Could Casey Change Her decision to testify?

When Casey decided not to testify, she was in a fairly good position with her mom taking the fall for the chloroform searches.

Now things have changed. The records from CA's work computer may negate this.

Can she change her mind and decide to testify anyway?

I have changed my theory about how all this relates to competency. I now think she never wanted to testify - and the DT probably said "You need to because you are in deep doo-doo." Since she refused they covered themselves with the competency tests.

She can't testify now as the defense has rested. Too late. That is why the judge specifically asked her (they always do) if she, herself, made that decision.

It is too late. She was asked 6 different ways yesterday by Judge Perry if she wanted to testify and she said no.

JenniferTx said:

It is too late. She was asked 6 different ways yesterday by Judge Perry if she wanted to testify and she said no.

Click to expand...

Yes, I saw that...but the possible negation of CA searches, to me, would have a major impact on that decision, to me.

Guess there is no remedy that the courts provide if serious incriminating information comes out in rebuttal, after the defense rests?

Ambiance said:

Yes, I saw that...but the possible negation of CA searches, to me, would have a major impact on that decision, to me.

Guess there is no remedy that the courts provide if serious incriminating information comes out in rebuttal, after the defense rests?

Click to expand...

It's called a surrebuttal. It's basically a rebuttal to the state's rebuttal.

It's very rare and I've never seen it done in any of the murder cases I've followed so far.

So defense can rebutt what the state says if they want to, but not by testimony of KC is my understanding. The defense rested it's case. No new witnesses introduced to court is my understanding?

:cow:

I was "shocked" and "surprised" that ICA did NOT take the stand ...

In My Opinion, it was obvious that she wanted to because in her narcissistic mind, it is her "show".

I would think she surely REGRETS it now ....


MOO MOO MOO

well, the defense should have known that CA's testimony on the chloroform searches would have been rebutted. if they had expected the state to just let it slide and not try to rebut that, and casey's decision was made expecting the state NOT to rebut, then they are even more ridiculous than i thought.

plus, CA's testimony was that she searched for chloroform (which was looked up on march 17 of 08). she did not admit to doing the "how to make chloroform" search (the alleged 84 times - i'm not sure if that confusion there was ever cleared up but i hope they do clear that up!), or any of the other searches performed that were done on march 21 of that year. someone in the anthony home on that computer searched "how to make chloroform," and if it wasn't cindy or george, logic would follow that it was casey and so i don't think CA's testimony was very useful even if they prove it to be wrong. whether CA was lying or not (IMO she was), she didn't admit to searching how to make chloroform or neck breaking (someone SEARCHED it and she said she did not but saw a youtube - well that isn't searching it and someone did so if it wasn't her then we can guess who it was) or how to make household weapons... so even without impeaching CA's testimony the state can still point to that as premeditation. looking up chloroform is one thing. looking up how to make it is another.

still though it does seem that they appear to want to rebut that.... which is great! :woohoo: and if any of the people involved really thought the state would let that slide, and for that reason alone decided casey wouldn't testify... well, they made their own bed and will lie in it, she can't go back on it now and say "wait i didn't realize you were going to try to rebut false testimony, now i need to testify."

dog.gone.cute said:

:cow:

I was "shocked" and "surprised" that ICA did NOT take the stand ...

In My Opinion, it was obvious that she wanted to because in her narcissistic mind, it is her "show".

I would think she surely REGRETS it now ....


MOO MOO MOO

Click to expand...

The only thing she regrets is not hiding Caylee's remains in a better place.That's ALL.

Ambiance said:

Yes, I saw that...but the possible negation of CA searches, to me, would have a major impact on that decision, to me.

Guess there is no remedy that the courts provide if serious incriminating information comes out in rebuttal, after the defense rests?

Click to expand...

That just happened. Cindy's testimony was absolutely proven to be FALSE. Too late for Casey to speak now but she can during the penalty phase I believe.

Also, over on the sidebar thread, [look at posts from about 2pm] there are discussions about the MYSPACES of River cruz and her sister. Apparently the sister told people that RIVER HAD BRAIN CANCER. So it looks like George may have been telling the truth about that after all. imoo

I think Cindy's testimony being impeached was probably already factored in her decision not to testify. LDB said she had informed the DT earlier this week that they were going to get those documents in the rebuttal phase and unless the DT is filled with total doofuses they must have known that the Gentiva documents and the phone records would debunk Cindy's lies. Even I knew that they would and I've only followed the case during this trial, they've been at it for three years. They could see the writing on the wall, that's why JB was so busy trying to fight this testimony getting in.

IMO, if Cindy's testimony being rebutted had any effect on the decision they already had that information when Casey informed the judge she wouldn't.

She cannot decide to testify, but I suppose she could try to plead guilty before the jury comes back from deliberation, but please somebody correct me if I am wrong on that.

Of course, I don't believe she will ever plead guilty because she does not think she did anything wrong.

dog.gone.cute said:

:cow:

I was "shocked" and "surprised" that ICA did NOT take the stand ...

In My Opinion, it was obvious that she wanted to because in her narcissistic mind, it is her "show".

I would think she surely REGRETS it now ....


MOO MOO MOO

Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet a large sum that it's one of her appeals.

No. Besides, how could she ever explain the phony babysitter story? That's the elephant in the room. The jury has watched those tapes and every bit of JB's defense team finagling & stalling with a pair of 3's, won't trump that Royal Flush.

Kat said:

http://www.richardhornsby.com/criminal/guide/trial.html

Click to expand...

thanks for the link..I have searched on this subject -- if the defendant can change their mind on testifying in some subsequent phase and couldn't find anything. Didn't see an answer in your link either.

Paulette said:

No. Besides, how could she ever explain the phony babysitter story? That's the elephant in the room. The jury has watched those tapes and every bit of JB's defense team finagling & stalling with a pair of 3's, won't trump that Royal Flush.

Click to expand...

Yes, it would be a difficult road to hoe. If I were her, I would say, "I wasn't watching and she drown. then I panicked and felt like I had to cover it up.

Oops...you are right...how do you explain acting like you haven't a care in the world? she is missing...no matter what way you look at it.

I guess the only thing you could say is that someone (you don't know who) took her and they said don't say anything or else.

actually, this is what she did.....if she had did that and screamed to authorities on day one, she might have gotten away with it. And certainly not made up a specific, fictional babysitter - her major mistake.

If she wants to testify she could still ask for a plea deal and then tell everyone what really happened. (but I doubt at this point the state would offer anything less than LWOP)

Donjeta said:

I think Cindy's testimony being impeached was probably already factored in her decision not to testify. LDB said she had informed the DT earlier this week that they were going to get those documents in the rebuttal phase and unless the DT is filled with total doofuses they must have known that the Gentiva documents and the phone records would debunk Cindy's lies. Even I knew that they would and I've only followed the case during this trial, they've been at it for three years. They could see the writing on the wall, that's why JB was so busy trying to fight this testimony getting in.

IMO, if Cindy's testimony being rebutted had any effect on the decision they already had that information when Casey informed the judge she wouldn't.

Click to expand...

thanks...that is interesting information. I find myself trying to get into the head of a crazy but smart person and it's probably impossible. There is no doubt she is bright -- one of the search team members said that last night -- to not under-estimate her ...she is brighter than everyone else.

so, she must have analyzed it all and knows her fate is doomed. She decided to work toward mitigating circumstances and hope for the lightest sentence she could get.

dilbert said:

If she wants to testify she could still ask for a plea deal and then tell everyone what really happened. (but I doubt at this point the state would offer anything less than LWOP)

Click to expand...

Is that the only way she could change her mind and testify? I am surprise there is not a protection/provision for a defendant to change their mind.

I think Casey and Cindy were able to communicate via cell phone texts or emails during the trial at some point, tah dah. Cindy is working laws knowing what the possible outcome of the trial is. I think they both already know the outcome. Seems many do somehow? Neither Casey or Cindy are caring why Caylee is gone or how horrific it was? I'll give them a little credit as they are working the law right now... Unbelievable! xoxo