What Is the Defense Strategy?

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with most of the DT strategy ideas here and who had access to what. My biggest problem with all of this is: The original lie to LE - not only was there no nanny who took Caylee, what on earth was ICA doing with that baby all those times she said the baby was with the nanny? I mean, how do you get past the fact that this baby wasn't with Grandma, Grandpa or mom and there was no nanny...........ever? Where was that child the night that Casey told boyfriend mom called at 3 am and she had to take Caylee home, like a piece of property that had to be returned? CA says the call was never made, and that she didn't have Caylee that night.

I just do not think there is any way to 'splain this away with any reasonable doubt that someone else harmed the child at the end. :banghead:
 
GennyMac said:
I agree with most of the DT strategy ideas here and who had access to what. My biggest problem with all of this is: The original lie to LE - not only was there no nanny who took Caylee, what on earth was ICA doing with that baby all those times she said the baby was with the nanny? I mean, how do you get past the fact that this baby wasn't with Grandma, Grandpa or mom and there was no nanny...........ever? Where was that child the night that Casey told boyfriend mom called at 3 am and she had to take Caylee home, like a piece of property that had to be returned? CA says the call was never made, and that she didn't have Caylee that night.

I just do not think there is any way to 'splain this away with any reasonable doubt that someone else harmed the child at the end. :banghead:
Click to expand...

You're right - and to quote Dr. Vass - Pretty cool, isn't it!" :great:
 
GennyMac said:
I agree with most of the DT strategy ideas here and who had access to what. My biggest problem with all of this is: The original lie to LE - not only was there no nanny who took Caylee, what on earth was ICA doing with that baby all those times she said the baby was with the nanny? I mean, how do you get past the fact that this baby wasn't with Grandma, Grandpa or mom and there was no nanny...........ever? Where was that child the night that Casey told boyfriend mom called at 3 am and she had to take Caylee home, like a piece of property that had to be returned? CA says the call was never made, and that she didn't have Caylee that night.

I just do not think there is any way to 'splain this away with any reasonable doubt that someone else harmed the child at the end. :banghead:
Click to expand...

Okay, from what I have read, KC was using Lauren Gibbs when she was supposedly working at Sports Authority, she was also using Richard Grund when she was supposedly working at Sports Authority. When Richard Grund told KC this babysitting is interfering with my work at home, KC said I found a Nannie.


Ricardo stated (per Hinkey meter) that on March 30th KC stayed over and when he woke up Caylee was not there and KC said Cindy called her. Cindy on that date was visiting her mother and was not home. George was home at the time. This does not mean that Cindy did not call and tell her to bring the baby home. She may have.

The fact that Cindy Anthony said goodbye to KC every day for two years knowing full well that KC was not working is enough to boggle anyone's mind. "have a great day at work KC" Thanks Mom see you later.

Per Rick, Cindy's brother, it was very important to Cindy that no one know when things were wrong, but to go to these lengths and deny that your daughter is pregnant at 7 months when you are a registered nurse. (you have to listen to his interview, it is a riot at times). And to lie to yourself and let your daughter take the baby knowing she is not working has to weigh heavy on Cindy.

It has too.
 
NavySubMom said:
Agreed. They plan to get it in come hell or high water, and I agree, they will play very dirty. IMO.
Click to expand...

I hope you all are wrong. The whole reason the SA filed that motion in limine was so that would not happen. If JP grants the motion in limine and they bring it in anyway, if true, that it's so prejudicial that the bell can't be unrung, there will be a mistrial. Then everything, from jury selection onward will have to be redone--if they have the money. Let's hope and pray this isn't part of their strategy!
 
SoCalSleuth said:
I hope you all are wrong. The whole reason the SA filed that motion in limine was so that would not happen. If JP grants the motion in limine and they bring it in anyway, if true, that it's so prejudicial that the bell can't be unrung, there will be a mistrial. Then everything, from jury selection onward will have to be redone--if they have the money. Let's hope and pray this isn't part of their strategy!
Click to expand...

I think HHJP is going to need to deny the new motion against the motion in limine Mason has just filed. He seems to think he has found a loophole where he can still slide the information in, without using the experts or their depos.
 
SoCalSleuth said:
I hope you all are wrong. The whole reason the SA filed that motion in limine was so that would not happen. If JP grants the motion in limine and they bring it in anyway, if true, that it's so prejudicial that the bell can't be unrung, there will be a mistrial. Then everything, from jury selection onward will have to be redone--if they have the money. Let's hope and pray this isn't part of their strategy!
Click to expand...


BBM

But, wasn't that the plan? According to Casey in her jailhouse letters? Baez promised her a mistrial? :waitasec:
 
logicalgirl said:
I think HHJP is going to need to deny the new motion against the motion in limine Mason has just filed. He seems to think he has found a loophole where he can still slide the information in, without using the experts or their depos.
Click to expand...

What new motion in limine? Could you provide a link????
 
I am a little different than you all in what I believe the DT will do. I don't think they will say that GA or CA killed Caylee.

However I do believe they will go with Caylee died as a result of an accident. I think that is what JB was hinting at in his aha comment. And that after Caylee died, KC was too afraid of her parents to report it. That she was more afraid of her parents than she was of LE or of being accused of murder.

JB has been hinting of the defense for a while now. There may be a little info about her being allegedly molested, though that may be saved for mitigation. The comments about a young woman, unexpectedly and maybe not happily pregnant. I think emphasis will be put on her being pregnant and too afraid to tell parents. And about how she maybe was unsure of whether she wanted to keep the baby, and the A's pressured her into keeping Caylee. I believe that CA's influence in Caylee's life will be emphasized. And that when Caylee died as a result of an accident, KC was too afraid of telling her parents and had a psychotic break/disassociated. And that resulted in driving around in the smelly car, and the partying, the trying to live life like she would have if Caylee had never been born.

I'm just not sure what they will use as the 'accident.'
 
Softail said:
BBM

But, wasn't that the plan? According to Casey in her jailhouse letters? Baez promised her a mistrial? :waitasec:
Click to expand...

I don't recall any of the jailhouse letters but if KC does reference that, my guess is that from a defense attorney's perspective, a mistrial results from a hung jury and that is what JB was referencing.
 
Solace said:
Oh really? She said that in her letters?
Click to expand...

Yep. I 'd have to search for it, but I specifically recall that. I know others recall it as well. So, I'm pretty sure I didn't dream it.
 
NavySubMom said:
I am WAAAAAYYYY out there on this, someone mentioned it might not be the sexual abuse because the SA has indicated it is something that has not been mentioned before, a bell that cannot be unrung, and this is PURE SPECULATION and just hazarding a guess at what else....

could there be another death of a child somewhere in the A's family past, or an A's past even as a teenager or something? PURE SPECULATION, trying to throw something out, my opinion and not starting anything here....it must be something "big", or course it might be a "big lie" also, coming from ICA....
Click to expand...

Wasn't there also some comment about it not even being mentioned in the DSM?

I'm thinking it is a 'psychotic break'
 
mysteriew said:
I am a little different than you all in what I believe the DT will do. I don't think they will say that GA or CA killed Caylee.

However I do believe they will go with Caylee died as a result of an accident. I think that is what JB was hinting at in his aha comment. And that after Caylee died, KC was too afraid of her parents to report it. That she was more afraid of her parents than she was of LE or of being accused of murder.

JB has been hinting of the defense for a while now. There may be a little info about her being allegedly molested, though that may be saved for mitigation. The comments about a young woman, unexpectedly and maybe not happily pregnant. I think emphasis will be put on her being pregnant and too afraid to tell parents. And about how she maybe was unsure of whether she wanted to keep the baby, and the A's pressured her into keeping Caylee. I believe that CA's influence in Caylee's life will be emphasized. And that when Caylee died as a result of an accident, KC was too afraid of telling her parents and had a psychotic break/disassociated. And that resulted in driving around in the smelly car, and the partying, the trying to live life like she would have if Caylee had never been born.

I'm just not sure what they will use as the 'accident.'
Click to expand...

I agree that this could just as easily be the way the DT goes as the GA did it route. The funny thing is, it would seem that they are throwing out hints of defenses and bits and pieces of a defense trying to see which way they should play it. It is their proverbial spaghetti and they are trying to see which one will stick to the wall of reasonable doubt. I will not be surprised to see them asking to speak to the SA right before trial. After a jury is seated, KC and her DT will have reached the end of their hallway. I just hope that the SA says no. I want this to go to trial. Caylee deserves it. MOO.
 
The whole mistrial thing is stupid. IMO Doesn't mean she would be free, so I don't get why they would want that. Just delaying the inevitable. :waitasec:
 
mysteriew said:
I am a little different than you all in what I believe the DT will do. I don't think they will say that GA or CA killed Caylee.

However I do believe they will go with Caylee died as a result of an accident. I think that is what JB was hinting at in his aha comment. And that after Caylee died, KC was too afraid of her parents to report it. That she was more afraid of her parents than she was of LE or of being accused of murder.

JB has been hinting of the defense for a while now. There may be a little info about her being allegedly molested, though that may be saved for mitigation. The comments about a young woman, unexpectedly and maybe not happily pregnant. I think emphasis will be put on her being pregnant and too afraid to tell parents. And about how she maybe was unsure of whether she wanted to keep the baby, and the A's pressured her into keeping Caylee. I believe that CA's influence in Caylee's life will be emphasized. And that when Caylee died as a result of an accident, KC was too afraid of telling her parents and had a psychotic break/disassociated. And that resulted in driving around in the smelly car, and the partying, the trying to live life like she would have if Caylee had never been born.

I'm just not sure what they will use as the 'accident.'
Click to expand...

I think you are right on. Just imagine in JB's opening statement right out of his mouth....."If your child accidentally drowned in a pool, what would you do?....that's right, you would call 911. But what if you had been abused all of your life by a dominatrix mother and a hot tempered father. What if you were so petrified.....you snapped mentally."

What do you have then folks? You have JB circumventing the SAO right out of the gate. You have an explanation for the lies (which the State's case is built on) and you have put it out there for the jury that it was an accident. Reasonable doubt.
But then how does the State rebut that "theory" of defense? They have to show it was premeditated by chloroform searches, duct tape, etc.
It's gonna be close. Let's hope the State has all their bases covered. I personally think they do....but I also know how unpredictable juries can be.
 
Solace said:
What else could it be? I can't see violence being it, because Cindy and KC kicked George out when KC was out on bail and he went after her and told her he can't live like this and tell me what happened.

Any ideas on what they will use.
Click to expand...

Now,I think they are going to blame the sexual abuse on Lee! They might even say he took the baby.

Or, they can say KC left Caylee in GA's hands on the 16th. She thought the baby was safe with Grandpa, so she partied.

Only later did she discover that Caylee was missing when she talked to CA.

Ok, I get it now - both male family members molested her, but she was deathly afraid of Lee.

Remember the tears she shed when she saw CA? I think she was thinking about the terrible thing she was getting ready to put her mother through (blaming her son and husband). No, let me rephrase that: KC was thinking that the jury would be remembering the crocodile tears she shed when she saw CA and that the jury would think she must have been thinking about the terrible thing...

But, it must be Lee and not GA because she already knows Mommy hates Daddy, right? We already saw how 'frushtrated' KC was at Lee during the hearing where Lee admitted he was going to share info she gave to him with the big, bad police department.

Let me ask this though: Without KC testifying, how can they change the whole story KC gave initially? I mean, JB can't get up there and say, "here's the real story," without somehow having KC speak. Is that allowed?? Please tell me it is not!
 
WolfmarsGirl said:
Now,I think they are going to blame the sexual abuse on Lee! They might even say he took the baby.

Or, they can say KC left Caylee in GA's hands on the 16th. She thought the baby was safe with Grandpa, so she partied.

Only later did she discover that Caylee was missing when she talked to CA.

Ok, I get it now - both male family members molested her, but she was deathly afraid of Lee.

Remember the tears she shed when she saw CA? I think she was thinking about the terrible thing she was getting ready to put her mother through (blaming her son and husband). No, let me rephrase that: KC was thinking that the jury would be remembering the crocodile tears she shed when she saw CA and that the jury would think she must have been thinking about the terrible thing...

But, it must be Lee and not GA because she already knows Mommy hates Daddy, right? We already saw how 'frushtrated' KC was at Lee during the hearing where Lee admitted he was going to share info she gave to him with the big, bad police department.

Let me ask this though: Without KC testifying, how can they change the whole story KC gave initially? I mean, JB can't get up there and say, "here's the real story," without somehow having KC speak. Is that allowed?? Please tell me it is not!
Click to expand...

Lee was out of town I believe working. Doesn't work.

George is the fall guy.

As far as her shedding tears when she saw Cindy, that is KC missing the comfort of her mother - and that means it is about KC still, right? She doesn't think that far ahead or care that far ahead - she doesn't care if she has to bring George down - in her mind, he already brought her down at the Grand Jury and as for Lee, we saw her reaction in the courtroom when he said "maybe" meaning he might have shared what she told him with LE. She looked disgusted and gestered with her hand as if to say "see what I have to work with".
 
Softail said:
The whole mistrial thing is stupid. IMO Doesn't mean she would be free, so I don't get why they would want that. Just delaying the inevitable. :waitasec:
Click to expand...

Yes, but it would keep her where she is, much better than prison, and it is a mistrial and that means a victory for the defense for the time being. Of course they would be happy with that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 210 more.
Total: 4,396 (members: 211, guests: 4,185)

Online statistics

Members online
211
Guests online
4,185
Total visitors
4,396
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,764
Messages
17,958,546
Members
228,603
Latest member
megalow
Back
Top