Casey Anthony TRIAL thread #2

[Conservative Hippie]

So, my only knowledge of the justice system comes from Law & Order and The Closer, and this trial. I know the state has another "turn" after the defense is done. If the defense presents that Casey was sexually abused, and does not call her as a witness, can the state call her as a witness, as she would be a witness to the alleged sexual abuse?

 

[Wadecool]

One of the commentators made an interesting observation today. He said that the best chance Casey has is for Mason to give the closing argument, not Baez. There's no way Baez could have done as well with the motion for acquittal. Baez is still just an ambulance chaser, whereas Cheney has a ton of criminal defense experience. The commentator also said that Baez would never allow Cheney to do the closing argument because he knows this will be his last chance on the stage and wants the attention. What do you guys think?

 

[Halloweenqueen]

So, my only knowledge of the justice system comes from Law & Order and The Closer, and this trial. I know the state has another "turn" after the defense is done. If the defense presents that Casey was sexually abused, and does not call her as a witness, can the state call her as a witness, as she would be a witness to the alleged sexual abuse?

5th ammendment protects her.

 

[Halloweenqueen]

Casey's actions have been strange, but I can't remember one trial where there was a constant camera on the defendant. I have to admit, I would feel very akward having a camera focused on me day after day.

I think Casey has shut off any feelings for Caylee a long time ago. Maybe she never really had maternal feelings for her. It is become more clear that Cindy was the primary caretaker.

I think the tears/getting sick was staged. She used the same tissue that entire day. Not one tear. I think she thought we expected some reaction from her, so she gave it. This was the one time George and Cindy were not in the courtroom.

 

[ilovepete]

Although Casey did sort of break down that one time when she became "sick".

I heard someone say yesterday, can't remember where, that they think they are medicating Casey and that could be part of why she got sick.

 

[sbtrfly74]

Hi Old & New Folks,

I've been watching but not posting, taking care of a very sick puppy.

I do have a question.

Cindy said she never saw the t-shirt that Caylee was wearing except in a photo. Being Cindy was clearly the day to day caretaker how did she never see this shirt?
Where did CA get this shirt and if she wanted clothing that did not come from the home to make it look like someone else was involved why was it never caught on her many shopping trip videos?

Caylee was still alive when she bought the clothes so she would have probably been in the video with her shopping if they had them.

You don't see the T-shirt in the Target video's posted in court (she was already deceased) Which is why you dont see her buying any food, clothing, toys, etc or anything for Caylee in any of the videos.

 

[LisaR]

I agree with those that said if there was anyone else involved in this that Casey could pin it on, she would have done so in a heartbeat. I really think this is part of the evidence. I know it isn't concrete proof but one does have to take the suspects demeanor and personality into account. If Caylee had died accidentally, Casey would have spun that story years ago and if there was someone else involved, she would have thrown that person out there from day 1. Instead, the best she had was an imaginary nanny and when that fell through, years later she decides to blame her father.

 

[joviroxx]

OK, this was just tweeted:

@OSCaseyAnthony
Casey Anthony News
Ch.9 reports George Anthony contacted Vasco Dagama Thompson the day before Cindy called about Caylee missing.

Any ideas what this means? A quick google tells me this gentleman was convicted of kidnapping in 1988

 

[Aisling]

I heard someone say yesterday, can't remember where, that they think they are medicating Casey and that could be part of why she got sick.

Ah, if she's medicated, that would explain a lot about her demeanor.

OK, this was just tweeted:

Any ideas what this means? A quick google tells me this gentleman was convicted of kidnapping in 1988

 

[NEVERENOUGHWDW]

Caylee was still alive when she bought the clothes so she would have probably been in the video with her shopping if they had them.

You don't see the T-shirt in the Target video's posted in court (she was already deceased) Which is why you dont see her buying any food, clothing, toys, etc or anything for Caylee in any of the videos.

But the clothing that Caylee was in was not her size. She was a 3T and the clothing was smaller. Cindy not knowing the clothing put a real question in my mind where CA purchased it (before death of course).

 

[sbtrfly74]

Clothing runs differently, also it was also mentioned that if she was recently potty trained then 24mths would fit her again w/o a diaper. 24mths is typically larger than a 2T, if I remember back to my kids toddler days T's are more slender.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

I would be so ANGRY at my daughter for all the lies. Knowing how much Casey lied before Cindy found out about the disappearance, I can't imagine they didn't immediately suspect Casey's involvement.

And George....I have a feeling something went on there. I feel for Cindy...what a living hell.

But it doesn't appear that Cindy and George KNEW how much Casey lied before Caylee's disappearance. If they knew all the lies about her jobs (or lack thereof), her friends (imaginary), the nanny (fake), etc, they'd probably have some serious questions about Caylee. But they didn't.

Hi Old & New Folks,

I've been watching but not posting, taking care of a very sick puppy.

I do have a question.

Cindy said she never saw the t-shirt that Caylee was wearing except in a photo. Being Cindy was clearly the day to day caretaker how did she never see this shirt?

Where did CA get this shirt and if she wanted clothing that did not come from the home to make it look like someone else was involved why was it never caught on her many shopping trip videos?

The videos were from after Caylee was missing/dead. Before that, who knows if she kept clothes in her car (I did), or at a BF's apartment.

So, my only knowledge of the justice system comes from Law & Order and The Closer, and this trial. I know the state has another "turn" after the defense is done. If the defense presents that Casey was sexually abused, and does not call her as a witness, can the state call her as a witness, as she would be a witness to the alleged sexual abuse?

No. A defendant has the right not to testify.

One of the commentators made an interesting observation today. He said that the best chance Casey has is for Mason to give the closing argument, not Baez. There's no way Baez could have done as well with the motion for acquittal. Baez is still just an ambulance chaser, whereas Cheney has a ton of criminal defense experience. The commentator also said that Baez would never allow Cheney to do the closing argument because he knows this will be his last chance on the stage and wants the attention. What do you guys think?

I agree that Mason would be better than Baez at presenting closing statements. I suspect that Baez strongly wants to do it himself. He may realize tho at this time that Mason would be better at that. As far as questioning witnesses, I think they were both *******s. But Mason's presentation of motion for acquittal was far better and more polished than Baez's opening statement.

OK, this was just tweeted:

Any ideas what this means? A quick google tells me this gentleman was convicted of kidnapping in 1988

Yikes! WTH??

But the clothing that Caylee was in was not her size. She was a 3T and the clothing was smaller. Cindy not knowing the clothing put a real question in my mind where CA purchased it (before death of course).

I think the shirt fit, no? Cindy recognized the shorts, but said Caylee outgrew them. Doesn't mean they couldn't actually be put on. I wonder if Caylee had put them on herself? I know when my kids were little and they liked an outfit, they'd want to wear them long past actually fitting.

 

[Conservative Hippie]

But the clothing that Caylee was in was not her size. She was a 3T and the clothing was smaller. Cindy not knowing the clothing put a real question in my mind where CA purchased it (before death of course).

Just because she wore a 3T in some clothing does not mean that a size 24m pair of shorts would be too small. Cindy did recognize the shorts, just not the shirt. I wonder if anyone asked any of Casey's friends if they recall Casey buying the shirt or if anyone gave it to her. IMHO, it's the type of shirt that one of Casey's female friends may have bought as a gift.

Since I have personal knowledge of toddler clothes, thought I'd work this out for anyone worried about the size of the shorts...

Circo size chart:
24 month - 26.5-28 lbs, 33-35.5 inches (shorts in question were 24m Circo brand)
2T - 26.5-28 lbs, 33-35.5 inches
3T - 28.5-32 lbs, 36-38.5 inches

Carters size chart:
24 month - 27.5-30 lbs, 32.5–34 inches
2T - 29-31 lbs, 34.5-36.5 inches
3T - 31-34 lbs, 36.5-38.5 inches

So you can see that child clothing sizes (like adult sizes) are not uniform. A child might wear a different size in tops as in bottoms as well. So Cindy saying that Caylee wore a size 3T in the summer of 2008 doesn't really mean anything. Caylee would turn 3 at the end of the summer, so I'm sure Cindy would have bought her 3T clothing to grow into.

When my DD was 2 years, she was 25.5 lbs and 34" and at 3 years she was 29 lbs and 36.5". Assuming Caylee is roughly the same size (she looks like it from photos), she could easily wear a pair of 24m shorts at 18 months and the same pair of shorts a year later at 2 1/2. Cindy would not have bought Caylee a pair of 18m shorts for the summer of 2007, when she would turn 2 at the end of the summer, since you typically want clothes a child can grow into and wear for a while.

 

[denisem]

Hi Old & New Folks,

I've been watching but not posting, taking care of a very sick puppy.

I do have a question.

Cindy said she never saw the t-shirt that Caylee was wearing except in a photo. Being Cindy was clearly the day to day caretaker how did she never see this shirt?
Where did CA get this shirt and if she wanted clothing that did not come from the home to make it look like someone else was involved why was it never caught on her many shopping trip videos?

Darnit, I've got a statement of Cindy's stuck in my mind & can't find the interview transcript. Anyhow, Cindy stated that she did not recognize that shirt because she did not like shirts with writing on them.

Where did it come from & where was it kept? Who knows. Maybe she bought it on a shopping trip not filmed. Maybe one of her friends thought it was cute & bought it for her. KC seemed to crash at various places the last month or two, so I image she had some stash of clothes in her trunk at different times. We know she did laundry at Tony's and IIRC, Lee picked up KC's laptop and a duffle bag of clothing the night LE was called.

I hope your puppy gets well soon!

One of the commentators made an interesting observation today. He said that the best chance Casey has is for Mason to give the closing argument, not Baez. There's no way Baez could have done as well with the motion for acquittal. Baez is still just an ambulance chaser, whereas Cheney has a ton of criminal defense experience. The commentator also said that Baez would never allow Cheney to do the closing argument because he knows this will be his last chance on the stage and wants the attention. What do you guys think?

I think it would take a lighting bolt to keep Baez from the closing argument.

 

[Feralpeg]

I have a technical question regarding jury and deliberations:

Are they properly informed of what is and especially what is NOT required to issue a guilty verdict?

I am asking as I have seen some opinions that say the State hasn't proven anything. It seems those opinions hang on the absence of a COD and that the evidence is only circumstantial as well as lack if motive. My understanding of law is that the Supreme Court has upheld that circumstantial evidence is permitted and that law does not require motive or COD for a murder 1 conviction.

Is the jury informed of all of that? I would think so (or else how would Scott Peterson have been convicted?).

While WE are entitled to various opinions that may or may not have basis in law---the jury would have to follow law. So for example, they couldn't insist on premeditation, right? (not sure if it is that simple).

If it is anything like the trials where I've been a juror, we were given typed instructions on the criteria for a guilty verdict on each count. We had to fill out the sheets on each count as to our decision. Of course, things differ from state to state.

 

[Kika]

Hi everyone,
I have been following this case, but haven't been on the Dis in a while. Just checking in now.
I am surprised that the state didn't call Jesse Grund to testify about the fight that Casey and Cindy had on 6/15, since I think that could speak to Casey's motive. Was that a misstep on the part of the prosecution, or did I miss something?

p.s. Some of those fake Judge Belvin Perry tweets are pretty funny.

 

[Mosoh]

One of the commentators made an interesting observation today. He said that the best chance Casey has is for Mason to give the closing argument, not Baez. There's no way Baez could have done as well with the motion for acquittal. Baez is still just an ambulance chaser, whereas Cheney has a ton of criminal defense experience. The commentator also said that Baez would never allow Cheney to do the closing argument because he knows this will be his last chance on the stage and wants the attention. What do you guys think?

He was denied on all counts. You can't do much worse than that

 

[Nancy]

OK, this was just tweeted:



Any ideas what this means? A quick google tells me this gentleman was convicted of kidnapping in 1988

The reports are he has now been added as a witness for the defense.

 

[Feralpeg]

I know how this is going to sound, but bear with me.

Dr. G said 100% of accidental drownings are reported. How can this be possible? 100% ? There are so many missing people/children that I'm thinking couldn't some of them have drowned accidentally with the accompanying person panicking and dumping the body somewhere never to be found?

I mean, common sense and plain old human feelings would make the person call 911, but we're all not the same and there have to be exceptions.

I was trying to see Casey as innocent. What if Caylee did accidentally drown in the pool under Casey's care and Casey covered it up because she's seriously mentally ill and so was able to jolly along with her day without feelings because she's only capable of loving her own well being? Can someone answer this without emotion playing a part in your response and just be unbiased for a moment, focusing on the possibility of Casey being mentally ill?

First, I immediately disregard any statement where someone says something happens 100% of the time. Not possible. In Dr. G's experience, which is vast, 911 was called on cases of accidental drowing. Those are her experiences. That does not mean it applys to all cases. No way does she know of all cases. There may be cases where the body was never recovered. You just can't claim 100%.

Don't get me wrong. I like Dr. G. I watch her show on a regular basis. I even auditioned once to play the part of a dead body on the show (didn't get the part...I guess I wasn't stiff enough! lol!), but I don't think her testimony should have been allowed the way it was. She did not give evidence. She gave opinion. True, her opinion is based on experience, but it is still opinion. It cannot be alleged to be fact.

In her opinion, based on the way the body was disposed of, she THINKS it was a homicide. She has no facts to back that up. Most of the time, when bodies are disposed of, it is homicide, but that does not make it a fact in this case. In this case, I believe she let contributing details she had heard help her form he opinion that she tried to state as fact. Without the ability to definitively identify the cause of death, which she said she could not do, she could not definitely say it was a homicide. The defense should have thrown up a huge objection to this. More experienced attorneys would have been all over this.

 

[Aisling]

Hi everyone,
I have been following this case, but haven't been on the Dis in a while. Just checking in now.
I am surprised that the state didn't call Jesse Grund to testify about the fight that Casey and Cindy had on 6/15, since I think that could speak to Casey's motive. Was that a misstep on the part of the prosecution, or did I miss something?

p.s. Some of those fake Judge Belvin Perry tweets are pretty funny.

Those tweets crack me up!

I didn't even know that Cindy and Casey had a fight on the 15th. How's I miss that being obsessed with this case?

I think it should definitely have been brought up by the prosecution. It sets up the "atmosphere" that Casey was POed and wanted to hurt Cindy. Could Casey have killed Caylee just to hurt her parents?