This is curious to me. Discovery often involves hard disks and/or boxes upon boxes of paperwork. I've never heard of an attorney having to highlight portions of it for the other side. Is that indeed a requirement?

Wofl
 

The attorney is the attorney associated with WOFLD (Channel 434 Comcast HD) by the name of Diane (something...can't come up with her last name right now). Maybe you can see what they have to say about it at that station, too. It might be interesting to compare the two station responses.

She was also on Greta Van Sustren's (she's a lawyer, too) show along with some other attorneys and they pretty much alluded to the same thing. They did not say that he is biased but that is how he seems to be coming across. She said that she (Diane) has tried many cases in his court and always found him very fair in those cases.

I've been flipping through all the channels just to get their different perspectives because like the rest of us, they vary greatly. WKMG (Channel 6 or ***) and WESH (Channel 11 or 432) are my favorites with WKMG first. They seem to be the most in the middle.

Jeff Ashton was really toned down today. It certainly made his cross more effective. He still got in plenty of leading questions, though. I'm glad someone else has noticed that he pretty much gets away with it, too, but Baez does not.

It does seem amiss that the defense team did not focus on the hard drive entries concerning the dates that they had to know would come into play without being told specifically which ones they were. That's really a no-brainer and a big screw-up on their part. I didn't take it as a trick or unfair on the prosecution's part. There was no mention about how old the computer was so of course there would be meaningless and totally unrelated stuff on it. They wouldn't need to sift through more than a few months prior to July 15. (By the way, it was a desktop and not her laptop. That's why the efforts to see where everyone was since they all had access to it. I understand Casey also had a personal laptop, but I don't think they've said anything about it, have they?)

The State has the judge in it's pocket? We must be watching different trial coverage. I personally think the judge is being very fair.

I heard from one of the commentators that apparently the prosecution plans to show from the Anthonys' computer hard drive that on the day that Caylee was last seen (and, so, would be the day of the alleged drowning), there were computer transmissions (ie, emails, etc?) which would show that George was on the computer doing ordinary stuff during the time frame that the drowning would be alleged to have happened and the discovery of the body in the pool etc; thus to blow a huge hole in the drowning scenario.

I also heard that the prosecution has a witness who is a young woman in jail (for something else) who in actuality did have her toddler drown in a home pool, be found by the grandfather, etc; and the prosecution will offer this to show that Casey somehow heard that story and decided to adopt it as her own account.

The problem that this will all leave Casey with is that, since the nanny abduction scenario was clearly a lie, and the drowning (if Casey testifies to that scenario) will I think be easily shown to be a lie, she could be convicted of a capital offense no matter whether the jury believes that the death was deliberate or that it occurred unintentionally as a result of over- sedation from chloroforming, since that could be seen as aggravated child abuse. The jury could conclude (and probably would have to, since no other explanations have been suggested) that one of these two things happened - otherwise, why not just tell what really did happen, if there is some yet 'unheard' exculpitating explanation for what happened to Caylee, and throw yourself on the mercy of the jury and the Court?

I don't think the jury will or should allow a parent to just sit there and give no explanation (other than two completely fictional explanations) of the circumstances that lead to a healthy child who was in their care ending up dead, and the death and the body hidden for weeks, without the jury reasonably inferring, especially with all of the other evidence, that the silence (and the alleged scenarios which were shown to be lies) must mean that the truth, if told, would be incriminating.

Questions
 

Regarding the opinion that allegedly the Judge is leaning to the State is strongly based on some commentary I have heard on the news. Last night
Greta Susteren made the comment that (paraphasing) she has never
seen such judical leaning to the State. It would not be a surprise since the
Judge was a Prosecutor for the State and I heard he was the attorney that
sent the 1st woman to death row in Florida. I would not swear to this but did hear from someone who may have the knowledge.
I am not a supporter of the defense and not a supporter for the State. I am a supporter for a fair trial and not a rush to judgement. I am definitely not an attorney, (have served on a Jury, served on a Grand Jury and worked with a famous Law Firm on Wall Street for 5 years). This does not qualify me to be anything but a regular citizen following the trial. :bowdown:

Leading questions are permitted on cross-examination but not on direct examination. We're now hearing the defense's case, so Jeff Ashton can ask all the leading questions he wants but Jose Baez cannot.

I think you and Helene are right about Baez. I haven't heard any of the analysts say that the Judge is being unfair, quite the contrary.

Wow!...What a day
 

GOOD day for the defense! State attorney Jeff Ashton gets a little emotional and this time it came back and "bit him"...Not sure where the leap from what was said (impeaching the witness)to miss trail.....And I still don't understand how the state made the leap that Cindy was NOT the "chloroform" computer user AND did not check with Cindy's supervisor regarding her work history during the chloroform computer searches...Reasonable to assume that even thou the computer shows no connection between chloroform and chlorophyll thru a miss type or similar prefix..If they are looking for reasonable doubt....Hmmm! They may have found it!

The prosecutor ascertained in cross of the Police Sgt Computer expert , who read the logs of the computer searches, that the search for chloroform occured 3 seconds prior to a myspace search on the same computer. Cindy previously testified that she has never had a myspace account. Bottom line, the person searching for chloroform was also the person searching for myspace. I think Cindy just committed perjury.

:agree:

It's looking like the apple didn't fall far from the tree. Now I'm wondering if anyone in the Anthony family can tell the truth.

Isn't it amazing
 

HOW MUCH IN DETAIL Cindy and Casey TELL their STORIES!....

Also, if the Prosecution is the only one that has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and Ashton was in the process of impeaching the testimony of the "expert" witness, and the judge ruled that you cannot do that because the defense or in this case defense witness cannot be challenged, does that mean they have a free-run at perjury!!???? And then the next thing we hear is that there is a chance of a mistrial.....I'm totally lost but this will not be the first time!:shrug::shrug:

Wow, this peaks my curiosity. Was Mrs. Anthony cross examined? Was anything said in court about whether her testimony was consistent with statements she had to police and given in pre-trial deposition(s)?

Hi Pturner
 

Oh, yea, she sang like a little bird.....Stain in trunk was there when they bought the sunbird car for Lee.....She was the one that looked up the word Chloroform.....She remembers the day because her yorkie was acting sleepy, so wanted to look it up under chlorophyll, she told prosecutor that she told her that 3 years ago.....There is a catch, 20 seconds later a hit for facebook, she does not have a facebook account....It's funny most legal experts, think this is typical for mother protecting her child, sure hope the jury can see thru this....Her story came across as very believable to many....

I watched part of it today. She was a witness for the State and then a witness for the defense. The proscecutor was livid and asked her if her memory was better since she had changed her medications since 2009.

I thought to myself, geez, Mrs. Anthony is good. She is really good. No wonder Casey knows how to spin a tale and avoid answering a question truthfully. It was like a train wreck happening. I didn't want to watch; but I couldn't look away.