if I were a juror. It'll be interesting to see if any of the jurors talk after the verdict and if so, find out what evidence weighed most heavily on their decision.
 
Did I miss Jesse Grund take the stand - re: Casey's impromptu shower at his house, and Jesse "hearing" Caylee playing in the background on a call?

Did any of the Grunds take the stand about their almost daughter-in-law and the child they believed to be their grand?
 
Did I miss Jesse Grund take the stand - re: Casey's impromptu shower at his house, and Jesse "hearing" Caylee playing in the background on a call?

Did any of the Grunds take the stand about their almost daughter-in-law and the child they believed to be their grand?

No, the SA did not call any of the Grunds.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
151
Guests online
2,562
Total visitors
2,713

Forum statistics

Threads
581,353
Messages
17,771,767
Members
225,126
Latest member
Shaun Sheep
Back
Top