Analytical Chemist was not
 

a good witness for the defense.....Wondering why he was called by Baez?

Amazing
 

I continued to be amazed by the performance of Baez ! It should be remembered that the State has 100's of support people at their call plus
almost if not totally unlimited funds. Baez has 2 or 3 Ass't Attorneys,'
a couple of para legals and he must be as technically bright as the State
attorney's who have all the support (e.g. total Orange County Justice
Dept, Attorney Gerneral and staff, Sheriff's dept, FBI, + all the others)
to put Casey to death.
It is unbelievable that Baez can go from technical issue to technical issue when cross examining state witnesses and then put on a defense case with
the limited resources and still be able to go technically toe to toe with all the witnesses.
Everyone looks at some of his misses and hesitations when questioning the witnesses. I would challenge anyone to try to defend someone against the unlimited resources of the state and with limited funds and incredible technical issues required to represent the client. WOW..!!!:bowdown:

Penn... The state is not charged with killing someone...they are prosecuting someone who is charged with killing someone. It is o.k. they have all the bells and whistles. AND I don't think Baez is going "toe to toe". I think he is fighting dirty, playing games and is ill prepared.

Just my humble opinion. But our Helene is really informed, she hasn't missed a morsel of testimony ......and I listen to her. She has wonderful common sense.

Major Problems
 

There are so many inconsistencies on both sides that they are almost impossible to count. Today is only one example in many.

When Dr. Bock (I think that was her name) testified that Caylee's body had only been there about two weeks based on the forensic botany that she observed, primarily concerning fallen leaves (leaf litter), the prosecutor, Jeff Ashton, brought up issues on cross as is his job. She seemed very credible, but then I'm not in the field to know the difference. My concern is with his argument about the muck surrounding the skull which he said indicated a much longer time. He said (and demonstrated with his hands) that the skull was buried in the muck up to the level of the eye sockets and at least mid-ear.

Now comes the question. Remember when Roy Kronk called in his find for the third time in December? He said that when he kicked at the bag (later he said picked it up) a human skull rolled out. Wouldn't that negate Ashton's statement about being buried in muck?

In the recap/replay in the news Baez couldn't get the drowning time right in his opening...early morning, sometime early afternoon, finally settling on early morning. The prosecution can't make up its mind whether to go for duct tape or chloroform.....now it's changed to both since neither one is totally supported.

Many of the legal analysts, most of which are lawyers themselves, are also getting put out with the judge and his often perceived bias (even by them). Remember, these same lawyers have occasion to have him as judge on their cases. It's also been said that he even slipped up at one time and referred to the prosecution as "we".

Baez needs to get his act together if he wants to save his client's life. He needs to realize that he doesn't have the luxury of doing it his way when it comes to orders. It ain't Burger King. Ashton needs to adjust his whiny attitude and stick to his business and quit tattling to the judge about Baez (he was texting, he needs to be sanctioned, etc.).

Our court system is not about numbers (at least it's not supposed to be). The prosecution has no interest at getting to the truth....only another win at all costs. I, for one, do care about the truth whatever that turns out to be.

This is by far the sleaziest trial I have ever witnessed. This is supposed to be our criminal justice system.

I can understand the incompetence of the defense counsel but there is just no way to justify a sleazy prosecution.

C

o.k. Penn, I reread that post and it does appear like I know she is guilty. Which I do.

You are right of course. Everyone does deserve a fair trial.I should not assume she is guilty until all of the facts are layed out.

But I just know instinctively, in my heart, that she is guilty. But I wouldn't like to put someone to death. Even her. But I am for the death penalty.

I know. It drives Sweetie crazy too, my form of "logic". He thinks she is guilty too, by the way.

You know the old adages. " If it walks like a duck....etc. And the other one, "If it smells like..............."

What mother would go 31 days without reporting to someone their child is missing unless they themselves had something to do with the disappearance and was waiting it out until push came to shove and had no other choice but to admit that the child was missing? How in the world could anyone hold that so close to themselves without a peep to someone else, it just doesn't make one ounce of since to me.:shrug:

A "sicko" could do that and I think she did. I, too, hate to say that she is guilty until all of the facts are in......but.........all of the circumstantial evidence, when viewed together, makes it very difficult to think any other way. The defense strategy seems to change every day and so far has not given me one reason to think that someone else is responsible for Caylee's death. I wait every day, hoping that my beliefs in this case will prove to be unfounded. But, every day the defense digs themselves a deeper hole. Sooner or later the "dirt" is going to cave in and bury this team. Baez's credibility with the jury has to be on a miniscule level at this point. I say let's wait until he finishes presenting his case. Will he give us some evidence that is believable, that Casey drowned, or will he spew forth another bunch of lies, hoping that we and the jury are gullible enough to believe them? At this point I'm thinkin' that Casey's lying behavior has rubbed off on Jose.......or, is lying what this lawyer does when backed into a corner and sees no other way to defend his client?

Tricks
 

I think the real dirty tricks are coming from the State. To illustrate why I say this: (a) The state attorney's continue to object in order to destroy any
continuance of statements by the witness. Is this legal..? Yes. Is it a trick to divert the testimony..? Yes, (b) The State fully recognizes they have the judge in their pocket and are using it to their advantage. Last night Greta
VanSustren said that in all of her experiences she has never witnessed a judge so bias against a defense..So it is not just me saying it. This was followed up by additional attorney's agreeing. (c) the state gave the defense a copy or original hard drive from the family laptop. Rather than identifying
what they may discuss they left open all items on the laptop. I can assure you that if I gave someone my hard drive, said I might pick some things off for proof it would take the full staff of the Dept of Commerce of the US to determine potential usage. It was unfair and a trick. There are many more but too many to put in a note. (d) I have to also add, how many times have you heard the State Attorney say: "Are you telling me?" or Are you saying that"? These are all leading questions but how many times have you heard the judge tell him to restate his question??
Just some thoughts..:bowdown:

PennBF
 

Just out of curiosity, Were you a defense attorney?....I can give you as many attorneys that feel the prosecution is doing an OUTSTANDING job and Baez is a dirt bag.....As far as bias by the Judge, that is a bunch of crap!.....If anything he has been more than accommodating to that little liars sneaky attorney!!!!......If you don't think that Baez didn't have an ulterior motive for accommodating the court order, that is very sad.....I will give you this, Baez certainly did not have the resources that OJ Simpson had and for that reason he has resorted to sneaky legal maneuvers...

Looked at FL statutes a little last night; learned that murder 1 (ie, capital offense, death penalty eligible - but of course, the jury can recommend a lesser sentence) can be either if the death was premeditated or occurred as a result of 'aggravated child abuse' (which is another offense that she is charged with). Also, if it occurred from a 'depraved' (the statute's term - but I think in general this implies an 'evil', 'ill will') state of mind, it can become murder in 2nd degree (ie, not eligible for death penalty) - but not if premeditated.

Also, if she had planned to use insanity as an offense (ie, a state of actually being delusional, 'hearing voices', etc., which I don't think is what is involved here), that has to be pled before the trial (I think sometime at the beginning of the case). As far as I've heard she has not raised insanity as a defense.

It all remains to be seen. I have only been watching off and on; would imagine it's alot for the jury to digest and retain. Closing arguments will be amazing to hear.

The Truth
 

The State may be trying to pull some fast ones, too. Surely the State has done some research on Roy Kronk and knows this:

Remember what I said previously about Roy Kronk? This morning, Tony Pipitone pointed out that the photos shown yesterday of Caylee's skull in the woods showed that it was buried up to the eye sockets in muck. He also said that Roy Kronk said when he made his "find" that when the skull rolled out, he picked it up by an eye socket and then put it down. (Gracie, would you ask Helene if she remembers this since she's following it all closely as well?) Wonder how he will testify at trial? Kronk's prior statements should be on tape or tv footage somewhere. Could he be involved in some way?

Like I've said before, Casey knows exactly what happened. Guilty of murder warranting the death penalty? I can't see that, yet. The trial still has a long way to go. The truth is out there somewhere, but it may be hidden so well that it can never be found in total.

Bias?
 

Many of the legal analysts, most of which are lawyers themselves, are also getting put out with the judge and his often perceived bias (even by them). Remember, these same lawyers have occasion to have him as judge on their cases. It's also been said that he even slipped up at one time and referred to the prosecution as "we".

Based on the aforementioned comments Baez is succeeding in muddy up the waters. And when it is all said and done it adds up to nothing thus far. Perhaps 6/23 and going forward Baez will introduce something of substance.

Perhaps Judge Perry should have gotten more involved in Baez's representing Anthony. he clearly is not qualified and the judge has been attempting damage control so as to not permit an appel by anthony based on poor representation

I continue to stay with evidence that has not been disproved. Casey is a habitual liar, she ignore a missing childfor 31 days, she partied hardy during those days, she fabricated ames of people and places and that she was working. the forensic will be a wash beacuse Caylee was not found until six months later and too late to make an affirmations

Hi dilliwho
 

Just forwarded your note to WFTV and this was their response!

Thanks for sending that along. I haven't heard of any attorneys saying they are put out with the judge, nor have I heard any suggest that he is biased in any way. I'll certainly check with our legal analyst, who is very familiar with those in the legal community here, and see what he has to say.
Thanks so much,
Bruce