PDA

View Full Version : Casey Anthony trial



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 [66] 67 68

taf2002
07-15-2011, 09:36 PM
The jury is told that statements of counsel are not evidence. Casey didn't take the stand and testify to it. So, while I agree with your characterization of the story, the jury did not have "the defendant's own incredulous account" because it was in opening statement, not in evidence.

The defense lawyer is an officer of the court. He cannot put his client on the stand if he knows that said client will lie. He also cannot lie. That's why defense lawyers sometime don't ask clients if they are guilty. Therefore, the story of how Caylee died has to have come from Casey. Baez is not allowed to just make up some story.

He can hedge by saying "it could have happened that way" but he didn't do that. He said "this is the way it happened". He could lose his license to practice law if he is caught in a lie. Therefore, we have to conclude that the drowning/cover-up story is Casey's.

http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/can-lawyers-lie.aspx

"The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct states that a lawyer “shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact.” In other words, lawyers aren’t supposed to lie--and they can be disciplined or even disbarred for doing so. But notice, the key word here is “knowingly.” A lawyer cannot “knowingly” lie."

If Baez made up the drowning story he would be knowingly lying.

GaPeach
07-15-2011, 09:47 PM
Apparently, Casey wants to appeal the lying conviction. Seriously?????

http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/casey-anthony-plans-appeal-convictions-lying-164116184.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us

Once the appeal is filed, Casey would not be required to answer any questions in any deposition until the appeal is over.

I have also heard some rumors about witness tampering that is leading back to Baez.

attyfan
07-15-2011, 09:48 PM
The defense lawyer is an officer of the court. He cannot put his client on the stand if he knows that said client will lie. He also cannot lie. That's why defense lawyers sometime don't ask clients if they are guilty. Therefore, the story of how Caylee died has to have come from Casey. Baez is not allowed to just make up some story.

He can hedge by saying "it could have happened that way" but he didn't do that. He said "this is the way it happened". He could lose his license to practice law if he is caught in a lie. Therefore, we have to conclude that the drowning/cover-up story is Casey's.

http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/can-lawyers-lie.aspx

"The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct states that a lawyer “shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact.” In other words, lawyers aren’t supposed to lie--and they can be disciplined or even disbarred for doing so. But notice, the key word here is “knowingly.” A lawyer cannot “knowingly” lie."

If Baez made up the drowning story he would be knowingly lying.

You are talking about something totally different. The fact that Baez is not ethically allowed to lie doesn't alter the fact that the jury is not allowed to consider his statements as evidence.

MacMadame
07-15-2011, 11:00 PM
You are avoiding answering my question. That's OK. This isn't a court of law but that fact speaks for itself. :P
Including the fact that you will never ever admit you are wrong and will just ask the same questions over and over again and then nitpick the answers to death so you can have the last word?

If you want to have the last word, go ahead and have it... I've already said my piece and there isn't anything unclear in my explanations, so I don't see any need to keep repeating myself. It's not fun and I post on FSU to have fun. Not to "win."

IceAlisa
07-15-2011, 11:06 PM
Including the fact that you will never ever admit you are wrong and will just ask the same questions over and over again and then nitpick the answers to death so you can have the last word? I don't think I am wrong in this particular instance. And when I am wrong, I admit it. IMO you are thinking about this very concretely. Ziggy said that psychology does not predict mourning behavior. I countered with the 5 stages. It is only common sense to understand that the 5 stages do not always apply or apply in this particular order. But this doesn't mean Casey's behavior was an example of unusual grief.


If you want to have the last word, go ahead and have it... I've already said my piece and there isn't anything unclear in my explanations, so I don't see any need to keep repeating myself. It's not fun and I post on FSU to have fun. Not to "win."

:huh: I was asking you for the evidence to support your theory and I get this?

cruisin
07-15-2011, 11:27 PM
I don't think I am wrong in this particular instance. And when I am wrong, I admit it. IMO you are thinking about this very concretely. Ziggy said that psychology does not predict mourning behavior. I countered with the 5 stages. It is only common sense to understand that the 5 stages do not always apply or apply in this particular order. But this doesn't mean Casey's behavior was an example of unusual grief.

I agree with this. I do not think Casey was exhibiting grief, in any form. But, I do think that within more predictable "stages" of grief, there are variations. Psychological issues can manifest in different ways in different people. If this was Casey's manifestation of grief, it is a very warped variation, which doesn't really fit.

duane
07-16-2011, 04:15 AM
You are talking about something totally different. The fact that Baez is not ethically allowed to lie doesn't alter the fact that the jury is not allowed to consider his statements as evidence.
The judge didn't instruct the jury to disregard Baez's statements. It's a jury's duty to make reasonable assumptions. Baez is defending Casey. Why wouldn't the jury assume that Casey's story of what happened is told through her lead attorney?

attyfan
07-16-2011, 05:26 AM
The judge didn't instruct the jury to disregard Baez's statements. It's a jury's duty to make reasonable assumptions. Baez is defending Casey. Why wouldn't the jury assume that Casey's story of what happened is told through her lead attorney?

It is very unusual for a jury not to be told what they may and may not consider; even if a jury is not explicitly told that attorney's statements are not evidence, they are usually told that they can consider only evidence, which is defined as witness testimony under oath and the exhibits they are given ... which excludes attorney statements.

Furthermore, the prosecutor should have objected .... if Casey (or any other criminal defendant) wants to tell his or her side of the story, they can present evidence or take the stand themselves ... submitting to cross-examination. They are not allowed to tell their story through their attorneys because their attorneys are not cross-examined.

An opening statement like Baez's (full of assertions that are never shown by the evidence) is a very risky trial tactic precisely because of what you suggest ... that the jury will assume that the statement is her story. But, the jury is not supposed to consider it.

WindSpirit
07-16-2011, 02:20 PM
I can think of several scenarios where Casey had nothing to do with the death and little to nothing to do with covering it up. Is there a-n-y evidence to that? No? So why even go there? It amazes me that people are willing to come up with all those scenarios which are nothing more than pure speculation if not a complete fantasy, yet a probable and logical scenario with circumstantial evidence is not good enough.

Anyway, Casey's appeal makes me laugh. It pretty much sums up what kind of person she is. Even if there's black and white proof that she did something she would still try to weasel her way out of it, or just flat out deny it. On what freaking grounds are they appealing it? Xenu was speaking through her when she was lying to the police or came up with the imaginary friends (which by the way her defense admitted was all lies during the trial) so she's not responsible?

I'm sure the Xenu theory would have its fans even with hard evidence. After all the police could be lying she lied, and we can't really judge anyone based on anything, can we? Everyone's different. That's it, case closed.

AxelAnnie
07-16-2011, 03:46 PM
In my world.....if Anthony is going to appeal her convictions - convictions for actions [I]her attorney[I]said she did............then she has to turn in the not guilty verdicts.

I assert that the jury used the statements of Jose Baez to muddy the water on the murder conviction.........."Maybe daddy did it. Maybe daddy molested her. Maybe it was an accident gone horribly wrong" to avoid their duty to interpret the law and the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt (not a certainty).....Ergo, if they are going to ask to reinterpret the lying, then they should have to stand scrutiny on the entire thing!

Unfortunately, it is not my world :(

GaPeach
07-16-2011, 04:12 PM
There was no proof of molestation of Casey by her father or brother. When Orlando detectives wanted to investigation this crime-they were blocked by the defense.

IceAlisa
07-16-2011, 05:06 PM
Is there a-n-y evidence to that? No? So why even go there? It amazes me that people are willing to come up with all those scenarios which are nothing more than pure speculation if not a complete fantasy, yet a probable and logical scenario with circumstantial evidence is not good enough.

Anyway, Casey's appeal makes me laugh. It pretty much sums up what kind of person she is. Even if there's black and white proof that she did something she would still try to weasel her way out of it, or just flat out deny it. On what freaking grounds are they appealing it? Xenu was speaking through her when she was lying to the police or came up with the imaginary friends (which by the way her defense admitted was all lies during the trial) so she's not responsible?

I'm sure the Xenu theory would have its fans even with hard evidence. After all the police could be lying she lied, and we can't really judge anyone based on anything, can we? Everyone's different. That's it, case closed.
Brava! :respec:
I had no idea Casey is appealing her conviction. Was this expected?

GaPeach
07-16-2011, 05:20 PM
Brava! :respec:
I had no idea Casey is appealing her conviction. Was this expected?

Yes...because of the civil lawsuits and having to reimburse law enforcement including the FBI for their cost.
As it stands now, she can plead the fifth on her civil deposition until her appeal is over.

agalisgv
07-16-2011, 05:49 PM
Actually, they've been used to discuss any important loss. In pop psychology--that's the problem. The stages weren't meant to describe loss--it was to describe processes people go thru when they are DYING. It's a distinct process that doesn't translate to grief, loss, or larger mourning phenomena. In fact, the misuse of the stages applied to grief has been cited as a major stumbling block for people to mourn bc they don't experience those stages or anything similar and then think something is wrong with them.
As a side note: do you have any formal training in psychology? Or do you think, as usual, that googling a few links without meaningful knowledge makes you an expert? I've had formal training and have worked specifically in the areas of grief and crises counseling in clinical settings and received certification for that work. You're simply wrong on this one, and no, I'm not going to debate it further.

Honestly I'm not invested in this case the way others are, so I'm not arguing she did it or not. I just know people do, say, and feel some very out there things after the death of a loved one, and that is often more the rule than the exception. In extreme cases, I've even seen innocent people go to jail for no other reason than there reactions didn't comport with societal expectations of what proper grieving should look like. I'm not making an argument about whether this applies to Casey or not--I don't really care. I am saying, though, that basing guilt on a person's reactions to someone's death is intensely problematic.

That's all I really want to say on this.

IceAlisa
07-16-2011, 06:18 PM
In pop psychology--that's the problem. The stages weren't meant to describe loss--it was to describe processes people go thru when they are DYING. It's a distinct process that doesn't translate to grief, loss, or larger mourning phenomena. In fact, the misuse of the stages applied to grief has been cited as a major stumbling block for people to mourn bc they don't experience those stages or anything similar and then think something is wrong with them. I've had formal training and have worked specifically in the areas of grief and crises counseling in clinical settings and received certification for that work. You're simply wrong on this one, and no, I'm not going to debate it further. I don't recall you ever admitting to being wrong in a debate, btw... But as to training, so have I as in a degree and diploma, although I didn't work on grief exclusively but did work with it nonetheless. I have seen 5 stages applied and discussed in the context of loss other than personal diagnosis of terminal illness. If you have been formally trained in psychology, do you not agree that psychology, especially personality and emotional issues are not cut in stone? A little flexibility is called for and in this case, yes, I have seen it used in other contexts by theoreticians and practitioners both. That's been my experience but if you choose to call this "pop" psychology, than you are the one who is wrong. ;)


For your reference: http://www.memorialhospital.org/library/general/stress-the-3.html
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/297/7/716.short
Comment from the JAMA study that involved loss of a loved one:


Although the temporal course of the
absolute levels of the 5 grief indicators
did not follow that proposed by the
stage theory of grief,
when rescaled
and examined for e a ch indi c a tor ’ s
peak, the data fit the hypothesized
sequence exactly. Pardon the format.
I could find more examples of the use of 5 stages beyond being diagnosed with a terminal illness. Would you say that the hospital and JAMA are practicing pop psychology? And are wasting their time, since according to you, the 5 stages have been "debunked"? As to your comment about the stages of grief being some kind of obligation and the bereaved person thinking there's something wrong with them if they don't follow the pattern exactly: any intelligent counselor would explain that the stages are a theory that may or may not apply to a particular individual. It seems to apply to the group of people studied by JAMA investigators but whether it would apply to any given individual is not known. That needs to be explained to the person being counseled if the stages are brought up.


II am saying, though, that basing guilt on a person's reactions to someone's death is intensely problematic.

That's hardly happening. Her reaction was not in a vacuum. There were other facts that when looked at in their entirety add up to a coherent story. No other theory does, or at least not that I've heard.