What Is the Defense Strategy?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why would George have to admit it? Baez said on last week's hearing that they have a psychologist who will talk about an experience happening years ago - (but he is not going to put him in).

But again why would George have to admit it?

If the alleged "event" was, in fact, sexual abuse by GA, then GA would have to take the stand and admit it because there would need to be evidence introduced that whatever KC told the Psychologist happened, did, in fact, happen, before the expert could testify about it, otherwise it's hearsay and inadmissible. If you recall at the hearing, JP stated this is hearsay JB, where's the hearsay exception? And JB had none.
 
Having given this a lot of thought I've come to the conclusion (based partly on Mr Ashton's words of 'remote past' used at the last hearing in connection with the Dr's) that sexual abuse will be touted by the defense team but it won't be George who is accused. Okay, actually maybe he will be but later on in time - I'm guessing that it will be one of Cindy's brothers who will first be accused of molestation by ICA.

OMG !!!! this could really get nasty,never thought the A's might stoop to this level. But with this group you never know :sick:
 
When KC was stealing money from her family she knew they would not call her on it. KC owed RM money and apparently he was trying to get it back from her. He let it be known he wanted the money back. What does KC do but openly use Amy's checkbook knowing that Amy would return. KC knew Amy was not going to just let her get away with it so why would she do it? KC did not care because at some point KC knew she was going to be held accountable for Caylee so she was living it up while she could without worrying about what the consequences would be. Using Amy's checkbook and writing her own name on the checks shows KC did not expect to get away with murder. She was enjoying her time in the Sun.



I agree with your post completely.
 
IMHO when JB steps up to the podium with his opening statement,have a big drink handy because the majority of people who have been following this trial are going to go crazy,this board is gonna go crazy,just get ready for it,cause you know it's coming :twocents:

You are right whome, I'll have that drink handy - but I'll just let the board explode. I know I'm going to need time to :silly: and time for :lol: :lol: and some :skip: :skip: :skip: then to settle down :shush: and just :giggle: before my fingers will hit the keys....
 
When KC was stealing money from her family she knew they would not call her on it. KC owed RM money and apparently he was trying to get it back from her. He let it be known he wanted the money back. What does KC do but openly use Amy's checkbook knowing that Amy would return. KC knew Amy was not going to just let her get away with it so why would she do it? KC did not care because at some point KC knew she was going to be held accountable for Caylee so she was living it up while she could without worrying about what the consequences would be. Using Amy's checkbook and writing her own name on the checks shows KC did not expect to get away with murder. She was enjoying her time in the Sun.
That is a way to explain her 31 days of the beautiful life.
 
I would love to pose Richard Hornsby the question:

Mr. Hornsby, given the deep pothole Baez currently finds himself in - if you were in his place (sorry if that sounds too insulting for him to even comtemplate :banghead:) "What would you say as an opening statement for this trial and this defendant"?

I'm hoping he will breeze in one day soon and give us answer to that question.
Really really hoping!
 
Isn't it true that defense can't represent something as fact when they know that it is not true? There is no proof of anything KC has said because we all know she lies, even about little insignificant things so unless she takes the stand I'm not sure how they will float some of these theories. While JB may not know better....CM does.

KC sure did not look happy after that in-chambers meeting last week. She did not look at JB, got up, turned and left when the judge dismissed court. Back to square one, IMO. jmo
 
I am back to LOL'ing every time I see this thread. The defense really has nothing...still. Their last chance at any resemblance of a strategy was getting the Mental Heads in, and that failed miserably. ICA's propensity to lie at every turn, admitted by her defense team no less, leads absolutely nowhere. Bring on the what ifs, and the State will bring the smack down on her with her extreme history of lying. Strategy? Ha!!!
 
Having given this a lot of thought I've come to the conclusion (based partly on Mr Ashton's words of 'remote past' used at the last hearing in connection with the Dr's) that sexual abuse will be touted by the defense team but it won't be George who is accused. Okay, actually maybe he will be but later on in time - I'm guessing that it will be one of Cindy's brothers who will first be accused of molestation by ICA.

I don't believe CA's brothers were around at the time. They all live in different states. I mean, in the jailhouse letters KC tells JA she suspects her parents. Right. GA drove the car home and removed the battery so no one could take the car, CA called 911. The only one hiding was KC. KC has screwed up so badly logic just keeps bringing us back to the one and only person who could have done this, who appeared to be unaffected by the fact that her 2 year old was missing. The more she changes her story the more common sense kicks in and says, no way. jmo
 
If the alleged "event" was, in fact, sexual abuse by GA, then GA would have to take the stand and admit it because there would need to be evidence introduced that whatever KC told the Psychologist happened, did, in fact, happen, before the expert could testify about it, otherwise it's hearsay and inadmissible. If you recall at the hearing, JP stated this is hearsay JB, where's the hearsay exception? And JB had none.

GA has already said in court that he would do anything to save KC, so if he does take the stand and admit it, his testimony will be easily refutable.
Things said by As are going to have very little weight in this trial. I barely bother to read or listen to a thing any of them says anymore, and I am a person who is deeply engaged with this case. I think the jury will suffer the same ennui that comes from listening to lie after lie after contradiction after revisionism. The evidence, the what we can see and the what we can know independently of anything they say will stand in stark relief to their endless obfuscations and manipulations and will be all the stronger for it. 31 days. Never reported missing by KC. Duct tape. Tattoo. Burial materials came from home. Death smell in car. etc, etc.
 
The only possible sensible strategy the defense might have is that they are trying to show KC before trial that every single potential avenue of defense is futile, and leads to the dead end of the hallway, and that she should plead out while she can. I could even respect CM if that is what he is doing here, and has been doing here all along.
 
Hummmm. I wonder what defense will put down in their statement of facts due on Thursday????
 
I would love to pose Richard Hornsby the question:

Mr. Hornsby, given the deep pothole Baez currently finds himself in - if you were in his place (sorry if that sounds too insulting for him to even comtemplate :banghead:) "What would you say as an opening statement for this trial and this defendant"?

I'm hoping he will breeze in one day soon and give us answer to that question.
Really really hoping!

With all due respect logicalgirl,I don't want Richard to answer that question,I don't want JB to get any new ideas,cause as it stands today,"he's got nuthin" let's keep him that way. JMHO:innocent:
 
With all due respect logicalgirl,I don't want Richard to answer that question,I don't want JB to get any new ideas,cause as it stands today,"he's got nuthin" let's keep him that way. JMHO:innocent:


Whoops - :chillout: you are absolutely right - I was getting carried away there!:banghead::banghead:
 
I am back to LOL'ing every time I see this thread. The defense really has nothing...still. Their last chance at any resemblance of a strategy was getting the Mental Heads in, and that failed miserably. ICA's propensity to lie at every turn, admitted by her defense team no less, leads absolutely nowhere. Bring on the what ifs, and the State will bring the smack down on her with her extreme history of lying. Strategy? Ha!!!


I was just thinking this exact same thing- the title of this thread is VERY complimentary towards the DT. It should say, Do they have a strategy...... not What is their strategy.This is actually my favorite thread. I wish I could stop my life and watch this trial, every minute of it- but alas, I can't. So I'll have to pick up the highlights. The opening statement is going to be a doozy and I hope someone types it here word for word.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
163
Guests online
2,476
Total visitors
2,639

Forum statistics

Threads
590,036
Messages
17,929,224
Members
228,044
Latest member
Bosie
Back
Top