What Is the Defense Strategy?

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
logicalgirl said:
To have one juror find any credibility to "the story" - and why introduce sexual abuse in opening statements when you claim your client did not kill her child?
What does possible sexual abuse have to do with innocence in a murder trial. This trial is not about family ties, it is about the murder of Caylee. The guilt phase is about "How" the penalty phase is about "Why".

How could sexual abuse be introduced that went on and on and have anything to do with ICA's guilt or innocence of murder? George has not been charged as a co-conspirator in this murder trial.
Click to expand...

Not saying he is a co-conspirator. I think the defense is going to say she reacted the way she did (31 days) because she was sexually abused for years and years and that is that. And she is not reacting normally because of the ongoing abuse. Her lying is also proof of abuse. I don't know people who are abused, sexually, lie and steal.

I don't think they are going to say she did it. They are not using zannie anymore because Linda said that was a lie. So I don't know what they are going to say about the child missing. I think they are going to say someone took her and paralyzed KC (in mind here) could not deal with it because of the extreme sexual abuse that she has endured over th e years by George.

I think they are giong to use sexual abuse.
 
Solace said:
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?
Click to expand...

Because the Defense knows the State would call George to the stand and ask him that question. Do you think the Defense can afford to have the State open that door? Just think about what George would say.

Remember you are saying the Defense is going to open with this. So George would have had time to stew...he could say anything and everything including he believes his daughter did this.

I believe the sexual abuse defense (if there ever was one) went down the drain with the mental health experts for the guilt phase. The DT may try to introduce it in the penalty phase but by then it will be too little too late.
And again, I ask, what does sexual abuse have to do with whether or not your client killed her child. If as the DT are saying, ICA did not kill her child, what does the sexual abuse have to do with anything at all. It begs the question in the juror's mind - So What?
 
logicalgirl said:
To have one juror find any credibility to "the story" - and why introduce sexual abuse in opening statements when you claim your client did not kill her child?
What does possible sexual abuse have to do with innocence in a murder trial. This trial is not about family ties, it is about the murder of Caylee. The guilt phase is about "How" the penalty phase is about "Why".

How could sexual abuse be introduced that went on and on and have anything to do with ICA's guilt or innocence of murder? George has not been charged as a co-conspirator in this murder trial.
Click to expand...

I think they are sticking with the kidnapping theory and someone took her and killed her. KC could not handle much more from the years of sexxual abuse and they might even say it was continuing up till June of 2008.
 
Solace said:
Not saying he is a co-conspirator. I think the defense is going to say she reacted the way she did (31 days) because she was sexually abused for years and years and that is that. And she is not reacting normally because of the ongoing abuse. Her lying is also proof of abuse. I don't know people who are abused, sexually, lie and steal.

I don't think they are going to say she did it. They are not using zannie anymore because Linda said that was a lie. So I don't know what they are going to say about the child missing. I think they are going to say someone took her and paralyzed KC (in mind here) could not deal with it because of the extreme sexual abuse that she has endured over th e years by George.

I think they are giong to use sexual abuse.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing my point here, with respect. What is it? And how did KC know it happened? Was "it" an accident? Was "it" murder? Was "it" a kidnapping?

A kidnapping? With all that evidence that points to ICA? The location of the body, the trunk of the car? The very unique duct tape and the heart sticker? The cotton bag identical to another one in the Anthony home? Access to the child? Her statements to the LE when they first arrived at Hopespring? The lie about the "shoes" phone call from Caylee?

And her ability to deal with "it" is a very small part of the picture. Not IMO worth an opening statement at all. It is an excuse for her actions post murder but not an explanation for the crime itself.
 
logicalgirl said:
I think you are missing my point here, with respect. What is it? And how did KC know it happened? Was "it" an accident? Was "it" murder? Was "it" a kidnapping?

A kidnapping? With all that evidence that points to ICA? The location of the body, the trunk of the car? The very unique duct tape and the heart sticker? The cotton bag identical to another one in the Anthony home? Access to the child? Her statements to the LE when they first arrived at Hopespring? The lie about the "shoes" phone call from Caylee?

And her ability to deal with "it" is a very small part of the picture. Not IMO worth an opening statement at all. It is an excuse for her actions post murder but not an explanation for the crime itself.
Click to expand...

Baez says he is going to explain the 31 days in his opening statement - I think he is going to use sexual abuse. He is going to admit she is a liar, a thief (which goes along with sexual abuse) but she did not murder her child - we don't know who did - for all we know it could be someone close to her - and then he can stare at George. He can do that Logical - I have seen lawyers do it on ID all the time. They blame it on someone else. It is allowed.

Have to run, but I think that is what he is going to do. He has nothing else Logical. Nothing.
 
So now that it has been put out there that KC lied about the nanny, I am confused on what this means for the DT at trial. Since the SA pretty much has to lay out the timeline of events as they see it and evidence shows, they will say something like "Here is what we believe happened (and then go into what happened of course) and here is what KC told us happened (which is where she wrote the statement about she left Caylee with Zanny and she never returned her). So when its the DT turn, what do they say?? Do they say KC said that is what happened and that was a lie..here is what really happened? Can they do that? Since all this time that has been her story on how she became not in possession of Caylee? Do they introduce a new story on how that occured? Are they allowed to do that since obviously the SA hasnt heard any "new" story NOT involving Zanny? Sorry if this post is confusing I'm not too good at putting into words what I am thinking and trying to say, but hopefully someone gets it and can help me because this has really been bugging me ever since I watched that show and heard LKB say that. (And did the DT KNOW she was going to??)
 
Solace said:
Baez says he is going to explain the 31 days in his opening statement - I think he is going to use sexual abuse. He is going to admit she is a liar, a thief (which goes along with sexual abuse) but she did not murder her child - we don't know who did - for all we know it could be someone close to her - and then he can stare at George. He can do that Logical - I have seen lawyers do it on ID all the time. They blame it on someone else. It is allowed.

Have to run, but I think that is what he is going to do. He has nothing else Logical. Nothing.
Click to expand...

Sorry I have been keeping one eye on my work, and answering calls and trying to post at the same time - not making myself clear I guess.

Baez says he is going to do a lot of things - that doesn't mean he is going to do it. He can infer just about anything about the State's case and can spend a half hour doing just that. He can say the jury will hear evidence of a crime that could have been committed by anyone - that not one piece of evidence points to ICA, that the State cannot prove this was murder, etc. etc. I suppose he could also infer sexual abuse in there also - as a reason why she committed this crime, or to explain her post-crime behavior - but to me that is so out of context. To keep the abuse in context with a theory that flows - I think he would need to say it was an accident, and the abuse explains her behavior.

But if he is saying SODDI - throwing a little possible sexual abuse at the wall, since you are saying he doesn't need proof, seems to me at least to have nothing at all to do with denying evidence of a murder and pointing at someone else.

If ICA is completely innocent of this crime - what does sexual abuse have to do with anything? Which slot of her not committing a murder does it fit into? Partying afterwards and avoiding her mother and brother? Getting the suggested abuse into the guilt phase - No - the penalty phase - sure, why not!

To me a story needs to have consistency to jell - and to me this one does. She parties before she murders her child, and she parties after she kills her child. No change of behavior there.
 
Solace said:
Baez says he is going to explain the 31 days in his opening statement - I think he is going to use sexual abuse. He is going to admit she is a liar, a thief (which goes along with sexual abuse) but she did not murder her child - we don't know who did - for all we know it could be someone close to her - and then he can stare at George. He can do that Logical - I have seen lawyers do it on ID all the time. They blame it on someone else. It is allowed.

Have to run, but I think that is what he is going to do. He has nothing else Logical. Nothing.
Click to expand...

Well let's face it - he doesn't actually even have that, does he?
 
rachelle said:
So now that it has been put out there that KC lied about the nanny, I am confused on what this means for the DT at trial. Since the SA pretty much has to lay out the timeline of events as they see it and evidence shows, they will say something like "Here is what we believe happened (and then go into what happened of course) and here is what KC told us happened (which is where she wrote the statement about she left Caylee with Zanny and she never returned her). So when its the DT turn, what do they say?? Do they say KC said that is what happened and that was a lie..here is what really happened? Can they do that? Since all this time that has been her story on how she became not in possession of Caylee? Do they introduce a new story on how that occured? Are they allowed to do that since obviously the SA hasnt heard any "new" story NOT involving Zanny? Sorry if this post is confusing I'm not too good at putting into words what I am thinking and trying to say, but hopefully someone gets it and can help me because this has really been bugging me ever since I watched that show and heard LKB say that. (And did the DT KNOW she was going to??)
Click to expand...

Rachelle, yours above respectfully bolded by me. Based on what I've seen from the verified lawyers' thread, this is almost exactly what the DT will do. The SA will lay out their case in their opening statement, and remember that the DT doesn't have to refute every or any point in that outline. They only have to raise reasonable doubt in one juror's mind. They can concede what the SA lays out, admit KC lied about Zanny, and then present or re-interpret the evidence in ways that point to any of a number of other possible explanations for what happened.

The SA doesn't need the DT to present a new theory for them to rebut. They just need to remain aware of all the possible avenues for "escape" the DT is dreaming up, and be ready to shred them all with evidence and testimony on cross-examination. (Which I think they are but that is :cow: and my :twocents: only!)
 
No matter what the DT says or does, the 31 days AND duct tape clinging to skeletonized remains = MURDER, along with the ensuing backtracking and cover-up by KC as well as the rest of the family.
 
ynotdivein said:
Rachelle, yours above respectfully bolded by me. Based on what I've seen from the verified lawyers' thread, this is almost exactly what the DT will do. The SA will lay out their case in their opening statement, and remember that the DT doesn't have to refute every or any point in that outline. They only have to raise reasonable doubt in one juror's mind. They can concede what the SA lays out, admit KC lied about Zanny, and then present or re-interpret the evidence in ways that point to any of a number of other possible explanations for what happened.

The SA doesn't need the DT to present a new theory for them to rebut. They just need to remain aware of all the possible avenues for "escape" the DT is dreaming up, and be ready to shred them all with evidence and testimony on cross-examination. (Which I think they are but that is :cow: and my :twocents: only!)
Click to expand...

Respect your comments ynotdivein, do you think the SA will touch on the Zanny story very much except lightly to say this was just another lie in a series of lies. Because I really haven't seen much evidence of the SA focusing on the Zanny theory much at all past the first three days.

So if the SA doesn't focus on the Zanny theory, do you see the DT making a "big deal" about it and saying their client lied? The defense that ICA is a habitual and constant liar but not a murder is kind of a tricky defense don't you think?
 
logicalgirl said:
To have one juror find any credibility to "the story" - and why introduce sexual abuse in opening statements when you claim your client did not kill her child?
What does possible sexual abuse have to do with innocence in a murder trial. This trial is not about family ties, it is about the murder of Caylee. The guilt phase is about "How" the penalty phase is about "Why".

How could sexual abuse be introduced that went on and on and have anything to do with ICA's guilt or innocence of murder? George has not been charged as a co-conspirator in this murder trial.
Click to expand...

The sexual abuse could be introduced as a way to explain her lying and her 'ugly coping' behavior, imo. And it could also be introduced as a way to help understand her behavior after the so called 'accident', if they go that route.imoo
 
logicalgirl said:
But he can't do that with nothing to substantiate it - this is the trial, not the media. He has to be able to back it up to show this influenced ICA's decision to kill Caylee or has any bearing on it at all.

He needs proof - not hearsay - George would have to admit it in detail - and I just do not see that happening. And some expert would need to say yes, this level of abuse can cause a psyche break, blah blah. And then there would be cross, which would fail miserably - at least from my perspective.

I just don't see the Anthony family being major players in this trial - at all. Obviously they are a troubled family but this is a murder trial - it's about evidence.
Click to expand...

ITA with you LG

The word of a confirmed liar is not proof. Weren't her claims about George borne out of repressed "fuzzy memories" that seemed to surface in jail. And IIRC she only told Jesse about Lee.......... apparently pestering her to have sex with him, again substantially different from supposedly tampering with her sports bra nightly and long term.

I think the less than subtle hint about George in the 48 hour program was pure red herring. Baez still likes to think, he can surprise us at trial.
 
logicalgirl said:
Respect your comments ynotdivein, do you think the SA will touch on the Zanny story very much except lightly to say this was just another lie in a series of lies. Because I really haven't seen much evidence of the SA focusing on the Zanny theory much at all past the first three days.

So if the SA doesn't focus on the Zanny theory, do you see the DT making a "big deal" about it and saying their client lied? The defense that ICA is a habitual and constant liar but not a murder is kind of a tricky defense don't you think?
Click to expand...

Well. First, I think that these would be interesting questions for our verified lawyers. :innocent:

Second, who really knows what lies in the hearts of the DT? :innocent:

Third, I do not see the DT making a "big deal" of the Zanny story--in part because they don't have to, in part because they are already signaling that they will admit KC lied, and in larger part because IMO they are angling for a defense where KC's upbringing resulted in the lies. In other words, I think the DT is trying to make the lies "part of" the story, not the whole lynchpin to the story. If the SA brings up the Zanny lies, the DT doesn't need to explain away that lie. They need more to cast reasonable doubt in one juror's mind about why she would lie. Which means casting a backward net and bringing in potential abuse from GA or LA or CA, potential intent on the part of RM or JG, potential anything as long as the bus is directed away from their client. That is all they need to accomplish.

Fourth, IMO the DT has a tricky client. I personally expect their defense of her to be tricky, too, in every sense of the word.

Not a lawyer. But that's where my head is right now.
 
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.
 
ynotdivein said:
Well. First, I think that these would be interesting questions for our verified lawyers. :innocent:

Second, who really knows what lies in the hearts of the DT? :innocent:

Third, I do not see the DT making a "big deal" of the Zanny story--in part because they don't have to, in part because they are already signaling that they will admit KC lied, and in larger part because IMO they are angling for a defense where KC's upbringing resulted in the lies. In other words, I think the DT is trying to make the lies "part of" the story, not the whole lynchpin to the story. If the SA brings up the Zanny lies, the DT doesn't need to explain away that lie. They need more to cast reasonable doubt in one juror's mind about why she would lie. Which means casting a backward net and bringing in potential abuse from GA or LA or CA, potential intent on the part of RM or JG, potential anything as long as the bus is directed away from their client. That is all they need to accomplish.

Fourth, IMO the DT has a tricky client. I personally expect their defense of her to be tricky, too, in every sense of the word.

Not a lawyer. But that's where my head is right now.
Click to expand...

I'm certainly not suggesting some of these "theories" might explain her behaviors, but what I am saying is I believe it has little or nothing to do with dispelling the actual evidence of Caylee's murder and that opportunity and evidence point to ICA. For me her "behaviors" are secondary at this point.

Even if the DT points to her "behaviors" signal an accident, ICA would still then be found guilty of child abuse, and on a child under 12, that's a very dangerous position to put a candidate in.

The words "Big Trouble" were on little Caylee's T-shirt, but it also accurately describes the position the Defense Team finds itself in.

I'm being obstinate here, I realize, but to me it just isn't a "logical" flow of events. Even illogical behavior needs a logical flow of explanation to make sense.
 
logicalgirl said:
Because the Defense knows the State would call George to the stand and ask him that question. Do you think the Defense can afford to have the State open that door? Just think about what George would say.

Remember you are saying the Defense is going to open with this. So George would have had time to stew...he could say anything and everything including he believes his daughter did this.

I believe the sexual abuse defense (if there ever was one) went down the drain with the mental health experts for the guilt phase. The DT may try to introduce it in the penalty phase but by then it will be too little too late.
And again, I ask, what does sexual abuse have to do with whether or not your client killed her child. If as the DT are saying, ICA did not kill her child, what does the sexual abuse have to do with anything at all. It begs the question in the juror's mind - So What?
Click to expand...


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:
 
Solace said:
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?
Click to expand...

bbm: Sorry if this has already been answered, but the way I see it Solace, either ICA or GA have to testify to this info, the experts would be hearsay - since they probably won't put ICA on the stand, GA would have to admit to it??? They certainly can't take just ICA's word, I mean, they are already admitting that she is a liar.
 
Anais said:
I honestly do not for a minute believe that the DT has a strategy yet. At least not one that will or has stuck. The SODDI will not work. If they are truly aiming at GA, or any one else in the Family it will not work. And as far as her friends or exe's go that it just as bad a shot as many or most of them loved and adored little Caylee more than ICA. As far as any type of accident story from ICA herself, the mere thought of it is laughable! Can you imagine what any of the juror's would think after seeing all of the videos, audio interviews and pictures?! Good grief it will not fly.

Maybe they are going in and just going to attempt to shoot down the evidence one by one. So far I have not seen an indication of anything cohesive strategically.
Click to expand...

I agree! Casey told RA she suspected her parents but no specifics. Tells Rob Dick and Tracey JG, Kio and others. All after the ZFG story. Now just who had Caylee Casey? Not a bit of it makes sense. Now LKB is saying the nanny story was a lie so what did she do with Caylee? These are the indications to me that prove Casey is a loon amongst other things of course. I know she is a pathological liar but why aren't they plausible lies in some aspect? She's told 3 different nanny stories about that happened in all honesty she should've stuck with the first, it's the most believeable of the bunch if you can believe that. The jury is going to see her and family plus defense team for exactly what they all are. Blame everyone and everything and hope for the best no matter who gets hurt as long as it isn't Casey. I'm more convinced than ever that the DP is a real possibility for her. I didn't think so before.
 
darnudes said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh, cr#p!! Could this be CA's revenge on her brother Rick, who flat out said ICA did do something to Caylee......make up a load of carpola and throw him under the bus for daring to question CA's mothering skills? JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 229 more.
Total: 4,109 (members: 230, guests: 3,879)

Online statistics

Members online
230
Guests online
3,879
Total visitors
4,109
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,641
Messages
17,956,849
Members
228,572
Latest member
Wafficer
Back
Top