Casey Anthony

[Kiki Cannoli]

so what's the deal with the new defense witness?

Casey Anthony trial: Acquittal denied; defense introduces convict Vasco Thompson

"...Thompson, according to the filing, "was connected to George Anthony through his cell phone records." Records show four calls between Caylee's grandfather and Thompson on July 14, 2008 — a day beforeCindy Anthony reported Caylee's disappearance to theOrange County Sheriff's Office.


The court records also state "Thompson has a violent criminal history and has served a ten year prison sentence for kidnapping."

anybody? bueller?

Desperate attempt, last gasp, wrong #.......Until proven otherwise. Or, it could be to slow down the trial, so the defense can regroup....Haven't seen that yet, have we? Although, to be fair, the DT has not much to work with, only ICA.....

All feasible, but this inmate is taking the stand. Hmmm, is it a he is already doing life so why not just take the rap for another opportunity?

 

[R.D.]

so what's the deal with the new defense witness?

Casey Anthony trial: Acquittal denied; defense introduces convict Vasco Thompson

"...Thompson, according to the filing, "was connected to George Anthony through his cell phone records." Records show four calls between Caylee's grandfather and Thompson on July 14, 2008 — a day beforeCindy Anthony reported Caylee's disappearance to theOrange County Sheriff's Office.


The court records also state "Thompson has a violent criminal history and has served a ten year prison sentence for kidnapping."

anybody? bueller?

Desperate attempt, last gasp, wrong #.......Until proven otherwise. Or, it could be to slow down the trial, so the defense can regroup....Haven't seen that yet, have we? Although, to be fair, the DT has not much to work with, only ICA.....

All feasible, but this inmate is taking the stand. Hmmm, is it a he is already doing life so why not just take the rap for another opportunity?

Red Herring

 

[oldsalt]

so what's the deal with the new defense witness?

Casey Anthony trial: Acquittal denied; defense introduces convict Vasco Thompson

"...Thompson, according to the filing, "was connected to George Anthony through his cell phone records." Records show four calls between Caylee's grandfather and Thompson on July 14, 2008 — a day beforeCindy Anthony reported Caylee's disappearance to theOrange County Sheriff's Office.


The court records also state "Thompson has a violent criminal history and has served a ten year prison sentence for kidnapping."

anybody? bueller?

Desperate attempt, last gasp, wrong #.......Until proven otherwise. Or, it could be to slow down the trial, so the defense can regroup....Haven't seen that yet, have we? Although, to be fair, the DT has not much to work with, only ICA.....

All feasible, but this inmate is taking the stand. Hmmm, is it a he is already doing life so why not just take the rap for another opportunity?

I think you have bad info...He is not currently an inmate, is he?

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Desperate attempt, last gasp, wrong #.......Until proven otherwise. Or, it could be to slow down the trial, so the defense can regroup....Haven't seen that yet, have we? Although, to be fair, the DT has not much to work with, only ICA.....

All feasible, but this inmate is taking the stand. Hmmm, is it a he is already doing life so why not just take the rap for another opportunity?

I think you have bad info...He is not currently an inmate, is he?

fair enough, i was trying not to google every question first...for the sake of invoking input

apparently is held to withstand trial beginning in october 2011 Who is Vasco Thompson? - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[BolshevikHunter]

That other bottomfeeder Scott Peterson was convicted of 1st degree murder by circumstantial evidence. I believe that the same thing will happen here. ~BH

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

That other bottomfeeder Scott Peterson was convicted of 1st degree murder by circumstantial evidence. I believe that the same thing will happen here. ~BH

It is interesting how frequently the comparison of these two cases occurs. I am a holder-outer for the defense's story. And 'tis true, I wasn't on the Scott P is guilty ban wagon. At the time, I lived in the SF Bay Area and lived the daily updates and remember vividly (still) being repulsed by the crowds gathering and cheering when the death penalty was issued.

I think I might be one of those people who simply finds it inconceivable that other people do these things...call it denial. Its just who I am, I need proof; so circumstantial cases make me ride the judicial fence.

However, shortly thereafter one thing changed my mind...a photo of his removal from holding in Redwood City to San Quentin. His looking right into the camera made me think "you son of a bitch, you did it."

 

[BolshevikHunter]

That other bottomfeeder Scott Peterson was convicted of 1st degree murder by circumstantial evidence. I believe that the same thing will happen here. ~BH

It is interesting how frequently the comparison of these two cases occurs. I am a holder-outer for the defense's story. And 'tis true, I wasn't on the Scott P is guilty ban wagon. At the time, I lived in the SF Bay Area and lived the daily updates and remember vividly (still) being repulsed by the crowds gathering and cheering when the death penalty was issued.

I think I might be one of those people who simply finds it inconceivable that other people do these things...call it denial. Its just who I am, I need proof; so circumstantial cases make me ride the judicial fence.

However, shortly thereafter one thing changed my mind...a photo of his removal from holding in Redwood City to San Quentin. His looking right into the camera made me think "you son of a bitch, you did it."

Yeah, I can't even fathom how someone could do something like that to someone they supposedly loved. As well as their un-born child. That guys a bottomfeeder. ~BH

 

[Immanuel]

That other bottomfeeder Scott Peterson was convicted of 1st degree murder by circumstantial evidence. I believe that the same thing will happen here. ~BH

If I remember correctly Scott Peterson was convicted on a little more than circumstantial evidence... isn't he the one the fed his wife to the sharks outside the Golden Gate?

Immie

 

[oldsalt]

That other bottomfeeder Scott Peterson was convicted of 1st degree murder by circumstantial evidence. I believe that the same thing will happen here. ~BH

One can only hope.......

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

That other bottomfeeder Scott Peterson was convicted of 1st degree murder by circumstantial evidence. I believe that the same thing will happen here. ~BH

If I remember correctly Scott Peterson was convicted on a little more than circumstantial evidence... isn't he the one the fed his wife to the sharks outside the Golden Gate?

Immie

true, but it started out very circumstantial. to his demise, evidence landed as court began.

 

[oldsalt]

That other bottomfeeder Scott Peterson was convicted of 1st degree murder by circumstantial evidence. I believe that the same thing will happen here. ~BH

If I remember correctly Scott Peterson was convicted on a little more than circumstantial evidence... isn't he the one the fed his wife to the sharks outside the Golden Gate?

Immie

Link me to the non-circumstantial please.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

That other bottomfeeder Scott Peterson was convicted of 1st degree murder by circumstantial evidence. I believe that the same thing will happen here. ~BH

If I remember correctly Scott Peterson was convicted on a little more than circumstantial evidence... isn't he the one the fed his wife to the sharks outside the Golden Gate?

Immie

Link me to the non-circumstantial please.

Although not solid, this is the basis of conviction. What nailed him was the tides and timing of the retrivial of the bodies from the bay. Still, no witness,no real timeline and aside from being a sleezy lying cheat -motive is questionable.

EvidenceIn order to avoid recognition by the press, Peterson changed his appearance and purchased a vehicle using his mother's name. He added two pornographic television channels to his cable service only days after his wife's disappearance;[27] the prosecution suggested that this meant Peterson knew his wife would not be returning home. He expressed interest in selling the house he had shared with his wife,[28] and did sell Laci's Land Rover.[29]

Testimony for the prosecution included Ralph Cheng, a hydrologist with the United States Geological Survey, and an expert witness on tides, particularly of the San Francisco Bay. Cheng admitted during his cross-examination that his findings were "probable, not precise";[30] tidal systems are sufficiently chaotic, and he was unable to develop an exact model of the bodies' disposal and travel. The prosecution explored an affair by the defendant with Amber Frey, and the contents of their taped telephone calls.[31]

Geragos seemed quite confident that Dr. Charles March could single-handedly exonerate Peterson, by showing that the fetus Laci carried died a week after prosecutors claimed that the fetus died. Under cross-examination, March admitted basing his findings on an anecdote from one of Laci's friends that she had taken a home pregnancy test on June 9, 2002. "Prosecutors pointed out that no medical records relied on the June 9 date and March became flustered and confused on the stand—and even asked a prosecutor to cut him 'some slack'—undermining his credibility."[32] Summing up this key defense witness, Stan Goldman, a criminal law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles said, "There were moments today that reminded me of Chernobyl."[33]

[edit] MotivesThe prosecution presented Scott Peterson's affair with Amber Frey and money as a motive for the murder. Prosecutors surmised that Peterson killed his pregnant wife due to increasing debt and a desire to be single again.[34]

Scott Peterson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[oldsalt]

If I remember correctly Scott Peterson was convicted on a little more than circumstantial evidence... isn't he the one the fed his wife to the sharks outside the Golden Gate?

Immie

Link me to the non-circumstantial please.

Although not solid, this is the basis of conviction. What nailed him was the tides and timing of the retrivial of the bodies from the bay. Still, no witness,no real timeline and aside from being a sleezy lying cheat -motive is questionable.

EvidenceIn order to avoid recognition by the press, Peterson changed his appearance and purchased a vehicle using his mother's name. He added two pornographic television channels to his cable service only days after his wife's disappearance;[27] the prosecution suggested that this meant Peterson knew his wife would not be returning home. He expressed interest in selling the house he had shared with his wife,[28] and did sell Laci's Land Rover.[29]

Testimony for the prosecution included Ralph Cheng, a hydrologist with the United States Geological Survey, and an expert witness on tides, particularly of the San Francisco Bay. Cheng admitted during his cross-examination that his findings were "probable, not precise";[30] tidal systems are sufficiently chaotic, and he was unable to develop an exact model of the bodies' disposal and travel. The prosecution explored an affair by the defendant with Amber Frey, and the contents of their taped telephone calls.[31]

Geragos seemed quite confident that Dr. Charles March could single-handedly exonerate Peterson, by showing that the fetus Laci carried died a week after prosecutors claimed that the fetus died. Under cross-examination, March admitted basing his findings on an anecdote from one of Laci's friends that she had taken a home pregnancy test on June 9, 2002. "Prosecutors pointed out that no medical records relied on the June 9 date and March became flustered and confused on the stand—and even asked a prosecutor to cut him 'some slack'—undermining his credibility."[32] Summing up this key defense witness, Stan Goldman, a criminal law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles said, "There were moments today that reminded me of Chernobyl."[33]

[edit] MotivesThe prosecution presented Scott Peterson's affair with Amber Frey and money as a motive for the murder. Prosecutors surmised that Peterson killed his pregnant wife due to increasing debt and a desire to be single again.[34]

Scott Peterson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, circumstantial. I don't see your point????

 

[oldsalt]

I'm not harping on ya.....Circumstantial evidence can convict. Has, and will.

 

[Immanuel]

That other bottomfeeder Scott Peterson was convicted of 1st degree murder by circumstantial evidence. I believe that the same thing will happen here. ~BH

If I remember correctly Scott Peterson was convicted on a little more than circumstantial evidence... isn't he the one the fed his wife to the sharks outside the Golden Gate?

Immie

Link me to the non-circumstantial please.

Here's an article written in support of the defense that claims the evidence was not sufficient to convict, but it points out much of the forensic evidence that was used in the case.

Evidently, the forensic evidence was enough to convict Peterson.

FindLaw's Writ - Hilden: The Scott Peterson Trial

And a little more:

An eyewitness to him stuffing a "bulk" into his truck is not circumstantial.

Scott Peterson - Cyberlaw

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

I'm not harping on ya.....Circumstantial evidence can convict. Has, and will.

The problem is that I have not once said circumstantial evidence cannot convict.

I have said that it is easier to raise doubt with circumstantial evidence.

Immie

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

I'm not harping on ya.....Circumstantial evidence can convict. Has, and will.

No worries, you are right. i haven't made a solid point, I is all over the board! not literally, figuaritvely. (I am also distracted by the bruins being up 3-0)

 

[Immanuel]

I'm not harping on ya.....Circumstantial evidence can convict. Has, and will.

No worries, you are right. i haven't made a solid point, I is all over the board! not literally, figuaritvely. (I am also distracted by the bruins being up 3-0)

I know what you mean. It might also be easier to argue this if I was not convinced that Casey was actually guilty.

Immie

 

[oldsalt]

I'm not harping on ya.....Circumstantial evidence can convict. Has, and will.

No worries, you are right. i haven't made a solid point, I is all over the board! not literally, figuaritvely. (I am also distracted by the bruins being up 3-0)

Understandable distraction! I do have to admit, the PT has not won the battle. I can admit, that if I was on the jury, I'd be asking the questions about how we can link ICA to the evidence. I'm sorry, it took me a min to type that last word. A little girl died here, and the charged knows more than she is saying. I get overwhelmed from time to time.....

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

but this is what is cool about open forums and willing participants; we can throw shit out there...ya never know when one of us is might have a spark of brilliance - first it is necessary to dig threw alot of junk.

i am really looking forward to the defense position. i just hope it isn't alot of fumbling and stuttering and wasted air time. i hope they are sharp, concise and professional.