What Is the Defense Strategy?

[MD MOMMY]

After watching today's Motion Hearing, it is now painfully obvious to me that the defense doesn't have a strategy. Seriously! I have seen no coherent effort on their part to present any kind of defense other than "The big bad po-po are out to get ICA....whaaaaaaaaaaah!"

Well....duh!

I think the defense has multiple strategies and not just one. I think they are going to use a different defense based on what is thrown out and what is not. I don't think anyone is safe from attack by the defense...just wait. JMO.

ETA- LOLA we were typing at the same time LOL. I agree with you!

 

[mobius99]

Was it just me or did anyone else notice how stunned JB looked throughout LDB's response. I was watching him very closely and he looked at one point like he was in a trance. If this wasn't a wake up call for the defendant, I certainly think it was for the defense.

 

[nums24]

Here is a timely and informative article from Mr. R. Hornsby:

The Theory of the Defense
Mar 7th, 2011
by Richard Hornsby.

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2011/03/the-theory-of-the-defense/

 

[cuppy199]

Either a savvy attorney or a really really stupid one. ...cough...cough...

The thing is the defense does not have to PROVE someone else did it, only that there is a reasonable doubt, that someone else MAY have.

They have to come up with a reason for her not reporting and for the silly nanny stories and the partying.

Accidental death won't help because she was at Blockbuster a few hours later, flirting and smiling.

Stranger abduction doesnt work because she didnt report child missing, and she partied. Also the trunk and the items from home etc.

They were going to set up Jesse Grund but he caught on too quick and protected himself and had alibis. But he would not be the perfect patsy, not like George is.

George is the perfect scapegoat. Kind of creepy, passionate, intense, angry, LE background, access to all of the key crime scene components.

Casey could say she 'partied' because he ordered her to go about her life like nothing happened or he would harm Caylee. She just did what her evil abuser demanded. She is the victim and has been protecting the rest of her family all of this time. Or that is the story anyway.

If they spring this on George once the trial starts he will likely explode, fumble around a bit, and seem kind of guilty, imo.

I predict they will float this scenario out there if they get really desperate.

I see your point but I honestly dont see it flying on a jury. Even the best actors couldn't act and party like Casey did.Even if you are afraid as they might use I just cant see the jury seeing her as being force or intimated in any way with her actions. Her partying and get a tatoo just isnt gonna sit well with the jury no matter how the defense spins it. There best bet is to attack the evidents but I personally dont think thats gonna stick either. I have faith justice will be served in this case so Im really not worried either way.

 

[Marina2]

After watching the defense give closing arguments today on the motions heard last week, one strategy is clear. They're going to try and present KC as a scared, innocent child throughout the trial. Everything she did was a result of her being a scared child. :banghead:

 

[watergirl]

Here is a timely and informative article from Mr. R. Hornsby:

The Theory of the Defense
Mar 7th, 2011
by Richard Hornsby.

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2011/03/the-theory-of-the-defense/

A must read.

Timely indeed, nums. :rocker:

 

[ynotdivein]

After watching the defense give closing arguments today on the motions heard last week, one strategy is clear. They're going to try and present KC as a scared, innocent child throughout the trial. Everything she did was a result of her being a scared child. :banghead:

I do agree they are testing the waters here. But the SA can quickly dispel that notion by bringing out that her dad is ex-LE and that she seemed to have a penchant for dating men in uniform. (Wasn't MH a Marine?)

It's like the faces of Janus. On one side a scared innocent child (ack), on the other a hottie patottie who dug the attentions of big strong men in uniform....

ITA with the :banghead: factor here Marina... but IMO for everything the defense can throw out, the SA has fact after fact after fact to dispute it.

(ETA: And you know what? Scared, innocent children who are being pressured by authority figures to tell the truth--TELL THE TRUTH. KC was not "scared" and she was not "innocent" and she most certainly was not a "child"--ok ok enough, do not want a time out. But YKWIM?)

 

[Linda7NJ]

Grab hold tight to their junk and pray ...hard.

 

[Aedrys]

After watching the defense give closing arguments today on the motions heard last week, one strategy is clear. They're going to try and present KC as a scared, innocent child throughout the trial. Everything she did was a result of her being a scared child. :banghead:

Yep, and I hope SA keeps sticking right back in their face who the scared, no, TERRIFIED child was that was brutally MURDERED by said "scared child". Whatever. That is SO not going to fly, not when Casey was so happy as a freaking clam to not have Caylee in her life anymore. It makes me SO MAD that they are going there and ignoring the real scared child in this case, the one that DESERVES all of the attention and not her *@**$*$^& murderous mother! GAH! :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

It is the single, absolute, WORST strategy they could ever think to employ in the courtroom. OMG.

 

[pip]

I think the defense has plan A and backup plan B.
Plan A: Have the Zanny scenario thrown out by the judge without having to put KC on the stand to retract those statements; someone else did it and put the body there. Dispute the forensics, LE and the FBI and hope to raise reasonable doubt.
Plan B: Get rid of the Zanny scenario by putting KC on the stand (a last ditch effort if Zanny statements not thrown out by the judge), KC claims it was an accident and put the body there out of fear and lied. Serves some time, but not life or DP.
I can't think of anything else they to work with...:waitasec:

 

[Bittiness39]

I would imagine that the Defense will be trying to limit mentions of the real victim, a toddler, Caylee Anthony, at trial. JMO, but it does them no good to mention the real victim, when they are trying to "paint" their client as a fake victim. I hate it. We all hate it. But it doesn't benefit whatever the Defense strategy is/will be to have the jury fixated on the cute child/adorable little girl/angelic toddler we all would have adopted had we known what was going on with her mother and in that house...the Defense, if anything, would like us, as per CM's rather inadequate summation and later rebuttal today during the hearings...to view ICA as the "scared, helpless, young mother, barely out of highschool, confronted with the real world and just so helpless and strapped and scared..." it is what I have said from day one since I have been posting on this forum.

The reality is that ICA is a grifter, a very experienced young lady (both at stealing and lying and well...bedroom games), selfish, entitled, lazy (hadn't held down an ACTUAL job since 2006) irresponsible and absolutely BRISTLES at being confronted with the truth. But the Defense would rather have the jury see her as being the opposite.

It will not work. It is one more injustice against Caylee...but unless the Defense intends to say that ICA is all of the things that she appears in truth to be, I doubt the Defense wants the jury to be thinking of the real child, the real victim and the real angel in this case, Caylee Anthony, the only person in this case that actually matters. Oh well. They will lose...and Casey deserves to stand in front of the HHJP as he reads a "Guilty" verdict to her. She will be punished. At least Caylee is far far away from the absolute wreckage of her family.

 

[TakeNote]

Here is a timely and informative article from Mr. R. Hornsby:

The Theory of the Defense
Mar 7th, 2011
by Richard Hornsby.

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2011/03/the-theory-of-the-defense/

can someone explain what Mr. H is saying.....for some reason....im not understanding it well.....

thanks

 

[Joanner]

Did Cheney threaten today to take something to a higher court? I missed it when he was talking (as I had to mute him, he was so grating), but I thought I saw someone post that.

 

[LambChop]

Yep, and I hope SA keeps sticking right back in their face who the scared, no, TERRIFIED child was that was brutally MURDERED by said "scared child". Whatever. That is SO not going to fly, not when Casey was so happy as a freaking clam to not have Caylee in her life anymore. It makes me SO MAD that they are going there and ignoring the real scared child in this case, the one that DESERVES all of the attention and not her *@**$*$^& murderous mother! GAH! :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

It is the single, absolute, WORST strategy they could ever think to employ in the courtroom. OMG.

That would be about the time SA should put up the poster of the little girl with the teddy bear hanging from a noose with the saying, "Why do people kill people who kill people just to show that killing people is bad". All children have that on their computer, right???

 

[ZsaZsa]

A must read.

Timely indeed, nums. :rocker:

Brilliant! Mr Hornsby just gave Mason's game away!:floorlaugh:
Not only that, but Mason is 35 years out of date!
I guess the principal liar will be George? Amongst others...

 

[TakeNote]

Brilliant! Mr Hornsby just gave Mason's game away!:floorlaugh:
Not only that, but Mason is 35 years out of date!
I guess the principal liar will be George? Amongst others...

so is Mr. H saying that the liar defense is going to say is in the court room will be GA? and they are going to throw GA under the bus?

I was thinking he meant that KC was the liar in the court room.....and then give the reason for that..

 

[Bittiness39]

can someone explain what Mr. H is saying.....for some reason....im not understanding it well.....

thanks

It appears to me (I am also thinking of JB's question to GA's last week if JB told GA that it would save his daughter's life to ignore a subpoena to appear would GA...to which GA answered he would)...that (a) given the fact that ICA was very cold/totally outright ignored GA (not that she really takes too much notice of CA or LA but at least acknowledges them)...(b) the fact that ICA has claimed GA has sexually abused her in the past (c) the fact that most of the damning statements that came early on about ICA came from GA...that somehow GA is going to be the primary target of the Defense?

The case quoted in RH's blog said that those that testified against the Defendent in that case did so to avoid prosecution themselves...which makes people think of the damning statements made against ICA especially by GA early on (he even said she stole from Caylee's piggy bank).

JMO but I would think that RH is wrong perhaps. The best strategy for the Defense is to argue it was an accident and that ICA is kinda weird and therefore weirdly coped with it. A SODDI defense to the actual crime won't work, unless you are talking about a cover up OR an accomplice...jmo. But the SODDI deal is dumb.

Whether or not I like GA at this particular moment...it was clear that during the 31...31...31...days that Caylee was "missing" (dead) none of her family members, including GA had a clue where Caylee was...but of all the members to throw under the bus...he is the most convenient...

GA was the only one to see Casey during those 31 days.
GA drove the car home from the wrecker.
GA told CA to go to work after driving the car home and then went to work after telling her to do so (IIRC...see my long ago thread on whether I thought Caylee's remains might have still been in the wheel well of the Sunfire and he disposed of them)...
GA was at home all of the time. ICA apparently had no job and was home all of the time.

Again, it won't fly, but it appears from ICA's treatment in particular of GA in court (worse than the treatment of CA and LA who at least got a little smile or so) that GA will DEFINITELY be thrown under the bus, somehow, in some way by the defense...JMO...

Grasping at straws again, Defense.

 

[TakeNote]

thank you Littlebitty!
snip this part of your response and now I understand!

*The case quoted in RH's blog said that those that testified against the Defendent in that case did so to avoid prosecution themselves*

 

[Bittiness39]

thank you Littlebitty!
snip this part of your response and now I understand!

*The case quoted in RH's blog said that those that testified against the Defendent in that case did so to avoid prosecution themselves*

Hopefully, I was helpful...if I understood what he was alluding to correctly. :great: If not...it would be awesome if he would hop on over and explain...because it would be unfair of me to guess, based on the example of the case he used in his blog, what he was saying...

UR welcome...I tried...lol. :rocker:

I think you probably came to the same conclusion yourself...

 

[katydid23]

I see your point but I honestly dont see it flying on a jury. Even the best actors couldn't act and party like Casey did.Even if you are afraid as they might use I just cant see the jury seeing her as being force or intimated in any way with her actions. Her partying and get a tatoo just isnt gonna sit well with the jury no matter how the defense spins it. There best bet is to attack the evidents but I personally dont think thats gonna stick either. I have faith justice will be served in this case so Im really not worried either way.

I agree. I don't think the jury will buy it, but Baez doesn't have too many defense options. Casey was so blatant and ugly with her behaviors that they need to find an explanation that won't automatically get her the needle.
Trying to make HER the victim, and make Daddy the evil perp pedophile may do just that. And then she can get her revenge on him as well. Two birds with one stone.

I am not overly worried, but I am just a bit.