What Is the Defense Strategy?

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
strach304 said:
Huge mistake if they do imo. An accident she couldn't face and covered up makes Casey look a little more human. The jury is not going to like this girl as it is but to blame her father is unconscionable. If the defense does not go with an accident there is some very damning evidence found with Caylee. The nanny having a key to the house and therefore access to those things is out so I suppose it would have to be George.
Click to expand...

But remember that there was a body in the trunk of KC's car for approximately 2.6 days. GA was not driving KC's car, KC was. For a jury to believe it has to be believable. And it's really a stretch at this point to believe anyone other than KC was responsible. No one had a reason other than KC to lose the child. GA would have never, ever put that child's body right down the street, dumped like trash. You can see he truly loved that child because Caylee was the only one who loved GA unconditionally.

FYI - the only time we have seen KC be all sweet and sugary to her father was right before he was due to testify to the Grand Jury. KC was clearly trying to get him on her side. If it were not for MN being there as GA's attorney I think GA would have back out of his testimony.

Take a good look at CA. She lets no one stand in her way. CA will get her way no matter what the consequences, no matter who she steps on to get there. Now take a look at her daughter, there's very little difference. jmo
 
I vote they will try Self-defense next.
They've tried everything else...:crazy:
 
racegirl72 said:
I think Baez is going to say that ICA created the nanny in her mind and made herself believe that Caylee was okay....that Caylee was at Sea World, that Caylee was at Universal...etc. etc. ....and that is why she went on as if nothing happened, because she literally believed (in her mind) that Caylee was okay with the nanny.....what else could sum up her actions in the first minute of opening statements?
With that being said, I do not agree that this as an excuse is excusable, I'm just sayin' that this is something the DT might try to use....
Click to expand...

I can see them trying to spin it like that. One problem is that if she made herself 'believe' the baby was with Zanny then she would not have made the run home for the duct tape , blanket, laundry bag and garbage bags. That was a lot to figure out on that supply run and someone had to be thinking pretty rationally, yet cold bloodedly, to get all of the necessary components.
 
katydid23 said:
I can see them trying to spin it like that. One problem is that if she made herself 'believe' the baby was with Zanny then she would not have made the run home for the duct tape , blanket, laundry bag and garbage bags. That was a lot to figure out on that supply run and someone had to be thinking pretty rationally, yet cold bloodedly, to get all of the necessary components.
Click to expand...
BBM

The question I want Jeff Ashton to ask the jury and/or the Defense Team at trial is:
Mr. Baez, could you please complete the following question. She (ICA) made herself believe the baby was with the Zanny BECAUSE..........

What happened to "the baby" Mr. Baez - Why did she even have to "make herself believe"........
 
It's my understanding that the most common defense strategies in a circumstantial case are 1. Claim that the prosecutions case is baloney 2. Exploit the lack of physical and/or direct evidence or 3. Try to pin the crime on someone else.
I know there has been a lot of speculation that the DT will try to point the finger at George, which brings me to one vague memory from the jail visits. That was when KC told her parents, "Don't worry. I didn't say anything." To my knowledge, nobody really knows what she was referring to, but in light of the possibility that GA might end up being the fall guy for KC, it makes me wonder if that is what might happen. Although I personally believe that KC and KC alone did it.
 
shgrbkr said:
It's my understanding that the most common defense strategies in a circumstantial case are 1. Claim that the prosecutions case is baloney 2. Exploit the lack of physical and/or direct evidence or 3. Try to pin the crime on someone else.
I know there has been a lot of speculation that the DT will try to point the finger at George, which brings me to one vague memory from the jail visits. That was when KC told her parents, "Don't worry. I didn't say anything." To my knowledge, nobody really knows what she was referring to, but in light of the possibility that GA might end up being the fall guy for KC, it makes me wonder if that is what might happen. Although I personally believe that KC and KC alone did it.
Click to expand...

But KC would have to explain to the jury why she said that. Jury is not going to buy KC's "codes". JB can't say well here they are now you go figure them out. It's a trial and if you think SA is wrong it's up to you to speak up and tell the jury what actually happened.

KC also did not appear to be stressed when she said she did not say anything. I still think it was about the fight and CA "choking" her. That fits with CA going forward and denying the fight ever happened. They both know that that fact getting out would seal the case against KC. jmo
 
AbbieNormal said:
I hope when the prosecution has Cindy on the stand they point out a few facts:

Cindy and George trusted Casey, apparently, to have hired a "nanny" to take care of Caylee while she was "working". Yet they don't, like any grandparents who are helping to raise their grandchild, bother to get nanny's phone number, address, or even express a desire to meet her!! So they blindly accept what Casey tells them of nanny is the truth.

-Yet Cindy had already known, before the 15th, that Casey had stolen money by way of check fraud from Cindy's mother as well as from Cindy, by way of using her credit cards. But Cindy TRUSTED her?

-Due to the fact that "the truth and ICA were strangers", Casey's lies (that sound outlandish and unbelievable to us), were readily accepted by C & G. She was a known and proven liar to almost all that knew her well. Even to out-of-state relatives and longtime schoolmates. But her parents, who knew her better than anyone and even admitted that she told half-truths and mis-truths quite often, defend her AND her lies.

-Ask Cindy why, after the medical examiner concluded that the tiny skeleton was that of Casey Marie Anthony, Cindy still tried to float her theory that Caylee was still alive- out there, somewhere. Who does Cindy think the tiny skeleton, wrapped in Caylees blanket and bearing Caylees DNA, with duct tape that was an unusual brand, wrapped around her tiny head- (which matched a roll of duct tape that C & G had in their very own garage) was, anyway? How did another child- Caylees age and size, end up in a cloth laundry bag that was identical to ones Cindy had in the house, then bagged two more times for good measure? And if the remains are not Caylees, whose ashes have they claimed and now keep stashed away in a secret place? A strangers??

-Ask Cindy why she is not working. I doubt if this would be something the State would be allowed to ask her, but I still wanna know.
Click to expand...

I agree, this is the big problem I have with CA, there is no way in He!! as a grand parent,I would not have known where my grand child was being taken care of and by whom. The nanny would have gotten tired of me "dropping by",calling etc. Especially knowing ICA habit of lying.This would never have happen,and it was extremly irresponsible of CA/GA as grand parents to let ICA have control over that little girl and not know anything.If I knew my daughter to be this irrresponsible,I would have put her in daycare,at least I would have known her whereabouts on a daily basis.Now CA wants to place blame on others,when she should be looking in the mirror at herself.She put her head in the sand,and the consequences were dire.JMHO :maddening:
 
LambChop said:
But KC would have to explain to the jury why she said that. Jury is not going to buy KC's "codes". JB can't say well here they are now you go figure them out. It's a trial and if you think SA is wrong it's up to you to speak up and tell the jury what actually happened.

KC also did not appear to be stressed when she said she did not say anything. I still think it was about the fight and CA "choking" her. That fits with CA going forward and denying the fight ever happened. They both know that that fact getting out would seal the case against KC. jmo
Click to expand...

Lamb, thanks for bringing the fight between mother and daughter into the picture. I think a physical fight between Casey and Cindy would set Casey on the path to do whatever it took to hurt her mother; even to removing her own daughter out of Cindy's life. What better punishment could she give Cindy.

What comes to my mind about the fight/arguments in the Anthony home is that little Caylee had to live within that environment. I assume there was constant loud arguements or disaggments going on in that house: Cindy with George, Cindy with Casey; Casey with both her parents. This may have been all Caylee heard during her times when the entire family was together.

Remembering back to when I was three or four, the loud arguments my own parents had (usually when one of them had too much to drink) made me very uncomfortable. Enough that I would hide under my bed when the yelling was going on.

I believe this was a daily occurance in Caylee's little world, parents and child, parent and parent loudly fighting with each other. jmo
 
Whome? said:
I agree, this is the big problem I have with CA, there is no way in He!! as a grand parent,I would not have known where my grand child was being taken care of and by whom. The nanny would have gotten tired of me "dropping by",calling etc. Especially knowing ICA habit of lying.This would never have happen,and it was extremly irresponsible of CA/GA as grand parents to let ICA have control over that little girl and not know anything.If I knew my daughter to be this irrresponsible,I would have put her in daycare,at least I would have known her whereabouts on a daily basis.Now CA wants to place blame on others,when she should be looking in the mirror at herself.She put her head in the sand,and the consequences were dire.JMHO :maddening:
Click to expand...

In the State of Florida, unless you have custody as a grandparent, you cannot "put them in daycare". It has to be done by the custodial parent or guardian, whichever one applies. So that was not an option for CA unless she had custody. As a grandparent, unless my name is on the list of those "allowed" to even pick them up, I cannot get access to my own grandchild in a daycare center.

I am only guessing but I believe that the defense strategy is going to lean toward blaming CA for the most part for her upbringing. I think maybe they are going to use CA's "half-truths" and dancing around conversations with double-speak and excuses for ICA as a maneuver to gain sympathy for the way she was raised and.........there's plenty out there that is documented to show that could be the truth. The "family dynamics" that keeps coming up is making my antennae very alert lately as to what they mean by that term and the first thing that comes to mind is CA. There's a pattern to this family dynamic IMO that starts out with the parental guidance turned bad only to have ICA take over the conversation until they see it HER way and she got away with it......time after time after time. ICA's behavior is the end result of all that. She hated her mother more than she loved her daughter. (words uttered by her own Grandmother, bless her heart).
 
Baznme said:
In the State of Florida, unless you have custody as a grandparent, you cannot "put them in daycare". It has to be done by the custodial parent or guardian, whichever one applies. So that was not an option for CA unless she had custody. As a grandparent, unless my name is on the list of those "allowed" to even pick them up, I cannot get access to my own grandchild in a daycare center.

I am only guessing but I believe that the defense strategy is going to lean toward blaming CA for the most part for her upbringing. I think maybe they are going to use CA's "half-truths" and dancing around conversations with double-speak and excuses for ICA as a maneuver to gain sympathy for the way she was raised and.........there's plenty out there that is documented to show that could be the truth. The "family dynamics" that keeps coming up is making my antennae very alert lately as to what they mean by that term and the first thing that comes to mind is CA. There's a pattern to this family dynamic IMO that starts out with the parental guidance turned bad only to have ICA take over the conversation until they see it HER way and she got away with it......time after time after time. ICA's behavior is the end result of all that. She hated her mother more than she loved her daughter. (words uttered by her own Grandmother, bless her heart).
Click to expand...

IMHO If CA had told ICA she wanted to put Caylee in daycare,I do not think that ICA would have objected,more free time for her to roam. It would have been a safer environment for the child. Because as of today,I don't think anyone knows what ICA did with Caylee all the times she was with her. As a grandparent,I still stand by the fact I would have known the "nanny" very well and been able to put my hands on her at any given moment. :twocents:
 
What Is the Defense Strategy?

After last nights 48 Hours and reading on that thread, I believe the defense will try to go the accidental route. It is the only theroy they haven't publicly thrown out to us.
Just my opinion of course.
 
Whome? said:
IMHO If CA had told ICA she wanted to put Caylee in daycare,I do not think that ICA would have objected,more free time for her to roam. It would have been a safer environment for the child. Because as of today,I don't think anyone knows what ICA did with Caylee all the times she was with her. As a grandparent,I still stand by the fact I would have known the "nanny" very well and been able to put my hands on her at any given moment. :twocents:
Click to expand...

On that note, ITA
 
wonders said:
What Is the Defense Strategy?

After last nights 48 Hours and reading on that thread, I believe the defense will try to go the accidental route. It is the only theroy they haven't publicly thrown out to us.
Just my opinion of course.
Click to expand...

Yes, but going the accidental route will require an admission by KC that "something" happened, AND that she knew full well what it was. Supposing that the defense does go with this theory, and it flies (which I don't think it will), then there is a ton of consequences for the entire A family as they all could be accused of a conspiracy to obstruct justice, not to mention allowing the state to spend a ton of money on the investigation. This applies no matter who committed the "accident." JMO
 
LambChop said:
But KC would have to explain to the jury why she said that. Jury is not going to buy KC's "codes". JB can't say well here they are now you go figure them out. It's a trial and if you think SA is wrong it's up to you to speak up and tell the jury what actually happened.

KC also did not appear to be stressed when she said she did not say anything. I still think it was about the fight and CA "choking" her. That fits with CA going forward and denying the fight ever happened. They both know that that fact getting out would seal the case against KC. jmo
Click to expand...

Oh, yes, I agree that when KC made the comment about not saying anything, that she was not referring to George actually having done something. I think it likely she was referring to the choking incident. I was only pointing out that it could be construed many different ways. I don't believe that KC will be taking the stand in order to explain anything. Them trying to accuse GA is only one person that the defense could use as "reasonable doubt."

I don't think any of these strategies will work anyway. The defense is in a corner trying to figure a way out, but they keep getting blocked at every possible opening.
 
People are usually horribly sad and guilty after an accident kills a child they were looking after. If it's their own child they have the additional vast pain of losing the person they love more than anyone in the world. They don't just wrap them up like trash, slap a sticker on their kisser, toss them off the side of the road and go to a party. They certainly don't delete their photos. That is not accident behaviour.
 
shgrbkr said:
It's my understanding that the most common defense strategies in a circumstantial case are 1. Claim that the prosecutions case is baloney 2. Exploit the lack of physical and/or direct evidence or 3. Try to pin the crime on someone else.
I know there has been a lot of speculation that the DT will try to point the finger at George, which brings me to one vague memory from the jail visits. That was when KC told her parents, "Don't worry. I didn't say anything." To my knowledge, nobody really knows what she was referring to, but in light of the possibility that GA might end up being the fall guy for KC, it makes me wonder if that is what might happen. Although I personally believe that KC and KC alone did it.
Click to expand...
I kinda thought that her parents told her...whatever you do, don't talk...period. Which then led me to wonder, did they know pretty early on what had happened?
 
I think they suspected an accidental death and were worried KC would be charged with something more sinister if she wasn't careful in her statements.
 
If they want to take the 'accidental death route' they will have to put someone on the stand to testify to that. Casey went out of her way to make it look like a 'non-accident' if it was one. So she would have to explain why she did that for the jury to accept that, imo.

WOW. LIGHBULB moment in my pea brain. MAYBE, the whole new 48 Hours thing was done by the DT as a last ditch effort for them to get Casey to accept this defense. We know she does not want to admit to anything. Maybe they hoped that if she saw the faux jury make a faux acquittal that she would agree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 188 more.
Total: 4,503 (members: 189, guests: 4,314)

Online statistics

Members online
189
Guests online
4,314
Total visitors
4,503
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,467
Messages
17,969,361
Members
228,776
Latest member
Jojo53
Back
Top