In the example that you bring up the point makes perfect sense. He (Baez) made those statements BUT when he got the father on the stand he asked him those questions and let the guy at least answer to those statements made earlier.

But as I said in my post, the lawyer made all sorts of statements about Krunk, said in such a way as they weren't his opinion, but rather he was speaking in absolute terms, then when he had Krunk on the stand he DID NOT ASK HIM ANY QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THOSE ACCUSATIONS. Sorry, that is just plain wrong in my view.

And of course they're going to try to protect their asses with their convenient little "disclaimers" that they can't be held accountable etc early on in any trial. That doesn't make it right. Personally I'd tell them to shove their disclaimer up their asses if they said a bunch of made-up crap about me, and get a lawyer on them anyway. Civil courts, especially in the USA I've noticed, have a funny way of deciding for themselves what is and isn't actionable.

That's a prime example right there of how convoluted these kinds of trials get to become. Quibbling for days over who was grieving, or is the witness actually an expert in grieving etc. Christ shoot me now.

There is only ONE question that is relevant to a case like this and any like it, and it's not "who was grieving", or "What was her state of mind" or "Was she abused" etc. The ONLY relevant question is DID - SHE - DO - IT? As in was she negligent and/or responsible in any way for her little girl's death?

All this other side crap eating up days and weeks and untold millions of taxpayers money is just that --- crap.

Watching more than 2 minutes of that sucks the soul from my body. I feel sorry for the jurors.

The defense said it will rest its case today in court.

It won't surprise me if they put Casey on the stand as their final attempt to sway the jury.

She was able to stand up yesterday morning and speak on her behalf on another matter. I found it interesting it went down that way and wondered if it was done purposely by her defense to see how she would handle that.

At this point I think she's lost the the trial. It is her choice as to whether she testifies or not and at this point it might be the only way to save her ass.

No Casey. Her not taking stands leaves many options down the road to over turn verdict.

The judge is making it tough on the defense regarding the upcoming rebuttal witnesses for the prosecution. The prosecution failed to get work records for Cindy Anthony to place her at work on the date she told them she was home searching for chloroform on google. Now they need to get those records because the defense simply asked her about it and she repeated what the state knew 2 yrs ago. It's kind of unfair to now allow the state to bring these records when they SHOULD have known it would be brought up at trial. It's a discovery violation but the judge said it's not. The defense has a matter of hours now to look over some 200 pages of work records and round up witnesses they may feel they need to place her at home rather than work on that date.

You could say that maybe the judge really believes that the state could not have anticipated the need for the records, therefore there's no violation. But that would also mean you think the prosecution is so incompetent that they didnt forsee the need to bring records on information crucial to what they said was a murder weapon! Appeal is absolutely certain I'd say at this time and on that point plus others.

Been busy here but I managed to catch that part while having lunch.

I'm going to disagree with you there. If you remember, in her original deposition years ago she said she only searched for chlorophyll, not chloroform, and she also said she searched for it sometime in march. Her testimony in court changed. On the stand she asserted that not only did she additionally search for chloroform she also asserted that she was at home on the date the prosecution presented those searches were done, and said that she and casey took turns sitting at the computer to explain why these searches were in conjunction with casey's myspace activity.

This was all new testimony. The new additions were pointed out by the prosecution on cross, to which Mrs. Anthony attributed her clearer memory to things such as changes in her medication. She also affirmed that she was positive she was home on that day during those hours even though her timecard would reflect otherwise and stated that if she could have access to her work logs she could prove it, but she was certain that by now those logs no longer existed.

That was I think last thursday, the following day the prosecution tipped their hand to the defense and let them know they had contacted Gentiva to get the records pulled. They also gave them advance warning last week that they are going to present computer logs from the anthony home that are going to tear apart their timeline of events for June 16th.

I think they've been pretty straight up in terms of discovery. Especially in comparison to the defense who might be facing bar issues or contempt of court due to their willful witholding and failure to comply with discovery orders.

Just my :2 cents:

She was asked if she searched for Chloroform and her answer was "I may have" originally.

What I don't understand is why isn't defense calling computer witnesses about how easy it is for time stamps on a computer to be wrong. Happens all the time. Also autofill google results... obviously now if you type in "chlo" into google top result is chloroform because it's trending but really...

Pool... chlorine... etc. I'm almost thinking her attorneys are trying to lose on incompetence so guilty verdict can just be overturned.

Dude, that kid just got 6 days in jail and $600 plus fine for flipping the bird. I didn't even catch it. I listen much more than I watch (or I'd get no work done). Did anyone see him do it?

Exactly.
Prosecution, was taken by this. They believed she was at work. Now the mom says I can put in any hours I want.
Listen the mom didn't decide to go home in the middle of the day to seach for chlorophyll because her dogs were getting tired.
and the search was looked up over 80 times.
People want the TRUTH, what does the defense have to hide to see if the mom is lying or not??????

Also that mistress, she is scorned, as many are. I am sure the dad told this lady he wants to be with her to get in her pants. She sees a chance to be famous and make money on this. Besides we all know that what is said and heard and told to another person changes all the time.
She said he said it was an accident that snowballed out of controll. Dad said IT COULD OF BEEN, an accident that snowballed out of controll.

Honestly I am sticking to, she accidently killed her child, with druging her, while she partied.

Yeah she said she might have. Thats why I think you would almost have to think the states attorneys are incompetent if they didnt have a reasonable expectation that the topic would be raised, and I think that's the basis for the discovery violation allegation.

I know that to me it was all news that she had said she searched for anything at any time. They sure didnt let it slip to any media that Cindy did any searches did they? I dont follow tabloid stuff so maybe it's well known out there. I also didnt know the father had tried to kill himself.

Some 28 year old guy in the spectator seats gave the Prosecuting Attorney the middle finger while the court was in session.

After the jury was excused, the Judge marched the guy up to the front, charged him with direct contempt and sentenced him to serve six days in jail, $400 fine and $220 in court costs.

Before sentencing he made the guy tell how much money he had ( $120 checking $12 savings), where he worked ( server at Fridays ) and a lot of other personal information that played out live on a world stage.

They said Orlando Sentinel photographer, Red Huber took a picture of the guy flipping the bird, they made a print and used it right there as evidence and the guy identified himself. The jury was in the courtroom. The Judge didn't say if he actually saw it happen.

It was also reported that the guy has been several times and is usually one of the first in line to get a ticket inside.

People are so weird. I'm glad it didn't throw the trial, but I did appreciate the levity.

I'd love to see that pic :1orglaugh

I'd leave it alone, accidents happen. I'm sure they feel fucking horrible.

Watching it for any length of time is sheer torture. I come to this thread for updates and sensible perspective. :D

I'm surprised nobody on this forum commented on my comment...

Time stamps on a computer can easily be off... Google has a tendency to autofill the words...

We are all webmasters and we all know the game of computers. Ie... You get a virus your time stamp can easily get changed.

Do you agree with this?

I read your initial comment on it, and agreed with it for the most part. But again I must say, the focus of this trial should be on answering the question: DID SHE DO IT? Anything else to me is just fluff and the defense trying everything they can to convolute the trial and dodge the real issue and confuse the public and the jury, period.

I think I devoted a whole thread to how clueless the computer "experts" in this case seem to be. The first few days of testimony no one was even taking browser tabs into account.

Ultimately the history speaks for itself as far as the chloroform searches. Take the time stamps out of the equation, even put the mother in the house- the myspace and search activity is simultaneous. Casey and Cindy would have to be swapping seats in intervals as small as 20 seconds in succession. Sure, it's possible, but it's not practical. Especially when you consider keystroke time. It's crazy pills to try and reason it was anyone other than casey performing those searches.

But back to the time stamping, early on they spoke of comparing the system time to real gmt. They actually ran the forensics on the home desktop using two different types of software and even brought in and consulted the maker of one of the programs to figure out how far off the time stamps are, etc. They aren't just looking at the time stamp and taking it as gospel.

They also went into detail about the camera one of her exes used to take pics of caylee, how far off the time on the camera was to actual time, etc. And they did mention that with the camera, unlike the computer, someone could alter the time and date settings since the digital images in question were taken so they would not be able to put a certain time and date, only an estimate.

Shelly,

I like you and always have :)

Nothing that indicates this girl did first degree murder makes sense. Everybody thinks she did it... I do as well... I think she lost the ability to tell authorities "what really happened" because she already tried to hide the body.

But, I can tell you for certain as a professional in common sense,

That women did not wrap duct tape around her daughters head and suffocated her so she died.

thas a good defense attorneys job....

all it takes is one..

I've watched the trial from start to finish and the state fucked it up...

Personally I think she will walk or involuntary manslaughter .... for sure it's nto first degree murder .. (well I think it is but the state has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt"

little school for the unknowing...

in criminal like this the burden is on the state to PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.. the defense did pleanty to bring doubt into my mind.... I personally think the whole fucking family is in on it.....


in civil and in criminal probation revo cases and stuff like that you just have to prove "more likley than not"

2 tottally different things...

now once the state fucks this up she will walk and be free due to double jeopardy ...

all the better though.. in jail she'd have 24 hour security .. on the outside she's free to all angry mothers..... not a jury in the world would convict a mother killing casey.. I know I wouldn;t

bitch killed the kid to fuck the asshole guy

Please explain how you can say this " Everybody thinks she did it... I do as well... "

and then say this " But, I can tell you for certain as a professional in common sense,

That women did not wrap duct tape around her daughters head and suffocated her so she died "

As a student of common sense I'd like to understand what seems to be conflicting statements :winkwink:

The state is trying to get murder1 charge. So to do that they say internet searches was the premeditation, the duct tape was the murder weapon.

If you were trying to kill your daughter with a drug why then kill her with duct tape?

Doesn't it make more sense that she accidentally killed her (possibly by drug overdose) then stuck the heart sticker on her mouth and wrapped her in a bag and closed bag with duct tape?

She obviously killed her but what I, and many others, are saying is it was "likely" not a methodical planned out murder.

The outcome of such a murder is another murder by state.

To answer your first question the least painful, stressful way for the child to die would be to put her to sleep with some kind of drug or chloroform which has now been proven to have be searched 80 + times by the defendant and was present in the trunk of the car which has been proven in the eyes of the jury ( my assumption ) through testimony which also was shown to have contained the child's body.

Once the child is asleep the duct tape was placed over the mouth and nose which would effectively suffocate the child painlessly except for some involuntary body spasms of resistance. It would be a gentle way to kill some one much like one would put their pet to rest as opposed to blasting their head off with a shotgun starting from the feet and working your way up.

What I stated above its what the state is trying to prove.

You clearly say the she killed the child which is murder.

The state's case shows premeditation.

With all that you've heard in testimony, can you give another possible way she killed the child?

she is 100% a crazy bitch who killed her child.

Yes.

She called the non-existent Nanny... Zanny the Nanny. It was an inside joke that she used Zanax to make her daughter sleep at night and she could go party.

She had no job nor money so found another drug... chloroform... to make her sleep.

She woke up one morning and realized her daughter was dead. In Florida negligence of a child leading to death is also a capital punishment which is why she didn't say what she did.

Just a scenerio but makes more "common sense" to me then what state is presenting.

" She called the non-existent Nanny... Zanny the Nanny. It was an inside joke that she used Zanax to make her daughter sleep at night and she could go party."

Very early in the investigation an actual Zanedia Gonzalas (sp) was found. The closest connection she had to Casey Anthony was she had looked into renting an apartment in the same complex as one of Casey's friends. The woman was quickly cleared as to having anything to do with Casey and in turn filed a civil suit against Casey for using her name and getting her involved.

While Casey referred to the non existent person as Zanny the Nanny, the Xanax link was brought up by a caller to the Nancy Grace show as a theory. Casey was not found with Xanax in her possession nor did anyone testify that they saw her give Xanax to the child.
Since none of that was true it wasn't given as evidence in court other than to show her ability to lie and deceive.



" She had no job nor money so found another drug... chloroform... to make her sleep."

Any girl with more than an A Cup can get some douche-bag to buy her drugs or get her high. She gave her the Chloroform because of its availability, not having to involve someone else to get it and it would be the easiest to give the child.





" She woke up one morning and realized her daughter was dead. In Florida negligence of a child leading to death is also a capital punishment which is why she didn't say what she did."

The defense claims the child drowned and the father recovered the body. They did absolutely nothing to prove their statement regardless of the burden of proof.

The state presented testimony regarding the duct tape, chloroform, body in the trunk, tattoo and the behavior after the last time Caysee was seen by anyone. Not a slam dunk but very circumstantial.



You seem to want to believe that a Mom is incapable of killing her child. Sadly it happens. It happens far too often and sometimes in a very heinous manner.

I don't watch the shit or pay attention, it actually annoys me all this fuss over it for all these years, but from what I've heard it sounds like the father abused the mother all her life, and then was abusing his grand daughter, so the daughter killed her daughter to save her the shitty life that she grew up in, and she is trying to pin the blame on her father. Am I close? :)

Yes, that's true and I'm well aware of that fact, but it still doesn't dissuade me from pointing out how annoying it is in some trials, like this one.

It's a good judges' job, however, to keep the proceedings focused and moving along. (which is why he alone decides relevance on every objected point). Nothing at all wrong with a judge that realizes the defense (or prosecution as well) is getting off track and into things that don't mean a hoot to this trial, he has the discretion to tell the idiot lawyer to move along and get back onto relevant facts.

But this judge just seems to sit there letting the guy wander as far off topic as he wants.

You are correct, I do not want to believe a mother could kill her daughter. Especially with an agenda that was planned.

That being said, I stick by my intuition and don't believe she killed her willingly.

Another scenerio:

Taking a swim with daughter and phone rings. You remember the pic of kaylee diving into pool?

Well those body suits have been known to float a child but float them on their stomache.

That could have happened as well.

Another scenerio:

Mother got drunk and left diaper bag in crib, in the diaper bag was a bottle of aspirin. Aspirin was open bc mother gave half a pill to her daughter, kaylee ended up finding the bottle and eating all the pills.

Also, my daughters name is kayLa and casey is a spitting image of my ex wife so I got very caught up in this trial

So, not guilty.

It's interesting to read all the threads now, especially those that say the parents should be outraged that a killer is still out there and needs to be caught, the prosecution is going to try and pin it on somebody else.

The defense already said they knew she died and it was an accidental drowning.

How accidental was the drowning, was it drowning, etc.? Nobody knows but I will stick to my assumptions that she did not willingly kill her girl.

Could have very well been an accident but negligence was the cause... that's still felony 1 murder.

It sure has been the talk of the media for years now and they have destroyed many innocent lives along the way.

Do you think she'll activate her Myspace & Facebook pages?

I am sure, there are a bunch of hero's out there, she's gonna get lynched.

As I mentioned in another thread, if you find a child face down in a swimming pool (yours or anyone else's) and fail to call 911- that's criminally negligent homicide. Not the same as the "felony murder" charge they gave the jury as an option, but I believe it still goes towards murder in the first degree. Maybe some law buffs can work that out, cause I'm not totally sure on that part.

I think given the defense's version of events they made a mistake in not including that in the lesser charges. Possibly they could take another crack at it from that angle down the road, but I doubt it. If you believe the defense's version of events there are still other charges they could bring her up on, because believe she did it purposely or it was an accident that spun out of control, wrapping a child's corpse in duct tape, triple bagging it, and hiding it in the woods is illegal. Even if it was done at her father's behest and with his cooperation (which I also doubt), that's still some illegal shit. But again, I don't see it happening. They could, I just don't think they will.

Unreal. She walks.

So if I find someone dead on the side of the road and don't call 911 I can get charged with homicide? I call double bullshit on that. People cover up accidental deaths all the time and usually at most get charged with tampering with evidence, etc. Never homicide unless they are suspected of killing the person. Iregardless the state couldn't prove exactly when she died and therefore how can she be found guilty of anything? My daughter's keep telling me she should at least be found guilty of child neglect because her baby died. Well the state has not proved the baby died while she was watching her.

Just because she was FOUND “Not Guilty”, doesn't mean she is INNOCENT. (She Killed Her)

Of course that is merely the pop culture viewpoint.

Legally speaking, Casey Anthony is in fact INNOCENT. Why? Because EVERYONE by default is innocent until they are found guilty. Since Casey Anthony was never found guilty (of murder) she remains in her default status as INNOCENT. This legally speaking of course.

This case stinks to high heaven.

Why did she not call anyone for a month?
Who buried that child's remains?

Horrible.

If it's a child under your care or supervision, absolutely. I guess I should have clarified that since we're talking about children. Adults are different. If you passed an adult dead on the side of the road, no... but say you hit that person and drove off w/o calling 911- that's an accident but that would also be negligent homicide. I'm sure it varies by state, some places might call it negligent manslaughter, but here in FL I'm pretty sure they call it negligent homicide.

The state fucked up because they didn't offer a report on the computer activity on June 16th when they presented their case. They didn't even pull the report on the computer activity until the defense began their case. I don't know how closely you followed things but I think it was during the first week of the defense's case in a early morning hearing the state provided a copy of the computer records from the Anthony home computer for June 16th which purportedly contained IM logs that establish Casey was in the home with Caylee after George had left for work. They planned to present it in their rebuttal, but because the defense didn't attempt to enter into evidence any testimony in their case that might question or establish the timeline of events on June 16th the report could not be entered by the state.

Opening statements aren't case evidence. Jose Baez never went at George Anthony on the stand about the events of June 16th in the defense's case.

My hunch is for the jurors it probably didn't come down to what they thought of Casey, or what they thought of Jose Baez or John Ashton.. in the end the state needed the jurors to believe points of George and Cindy's testimony and the entire family at various moments purgered themselves on the stand. If you discount all of the Anthony family tesimony- without having entered into evidence the cell tower and home computer information and establishing that as evidence from the beginning the state can't make a case, and throwing away all the testimony from any of those individuals having all been caught in various lies is up to the juror's prerogative. It is what it is. You don't get do-overs.