~ This JUST in: Defense Reveals a Surprise Witness: Vasco Thomson (JUST discovered) He was in George Anthony’s phone records with numerous calls exchanged.
Defense introduces convict Vasco Thompson!
The defense filing in court documents says Vasco Thompson is a ‘recently discovered witness through the ongoing efforts of defense investigators’
On the same day Chief Judge Belvin Perry denied a defense motion for acquittal, Casey Anthony’s team introduced a new person to the murder case — an Orlando felon with a violent past.
The defense team’s amended witness list now includes Vasco Thompson, an Orlando felon convicted on kidnapping charges in 1988.
Court documents show Thompson is a “recently discovered witness through the ongoing efforts of defense investigators.”
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 before Cindy Anthony reported Caylee’s disappearance to the Orange County Sheriff’s Office.
~ Click image to read more…
( Florida Department of Corrections )
The defense team¿s amended witness list now includes Vasco Thompson, an Orlando felon convicted on kidnapping charges in 1988.
: Judge Perry denies Acquittal ::
Transcript shows why Casey Anthony Judge allowed bone chewing details
A newly obtained transcript of a sidebar conference from last week shows why Chief Judge Belvin Perry allowed jurors in the Casey Anthony trial to hear gruesome details about animals chewing on her daughter Caylee’s bones.
The sidebar conference came last Friday during a highly emotional day in which photos and evidence of Caylee Marie Anthony’s remains were shown to jurors.
There was graphic discussion about what animals did to the child’s remains after being placed in the woods off Suburban Drive in 2008 and before their discovery on Dec. 11 of that year.
University of Central Florida forensic anthropology professor John Schultz at one point in his testimony described Caylee’s bones and said “these have actually been chewed on by animals.”
During his testimony, the defense objected and a sidebar conference was called so that jurors and others in the courtroom could not hear the conversation. A 7-page transcript of the conversation captures several interesting points.
Here’s one part of the exchange:
Defense attorney Cheney Mason: “Talking about animal chewing is not probative of any issue in this case … It’s scandalous or shocking and emotional, but it doesn’t prove anything. There’s no question that the child is dead, that these are her bones. But to start talking about animal chewing, I think is inflammatory and we object to it.”
Assistant State Attorney Jeff Ashton: “It is my understanding that the defense’s position is that these bones were moved, placed into this location at some later date. The fact that the bones were scattered by animals and chewed on is probative of the length of time that they had been present.”
Judge Perry: “Well, but for your argument and suggestion that somebody kept the bones and moved them about, I would sustain your objection. But in view of the fact that that’s your theory, that Mr. [Roy] Kronk took the bones and took them somewhere and kept them, it has relevancy in that standpoint.”
Soon after, the parties discussed what defense attorney Jose Baez said regarding Kronk during his opening statement. Mason reminds the others that Baez said “the bones were dragged and moved.”
Later he adds, “Does it prove that defense counsel made an opening statement decision that may have not been prudent? Perhaps.”
Perry said, “Before Mr. Baez made his statement, I told you I would…sustain the objection,” Perry said. “But when you talk about somebody moved and kept bones for the purpose of getting a reward, I mean … it’s a whole line of questioning that you’ve just opened a can of worms up on.”
Then Mason asked whether the Baez opening statement opened the door to all of this.
Perry responded by saying Baez had questioned a crime scene investigator and a deputy about this long after his opening statement.
At this point Baez says, “The gnawing of bones does not – does not give any indication as to how long remains would be there.”
But Perry ultimately said, “animal activity has to do something with the timeline in this case … it’s an issue that the defense raised.”
Perry said he would overrule the defense objection, but cautioned the prosecution not to get “too enthused and turn it into a horror movie with Frankenstein appearing.”
Ashton said they would discuss the distribution of bones and the consistency with it being done by animals. He warned, “It’s not going to be pleasant.”
Ashton also raised the issue of defense attorney Dorothy Clay Sims consoling Casey Anthony.
“Ms. Anthony gets upset. And that’s fine. We can’t do anything about that,” Ashton said. “But I do think that counsel’s constant arm around the back, patting, needs to not be done in front of the jury.”
He was concerned the display “has the potential of influencing the jury and getting sympathy. So we would ask that counsel stay out of it and leave the consolation for the breaks.”
Perry said he was watching this and observed “it hasn’t reached to the point where it appears to be staged, no more than the natural facial expressions that human beings have; that you even have sometimes, Mr. Ashton.”
Perry then advised the defense not to “overdo it.”
After this sidebar, they all took a break.