Please join me this Sunday, May 29 at 8 p.m. Eastern (7pm Central, 5pm Pacific), when I will be a guest on Websleuths Radio’s webcast discussing anything and everything Casey Anthony.
Listening Directions
To listen to the live webcast, please:
- Visit LA Talk Radio at showtime.
- Press the Listen Live 2 icon on the right hand side of the page.
- Call in Call-In telephone number (818) 602-4929.
Questions and Discussion Requests
Please feel free to leave any suggestions for discussion topics or questions about the trial below.
26 responses to “Websleuths Radio Appearance this Sunday”
Great! I will be there!
Will Baez be in trouble for the income taxes that Casey Anthony did not pay in 2008 when he used the money for his fees?
As long as he reported the money she gave him as income, then it would only be her that has a tax problem.
Thanks! I knew you would know.
I am looking forward to hearing you again. It is been too long since I heard you.
Mr. Hornsby,
Wasn’t Casey in custody when the pictures were sold. I thought when Casey was out on bond, she was going through pictures at the house to give to Baez (probably at his direction or suggestion). If Baez handled the selling of those photos, and the money since Casey went back to jail shortly after she was out on bond, wouldn’t it be his ethical responsibility to set aside the portion needed to pay the tax? Otherwise if he used the entire amount, how would the defendant be able to pay or file the tax if they are in jail? I know that Baez was secretive about the matter and did not want the information on the record in open court, and they discussed the matter in chambers with Judge Strictland.
1. Will the financial thefts come in, during the trial?
2. This may sound crazy, but I am wondering if the Anthonys may be *in on* the defense. George’s evasive answers to the smell in the trunk, after being asked the same question 3 times, (and that man is not stupid), makes me feel like they, (or at least George) might be playing along. In other words, deny the sexual abuse allegations (then you can’t be charged with a crime and you save face with family, friends and coworkers), but give fuzzy answers and act indignant, just enough for the jurors to question your involvement; this way, you get reasonable doubt for your daughter. Actually, you kill 2 birds with one stone: sympathy for Casey AND sympathy for the grandparents. You know why I’m thinking this? That threat of a suit against Brad Conway. He was no longer the Anthonys attorney, but they might have told him what the defense was going to be and perhaps it was not just his theory. If this is true, and I have no way of knowing, other than a strange feeling, the prosecution has more of an uphill battle, much more than if the Anthonys were simply straddling the line of truth to not do too much harm to Casey. Of course, the alternatives are that I am too cynical and imaging things, perhaps George really hates Baez and doesn’t want to answer any questions, George really did molest Casey but had nothing to do with the disposal, or George did both molest Casey and dispose of Caylee, (that one is far-fetched for me).
What is your opinion? And hypothetically, if this is the case, there would be nothing the prosecution could do, right?
3. What do you think the *score* is so far? Who is winning or doing better; defense or prosecution?
4. Break a leg.
Ditto the above post. Great questions, I am wondering the same and would love to hear your views. Looking forward to hearing your WebSleuth’s appearance!
I would love to see the answer to this one! I also wonder if this is a possibility. Cindy’s testimony today, while mostly truthful I think, still left a doubt in my mind if they are actually straddling that fence. Please answer Mr. Hornsby!
Mr. Hornsby:
Can George Anthony sue Baez for what he has accused George of doing to Casey in Court?
Why is Mason such a bully? He is always, so it seems, to be threatening someone with a lawsuit, or of him filing charges or even injuctions against someone. It seems that he just full of empty threats.
Can the State ask former Casey friend, Amy H., whom Casey stole the checks from, about how and why her friendship with Casey ended and in doing so get the felony check convictions into her murder trial?
Thank you for you time and effort Sir.
Good Morning Mr. Hornsby, IF Jose had this supposed “exculpatory” information about his client can’t he be in legal trouoble for letting his “innocent” client sit in jail for three years? shouldn’t he have given that information to investigators early on? also, the tax lien lists caseys address as his kissimee office, doesn’t that make him partially liable?
I am praying that the state is able to prove their case. watching them brag casesleaze up to be such a “good mother” is nauseating and a slpa in the face to ALL single parents that are really struglling to care for their children with no help and would LOVE the opportunity for help as case had. So easy to put up the “APPEARANCE” of being a “good mother” when all you have to do is act like the doting big sister,,,, mom and dad pay for EVERYTHING and all they want you to do is start taking more responsibility which obviously, for casey, was too much effort. Caylee was getting more verbal and she couldn’t have “little snot head” tattling to G & C, and besides they were wasting too much money that could have/should have been available to HER for her Bella Vita.
“maybe casey hated cindy more than she loved (even great grandma used past tense) Caylee”
Casey wanted Caylee obliterated from her life, even the grandparents grief over Caylee is frustrating to casey. IMO she’d much rather they NEVER mention Caylee again, Look at all the trouble “snot nose” caused her…
Thanks so much for your input on this case.
Hello Mr. H,
For your show tomorrow:
What do you think is contained in the motion that Mark Lippman has “filed” that will be heard before trial on Tuesday.
Many thanks!
Do you think that Lippman could have filed a motion that asks the judge to prohibit any contact or attempted contact from the defense or Casey during the trial? The two “yellow” notes at the end of the day (yesterday and today I believe it was) that were passed from Casey to Jose to??? really have me thinking that’s what it could be. Witness tampering?
I think the motion is one the state probably should have filed, which is a motion to prohibit the defense team from insinuating George molested Casey until such time as someone has actually testified to it.
The state should have probably made the motion immedietly after the opening statements, as it is improper for a lawyer to ask questions of witnesses that imply facts not in evidence or that the lawyer does not have a good faith belief will be established by the eventual evidence.
If argued correctly, it would force Baez to proffer to the court how be believes in good faith he will establish George molested Casey.
Thank you kindly for your reply, Mr. Hornsby. That makes perfect sense. I would love to hear Baez explain how he intends to establish that–short of putting Casey on the stand in her own defense, which in my opinion would be a disaster for the defense. I look forward to listening to your Websleuths radio webcast tomorrow and hope to call in with some additional questions!
Thank you Mr. H. – If this turns out to be the case, I am very glad. Tuning in tomorrow.
mr.hornsby–
..looking forward to hearing you discuss the case and trial tomorrow evening, hopefully you’ll be able to shed light on what the mark lippman motion could be about !
Thanks for being one of the very few who actually show some common sense and knowledge concerning this case.
What do you think the motion is about that George’s Attorney filed with the Judge on Saturday.
Richard, The State has objected (assumes facts not in evidence) two or three times to Jose asking the friend witnesses if they “were present at the Anthony home on June 16 when Caylee drowned,” and Judge Perry overruled the objection each time. I can’t understand why he allowed it, and I know many other people are very puzzled by this. Judge Eaton was asked this twice question on WESH, and both times he answered as if Judge Perry properly sustained the objection, which is NOT what happened.
Can you help us out?
After opening statements from the defense, the State put George on stand and questioned him about sexual abuse immediately. Since the State opened door of the sexual allegations does that prevent them from asking the Court to prohibit the defense from referring to it. Why is it improper for the defense to ask question of facts not in evidence but the State can ask questions?
Excellent point.
On February 11, 2011, HHJP denied the defendant’s Motion in Limine to Prohibit the Use of…….MySpace (posting) Attributable to Cindy Anthony. I assume that since this order did not state “with prejudice” that it is therefore assumed the ruling was “without prejudice” and that the defense was free to argue this issue again at another time. This is exactly what they did on Saturday while Cindy Anthony was testifying. I’d appreciate it if you would explain to us what further argument the defense might have argued which caused HHJP to rule in their favor at this point.
Thank you in advance!
I have followed this since day one and have seen all video, heard all the audio and read thousands of pages of transcripts, evidence photo’s etc. I actually thought Jose Baez did a very good job in his opening statement and if I were hearing this without knowing much of what the real evidence is, I could believe most of what he was saying. A few questions, thoughts.
A forensic pathologist said that in pool drowning victims, pool water goes into the lungs and there is something distinct( chlorine?) about most pool water and is carried through into the bones and can be detected after death. Is this true and was any test done to Caylee’s bones?
I agree, why 3 years for this defense? I agree, soon Caylee would be able to understand and speak about how she was really spending her day and that would blow Casey’s last two years of lies and life out of the water.
Was neck breaking and cloroform search for her parents demise? She was telling Amy H they were leaving her the house and moving or buying something else.
Why didn’t they just say Casey is an undiagnosed sociopath who suffers from dilusions, accidental death and reduced sentence? Like 2 years ago!
Look forward to listening. Thanks
Thanks as always Richard,
It is great to have someone give a professional, dispassionate and well-balanced opinion which exhibits good judgement in a case like this. Further it’s been good to see a commentator who has not a media hound or got an agenda and who is able to give a balanced view on the case.
I would just like to preface my first question with this comment. I am glad that you have, appropriately, commented in the past that the important question is not whether or not Casey Anthony is guilty but what crime she is guilty of (if any)? You have also stated that, for the purposes of the trial, what is important is what the state can prove and that in this sense their is a difference between a person being “not guilty” and “innocent”.
QUESTION 1: However, leaving that aside, what crime do you think (based upon the evidence you have seen) that Casey Anthony is an actual fact guilty of (regardless of whether or not the state can in fact prove it beyond a reasonable doubt).
I would be quite interested in your view on this since most of the commentators on shows like Nancy Grace lose credibility with me, often seem eccentric or have an agenda. Further, people on different forums tend to, understandably, get very emotional regarding this case.
SECOND QUESTION: Is there anything in the jury selection that could cause any conviction to be overturned on appeal?
I am, in particular thinking of the fact that Judge Perry did not allow the Defense to refrain from exercising their Peremptory Challenges until they had conducted voir dire with all of the venirepeople. I also understand that Florida provides greater protection with respect to peremptory challenges that the US Constitution does and that the US Supreme Court’s decision in Rivera v. Illinois (Provided that all jurors seated in a criminal case are qualified and unbiased, the Due Process Clause does not require automatic reversal of a conviction because of the trial court’s good-faith error in denying the defendant’s peremptory challenge to a juror) would be of no assistance to the state in Floridian proceedings.
Good show, it was only too short.
The last caller would have been me, if Ms. Griffith had picked up the right line – area code 208.
I wanted to know, from Mr. Hornsby, if he thought that Casey Anthony had a good chance at an appeal (if found guilty) due to the sloppy work of Jose Baez?
Richard,
I am very late in saying this but damn, you do tell it like it is.
Richard,
Is there a replay of the show anywhere?