doesn't answer my question of how you would change the system to save time and money. she's now brought up child molestation by her father as part of her defense. are you suggesting that she somehow be limited in what her defense can be? if so, how would you change the system and remain within the constraints of the constitution. should she no longer be able to confront witnesses such as her father? that concept has been at the heart of our judicial system forever. as you say, it's her day in court, not her father's but can she not mount any defense she wishes in court to burden the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt? you brought up the oj trial. in that the state failed to convince a jury of his guilt. we've always put the burden of proof on the procecution. would you change that? how?

What I would change, is what i think is already a rule, but often gets overlooked. I am not a lawyer but I think heresay does not apply to cases. Therefore it should not be presented to a jury. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a facade that is used to make people feel a little more comfortable with our judicial system, although it "reasonable doubt" does not exist.

Ok, OJ, his glove did not fit, this was a glove involved in the crime, it applied to his case.

False accusations from a proven pathological liar is nothing but heresay with no solid ground to stand on. It has nothing to do with murder. She is getting a fair trial but how many extra days must the court be paid to dance around her antics before getting to the actual case at hand. THE FACTS. Stick to the facts and the BASE of the case.

what hearsay has been presented to the jury? the defendant hasn't even testified. her lawyer presented the theory that she had been sexually abused by her father in opening argument. that is not in the least hearsay. as i said, it's a basis of her defense.



no i suppose you are not a lawyer. reasonable doubt does indeed exist in law. that is precisely how oj got off. the defense put reasonable doubt in the minds of 12 jurors.



yes, the glove did not fit. there was also mishandling of dna evidence. here's the point. the state has the burden to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the crime was committed. that you think reasonable doubt is a facade does not make it so. in fact it's the standard by which our judicial system works.



you simply do not understand the definition of hearsay. again, she has yet to say anything whatsoever. she and her attorney have every right to present the theory that was presented in opening argument? did you hear an objection of hearsay from the prosecution? of course you didn't because no hearsay from the defendent or her counsel has been presented.



the jury will decide what are and are not the facts. they will do that only after hearing ALL of the evidence and testimony that ANYBODY has to offer. it will take as many days and cost as much as it costs until both the prosecution AND the defense have rested their cases.

Physical evidence are just about the only thing that counts as "facts" these days...

True she has yet to open her mouth once in court, Why do you think that is?????? She will probably lie perhaps, under oath maybe??? She has her her defense lawyer to present her false accusations. That's his job after all.

reasonable doubt---like I said, a term used to appease the public of a fair trial.

Theory?distraction, what ever you want to call dude....he didn't make that stuff up, without consulting his client of course!!!

does it matter if the tape had one piece of grass across it or three strands of grass....I mean really, the tape was there, conveniently where the skull was, tape a was also found on the skull..hmmmm, the rigamaroe is ridiculous...and the taxpayers have a right to a speedy trial...LOL

Let the jury decide. Her behavior was EXTREMELY strange for someone whose child had recently drowned,, and the tattoo that life is beautiful seems a bit inappropriate too, that and the searches for quite unusual things immediately prior, and the death smell her father testified too, the car that the PARENTS had to retrieve, the nonchalant reaction she had when her MOTHER finally called to say her child was missing,,,,

I think they nabbed scott peterson with less,,,,

but time will tell

uh, could be that the prosecution must present it's case first in a criminal trial and has yet to rest. ya think???

Or that they will avoid putting her on the stand altogether if the defense has anything convincing to say about that..everyone's afraid to put her on the stand...then the trial would be over and and there will be no more money to be made.

she'll testify or she wont as is her right. simple really.

I would love to see her testify, thats when things get comical....I dont know if she ever will though, thats one to sit and wait for on tru tv.

I like watching Judge Alex's commentary on HLN.

Her attorney really sucks. The rate he's going he might as well put the needle in her arm himself.

Any decent attorney could get her off on Manslaughter with time served, at worse Second Degree Murder. Notice I say decent, doesn't even need to be a good attorney to make this work, this guy just plain sucks.

Also I am sure Nancy "Dis"Grace has tanted the jury pool and public opinion long before the trial even started. What ever happened to Innocent until proven guilty? No wonder she got into so much trouble as an attorney and isn't practicing law anymore.

An FBI technician testified Thursday in the Casey Anthony murder trial that duct tape found on 2-year-old Caylee Anthony's body was contaminated during testing by another technician.

Anthony, a 25-year-old Florida mother, is on trial for first-degree murder in the 2008 death of her toddler daughter Caylee. She has pleaded not guilty.

Heather Seubert, who worked in the forensic DNA analysis unit at the FBI when she examined evidence in the case, testified that DNA on duct tape at the crime scene did not match Caylee or her mother or grandparents.


Seubert was the second witness to testify for the defense Thursday, which began to present its case claiming Anthony did not kill the child. The prosecution wrapped up its case Wednesday.

Seubert also testified that she found no blood or DNA on stains taken from the clothes and car of Casey Anthony.

"Brown and yellow areas were identified throughout as possible stains," Seubert said when speaking about testing done on stains from inside the trunk of Anthony's car. All stains tested were "negative for the presence of blood," Seubert told jurors.

But prosecutors say Anthony suffocated the girl by placing duct tape over her nose and mouth -- a manner of death that would likely leave no trace of blood, forensic experts say.

Defense attorneys, meanwhile, claim Caylee drowned accidentally in her grandparents' swimming pool and that Anthony's father disposed of the body.

Caylee's skeletal remains were found in December 2008 -- five months after she was reported missing -- in a wooded area near her Orlando home. No cause of death has been determined, but prosecutors point to duct tape found on the girl's skull in arguing their case against Anthony.

Earlier Thursday, the defense called crime scene investigator Gerardo Bloise, who previously testified for the prosecution. Bloise had processed items seized from Anthony's bedroom.

If convicted on first-degree murder charges, Anthony faces a death sentence.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/16/defense-team-calls-first-witness-in-casey-anthony-murder-trial/#ixzz1PUxazSi5

there is so much evidence to present...it's exhausting....just lock her up and throw away the key...

lock her up they likely will. after a very, very important process that helps make america a great place to live called EQUAL DUE PROCESS OF LAW. or we could just cut the trial short, declare her guilty, and she'll be free in a couple years on appeal. surely you're not against the appeals process too???

I think the public attention to this case is as crazy as they may decide Casey Anthony is...

This morning there were fistfights outside the courtroom for people waiting to get tickets for inside.

Why in the world are people spending valuable time playing voyeur to a tragedy instead of living their own lives?

I just don't get it.

She is on every freakin' channel here; all day, everyday.

Make it stop!

You don't lock someone up and throw away the key for Manslaughter and that is clearly what this was a case of.

This Jose Biaz guy is blowing the Defense up and is probably one of the worst attorney's I have ever seen along with Mark Gerigos(Scott Peterson's lawyer)

Well, they said the trial should be over around the 25th of this month, which means for probably two to four weeks after that the media circus revolving this case should die down.

Also we can thank Nancy "DIS"Grace for the media bias in this case.

Isnt it up to the CLIENT though how they wish to plea? IF Casey is sticking to a story of drowning,,,what else can the attorney do but offer 'alternative' theories as to her behavior before the 'accident' and AFTER

perhaps she wants off SCOTT free so she doesnt wish to present anything that makes her look 'guilty' of anything

the tape says to me she(or someone) was trying to muzzle the girl,, if it was JUST on the mouth , than its possible she meant to incapacitate her only long enough to 'party' and killed her instead (although it seems she would have been a bit more disturbed by this terrible type of 'accident')

an 'accident' like that WOULD get her manslaughter with a fairly slight sentence, but if she is too cocky or vain to accept ANY sentence, she has dug her own grave,,so to speak

if tape was used on mouth and nose, its pretty clear death was the intention, and not an accident, which would qualify her for murder and a much longer sentence


and btw, I wonder who is paying for her defense, is this guy a public defender, or is her family footing the bill for her to tarnish their names,,,?

hey, maybe put down that remote and take your dog for a walk, ya think?