Excuse me, I'm still yawning and trying to shake it off in time for another day of the defense's presentation in the Casey Anthony trial.
After Jose Baez presented explosive accusations and outrageous scenarios in his opening arguments and followed up with a surprise witness announcement--a convicted kidnapper no less--I expected a riveting day in the courtroom. Instead Baez bored me to tears.
He recalled some of the state's witnesses who previously testified to what they found. Now, Baez had them talk about what they didn't find and testing that was inconclusive. The most tedious of all was FBI expert Heather Seubert. She tested a lot of the items collected at the body discovery scene and found no good DNA profiles. (Granted she did provide an educational moment for some, but since I am the mother of a daughter who graduated with a double major in biochemistry and genetics--it was all old news to me.)
On cross, the state had Seubert acknowledge that it was no surprise: items left for six months in a watery area decomposing would likely have degraded, unusable DNA.
Baez then humiliated FBI analyst Lorie Gottesman, the woman whose DNA was found on a piece of evidence. Contamination found and revealed is insignificant. Contamination missed would have been noteworthy.
The defense also made a big deal over the location of the heart sticker thirty feet away from the skull. What part of flooded area and the movement of small light articles in water don't they understand.
Worst of all was the defense sly attempt to malign Lee Anthony's character by bringing up the irrelevant paternity test. It was negative. A positive test would have mattered but Lee was cleared of all possible conjecture and Internet rumor on that count.
Unless the defense comes up with some meaty testimony, it is obvious that the only thing they care about is subverting the justice that Caylee Anthony deserves.
And this is supposed to go on for what? DAYS!!? ugh.. I am so afraid he's going to put people on who just lie. Hopefully the jury sees through it all.
ReplyDeleteHeaven help us all, kdmask. I, too, hope they do see through the lies and smoke screens of the sloppy defense strategy.
ReplyDeleteDiane,
ReplyDeleteCan a defense attorney throw out all kind of scenarios and lies in his Opening Statements; then completely ignore and not address them in his defense of his client like Baez is doing?
If so, then an attorney can say anything in his opening to put "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the jurors.......?? That just doesn't seem like a fair trial to me if you can say anything and everything you want and never have to back up your statements!
Just wondering,
Janice in GA
He does have the right to do that because the defense does not have to prove anything. However, the jury does not forgive false promises made in opening statements on either side. If a committment is made then, the jury expects it to be delivered. When that does not happen, jurors tend to throw out everything connected to that side's case.
ReplyDeleteJose forget the first rule of holes: When you're in one, stopping digging.
Thanks Diane, I think you're right, I don't think the jurors are gonna forget that Baez promised them an explaination of what happened and now he's not following through so I don't think it will sit well with them.
ReplyDeleteI like your analogy of "digging holes".......LOL!!