OK so now the truth comes out - we all knew this they are saying the indictment did not include facts, to me it did and I am sure we didn't see all of the indictment but 31 days is enough to go on to me...but they are saying this is not enough info to be able to defend her , okay seems to me like you guys need to get off your tail and start working instead of running your mouths to the media of course you don't know hoe to defend her the only thing you do know is your client is a big fat liar!

they also say that prosecution filed to many charges in the check fraud case and want those charges removed - don't see that one being faught as well

and they have changed the date from the 18th of Dec. to the 11th of Dec - one year after remains found

and not to mention this is the one that really gripes me - the defense saud Caylee's murder was not calculated or cruel how the heck would they know that if she DID NOT DO IT! Finding a small child discarded like trash and thrown in some trees in a trash bag is very cruel and calculated to me IMO

and the link:

http://www.wesh.com/caseyanthony/21507294/detail.html

Thanks Wendy...

We also have (or at least I have), heard Baez, on tv, stating, more than once..that there is a story to be told here..and it wil all come out during trial!

The grand jury, indicted her..prior to Caylee's remains being found..so, this is just a bunch of BS, and stall tactics, imo.
The defense claims, the state does not state, how the crime was comitted.

It's so pathetic, it's almost funny...this is what the trial /w jury is for.
And the constant talk of no cause of death, no eye witness, no yada,yada... I watch alot of true crime stories, on Inv. Disc. I watched one a few weeks ago, where the body of a woman, was never found...husband..convicted of 1st degree murder.

quote:

And the constant talk of no cause of death, no eye witness, no yada,yada

You almost want to laugh at Baez making this statement...
How many cases are there actually eye witnesses??? An I believe the prosecution has prove Casey guilty they do not have to prove the cause of death....(someone correct me if I am wrong).

YES Baez...it's hard to defend a cronic liar...it's hard to defend a murderer.....
if he wants sympathy, he's not going to get it.

Oh...where is that story that's all going to make us say..."oh, that makes sense...and Casey is Mother of the Year"

quote:

An I believe the prosecution has prove Casey guilty they do not have to prove the cause of death...

Sorry everyone....should of read....And I believe the prosecution has to prove Casey guilty they do not have to prove the cause of death....

It works both ways. I've seen a case where a man was accused of murdering his wife and setting a fire to cover evidence. They had the body, they had a good case that the fire (started with clothes dryer) was arson, but, since the wife's body was so badly burned, and the ME could not determine cause of death, the jury sentenced the man to 13 years. He had means, motive and opportunity.

Look at the Robert Durst case. The man admitted to dismembering his neighbor's body and dumping it in Galveston Bay, but claimed the actual killing was self-defense. And this is while he hid his identity and pretended to be a woman. He was also linked to the disappearance of his own wife and the murder of a close, female friend. Again, the jury said, yeah, he probably murdered the guy, but the state did not prove its case. So, you never know what a jury will do. The state does not have a slam dunk here, particularly on the first-degree murder charge, and I would bet a hundred dollars Casey never receives the death penalty. I'd even be a little surprised if she gets life.

No, don't think so, Stella...Laci Peterson..no cause of death..Scott is on Death Row.

Also, the true story, I watched on Inv. Disc..the husband said wife ..just left, and never came back.
It was a circumstantial case. He(husband) did not report her for 3 or 4 days. He did have some scratches on his neck.
He was convicted of 1st degree murder, sentenced to LWOP. They have never found her body, even to this day.
So..definetly no cause of death in this case, no body.

Cool..thanks...that's what I thought about the cause of death...

I have some sympathy for the duhfense, because, seriously, I wouldn't know how to defend her either!

Let me see, let's start with her statement about what happened.... Oh wait! That won't work. Ummm, how about the conspiracy thingee.... ummm, she was trying to give people CLUES...about the REAL kidnapper...Nope, won't fly either, they've all been cleared. Well then, a stranger did it? But, how'd the stranger get Caylee. JEEPERS, that darned Casey just didn't give the poor duhfense ANYTHING to work with.

Thank God!

*Curiouser made me grin*

Thanks Mama, sometimes I have to joke about it to show how ridiculous I think she is. But I sure don't think what she did is funny! (I know that no one here does.)

I think this forum has the most intelligent, well-informed posters. Ya'all amaze me sometimes!

From a legal point of view, can somebody answer this please----

Can the prosecution suggest that the cause of death was suffocation due to the duct tape? Can they say it without being able to prove it?

I mean, in reality, ANYBODY would die if duct tape was put over their nose and mouth. So, it's reasonable to believe the duct tape caused Caylee's death. However, since it can't be proven it was the cause of death, just how far can the prosecution go?

quote:

Thanks Wendy...

We also have (or at least I have), heard Baez, on tv, stating, more than once..that there is a story to be told here..and it wil all come out during trial!

Yup, and as Wendy points out... NOT! And we all suspected that all along.

Curious... that's a good question. I suspect (but don't know) that they could suggest that they believe she was suffocated by the tape in their closing statement, but I'm wondering if they even have to bother? Just the existence of the tape and the manner in which the body was disposed was enough for Dr. G to declare this a murder, and that alone might be enough for the jury too. It sure does it for me.

Yeah, trixie, me too. She may not have used the duct tape to suffocate Caylee, but since she's not talking, it's fair game to assume she did (IMO).

That duct tape is going to put her on death row. Without it, the jury might have felt a little sympathy for Casey. But, if they decide she is the one who killed Caylee, then they are probably going to believe the duct tape was directly involved in the death itself. You can't accidentally duct tape a two-year-old's mouth and nose.

I believe they can create inferences, just like with the stain. The SA won't come out and say - look you can see that the stain has a definite shape of a child in the fetal position. However they can take that picture that the FBI expert saw, and blow up that picture to a life size picture and let the jurors "see" that for themselves. Just the fact that Casey was the very last person to have Caylee alive and then for the SA to say Caylee was found with three layers of duct tape over her nostrils and mouth, that was placed there before decomposition, the statement on Caylee's shirt, Big Trouble comes in Small Packages, and the fact that both the duct tape and the shirt are directly linked to Casey, the Anthony home, the crime scene and the victim, that Casey took the time to change Caylee out of the clothes that George saw her in last, she was found without shoes, The car had Caylee's hair with the deathband in Caseys own car, the last person to have her alive, the decomp odor, that was hit on not only in Casey's car, but also in the backyard near the pool and Caylee's playhouse. The jurors are not dumb they will draw the only conclusion with all this. All I said doesn't even touch base on the lies, contradictions, statements from all Casey friends about her demeanor, the 31 days, the no reporting Caylee at all, the lies and cover up by the Anthonys in their quest to get their daughter acquitted. All the lack of credibility in statement after statement, video after video. The SA is going to be relentless in their questions, but they are going to do it with professionalism, tact and style. For them to state flat out that the stain is definitely in the shape of a child in the fetal position, then it leaves that door open for them to look less credible to the jurors, and they can not afford to make definite statements, like that in a circumstantial case.
JMO