irishbosoxfan
<font color=red>BL II - Red Team<br><font color=te
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2006
- Messages
- 3,838
I too was looking at the prosecution list, and who is Shirley Plesea? Is she part of the OCSO?
She is Cindy's mom
I too was looking at the prosecution list, and who is Shirley Plesea? Is she part of the OCSO?
Hmmm, I didnt think Cindy's parents were "apart" of this..She is Cindy's mom
Hmmm, I didnt think Cindy's parents were "apart" of this..![]()
I thought Cindy wanted to keep them out.
Hmmm, I didnt think Cindy's parents were "apart" of this..![]()
Wow! That was interesting. Can't wait until Dr. G. takes the stand. Looks like she can hold her own.
Well, we're all here for you!well right now i have an appointment with the specialist tomorrow morning to discuss what comes next.
i will get ultrasounds done once or twice a week to see if the fluid is building up which is also causing the amniotic flutic to build up - apparently normally a pregnant women has about 1ltr i have about 3.5ltrs so he may take some out tomorrow morning.
We'll be taking it one day at ta time as to if they induse me early or leave her in. whatevers best for babe.
NICU will take her the second she is born - if we manage to do the procedure again and get the tubes in the still need to take her to clamp off the tubes and get her breathing. if we can't get the tubes in they will have to do that as soon as she is born so that she can take her first breath.
it's a total learning process - one i never imagined i'd have to do.
I wonder tho if Baez would want the jury to think that she was so overcome with emotion reliving the terrible day of Caylee's accidental drowning. Or that it was George who buried her, so this whole aspect of it...the facts surrounding her burial...was new to her and just so emotional.I'm sure that Baez wishes that the jury would know thinking it would get her some sympathy. But the judge will make sure they never know she had a breakdown, because it doesn't have to with the facts of the case and could influence them.
Actually, what Baez said in his opening statement was this: "Early morning hours the exact time is not known...it could have been early afternoon...early morning...actually it was the early morning hours. " So, that's clear!I was going to say the same exact thing. The defense maintains she got out before anyone else was awake. So are we to believe she dressed herself first? They'll allege she slept in regular clothing.
Why not just post the link? Everyone can choose whether to click on them or not.May I ask what words you used to google them, or better yet, maybe PM me a link? Or both?
The commentators were saying that the prosecution didn't want to let Baez use a cross examination of Kronk to take away from their testimony about the burial location and pictures. I'm sure they knew a long time ago that Kronk was controversial.I was reviewing the prosecution's witness list (thanks Mare!) and noticed that Kronk isn't on it. I find it interesting that the person who discovered the remains wouldn't at least be subpoenaed.
I understand why they probably don't want him on the stand after hearing that the defense wants to accuse him of moving the remains. But the witness list was set before opening arguments, wasn't it? I hope there isn't a problem with him that could hurt the case.
I don't think they can bring up the stolen checks, so I'm not sure what she would testify about.Cindy doesn't have a say in it. She was more than likely subpeoned. Probably to testify about Casey stealing her checks and if not that then she will testify to being with Cindy and Caylee on June 15th.
May I ask what words you used to google them, or better yet, maybe PM me a link? Or both?
Oh OK, I must have just missed when they said it was all the way around her head then, thanks.![]()
Oh, sorry. I googled imaged caylee anthony remains and there were several sources that showed the one photo. here is the one I clicked:
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQm9iklH3KzFlav8ydvV_a2LAxeIbcpVIYhXmzKTh8YXSaw95Hg&t=1
I always heard that it was ALL the way around, but I think it was Beth Karas who said that she had thought that too, but that it doesn't, in that it doesn't meet in the back, but that it did attach to her hair on both sides. How far to the back, I don't know. Watching testimony now.now see, I heard it specifically described at the tape did NOT go all the way around. Pieces that covered mouth, cheeks & stuck in hair on both sides. But NOT wrapped around the head.
Journalist even showed length of piece of tape & clarified it did not go all the way around.
so which is it?![]()
now see, I heard it specifically described at the tape did NOT go all the way around. Pieces that covered mouth, cheeks & stuck in hair on both sides. But NOT wrapped around the head.
Journalist even showed length of piece of tape & clarified it did not go all the way around.
so which is it?![]()
Am I seeing what I think I'm seeing? I need the blue arrows....
BTW, a few times I have read where police took size 5 children's clothing from the Anthony's home. Size 5 is pretty big for a 2 1/2 year old.
now see, I heard it specifically described at the tape did NOT go all the way around. Pieces that covered mouth, cheeks & stuck in hair on both sides. But NOT wrapped around the head.
Journalist even showed length of piece of tape & clarified it did not go all the way around.
so which is it?![]()
OK, that photo linked above does NOT appear to be from todays testimony & is NOT even remains.
Its a pile of clothes & bags searches found in the woods in AUGUST 2008. I do remember that. Turned out to be not related to this case.
Read the blog post associated with that photo & it gives the date & info.
Its not a skull. Not hair.
I knew it didn't look right.
Oh wow. Sorry for the wrong info. I just googled and saw that pic with the blue Disney bag (it looked like) and thought it was one of the ones they showed today. I even saw the black garbage bag in the photo.![]()