LOVE AND PROTECT ALL CHILDREN


A discussion of children, their welfare, well being and lives. We must protect them, they are our future.
 
HomeRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 CASEY ANTHONY ~ MARCH ~ 2011

Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next
AuthorMessage
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 108541
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Casey Prosecutor No Stranger To Courtroom Science   Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:11 pm

Casey Prosecutor No Stranger To Courtroom Science


Jeff Ashton Gained First Conviction Based On DNA




POSTED: 4:38 pm EDT March 28, 2011
UPDATED: 5:51 pm EDT March 28, 2011



ORLANDO, Fla. -- Before it became a worldwide law enforcement tool for helping to both convict and free suspects in crimes like rape, DNA got its first courtroom test in Orange County, Fla.



Now the prosecutor who convinced a jury to put their faith in new science is trying to do it again in the case against Casey Anthony.


The Anthony case returns to court later this week for hearings that will decide whether new science should be used to help convict her of murder in the death of her daughter.


The idea of using cutting-edge techniques is nothing new to the senior prosecutor in the case, Jeff Ashton.


Ashton gained the world's first DNA conviction of a rapist more than 20 years ago.


In February of 1987, a man climbed through Karen Monroe's window, slashed her with a box cutter, and raped her repeatedly.


"He did it to the point I had to pretend I was dead," said Monroe.


She was unable to identify her attacker, but he did leave two fingerprints on her window screen. Those led investigators to Tommy Lee Andrews.


For the first time, prosecutors depended on the new science of matching DNA to prints left at the rape scene.


"That's what was going to make the case, using that DNA," said Monroe.


Andrews later admitted to WESH 2 News that he thought there was no way it would convict him.


"When they brought this to me, I said, 'Man, this looks like a bunch of dots,'" he said.


Though it had never been used in court, Ashton argued to the jury that DNA was used by doctors all the time.


"It's not a new procedure, it's not a revolutionary procedure," Ashton said. "I submit to you anything reliable enough to be used to make life and death decisions is reliable enough for court."


Andrews has been imprisoned ever since his conviction.



In the Anthony case, Ashton wants evidence such as a hair with the so-called "death band" on it admitted at the trial. The hair could be used to show there was a dead body in Anthony's trunk. If the evidence is used, it would be the first time in a Florida case.




The next hearing in the Anthony case is set for Friday at 8:30 a.m. WESH.com will stream the hearing live.


Jury selection in Anthony's murder trial is scheduled to begin May 9.
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 108541
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Could Casey's Defense Turn Focus To George?   Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:12 pm

Could Casey's Defense Turn Focus To George?





Posted: 5:54 pm EDT March 28, 2011
Updated: 6:34 pm EDT March 28, 2011

ORLANDO, Fla. -- New names on Casey Anthony's defense witness list could be signaling a major change in strategy. WFTV found out one of those witnesses was pushed by Casey's father during a protest outside their home.






BILL SHEAFFER: Analysis Of Possible New Strategy
VIDEO REPORT: Is Defense Shifting Focus?
GEORGE GETS AGGRESSIVE: Images | Raw Video
INCIDENT REPORT: Read Battery Accusations






Two of the witnesses appeared in a WFTV report in 2008 after George pushed one of them. Another new witness specializes in post traumatic stress disorder.
WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer says the defense might try to portray George as Caylee's killer (watch full interview).
In September 2008, George Anthony grabbed and shoved protester Patricia Young. She wanted to prosecute.
"We were not on his property," she said at the time.
With Young was eyewitness Sharon Cadiuex.
Now that the defense knows the jury will hear Casey's statements to investigators and lack of emotion over daughter Caylee's disappearance, it says Young and Cadieux have necessary testimony and it wants new experts to testify about Casey's state of mind.
"The defense might try to show that George was abusive, abusive to Casey, and that she's suffering from post traumatic stress disorder," Sheaffer said. "This could mean that they're going to attempt to pin the murder on George."
Casey, who's charged with murdering her daughter Caylee and dumping the body near their house, cannot legally use abuse as a defense, but can use it to explain her lack of emotion, including when George broke down this month while testifying how much he loved them.
Casey even wrote that George might have sexually abused her.
Sheaffer says the "George" defense would also work with other key evidence. George had access to the car where investigators say Casey hid Caylee's dead body, and to the duct tape, heart sticker and laundry bag found with Caylee's remains. He also admits to being the last to see Caylee alive in the same clothes found with her remains.
Sheaffer says George could even go along with it, even going so far as to plead the Fifth if the defense asks him whether he killed Caylee.
Sheaffer also says Casey could testify she was abused and traumatized, and that she lied to protect George.
Previous Stories:



Copyright 2011 by wftv.com.
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 108541
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Synthetic Carpet Exposed to Residential Chemicals & Expired Volatile Anesthetic Agent - A Random Analysis of Gross Morphological Changes & Odor Emission (Junk Science)   Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:59 pm

Synthetic Carpet Exposed to Residential Chemicals and Expired Volatile Anesthetic Agent- A Random Analysis of Gross Morphological Changes and Odor Emission (Junk Science)

Posted on March 28, 2011 by Valhall

Note by Valhall: In an attempt to show that we really can “experiment” on our own, and at the same time show a clear example of “junk science”, Hinky member KZ, along with her family (they’re the et al part) went above and beyond in producing this first official Hinky Meter paper. KZ is a peer-reviewed scientist (I vetted her)…the following is not a peer-reviewed paper (unless you want to count me laughing hysterically through-out my read as “peer-reviewed” ). Much thanks to the KZ et al scientific laboratory for this humorous, yet still interesting, contribution.

Synthetic Carpet Exposed to Residential Chemicals and Expired Volatile Anesthetic Agent- A Random Analysis of Gross Morphological Changes and Odor Emission (Junk Science)
Authors: KZ et al
Introduction: Research team was convened consisting of a primary investigator, and 3 human research assistants. Two of the research assistants are elementary school students pursuing public school graduation diplomas, and as such, require research sponsorship and supervision by the senior researchers, who intend to claim all of the students subsequent work as their own.

Literature Review:
There is a dearth of published, peer reviewed literature examining the effects of various residential chemicals on synthetic carpet. (Not really, but we didn’t Google that hard.)
The literature is silent as to the effects of chloroform and residential chemicals on the synthetic carpet of 1998 Pontiac Sunfire vehicles.
Hypothesis:
What are the effects of immersing synthetic carpet samples in chloroform, acetone, and bleach?
Materials: Lacking suitable access to an ASCLD Certified Forensic laboratory, experimental methods were conducted under ordinary residential conditions. Grant funding was secured in the amount of $10 for materials from the KZ Foundation for Scientific Investigation.
A half hearted attempt (Google searches) was made to determine the general composition of carpet in 1998 Pontiac Sunfire vehicles. No attempt was made to obtain carpet samples from actual 1998 Pontiac Sunfire vehicles, due to budget and time constraints. Synthetic carpet samples approximating standard vehicle carpeting were obtained gratis from a local commercial home improvement facility. The student researchers were urged to confine samples to 4, so as not to appear too greedy. Four different synthetic samples, in 4 different colors, were obtained and labeled:
- 100% Olefin
- 100% Nylon
- 100% UV Stabilized Polypropylene
- 100% Polyester
Pure acetone was also obtained at this facility for a cost of $4.64. Clorox bleach (fresh meadow scent) was secured by donation from the residential laboratory facility, laundry services department. Standard glass canning jars with plastic and metal lids were utilized for experimental test containers. A single bottle of expired Isoflurane (volatile anesthetic agent) was obtained, as this researcher has no convenient access to chloroform.
The remaining $5.36 was utilized to purchase ice cream cones for the student researchers.
Methods: 3 Clean mason jars (2 qt, 1 pt) were obtained, with lids. Strips of each carpet sample, approximately 15cm x 2 cm, were cut using ordinary household shears. Each jar was prepared with approximately a 2cm depth of test solution (1 each: bleach and acetone in qt jars). Student researchers were restricted from the preparation area for the isoflurane sample. The isoflurane sample was prepared separately with approximately 20cc of isoflurane solution in a pint jar. The isoflurane had expired 09/ 2010. Four strips of carpet (one of each color and material) were unceremoniously dropped into each glass mason jar, and the airtight lids quickly applied. The jars were allowed to stand undisturbed for 48 hours.
The relative ambient temperature was measured at 72 degrees Fahrenheit at the beginning of the test period for the bleach and acetone samples, and never looked at again. The isoflurane sample was sequestered in an ancillary residential laboratory space (the garage) to prevent potential fumes from overpowering the researchers or the general purr-pose feline. The researchers neglected to measure or document relative temperature at that location, but state that it was a little cooler than the house.
Periodic visual inspection was carried out by the researchers, each using their own eyes. Photographs were obtained using an iPhone. Senior researchers utilized assistive ocular devices to carry out visual inspection, and one researcher utilized bifocal lenses at -2.00 power.
Lacking access to a suitable Gas Chromatograph/ Mass Spectrometer (GC/ MS) or Laser induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (LIBS), qualitative odor analysis was carried out utilizing the anatomic olfactory apparatus of each researcher. One general purr-pose feline with satisfactory olfactory capabilities was substituted for a forensic canine with substantial documented olfactory training and experience. One researcher was blinded to the odor sources. Odor analysis was complicated by microwave popcorn and coffee in the adjoining general purpose area.
We had some Febreeze, but in the excitement of bleach, acetone, and isoflurane, the student researchers forgot to use it.
Absolutely no attempts were made to produce any control samples, because control samples are just not fun or interesting.

Results:
Nothing blew up or dissolved, to the great disappointment of the student researchers.
In the acetone jar, absolutely nothing changed that we could see.
In the Clorox bleach, fresh meadow scent, jar, only the 100% nylon carpet sample changed color, and it looked like it was bleached. All researchers were in agreement on this, based upon prior substantial experience with bleach.
Anecdotal reporting of odors analyzed using each researcher’s anatomic olfactory apparatus (biologic “sniffer” device) reveals that the bleach smelled like bleach for all of the human researchers, including the blinded researcher. The blinded researcher’s exact unprompted response was “it smells like bleach in here.” There was disagreement among the researchers as to whether the fresh meadow scent in the Clorox sample was discernible. The general purr-pose feline also sampled the Clorox bleach fumes using his olfactory apparatus, and then ran away and hid under the bed. There was no final trained alert observed. The feline was not double blinded, because that would be cruel. He can see just fine.
All human researchers are in agreement that the acetone smelled like really, really strong nail polish remover.
The general purr-pose feline and student researchers were restricted from using their olfactory apparatus to sample the isoflurane fumes due to substantial safety concerns of the senior researchers. Senior researchers both determined that the isoflurane carpet samples smell like isoflurane. A lot like isoflurane. So m u c h s o t h a
Discussion: We concluded that full strength acetone didn’t seem to make any obvious changes to the samples that we could see. The Clorox bleach produced obvious color lightening on only the 100% nylon sample. Nothing visually changed in the isoflurane jar.
We concluded that if you pour Clorox bleach, fresh meadow scent, on a 100% nylon carpet, it is possible that it will change the color by lightening the area of all pigment. This finding is consistent with the intended use of Clorox bleach in laundry applications, and is consistent with the warnings and instructions on the label of the Clorox bleach, fresh meadow scent, container. This research lends support to the generally accepted scientific methods and conclusions regarding the use of Clorox bleach. However, the “fresh meadow scent” is a possible confounding variable that requires further research.
We further conclude that these results probably have absolutely nothing to do with the effect of these chemicals on the carpet of a 1998 Pontiac Sunfire, and (wait for it….) “more research is needed in this area.” Further research is recommended using chloroform on synthetic carpet samples, as isoflurane is not sufficiently chemically similar to chloroform to draw any conclusions. (Fluorine vs chlorine based molecule, but hey, that’s all we had available!)
One senior researcher concluded that expired isoflurane is better suited to euthanizing subterranean rodents than pouring on synthetic carpet samples.
One senior researcher concludes that Dr. Arpad Vass, of the Oakridge National Laboratory, is a very experienced, learned scientist, who is admired by a great many science geek fans on The Hinky Meter. However, this researcher concedes that this conclusion is not at all supported by this research, and further dialogue and research is needed in this area.
This research does demonstrate that The Hinky Meter is a possible method of encouraging weekend social interaction between senior researchers and student researchers. It is uncertain if the student researchers learned anything of significance, except possibly a demonstration of very rudimentary techniques of scientific investigation, which was carried out with numerous errors. Hence, this research is extremely vulnerable to being labeled “junk science” during peer review.
Student researchers are dabbling in scientific method in elementary school, by observing what happens WHEN ICE CUBES MELT. (Because anything more potent than water isn’t allowed in public school elementary science classrooms, and it is considered impossible that they could learn this by looking out the window.) The student researchers conclude that it would have been A LOT more fun and interesting to blow something up. The senior researchers offered to blow something up very soon, as soon as the snow is melted and it isn’t so muddy outside.
The student researchers concluded that they like going out for ice cream, which they concede is another conclusion that is not at all supported by the results of this experimental method.
No animals or student researchers were harmed or euthanized during this experiment.
References: None. I said repeatedly I was NOT going to do a bibliography, and I meant it.
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 108541
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Casey Anthony - Radio Wrap for March 27   Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:21 pm

Casey Anthony - Radio Wrap For Mar/27

Posted on March 28th, 2011
by Simon Barrett in crime
Read 251 times.

Last weeks two days of Frye Hearings about the Casey Anthony case brought a good deal of information into the public domain.
This weeks panel consisted of Simon and Jan Barrett, crime investigator and author Denny Griffin, journalist Dave Knechel and Recovery Agent (thats Florida speak for Bounty Hunter) William Cobra Staubs.
Cobra is a man that leaves no stone unturned, he recently spotted a spider on his bedroom ceiling, this is the result!

OK, enough oh the humor.
The program was an interesting one. The Casey Anthony trial start date creeps closer and closer. The defense team still do not seem to have a coherent strategy and appear to be just throwing mud balls at the wall in the hope that something will stick.
Alas Judge Perry does not appear to be co-operating with the defense, he tends to prevent the mud balls from even being thrown!
At issue last week was the admissibility of scientific evidence. The defense did their best to recreate Tolstoy’s ‘War and Plants’, Authur Conan Doyle’s ‘The Hound Of The Cadavervilles’, and the odoriferous farting classic ‘Gone With The Wind’.
In my opinion Jose Baez came up a little short!
On Friday Jose Baez also had to face the reality that Judge Perry was getting just a little testy. Jose Baez and his cohort Cheny Mason had filed a motion to ask the judge to revisit his earlier ruling on the pre-Miranda statements. The response was surprisingly short. One tends to think of legal documents as being long, boring, and lacking any for of English grammar known to man. This one was short and to the point.
The short version:

NO, NO, and what part of the word NO do you not understand?
If you missed the live broadcast, you can listen to the recording here.
Simon and Jan Barrett
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 108541
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Could the defense try to blame the murder on George? Would you buy it?   Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:53 am

Could the defense try to blame the murder on George? Would you buy it?


Filed under Casey Anthony
Looks like the defense is grasping at straws at who the the next person to be accuse of Caylee’s murder, could be! Could they come out and portray George as the killer? Could they come to a conclusion as to why George would even do it? But the real question is, why didn’t Casey blame George from day one?
Sounds to me the defense is looking to throw anyone under the bus, and they don’t care who it is. George has proved many times to Cindy that Casey is a liar, and pointed out to her that Casey didn’t have a job. I guess since George isn’t the bread winner in the family, then it is time to point to him. They have tried to point the finger at Richardo Morales, Jesse Grund, Roy Kronk….the list can go on, and now George? Shame on them!
When did George get the white car between the 16th of June and 15th of July 2008? Did he go home and borrow the shovel from the neighbor? Was it George who backed the car up to the garage? Did he go over to Tony’s house and take the trash from there? They can say that George had access to the car and all the other evidence, but I don’t believe for one minute that he killed Caylee!
According to WFTV, the defense could say that George was abusive to Casey and this is why she has no emotions when George is on the stand. She really had no emotion for Lee either. The emotion she showed for Cindy, was nothing but fake emotion looking for more money for snacks! It was said that if George is asked if he killed Caylee, he could plead the Fifth. That would be very low for George, and I am sure that no matter what he defense tries, Casey is going down. Remember, the defense has to convince 12 jurors that the Grandfather possibly killed Caylee!
The defense may try,and claim that Casey is suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. Yea whatever. Remember she’s in charge, has always been in charge, and still in charge. Now she is going to claim that because of George’s anger to her she NOW has PTSD! Whatever!
So really? Does anyone think that Casey would be in jail right now getting ready for a murder trial with the death penalty in the lead, and George killed Caylee? No way, she would have claimed George did it years ago!
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 108541
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: The George Story, sadly, is reasonable doubt   Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:59 am

the George story, sadly, is reasonable doubt


Last night I wrote about George Anthony as being the reasonable doubt the defense needs to save Casey Anthony; WFTV is currently running the same story.
This is a very strange case of serendipity for me.

September 2008 - Credit: WFTV

Sunday morning, I happened to think about some “what if’s” in this case, and I thought about George Anthony – and all the ways he would be a candidate for the defense to use to raise reasonable doubt.
So, last night I wrote a story about George and reasonable doubt, but didn’t want to publish all the details as I was afraid it would give someone (on the defense), too many ideas…. Besides which, it’s a horrible story - a terrible thing to do to one’s own father, no matter how nutso the father is, it’s just wrong.
Then, this morning a blogger named “Thinker” posted information that agreed with my story, and told me about the two women, Patricia Young and Sharon Cadieux who are newly added defense witnesses. They are added witnesses to the defense because they were protesters at the Anthony home, in 2008, who George pushed and who notified the police. Coincidentally, that was one of my examples of George’s propensity for violence that I thought would make him a candidate for creating reasonable doubt, but I didn’t want to write that for fear it would give some folks (the defense) ideas….. The story is contained in the WFTV link below.
“Thinker” also told me that the newly added witness, Dr. Weitz, specializes in post traumatic stress disorder (PSTD). Of course Dr. Weitz could support the theory that Casey, after suffering the abuse of George and Lee, suffered from PSTD, hence her bizarre demeanor. Their theory could be that Casey acts so bland and blank because of PTSD. Casey might even have done all the partying and inappropriate behavior during those 31 days because she was suffering from PTSD.
Now, come to find out, the defense must have been planning this blame it on George strategy for a while. Although I have always thought that, given the sexual abuse allegations, the defense might find a way to make George the fall guy, the Patsy, or the Guilty one – however you want to characterize it, I am amazed it is actually coming to fruition. But, I am not surprised – as much as the idea of using George as reasonable doubt is gross, it is also the only thing the defense has right now. The defense team, as we have seen from the recent Frye Hearings, are not strong in the science aspect. And then, they lost the motion to suppress the statements and the “Agents of the State” motion, which was a huge blow to them. They have to use George or they have no case.
Please know that I don’t believe any of what I am about to write here, but I wanted to point out to you why George is potentially powerful reasonable doubt. Why? Consider this:

  • George saw Caylee the morning of the 16th. Did something happen to Caylee during his watch?
  • Caylee was found in the clothes George described she was last seen in.
  • The duct tape came from his home, as did the garbage bags, the laundry bag, and the baby blanket.
  • George has a rotten temper, as evidenced in the Morgan & Morgan Zenaida depositions, and elsewhere.
  • George has changed aspects of his story, and some of the facts around Caylee’s disappearance, a number of times (i.e. the smell in the trunk).
  • George had access to Casey’s car.
  • George got so near Casey’s car to remove a wheel lift, Casey beat him to the trunk of the White Pontiac and thrust the gas cans she’d stolen in his arms. But he was very close to that trunk – close enough to smell it?
  • George had the opportunity – his work schedule was erratic.
  • There are reports that George threw his own father through a plate glass window at the car dealership his father owned, Rick Pleasea is on the defense witness list and can testify to this.
  • As a former police officer, could George have the right amount of know-how needed to hide the crime for this long?
  • George told River Cruz that Caylee’s death was an “accident that snow-balled out of control”. How would George have knowledge of this?
  • George attempted to “borrow” $20,000 from River Cruz – he did not have the means to pay it back.
  • George (and Cindy) have ties to the “Kid-Finders Network” an allegedly fraudulent missing children organization. Are the rumors true that he skimmed a bit of cash off the top?
  • George (and Cindy) refused to work with or participate in the Texas EquuSearch team searches. Did he not want Caylee found?
  • George left the pool ladder out, or so said Cindy.
  • Cheney Mason has already hinted the defense interest in the possibility of drowning.
  • Did George attempt to make it appear like Caylee was kidnapped, hence the duct tape over the little angel?
  • The pushing and shoving and temper tantrums when he physically pushed the two new defense witnesses.

Thank you to “Thinker” for all the material that’s provided here! I am very grateful, Thinker.
Police report: http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/09/08/9-7.battery.report.pdf
Defense motion to add witnesses: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/74800968/20110322-Defense-Motion-Clarifying-Motion-for-Leave-For-Additional-Witnesses
Original WFTV coverage of altercation at Anthony’s home: http://www.wftv.com/news/17393803/detail.html
Today’s coverage of the story: http://www.wftv.com/news/27348810/detail.html
There will be much more to report on this story…. stay tuned!
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 108541
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Casey Anthony: Will There Be A Final Plea Deal?   Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:25 am

Tuesday, March 29, 2011


Casey Anthony: Will There Be A Final Plea Deal?




Can it be that Jose Baez and Cheney Mason are going to be forced to beg for a plea bargain?

Can they really take this to trial?

It may not matter that the State of Florida will not want to offer a deal, there's nothing from keeping Baez speaking to the judge in chambers and saying "hey, you've seen it all; you've heard it all. You know we've got no shot. We asked you to get rid of anything and everything and it is all coming into trial.'

What can the witnesses possibly state that can help the defense?

Bill Sheaffer is a man of intellect and has given the public an excellent education in the legal aspects of this case. His interviews with Kathi Belich have been helpful in understanding what strategy the defense may present.

In almost 3 years, we have gone through a number of possible theories. It is not so much that Sheaffer has postulated various theories, but that he has reacted to various releases from the defense, or in this case, his commentary is from the new witness added to the list.

Each theory that has been floated by the defense, has been shot down, handily, by commentators such as Sheaffer. Baez (and now Mason) listen carefully and have found, repeatedly, the 'holes' in the theories, and have abandoned them and moved on to new ones.

Some of them have been two more recent: Jesse Grund is Zanny the Nanny.
Roy Kronk duct-taped his ex, therefore he is the killer.

Neither of these worked out.

Modern criminal defense has come to mean an acceptance of deceit in order to 'protect' the client.

It is a sham.

Now, is it that the defense is conspiring with George Anthony in order to blame him, have him plead the 5th Amendment (against self incrimination) only to have the appeal granted based on the fact that the defense was 'denied' the opportunity to prove someone else, in this case, George, killed Caylee?

What do we know about George Anthony? Would he go along with this, knowing that the investigators would have no evidence to prove he killed Caylee? Or, is this all just a shadow employed to set up an emotional crisis to use during the penalty phase?

George Anthony. What have we learned about George Anthony?

In what may be the only empathetic character for some, we learn of the similarities between Casey Anthony and her father.

1. George is allergic to work.

We have seen that George will work hard at not working, even to the point of attempting to merchandise his dead granddaughter's name through sham foundations, selling of interviews, etc. We learned that he went from job to job, addicted to filing claims and a desire to get rich quick. He is said to have fallen for the Nigerian prince scam, and that he, in an attempt to get rich quick, ran up more than $100,000 in online gambling debts. Cindy has always been the steady provider, so this would impact him in his manhood, which then might surface itself in affairs, such as the one with River Cruz.

It is no surprise that Casey had a fake job that she went to daily for 2 years.

2. George is a thief.

We learned that he stole from his wife's retirement in order to cover his gambling debts and that River Cruz accused him of pocketing the money donated to the foundation. She also reported that he turned on the tears and charm in order to separate her from thousands of dollars she had earned working.

It is no surprise that Casey drained her grandmother's account, stole from her friends and stole her mothers' credit cards (nor is it a surprise that Cindy rifled through evidence seeking a few dollars for herself)

3. George is a liar.

George initially told the truth to investigators as they played the 'you're one of the guys' card as George was, years before, a deputy. Sensing the holes in his manhood large enough to drive a truck through, they got him locked in to statements and eventually it was his testimony that helped get his daughter indicted.

In order to carry on with affairs, he would have to lie.
In order to cover such massive gambling debts and gain access to Cindy's retirement, he would have to lie. Just as we have seen Cindy and Lee lie with impunity (which is why polygraphs scared them so) George is, by nature, a liar.

Question: Would he perjure himself in order to save Casey?

Answer: Yes. It would be a natural reflex for him.


George is a liar, just as Casey is a liar.

4. George is negligent.

George not only has not taken care of his family over the years, but George claimed great love for his granddaughter, but in the course of two years, did not pick up the phone, even once, to make contact with the woman he believed was watching his granddaughter. Even when the stories changed from watching Caylee while Casey was at 'work', to overnight babysitting, George did not attempt contact with 'Zanny the Nanny.'

This is unthinkable in the minds of parents and grandparents.

Casey told George that a 'nanny' existed and that the nanny watched his granddaughter while Casey was at her 'office' which then went to days on end where he didn't see his grandchild who was alleged to be sleeping over a strange woman's house and George (and Cindy and Lee) did not even ask to:

meet her,
talk to her
get an emergency contact phone number
write a letter
get a background check

or any other of a dozen things people do when entrusting their family member with a stranger. It is often said that most people show more interest in the kennel that watches the family cat during vacation than the Anthonys did over a 2 year old child.

Where was Caylee during these days?

Likely drugged, in one form or another, waking up in strange mens' beds, next to her mother.

Casey was negligent, just like her father.

These traits set up a last ditch scenario for the defense where they throw a willing George Anthony under the bus in order to save Casey's life.

We may only wish that George had shown this much willingness to have checked, even once, on the 'nanny' that was to watch his grandchild for days and even weeks.

Had George Anthony, even once, thought that it might be wise to ask Casey for Zanny the Nanny's phone number, just to check up on Caylee,

Caylee may be alive today.

Had the deception been checked, even once, it may have come to a head.

When someone says "they loved that child!" they must re-define what the word "love" means in order to justify such a foolish statement.

George Anthony knows this.

He, Cindy, and Lee all know that if they had just once, cared even the slightest bit, for Caylee and asked Casey for Zanny the Nanny's phone number, that this may have blown the lid off of the deception and saved Caylee's life.

They are filled with guilt.

The guilt drives them to strike out at the world; a world they hold in contempt and despise as weak, and worthy of only lies told by them.

This may be the last theory floated by the defense; only to be quickly shot down by minds like Sheaffer, that leads them to seek a plea.

There is a natural exhaustion to this case.

First, there was a report, which caught local interest, but the story quickly went national, with an audience emotionally caught on.

Then there was the arrest covered live on The Nancy Grace Show.

For weeks, viewers tuned in to the show for what was, real life drama, wondering if lightning would strike twice.

It didn't.

Caylee's remains were found, so public interest spiked.

The Anthonys' behavior and outrageous statements kept interest high, but even their cartoon-like lies became old news.

While things were hot in media, lawyers tripped over themselves for the free publicity, coming out of the woodwork to declare Casey's innocence, for their piece of the pie.

Now, some of the shows are doing "countdowns" to the trial, and seeking to churn interest and create news.

The story is getting old.

Selfish lying scheming mother killed her child. Mother was raised by selfish, lying, scheming parents.

If there is a trial, it will be a show and there will be some drama left.

But if the cow has been sucked dry, does Cheney Mason really want to go into the sunset of his retirement followed by WFTV playing the video of his boasting that he and Casey would walk "arm in arm" down freedom's way?

Baez got all he could out of this thing, and has embarrassed himself, no, he has humiliated himself, time and time again. Although he had nothing of which to base a defense upon, his attacks on investigators and later prosecutors only highlighted his lack of wisdom. This can be dismissed as a lack of experience by some, but it has nothing to do with courtroom experience and has everything to do with character. His words reveal him, even as he used juvenile taunts on investigators. His actions revealed him as he canoodled on camera with Casey Anthony, spending 6 hours a day in his office with her, when she was out on bail. He was so utterly unable to keep his hands off of her that he had to be reprimanded, several times, by jail officials once she was back in.

These things have nothing to do with inexperience.

These things have everything to do with character.

Is it possible that the countdown to the Casey Anthony trial, replete with countdown clocks ticking off the seconds, will end up being much ado about nothing as Mason and Baez look at each other and have to decide if the humiliation is worth the publicity?

Legally, I don't know what they could do, nor do I know what the State of Florida can or would do; but I do know this from the past 2+ years of analyzing the statements of the defense:

Their interest is self interest, not in justice, nor in protecting their client.

Baez works for Baez, and Mason works for Mason.

Is it possible that they will beg, behind closed doors, Judge Perry to shut down this 3 Ring Circus now, before they get the public humiliation coming?

The wild card is this:

If Baez and Mason feel that there is a single, microscopic technicality which can gain a retrial, they may feel that they can save face, and then hand over responsibilities of an entire retrial to others.

Mason can then retire without a "L" and can put an end to the humiliation he has suffered, and Baez can let his license lapse and get a gig as a commentator for Spanish television and, perhaps, oversee the Made for TV movie, or write a book.

As for the Anthonys?

They have not only successfully avoided work (and paying a mortgage) but they will cash in as well. Whatever it is they can hawk, they will find a way to live off the blood of a child they didn't even care enough to pick up a phone and make a single call for. Eventually, the guilt will drive them to the brink of insanity, and they will have the money, but not the ability to enjoy it.

They will see the bread in abundance, but be unable to taste it.

Lee will likely write a book using a ghost writer, who will have the college degree that he demands, but does not possess. The characteristics of his parents will emerge within his personality and he'll attempt to live off the sister he 'high fived' for 'outsmarting' police. The guilt will be kept at bay by the natural high levels of hormones in youth, but he will do what we all do: he will age. As he ages, the energy of youth will slow, and the guilt will follow him, gaining time and closing distance with each passing year until finally the knock on the door of madness must be answered.

So it is with blood guilt.

They all have a part in this. Casey, the sociopath, will face justice one way or another. George's only chance at redemption for what is left of his life would be to tell the truth.

Question: Can he? Is he capable of now, after all of this, to finally come clean and testify truthfully?

Answer: No.

He has been in training and preparation for this moment his entire life. Those who grow up lying often delude themselves into thinking that should something really important come up, they would rise to the occasion and tell the truth. It is not so. They revert to their training just as a child, raised in a certain way, goes back to his ways, set within the personality young. Nothing short of divine intervention could help him. 60 years of weakness, abdication and deception have prepared him for this very moment in life.

Judge Perry believes that when one takes the life of another, the murderer forfeits his or her own right to live, even as the murderer took away the right to live of the victim.

Judge Perry may not be interested in any plea.

He is a human being with feelings, just as anyone else watching the case.

He has personal feelings about Casey's flirtatious behavior in court, and now her "I'm a secretary" demeanor described by Dr. Lillian Glass.

He knows the ins and he knows the outs of this case.

It is likely a stench in his nostrils just as it is for anyone else watching Lee Anthony come in to his court room, arrogant and proud, slovenly dressed, or seeing Cindy Anthony snap her gum the way she snaps back her answers.

Judge Perry knows that no one in this family bothered to care enough to even question the thin lies of Casey, and perhaps, save Caylee's life.

If he were to allow a plea, it would contain Casey having to admit what she did, and why she did it, and it could not contain excuses nor blame of others.

Question: Will Casey get or seek a plea?

Answer: No.

Casey will not abide by such a demand from Judge Perry as to having to own what she did, and why she did it.

This is why I believe the case must go to trial.

Casey will demand it.

She will make others say she killed Caylee but she will not own it herself.

The defense has nothing but a plant expert to say one thing, but then quickly pummeled by other plant experts. Henry "Light fingered" Lee can say he found 3 more hairs in the trunk. So what?

It means nothing.

The trial will go through. We will see much ado about nothing in the next 6 weeks, perhaps only the end of the floated theories, like balloons, quickly popped by commentators.

Justice for Caylee marches forward, fueled by none other than Casey Anthony herself.

Posted by Seamus O Riley at 3/29/2011 09:13:00 AM
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 108541
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: To plea or not to plea? That is the question.   Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:50 am

To plea or not to plea? That is the question.

Posted on March 28, 2011 by mainstreamfair


The following article was contributed by our very own sleuth. She has also proven herself quite versatile as you will see when you read this write up. Once again, Nan11, thank you from everyone here at Mainstreamfair and especially me, Jonathon.
One of the things that make me think that we’re not going to get to see a trial is that the defense has absolutely ‘no’ defense. Trying to prove reasonable doubt by cross-examining and insulting the witnesses of the State seems pretty flimsy to me.
The second thing is the money worries of the State.
Miss Anthony stands now a convicted felon on cheque fraud charges–everything, including threats to Miss Huizenga–was tried to prevent this. Nothing worked.
The defense team of Miss Anthony, for the charge of murder in the first degree, tried harassing thousands of TES workers–to no avail; tried persuading a few to outright lie–no luck. They tried disgracing the gentleman that found Caylee’s remains–it didn’t work. They fought valiantly to have statements made by Casey Anthony, herself, tossed out–they are coming in. The three 911 calls made by Miss Anthony’s own mother will be heard. With their inane questioning of expert witnesses and outright offensive remarks to law enforcement–people were repulsed. As would the jury members be.
Law enforcement got down on their hands and knees, and sifted through an acre of earth–seeking every tiny bone in Caylee Marie Anthony’s body. When they came up with a few still missing, they brought in a hard working dog and his trainer to try to find these little missing bones. That’s how much they cared–how hard they tried.
Meanwhile, the blood relatives of this precious child were holed up in a fancy hotel suite; paid for by the news media–praying her precious bones would remain forever hidden. That they would be left exposed to the elements, returning to dust–that’s all the blood relatives of this 34 month old baby cared.
I think Caylee Marie Anthony deserve’s a trial. I think she has the right to expect her mother to stand before a jury of her peers and accept the punishment for the terrible crime she committed. I think Caylee Marie Anthony deserves to have the prosecutors expose the horrible manner in which she died. I think Caylee Marie Anthony’s soul deserves to see the light of justice; not a deal made in the back room.
These, I fear, are the dreams of an idealist. I’ve traded them in for the expectation of a “deal”. I pray that it is one that my soul can live with; and, most of all, I pray that it is one that the soul of Caylee Marie Anthony can find peace with.
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 108541
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: K9 Officer Holds His Own Against Baez As They discuss Dog's Body Body Language   Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:25 am

K9 Officer Holds His Own Against Baez As They Discuss Dog’s Body Body Language



Jose Baez was trying to impeach the K 9 officer but he did not succeed. The K9 officer was forthright and held his own. He would not accept word twisting or having words put into his mouth. He made that perfectly clear.
Questioning of the blind and double blind studies of the dog’s behavior was quite comical at times. I loved the part when the issue of body language was discussed.
Jose said that “at times the dog Reads body language and then you read the dog’s body language and you and the dog have body language conversations.” It’s obviously a one way verbal conversation and a two way non verbal conversation.
I must admit that I was impressed that Jose brought up the importance of body language.
But then Jose appeared to be trying to put words in the officer;s mouth regarding the double blind testing as the officer stands up for himself and says that he was just referring to a specific time frame and insists the dog was trained double blindly.
Jose feeling uncomfortable that the K9 officer gained some ground here, gives a tight ambivalent smile as he tries to redeem himself and gain control over the witness and then asks when was the last time the dog was double bind tested.
Regarding the testimony considering “false positives” I have to give Jose credit for trying but it was “no cigar.” When the officer said to Jose point blank “ I didn’t call it a false positive, you did,” he gained a lot of points and credibility, especially with a jury
As Jose continues to try to poke holes in the K9 officer’s testimony, he and fails miserably because the officer is a very credible witness. He’s steady and calm and his body language indicates that he is being forthright. A jury would love him.
The officer gave reasons as to why a dog would make a hit in an area. He openly answered that “ someone could have cut their skin…, blood, tissue…. someone could have laid a person on the ground.”
The fact that the K9 officer said “ someone could have laid a person on the ground” was very powerful as to why the dog made hit. Even though there was no body there to be found, the fact that a dog can make a hit if a body was merely placed on the ground is very interesting and significant information to a juror. It is also a very powerful mental visual for a jury . In light of that knowledge one indeed wonders “when” Casey may have placed Caylee’s dead body on the ground.
Throughout his interviewing of the K9 officer, Jose appeared a bit nervous and easy. He didn’t seem secure in his questioning. Although he did his best in terms of the questioning and tried to remain in control , his inexperience, insecurity, and shakiness was evident. www.drlillianglass.com
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 108541
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Attorney: George Anthony Didn't Kill Caylee   Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:33 pm

Attorney: George Anthony Didn't Kill Caylee


Casey Anthony Charged With Murder In Death Of Daughter

POSTED: Tuesday, March 29, 2011
UPDATED: 1:52 pm EDT March 29, 2011


ORLANDO, Fla. -- The attorney representing George Anthony released a statement on Tuesday, saying his client had nothing to do with the death of his granddaughter, Caylee Marie Anthony.
George Anthony is the father of Casey Anthony, who is charged with murder in the death of her daughter, Caylee.
Orlando attorney Mark Lippman issued the statement amid a media report saying that Casey Anthony's defense could suggest that George Anthony was responsible for Caylee's death.
In the statement, Lippman said, "George Anthony had nothing to do with the death of Caylee Marie Anthony. He has been investigated, deposed, examined and cross examined by both the prosecution and the defense, and neither the defense team nor the state of Florida have maintained that he is at fault in any way."
Casey Anthony's defense team recently added two new witnesses from an incident that happened in 2008 involving George Anthony. A woman claims that George Anthony shoved her while they were protesting outside his home. She and a woman who was with her have been added to the witness list.
"This incident had nothing to do with Caylee Anthony or the case in chief against Casey Anthony," Lippman said in the statement. "Unfortunately, because of the nature of this case, speculation has been publicly reported as to George Anthony’s involvement with the death of Caylee Marie Anthony. This is simply speculation or an attempt at interpreting the actions of the defense and certainly nothing that has been reported about this speculation is a news fact nor should it ever be construed as a news fact."


Lippman classified the report as speculation.
"While we continue to be sensitive to the important role of the news media in informing the public, and we do not wish to dissuade or prevent news media representatives from fulfilling their responsibilities, this line of speculation has necessitated an immediate response," Lippman said. "We assert that we will not engage in idle speculation regarding either the defense strategy or the state strategy but make no mistake that any factual fallacy stated contrary to my client’s well-being will be vigorously defended to every extent allowed by the law."
Casey Anthony, 25, has pleaded not guilty. Her murder trial is scheduled to begin in May.
Watch Local 6 News for more on this story.
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 108541
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Casey Anthony's defense team attacks reliability of two state witnesses   Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:08 pm

Casey Anthony's defense team attacks reliability of two state witnesses










Casey Anthony's defense team today filed new motions attacking the reliability of two important prosecution witnesses that the state wants to testify about science-related matters in the upcoming murder trial.

First, the defense filed a motion attacking "the unreliability of expert opinion testimony" of Dr. David Hall, a forensic botanist for the prosecution.

Hall wrote a report giving an estimate of how long 2-year-old Caylee Marie's remains likely stayed in the heavily wooded spot where they were found in December 2008. Some plant-root growth at the scene and on the child's bones indicates the body had been at the recovery site four months or longer, according to Hall's report.

But the defense, in the motion filed by attorney Cheney Mason, argues that Hall's "opinion is the result of his personal experience as a result of watching roots grow since he was 10-years-old." In addition, Mason argues, Hall "states that there is no methodology utilized in his determinations and there is no supporting data in coming to his conclusions."


The court must decide whether Hall, as an expert witness, will offer an opinion that is relevant and admissible and that its "probative value" is not "outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice."

"Because the relevancy, the admissibility and the risk of unfair prejudice of Dr. Hall's testimony must be determined, the defendant requests a hearing on the matter," the motion says.

The defense also filed an amended motion regarding another state witness, FBI fiber examiner Karen Korsberg Lowe.

Last week, Lowe testified at a hearing that a hair strand found near the trunk liner of the Pontiac that Casey Anthony was driving before her daughter disappeared showed such signs of "post-mortem root banding." And she testified that the hair showed "apparent characteristics of decomposition."

The defense, in its new motion, argues that Lowe "has both a personal stake in the general acceptance of post-mortem hair banding and is prone to institutional bias based on her employment by law enforcement."

It also argues that the prosecution failed to present testimony of "impartial experts or scientists" with regard to the hair root banding issue. The motion repeated that Lowe reached her conclusions based on her "training and experience."

"Because the state failed to provide an independent witness, Ms. Lowe's testimony is pure opinion, Ms. Lowe is not an expert in the subject of post-mortem hair banding and post mortem hair banding is an inappropriate subject for lay witness testimony," the new motion says, Lowe should be removed as a witness.

If she is not removed, the defense calls for a hearing on the matter.

Casey Anthony, 25, is accused of killing her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee Marie, in the summer of 2008. Her murder trial is set to start in May. Many pieces of circumstantial evidence, relying on highly-technical and scientific findings, make up the state's case against the woman.

On Friday, a second round of hearings on scientific issues in the case is scheduled to resume.

Meanwhile, a new hearing was set for 10 a.m. Thursday over whether to allow new defense witnesses.

Two witnesses are Dr. Jeffrey Danziger and William Weitz, Ph.D. The defense wants both "to rebut recent rulings related to the defendant's state of mind and consciousness of guilt."

Other late witnesses include Assistant State Attorney Kenneth Lewis; Daniel Kondos, a supervisor responsible for maintaining landscape on Suburban Drive, near where Caylee's remains were found; Patricia Young, a Texas EquuSearch member "found to have material testimony necessary for the defendant; and Sharon Cadieux, another "necessary witness to the defendant."
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 108541
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: State Interviews 'Possible' Witness In Casey Case   Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:16 pm

State Interviews 'Possible' Witness In Casey Case


Posted: 4:02 pm EDT March 29, 2011




Updated: 4:46 pm EDT March 29, 2011

ORLANDO, Fla. -- There was more legal action on Tuesday in the case against Casey Anthony. The state finished interviewing possible new witness Patricia Young Tuesday afternoon.




DOCUMENT: Motion For Additional Witness
BILL SHEAFFER: Analysis Of Possible New Strategy
GEORGE GETS AGGRESSIVE: Images | Raw Video
INCIDENT REPORT: Read Battery Accusations




In September 2008, Young was in a fight with Casey's father, George Anthony, while protesting outside the Anthony house.
WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer said the defense may try to call Young as a witness, possibly to blame George for Caylee's death (watch full interview).
A hearing over the new witnesses was just scheduled for Thursday at 10:00am. WFTV.com will show it live and offer live-blogging at our Casey Anthony section.
Previous Stories:
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 108541
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Casey Anthony's defense wants new hearing   Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:24 pm

Casey Anthony’s defense wants new hearing


Cheney Mason, Casey Anthony and Jose Baez in court on Jan. 3, 2011.
By Adam Longo, Reporter
Last Updated: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 3:23 PM







Case Against Casey




  • Latest Casey Anthony News
  • Key Players
  • Case Timeline
  • Twitter: @CFNews13Casey
  • Facebook: Casey Anthony News



New motions






ORLANDO --
Casey Anthony's attorneys want another chance to keep a prosecution witness out of the courtroom.
On March 25, Judge Belvin Perry denied a request from the defense about the exact same thing.
In a new court motion just obtained by News 13, defense lawyers are asking for a new hearing.
They don't want a state witness to testify about plant and root growth at the site where Caylee's remains were found.
The defense team has also filed additional information explaining why they think hair found in Casey Anthony's trunk shouldn't be admitted at trial.
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 108541
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Case Calendar: What's Next   Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:33 pm

Case Calendar: What's Next

2011
APR 1

Frye Hearing Scheduled
Hearings on Frye and other issues will continue on Friday, April 1 at 8:30 a.m. WESH.com will stream the hearings live. More



APR 2

Hearing Continues (Possibly)
If a hearing does not wrap up on Friday, April 1, the hearing will continue on Saturday, April 2 at 8:30 a.m. More



APR 8

Status Hearing Scheduled
A status hearing is scheduled in the case against Casey Anthony. More



MAY 2

Judge Expected To Tell Lawyers Jury Selection Location
Judge Belvin Perry is expected to announce to attorneys in the case where jury selection will take place. The general public will not find out on this date. More



MAY 4

Hearing Scheduled Regarding Jury Selection
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 108541
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Motiona: Witnesses Unreliable In Casey Case   Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:10 am

Motions: Witnesses Unreliable In Casey Case


Posted: 6:27 pm EDT March 29, 2011
Updated: 6:37 pm EDT March 29, 2011

ORLANDO, Fla. -- In between hearings, Casey Anthony's defense team is continuing its attack on state experts who examined evidence in the case.





MOTIONS: Dr. Hall | Karen Lowe
DOCUMENT: Motion For Additional Witness





Lawyers filed two motions on Tuesday, claiming the FBI expert who examined a hair found in Casey's trunk and the doctor who examined plant growth at the scene where Caylee's remains were found are unreliable witnesses.

The defense wants the FBI expert struck from the witness list and a new hearing on the other expert.

Meanwhile, a hearing about new defense witnesses is scheduled for Thursday.
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 108541
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Casey Anthony: Could Father be the Murderer?   Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:21 am

Casey Anthony: Could Father be the Murderer?


According to WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer, Casey Anthony’d defense team may try to portray George Anthony as Caylee’s real killer (watch full interview).
From WFTV:
New names on Casey Anthony’s defense witness list could be signaling a major change in strategy. WFTV found out one of those witnesses was pushed by Casey’s father during a protest outside their home.
Two of the witnesses appeared in a WFTV report in 2008 after George pushed one of them. Another new witness specializes in post traumatic stress disorder.
Now that the defense knows the jury will hear Casey’s statements to investigators and lack of emotion over daughter Caylee’s disappearance, it says Young and Cadieux have necessary testimony and it wants new experts to testify about Casey’s state of mind.
“The defense might try to show that George was abusive, abusive to Casey, and that she’s suffering from post traumatic stress disorder,” Sheaffer said. “This could mean that they’re going to attempt to pin the murder on George.”
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 108541
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Caylee/Casey Anthony Case: George Anthony is No Killer BUT HE IS KILLING ME Already   Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:24 am

Caylee/Casey Anthony Case: George Anthony is No Killer BUT HE IS KILLING ME Already

Posted by Blink | Blink,Casey Anthony,Caylee Anthony Case,Cindy Anthony,Dominick Casey,George Anthony,Jeff Ashton,John Allen,Jose Baez,Lee Anthony,Linda Drane Burdick,Murdered,The Scamthony Series,TotPoP,Yuri Melich,Zenaida Gonzalez | Tuesday 29 March 2011 4:35 pm

When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wonder’d… Tennyson

George sees the light… Baez Light Brigade that is… and yes, I do believe that jurors will think they are all drunk for such a strategy.
Not new, not novel, not nouveau. You have read my predictions that George Anthony will willingly serve up his lily liver with fava beans and a nice chianti, for years.
Well, looks like the bus he is laying down for has left the station.

If I am being honest, ( Editor’s note: I have a few Aussie friends, and they constantly say this to preface some sort of heinous insult that you forgot by the time this passed you by) I have no earthly idea why anyone would be surprised or remotely piqued from your Cheerios over such baffoonery.
Almost 3 years later, you would think that at some point the injustice this family has shown Caylee Anthony would cease, or at least dawn on them like some sort of loosely based Lifetime *movie*of *the*week* scene finale.
Let’s face it. George is the perfect patsy in this case. Let’s review a short list:
1. He flat out lied about seeing Casey and Caylee leave on June 16th, 2008. We know this because Casey’s cell phone records tell us she did not leave the house until after 4PM. George called her at the house earlier first, and then her cell, so again, he expected her to be at the house, not “at work” as he told invetigators. Contrary to recent reports on WFTV espousing that George described exactly what Caylee was last seen wearing as the clothing found with her remains, let me clear this up, courtesy of www.blinkoncrime.com contributor Kleat, from George Anthony’s deposition by the State of Florida, in pertinent part:



[Whereupon, the document referred to was
marked for identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit
Number 9.]
BY MR. ASHTON:
Jeff Ashton: Let me show you State’s Exhibit 9 and just ask you if you recognize that photograph? [Handing]
George Anthony: [Examining] Yeah. It’s a photo of Caylee.
Jeff Ashton: Have you ever seen that photo before?
George Anthony: No. I don’t remember if I have or not. I don’t believe so. No.
Jeff Ashton: The shirt that she’s wearing in that photograph, do you recognize — from what you can see of it, do you recognize that shirt?
George Anthony: Not off — no. I don’t recognize that shirt. I don’t know if it’s a pajama or if it’s a T-shirt. I’m not really sure. I’m not — I don’t know.
Jeff Ashton: Could that be the shirt she was wearing when she left?
George Anthony: No. She wasn’t wearing this one.
Jeff Ashton: Okay. So it’s a pink shirt, but a different pink shirt?
George Anthony: Yeah. It definitely wasn’t this one right here.
Jeff Ashton: Okay. Thank you. All right.


2. He ommitted entirely 2 jobs he was working at the time of his resume and interview for Andrews International, on June 17th, 2008.
3. He has a propensity for shall we say, ladies that require service fees, and that non-existant credit card he did not have according to Cindy’s deposition, at the time of George’s deposition had a nearly $11,000 balance.
4. He purchased a handgun while Casey was on bond.
5. His attempted suicide could be construed as “guilt driven”.
To be honest there is plenty more where that came from, but I doubt the defense in this case even got this far considering they are attempting to add witnesses four months late, whose allegations were cleared by OCSO in the first place.
At the March 3rd motion hearing, where George alledged he was an agent of the State, he faced Casey from the witness stand.
Casey, full glare ahead and adorned in her her gas can red sweater with the henkel silver jacket on top, and George in his “will someone take me seriously” lavender.

He flat out testified he will even “not show up” to court if it would help his “baby”, Casey Anthony.

Jose Baez: ..”Now if I gave this hypotthetical, if I told you not showing up to court next Wednesday, and I am not telling you to not come to court, it would save your daughter’s life, would you show up to court?
George Anthony: “..If you asked me to stay away from the proceedings, if it was going to save my daughter’s life I would not be here..”


Late this afternoon, as I was prepared to ask again where in the world is George’s counsel, finally, George Anthony’s Attorney, Mark Lippman, fired back:

In the statement, Lippman said, “George Anthony had nothing to do with the death of Caylee Marie Anthony. He has been investigated, deposed, examined and cross examined by both the prosecution and the defense, and neither the defense team nor the state of Florida have maintained that he is at fault in any way.”

I will sum it up this way. George has a better shot at drinking a 5th, than pleading the 5th in the criminal trial against his daughter.
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 108541
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Casey Anthony case: A review of the defense's motion concerning State expert witness Lowe   Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:28 am

Casey Anthony case: A review of the defense’s motion concerning State expert witness Lowe

Posted on March 29, 2011 by Valhall

The defense team has filed an Amended Motion in Limine for Hearing on the Unreliability of the Scientific Testimony by Karen Lowe on Post-Mortem Hair Banding. This motion is two part and kind of works both ends against the middle. In the first part of the motion the defense team states the State did not meet the requirements of a Frye hearing. Their argument for making this claim is that the State only produced Ms. Lowe herself to support her work. They cite several cases that point out that an expert witness cannot vet their own work in order to meet the requirements of a Frye hearing. The second part of the motion then says that Ms. Lowe’s testimony will be pure opinion, so it really doesn’t qualify for a Frye hearing, but since Ms. Lowe stated in the hearing she was not an expert in the field of post-mortem hair banding, her “pure opinion” would be a layperson’s opinion on a scientific matter and therefore should not be allowed in. This article will look at both parts of this motion, and why they are both very, very wrong.

First let’s get to the matter of the defense’s claim that the State only produced Ms. Lowe to qualify the generally accepted nature of her work in this case. That is not true. The very first thing that Jeff Ashton did in his direct examination of Ms. Lowe was to go through a series of peer-reviewed scientific papers on post-mortem banding. Those publications were supplied in the total submission to the court for the State’s argument that Ms. Lowe’s work is a generally accepted practice in the forensic scientific community. In order to analyze how this meets the requirements for a Frye hearing, we must first look at what is required to be met in a Frye hearing.
In going over the requirements that must be met in a Frye hearing I will rely heavily on a paper entitled Quantitative EEG and the Frye and Daubert Standards of Admissibility. I have chosen to reference this paper because it breaks down the legal requirements of a Frye (or Daubert) hearing nicely, but also speaks from a scientific standpoint on what those requirements mean.
To be clear, while it appears these “qualifying hearings” are traditionally referred to as “Frye hearings”, the original 1923 Frye standard was replaced in 1993 with what is referred to as the Daubert criteria for the scientific method which was a Supreme Court ruling. In the Daubert standard the following four factors or criteria are required to be met in order to define the scientific procedure as following the “Scientific Method”. Those four criteria are:

  1. Is there hypothesis testing?
  2. Is there an estimation of error rates?
  3. Are there peer reviewed publications?
  4. Is it generally accepted in the scientific community?

It is of utmost importance to understand that in the Supreme Court’s decision it was stated,

the subject of an expert’s testimony must be scientific… knowledge, because it is the requirement that an expert’s testimony pertain to scientific knowledge that establishes a standard of evidentiary reliability. But, in order to qualify as scientific knowledge, an inference or assertion must be derived by the scientific method
(It is interesting to note that the above quote originally comes from Mahle, S. Daubert and the Law and Science of Expert Testimony in Business Litigation “Business Litigation in Florida,” 4th ed. (2001). HA!)
This is a very important statement to get clearly understood, because what it is saying is that if a methodology has been developed based on the scientific method, and then that methodology becomes generally accepted and then the methodology is passed on (via training, education, etc.) to be used in developing an opinion or assertion, the four criteria of the Daubert standard must be fulfilled in the original science upon which the practice and opinion are based. In other words, Ms. Lowe, as a hair analyst,when following the accepted protocols for classifying a dark band on a hair as “post mortem hair banding” does not have to:

  1. Form a hypothesis,
  2. Estimate an error rate,
  3. Be published in a peer-reviewed publication,
  4. or be loved by the scientific community.

The methodology followed must have been developed via the scientific method that meets the above 4 criteria….not the work-level activities in following that methodology. The defense team, specifically Ms. Sims, seems sorely confused over this point.
So, is the work that Ms. Lowe performed in formulating her opinion that she identified a dark band that is consistent with post mortem hair banding a method established by the scientific method and meets the above 4 criteria? THAT is the question.
And the answer is, YES, it is. So let’s prove that now.
Was there a hypothesis formulated during the original scientific work upon which her methodology is based?
Yes. The hypothesis was: An anagen hair can develop a distinct dark band with specific characteristics that appears to be unique to anagen hairs from decomposing bodies.
Was there error rates established?
Yes. This is indicated in the peer-reviewed publications of the basic scientific work by reference to: 1) hairs taken from decomposing bodies that do not exhibit post mortem banding, 2) hairs taken from the same person where some hairs do exhibit post mortem banding, but others do not, 3) results of studies on hairs from living individuals indicating that no instance of post mortem hair banding has been seen from a living person, 4) that they don’t see post mortem banding in telogen phase hairs, and 5) data taken from studies in which the null hypothesis is tested by studying hairs in various environmental conditions to see if post mortem hair banding could be produced by a process other than decomposition of a human body. It is important to note, that to date, the null hypothesis has not been violated. In other words, they can’t find a hair, either in a living person studied, or hairs studied in various environmental conditions, that exhibit post mortem banding!
Now, first, Jeff Ashton was very correct in bringing out that the “error rate” applies more typically to measurement error rates. But more specifically the “error rate” question applies more appropriately to the basic foundational studies conducted (which have been peer reviewed and published for decades) not to Ms. Lowe’s work.
As our reference paper points out there are two types of error rates in testing hypotheses. They are Type I and Type II. Type I tracks the test’s propensity to return a false positive. A false positive we all understand and is a bad thing when talking about any test result that is inculpatory in nature. The studies we have seen discussed in the publications and the FBI studies are toward trying to “bust the hypothesis” or “fail the null hypothesis”…they are looking for other causes that could cause false positives. To date, they have not found any.
The second type of error rate is a Type II which tracks the test’s propensity to return a false negative. This phrase is not as well known. But it means just what it says. In this particular situation, it is the tracking of the error rate of saying “this hair is not consistent with coming from a decomposing human body because it does not exhibit post mortem banding”. Please note that in this case, a false negative is exculpatory because it would state there is no evidence from this hair that there was a dead body. The error rate for a false negative is extremely high in this type of testing because the publications note that there are a lot of hairs that come from decomposing bodies that do not have post mortem banding. They may not have any type of characteristic that would indicate they could have come from a decomposing body, or they may have a different characteristic other than post mortem banding. But the question on the table is…does it have post mortem banding? Based on that alone the error band falls toward claiming it has not based solely on the absence of this characteristic.
In fact, to date, the data shows that there is no identified source of causing a “false positive”, there are NUMEROUS instances of getting a “false negative”. So what does this mean for the “hair evidence” that was in the trunk? It means that if EVERY SINGLE HAIR found in a trunk, that also contained other signs of a decomposition event, had shown no sign of decomposition (be it post mortem banding, putrid ends, bushy ends, etc.) you could not with reasonable certainty state there was NOT a dead body in the trunk! Your probability of error on that call would be VERY high.
Are there peer reviewed publications?
About 15 minutes of going over just a handful of them at the beginning of this hearing establishes that YES, there are. All peer-reviewed…all in highly respected Forensic journals.
Is it generally accepted in the scientific community?
From our reference paper:

Scientific methods begin the process of becoming generally accepted in the scientific community by bringing appropriate hypothesis testing techniques to bear on questions (or hypotheses) of interest to the scientific community in a fashion that results in the peer approval required for publication. They move toward general acceptance by then withstanding the scrutiny of the broader scientific community to which publication exposes the methods.
We saw in the hearing, publications on post mortem root banding, and detailing the characteristics of those bands when analyzing hairs, that date back over at least 2 decades. It should be noted that the defense did not question Ms. Lowe about ANY publication that refutes the scientific principles and methodology discussed in the numerous publications the State provided in support of the general acceptance of post mortem banding identification. So contrary to the defense’s claim that the State did not meet the requirements of a Frye hearing, the defense did not meet their burden to refute the State’s presentation. They did not even present an opposing expert witness on the subject.
Now, to the second argument in the defense’s motion that states that Ms. Lowe does not qualify as an expert in this area and therefore the whole first part of the motion where they argue against the ruling on the Frye hearing was apparently just a typing test, or something…because Ms. Lowe is going to offer pure opinion. Since, says the defense team, she is not qualified as an expert in this area her “pure opinion” would be that of a layperson and therefore will have more potential prejudicial impact on the jury than bringing probative value because she basically has “no merit”…since she isn’t qualified as an expert.
Okay, let’s break this down. First, the defense’s contention that Ms. Lowe is not qualified as an expert. Straight from the defense’s motion it states the following:

During the March 23rd hearing, Ms. Lowe stated “correct” to Ms. Sim’s assertion that she was not an expert in the field of post-mortem hair banding.
Let me change colors to drive this home…THAT IS A BOLD-FACED, OUTRIGHT LIE TO THE COURT. I do not know how these “officers of the court” can continue to put outright lies in their motions to the court and get away with it. Here is what was asked and answered during Ms. Sim’s cross of Ms. Lowe:

Ms. Sims: You are not an expert in hair, are you?
Ms. Lowe: I’m an expert in the examination and comparison of hairs, of the microscopic characteristics present.
Ms. Sims: But you are not an expert at what causes abnormalities in hair from a medical standpoint, correct?
Ms. Lowe: That’s correct.
The defense team never asked the question “are you an expert in the field of post-mortem hair banding”. And what they DID ask her, she responded to by clearly identifying herself as an expert in microscopic analysis of hair and identifying characteristics present on those hairs.
Now, to the argument of “pure opinion”. Is Ms. Lowe’s testimony “pure opinion”? Well, at this point it doesn’t really matter much considering the defense is screwed whether it is or isn’t, now aren’t they? Because she has not stated she is not an expert, so she is qualified to render an expert opinion…which would then not even fall under the requirements of a Frye hearing!
BUT, I argue she does qualify as an expert. Back to our reference paper…concerning Kumho v. Carmichael in which the Supreme Court revisited the Daubert standard and “tweaked” it just a little. In Kumho the Supreme Court broadened the strict requirements of determining what “scientific knowledge” is, as previously defined in Daubert. The Supreme Court ruled that,

Daubert’s general holding…applies not only to testimony based on ‘scientific’ knowledge, but also to testimony based on ‘technical’ and ‘other specialized’ knowledge.
Ms. Lowe repeatedly stated that what she does, and what anybody else who does similar work as she does, is based on experience and training. Ms. Lowe’s work takes extensive training and is extremely specialized. She exhibited a deep knowledge of the specialty within which she works. Ms. Lowe is an expert at what she does. She identifies microscopic characteristics of hair.
In closing I will quote one last time from our reference paper. This is Judge Blackmum’s words from the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in the Daubert case:

scientists do not assert that they know what is immutably ‘true’ — they are committed to searching for new, temporary theories to explain, as best they can, phenomena…[science] represents a process for proposing and refining theoretical explanations about the world that are subject to further testing and refinement.
[A judge makes a] preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue.
Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.
In other words, as our reference paper so succinctly states…“Jurors determine the credibility of what survives.” The defense team needs to stop attempting to try this case in pre-trial hearings and just DO THEIR JOBS.
Valhall.
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 108541
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Like it or not, this is our system   Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:31 am

March 29, 2011

like it or not, this is our system


George Anthony did not kill Caylee. But Baez and Company have to use him.
It’s unconscionable to even hint that George Anthony could be the perpetrator of this crime. We know he didn’t do this, and we KNOW the person responsible! But, the jury will not know. The jury will come to this case with a head devoid of the background noise we have about the case.
As a result of reading the discovery, we are privy to much more than a jury will ever see, or ever know. In fact, half of the discovery we have read for nearly three years, will not be admissible.
Casey Anthony is so desperate to win, she has no choice but to use George. He is the best reasonable doubt she has – the most probable alternative to Casey committing the murder. Casey Anthony would have to agree to the use of her father; we know she doesn’t care, so she is having at him.
It is horrible to use one’s own father in this way, but in order for Casey to have a defense, this is what they will use. Everyone deserves a vigorous defense, even Casey Anthony, is what I tell myself.
None of the lawyers believe George is guilty. Not a single OCSO representative thinks George had anything to do with the murder – and George will not be charged. But, he will be used because in all probability he “could” have committed the crime. He had the means and the opportunity to do so. Motive is not a factor that the jury weighs, even though we know George has no motive whatsoever.
In truth, this kind of action is exactly what defense lawyers in this country do every day. They test the evidence of the Government – they challenge it and fight like hell to be sure the evidence against their client stands up to vigorous challenges, and that it’s factual.
I would want my attorney to be a bulldog.
It’s the job of the defense attorney to insert doubt. They find openings; they test those openings; they hunt for their own evidence; they’ll find alternative witnesses; and they will do their utmost to create doubt by testing the validity of the Government’s case, their witnesses, and the evidence. They put the Government to the test – a truth test.
This is our system of justice. Trial by a jury of one’s peers is how our very lives and our liberty are assured. Without our system, we would live in a Police State, we would have no rights, the Police could charge us with anything under the sun and we wouldn’t be able to do a thing about it.
Our system may not be perfect, but legal minds say it’s the best in the world.
It’s all about checks and balances – just like Jose Baez seems snarky and sneaky to us, I assure you there are prosecutors and police that are far worse. There are Judges that get paid off, there are many, many shenanigans in the legal system, but it is the exception, not the rule.
I am not sure who said this – it may have been Ben Franklin, and this is paraphrased, but the quote is: It is better that 10 guilty persons go free than one innocent person is charged.
If Baez and Company did not have a chance to pursue this option, they would be negligent. According to Bill Shaeffer, if the defense is not given wide latitude to pursue this kind of reasonable doubt – because it is valid, though we feel it’s wrong – if the defense is not allowed this strategy, the chance of this trial being reversed on appeal is GREAT.
No one will charge George with murder. He is not guilty and everyone knows it. Even if this defense strategy works and (God forbid) Casey walks, no one will look at George as perpetrator of this crime – the defense knows he didn’t do it, too.
This is a strategy and a defense born of desperation.
We hate it, I hate it, but the defense has to play this card…. they have to.
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 108541
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: More Hearings for Casey Anthony - Pass the Excedrin (Super Strength)   Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:52 am

More Hearings for Casey Anthony - Pass the Excedrin (Super Strength)


It's the beginning of the gardening season and I've spent a lot of time outdoors cleaning up my gardens. Where I live, the plants go dormant, but somehow the weeds manage to proliferate. If I expect to see my beautiful flowers grow strong and healthy, those pesky winter weeds have to go! With decent gardening time this week, I had hoped to get a lot accomplished.

However, Casey Anthony and her lawyers' interminable motions and excessive examination of witnesses is stealing all my time! I'm also sure Judge Perry is thrilled with the latest developments as well.

I just came indoors to start doing my homework for the hearing Friday (and possibly Saturday) and found out to my dismay that we now have a hearing on Thursday, March 31 at 10:00 AM. There will be more Frye hearings on Friday, April 1 and possibly Saturday, April 2 at 9:00 AM as well.

Meanwhile, there have been two more motions filed by the defense today.

I'm sure you all remember the defense Motion to Vacate & In The Alternative Motion For Clarification Dr. Hall, which the judge DENIED March 21. Today, the defense filed a 03/29/2011 Motion for Hearing: Amended; on the Unreliability of Expert Opinion Testimony of Dr. Hall.

To get the root-growth testimony excluded from trial, the defense cites Chavez v. State which says:

Before an expert may render an opinion, the witness must satisfy a four-prong test of admissibility. Section 90.702...requires the court to make two preliminary determinations: (1) whether the subject matter will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a disputed fact, and (2) whether the witness is adequately qualified to express an opinion on the matter. Once these threshold determinations are affirmatively satisfied, two more requirements must be satisfied for the admission of expert opinion testimony. The expert opinion must apply to evidence presented during the hearing, and the danger of unfair prejudice must not substantially outweigh the probative value of the opinion.

I have a feeling that the defense is desperate to try and get Dr. Hall off the State witness list. Could it be that their witness, Dr. Bock, does not have the same extensive credentials in forensic botany that Dr. Hall has? Could it also be that the defense is desperate for a hearing on this, based on the wording of the citation in their motion? I feel there is another DENIED coming down the road.

The second motion filed today relates back to the torturous questions asked by Dorothy Sims to the FBI lab tech, Karen Lowe at the last hearing. She kept being interrupted by Jeff Ashton and Judge Perry who both indicated that the questions she was asking did not relate to Frye. She kept saying that the defense motion was MORE than a Frye hearing. The judge told her to file a motion. Here it is: Motion In Limine: Amended; for Hearing on the Unreliability of Scientific Testimony by Karen Lowe on Post-Mortem Hair Banding.

This is a five page motion, but you can get the gist of the argument by reading the topics discussed in it.

The State did not satisfy the requirements under Frye because Ms. Lowe's testimony was the only testimony offered by the State on the general acceptance of hair banding during the March 23, 2011 hearing

Ms. Lowe's testimony is pure opinion testimony

Ms. Lowe is not qualified on an expert in hair banding

Hair banding is an inappropriate subject matter for a lay witness

Ms. Lowe's testimony regarding hair banding lacks relevancy and, as a result is inadmissible

Any probative value of Ms. Lowe's testimony is outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice lay witness and is, in fact, an expert. (This isn't making any sense to me!)

Conclusion

Because the State failed to provide an independent witness, Ms. Lowe's testimony is pure opinion, Ms. Lowe is not an expert in the subject of post-mortem hair banding, and post-mortem hair banding is an inappropriate subject for lay witness testimony, the Defendant asks the Court to strike Ms. Lowe as a witness. In the alternative, the Defendant seeks a hearing on the issues

There are so many things that bother me about this motion. Karen Lowe is a highly trained person who works for the FBI. She has studied hair-banding as part of her job. While she isn't a researcher, she showed her knowledge of the subject during her direct and cross-examination. Unfortunately, Ms. Simms did have a hard time understanding how the results of testing hair from living people produced different results than the death-banding.

I also recall that when Jeff Ashton filed his response to the defense motion, he included nearly 400 pages of learned articles and a transcript from a Frye hearing held in New York. Again, aside from the fact that the hair-banding shows a deceased Caylee in the trunk of the car, the defense doesn't even have an expert of their own to argue their case. Dr. Petraco, a well-respected expert in the field refused to testify for the defense. Ironically, it is Dr. Petraco's testimony in that New York Frye hearing where the testimony was allowed in for the defense.

It will be interesting to find out if Judge Perry pulls out his DENIED stamp for this one!

Hearing Wednesday, March 31

The defense filed three motions concerning adding new witnesses. Of the three, the Defense Motion Clarifying Motion for Leave For Additional Witnesses explains them all.

The first witness is Dr. Jeffrey Danzinger, the same psychiatrist who tested Casey on the orders of Judge Stan Strickland during the bond hearing. The defense has retained him to work with Casey and he recently completed his work. When the motion was filed on March 22, he had yet to write his report.

The next witness is Dr. William Weitz. He is also a psychiatrist and he specializes in PTSD. As with Dr. Danziger, he has yet to produce a report.

For both doctors, the defense has stated that each "is a necessary witness to rebut recent rulings related to the Defendant's state of mind an consciousness of guilt."

While they were originally to be added to the witness list for the penalty phase.

At the end of the last hearing, however, Ann Finnel approached the bench and told the judge that the defense wished to include one or both of these doctors to the guilt phase of the trial and she would have reports for the State. This has been the topic of much discussion on the message boards I visit. What is confusing to me is that it seems the defense wants some sort of psychiatric testimony that will explain Casey's lying and flat demeanor. This move obviously derives from comments by Judge Perry in his denial of the motions to keep out all communications between Casey and the police, her family, and jail friends.

Since psychiatric testimony during the guilt phase of trials is traditionally limited to cases which deal with a mental illness defense, this move is very unusual. I look forward to the discussion of this during the hearing.

Next is Kenneth Lewis, Assistant State Attorney. I believe he was the prosecutor in the Maya Derkovic trial and would not be used unless Maya testified at the trial. The State has already said they are not calling her and the defense is thinking about it.

All we know about Sharon Cadieux is that he will be returning to Florida soon for a deposition. There's nothing about how she relates to the case.

Daniel Kondos is the supervisor of the individuals responsible for maintaining the landscape on Suburban Drive. He is a recently discovered witness. It seems that the individuals who actually did the work on Suburban Drive transfer around and he's the only person who is available to testify.

We can translate this to the fact that he supervised the people who routinely cut the grass at the edge of the road. That would be the only "landscaping" Suburban Drive would have. I'll be interested to know what kind of lawnmowers the workers used there since I have a feeling Mr. Kondos would be talking about when the grass was cut and how the workers told him things about the water levels. This should be interesting once we see his deposition.

Finally, there is Patricia Young. Ms. Young is a person who volunteered with TES. Unfortunately, the weather was bad that day and she went to the Anthony home where she became involved in an incident with George Anthony, who pushed her off the curb. She filed a complaint against George, but apparently, no action was taken.

It's interesting to note that, although she didn't search with TES, the defense motion says, "Good cause is shown because Ms. Young was recently deposed as a member of the Texas Equusearch and was found to have material testimony for the Defendant."

I have to wonder if she ever did search. However, once the name and the complaint came to light, the message boards and blogs have been busy speculating about her testimony. Kathi Belich and Bill Sheaffer had some ideas!

Video
State Interviews 'Possible' Witness In Casey Case

Tomorrow, I'll show you my homework for the April Fools Day Hearing!
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 108541
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Defense Suggests George Anthony Murdered Caylee   Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:33 pm

Wednesday, March 30, 2011


Defense Suggests George Anthony Murdered Caylee


It's a never ending circus when it comes to the Casey Anthony murder case in Florida. First, Casey Anthony's defense team suggested that Roy Kronk must have murdered two-year-old Caylee Anthony and when that didn't pan out for them, now they are suggesting that Casey Anthony's father George must have done it. You've got to hand it to Jose Baez and the rest of Casey Anthony's defense team, because when it comes to finding someone other then their guilty client to blame for that little girl's death - they are certainly creative in their techniques.

It would not surprise me if sometime before Casey Anthony's trial begins in May, even the Pope himself will be accused of murdering Caylee - just to try and take the heat off of Casey. The murder trial of Casey Anthony cannot come fast enough for me. I believe that once the pre-trial motion games are finally brought to an end, Casey will face the justice she has had coming to her for a long time now. I still believe deep down inside that when the trial is almost over and there are no more games for Jose Baez to play - there will be a plea deal struck that will send Casey Anthony to prison for the rest of her life.

It's sad that defense attorney's are allowed to accuse innocent people of murder in order to help guilty folks like Casey Anthony get away with a crime. I know that's just the way the US justice system works, but I don't have to like it. There are too many innocent people in jail today for me to lose any sleep over what might happen to Casey Anthony in her upcoming trial. Unlike some criminal cases, the evidence against Casey Anthony is so damning that there is no jury in their right mind who would ever find her not guilty. The time has come for the evidence to speak for itself and for Casey's much longer then 15-minutes of fame to be over.

**HutchReport
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 108541
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Document: Casey's Defense Has Billed Fla. For Over $100K   Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:32 pm

Document: Casey's Defense Has Billed Fla. For Over $100K


Posted: 5:24 pm EDT March 30, 2011
Updated: 6:45 pm EDT March 30, 2011


ORLANDO, Fla. -- During the past year
, you and the rest of the state's taxpayers have been billed more than $100,000 to defend Casey Anthony, but you won't have to pay for all of it.








READ: Casey Anthony Case Expenditures
VIDEO REPORT: Defense Billed Over $100K






As of March 29, the defense had billed taxpayers more than $103,000 for Casey's defense. So far, the state has refused to pay more than $11,000 of that and more than $31,000 is pending.


Casey's defense spent more than $200,000 before asking taxpayers last year to pay the rest of Casey's legal expenses. WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer says that's twice as much as a client of limited means would spend on a murder defense.


But now, taxpayers are being asked to pay another $100,000. So far, they've paid more than $60,000. More than half, almost $34,000, was spent on her own investigation.


The Florida Justice Administrative Commission (JAC), which oversees public spending on criminal court cases, has refused to pay about $1,000 billed by defense investigators. One of them, Jeremy Lyons, has been accused of trying to strong-arm prosecution witnesses into changing their stories.


The defense has just received approval to do another 300 hours of investigation, which means taxpayers will be billed about another $12,000 for that.


The defense has billed the state almost $10,000 for transcripts of its depositions of prosecution witnesses, but the state is refusing to pay almost half of that.


Defense experts have cost $20,000 in the last year. One is Dr. Scott Fairgrieve, who admitted last week much of his testimony is based on things he's read.


The defense also billed taxpayers for in and out of state travel, and for work to try to prevent Casey from facing a death sentenced if she's convicted for murdering her daughter Caylee, and dumping the body in the woods near their house.


Prosecutors have spent almost $56,000 in almost three years, not counting salaries; investigators can't even guess how much they spent. The trial could cost taxpayers more than $350,000.
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 108541
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Deposition Shows War of Words In Casey Case   Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:37 pm

Deposition Shows War Of Words In Casey Case


Transcript From September Deposition Shows Tense Moments


POSTED: 7:07 pm EDT March 30, 2011
UPDATED: 7:19 pm EDT March 30, 2011


ORLANDO, Fla. -- New depositions filed Wednesday in the case against Casey Anthony show the war of words at its worst between lawyers on both sides.
The depositions are of scientists from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory involved in air tests from Anthony's car.
Defense attorney Jose Baez accused prosecutor Jeff Ashton of making bar association complaints against him, the transcript shows.
After Baez interrupted him, the frustrated prosecutor told Baez to "shut up."
"Are you going to scream again, Jeffrey?" asked Baez.
"Are you going to let me talk, Jose?" Ashton replied.
Repeatedly, the defense accused Ashton of coaching witnesses.
"You should report me to the bar if you really think that," Ashton said.
"I think you're the only one that files bar complaints in this case," Baez responded.
Of the alleged coaching defense attorney Cheney Mason said, "It's inappropriate, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt."
"I don't need the benefit of anything you have to do for me," Ashton replied.
"Don't get out of line with me," Mason warned.

In another testy exchange, Baez interrupts an objection and an obviously frustrated Ashton tells him, "If you'd shut up and let me speak it I would."
In sworn testimony, Dr. Arpad Vass described the smell in Anthony's car as "so intense -- it can't be confined to one area."
He called the level of chloroform vapors from a carpet liner sample "massive."
Vass admitted his findings don't identify human decomposition, but rather a nonspecific, "decompositional event."
In a more recent hearing this year, Baez apologized to Ashton and both sides agreed to bury the hatchet.
The case returns to court Thursday morning at 10 a.m. for a hearing over a new witness list. WESH.com will stream the hearing live.
Jury selection in Anthony's murder trial is scheduled to begin May 9.
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 108541
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Will March go out like a lion?   Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:42 pm

Will March go out like a lion?

Posted on March 30, 2011 by mainstreamfair



March 31st hearing will get under way at 10:am, Florida time.
The defense filed a motion asking the court to include six new witnesses.
1. Dr Jeffery A Danziger- Good cause is shown for adding the doctor as an additional witness past the Court’s imposed deadline, as Dr Danziger has only on March 16, 2011 completed all work and due diligence. Dr Danziger is a necessary witness to rebut recent rulings related to the Defendant’s State of Mind and Consciousness of guilt.
Please note that Judge Perry quoted the words, “consciousness of guilt” in his Order Denying the defense motion to exclude interviews.
2. Dr William Weitz- The defense requests that Dr Weitz be added to the witness list for the same reasons as Dr Danziger.
3. Kenneth Lewis, Assistant State Attorney- The defense wants to call Mr Lewis to rebut any testimony of Maya Derkovich. The state does not plan to call Maya as a witness.
4. Sharon Cadieux- The motion just mentions that Ms Cadieux has not as yet been deposed but they feel she remains a necessary witness to the Defendant. The defense asks the State to hold its objection. Not many details are in the motion re Sharon.
5. Daniel Kondos- is a supervisor responsible for the landscape on Suburban Drive during the relevant period. Mr Kondos has not been deposed yet. I assume the defense will want him to testify to the conditions, water levels, out at Suburban during the period, June to Dec 11/08.
6. Patrica Young- The motion indicates that Ms Young was recently deposed as a member of Texas Equusearch and was found to have material testimony necessary for the Defendant.
I found that the information in this motion was very scant, to say the least. It is my understanding that Ann Finnell plans to call Drs Danziger and Weitz for both the guilt and penalty phases of the trial. This has not been set in stone so we will find out more tomorrow. It is no problem if these good doctors are called for the penalty phase but it is way past the deadline to call expert witnesses for the guilt phase of the trial. I am unsure how Judge Perry will rule on this motion.
We already know that Patrica Young is the 65 year old lady who brought charges of battery against George Anthony. To my knowledge, nothing came of those charges. Judging from watching the video of the scuffle, I would have locked that old dame up. She reminded me quite a bit of Lois Peters.
If Mason is present at the hearing tomorrow and I expect he will be present, we may see some fireworks. There is bound to be tension in the courtroom since Judge Perry has been accused of bias by Cheney Mason, Esq.
Back to top Go down
sanny
Hard Core Blogger
avatar

Posts : 108541
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Kure Beach, NC

PostSubject: Casey Anthony case cooking up business for restaurants?   Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:56 pm

Casey Anthony case cooking up business for restaurants?


Casey Anthony
By Adam Longo, Reporter
Last Updated: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 4:41 PM


ORLANDO --
Lunchtime at the Orange County Courthouse means hundreds of people flooding out the doors.
When the Casey Anthony trial starts, there will be a couple hundred more people right across the street. And everyone will be looking for a place to eat.
Expect a lot more dough and a lot more cheese come mid-May.
When Casey Anthony's in court, more pizzas are sliding into the oven at Fratelli’s Restaurant.
“Our restaurant is full without the Casey Anthony [case], especially in that time 12 to 1,” said Julian Serjani.
Serjani and his family run Fratelli's restaurant, which sits literally in the shadow of the Orange County Courthouse.
“We're definitely busy now, but we will be double busy during that two-month trial,” Serjani said.
“We're preparing to extend our hours,” said Richard Grdo of Champs Café.
Champs Café, which is right on the courthouse property, is already thinking about the seats that will fill up.
“It’s gonna be a lot of business, a lot of people, and we're really excited for it,” Grdo said.
Grdo is already talking about extending his hours, and possibly opening on weekends.
He's also already planning on adding staff.
“We'll need more than two or three people here. Absolutely,” he said.
“To hire just for two months, that is the hardest part,” Serjani said.
Serjani is ready to hire for temporary work as well.
He said they’ll be out delivering to press.
They’ve worked out discounted rates with the court to feed the Casey Anthony jury. They'll have box lunches ready to fly out the door.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: CASEY ANTHONY ~ MARCH ~ 2011   

Back to top Go down
 
CASEY ANTHONY ~ MARCH ~ 2011
Back to top 
Page 10 of 11Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Casey Anthony verdict shocks Central Florida
» casey anthony is now free
» Casey Anthony defense team files expert witness list
» POLL - Would You Buy Casey Anthony's Book? Please Vote
» Casey Anthony Trial Day 11: Dr. Arpad Vass Air Sample Testimony

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
LOVE AND PROTECT ALL CHILDREN :: CASEY ANTHONY-
Jump to: