What Is the Defense Strategy?

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
According to "Response to State of Florida's Motion in Limine",

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/27597438/detail.html

We know that they were looking to use the MHE's in the guilt phase of the trial.

BUT - They say in this motion filed 4/18 (yesterday):

Because Dr. Danzinger and Dr. Weitz have both been removed from the guilt phase of the trial, the reports and express contents of will not be introduced at trial. However, the events referenced in the reports, which were gleaned through interviews with Ms. Anthony, are admissible as subject matter germane to the theory of the defense.

Is it just me? or do these sentences contradict each other? :waitasec: How can the reports and contents not be introduced at trial, but events referenced in the reports can be? More word gymnastics to get this in? :waitasec: :dunno:
 
Softail said:
According to "Response to State of Florida's Motion in Limine",

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/27597438/detail.html

We know that they were looking to use the MHE's in the guilt phase of the trial.

BUT - They say in this motion filed 4/18 (yesterday):

Because Dr. Danzinger and Dr. Weitz have both been removed from the guilt phase of the trial, the reports and express contents of will not be introduced at trial. However, the events referenced in the reports, which were gleaned through interviews with Ms. Anthony, are admissible as subject matter germane to the theory of the defense.

Is it just me? or do these sentences contradict each other? :waitasec: How can the reports and contents not be introduced at trial, but events referenced in the reports can be? More word gymnastics to get this in? :waitasec: :dunno:
Click to expand...

What is MHE?
 
Solace said:
I realize you take this case very seriously. But the sarcasm is unnecessary. unless you would like me to just agree with everything you say; I guess that could go on endlessly.
Click to expand...

I am agreeing with you - he may very do all you say - we are simply disagreeing on the purpose and effect of him doing so. Using implied sexual abuse will open a can of worms that would create a backlash he could not repair IMO.

I am sincerely hoping the more experienced members of the DT are advising Baez to give ICA as fair and adequate defense as possible, and I believe that defense will be in attempting to rebuff the forensic evidence.

There is no need for posters to agree and we don't have long to wait for the trial now.
 
Softail said:
According to "Response to State of Florida's Motion in Limine",

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/27597438/detail.html

We know that they were looking to use the MHE's in the guilt phase of the trial.

BUT - They say in this motion filed 4/18 (yesterday):

Because Dr. Danzinger and Dr. Weitz have both been removed from the guilt phase of the trial, the reports and express contents of will not be introduced at trial. However, the events referenced in the reports, which were gleaned through interviews with Ms. Anthony, are admissible as subject matter germane to the theory of the defense.

Is it just me? or do these sentences contradict each other? :waitasec: How can the reports and contents not be introduced at trial, but events referenced in the reports can be? More word gymnastics to get this in? :waitasec: :dunno:
Click to expand...

KC's statements to the Drs contained in the reports are hearsay and therefore inadmissible. However, any individual with personal knowledge of the events of which KC related to the Drs (i.e. someone who actually witnessed these events) may testify to the same --as long as the testimony is otherwise admissible--i.e. relevant.
 
SoCalSleuth said:
KC's statements to the Drs contained in the reports are hearsay and therefore inadmissible. However, any individual with personal knowledge of the events of which KC related to the Drs (i.e. someone who actually witnessed these events) may testify to the same --as long as the testimony is otherwise admissible--i.e. relevant.
Click to expand...

Ok, that is very interesting. I guess we will see how low Cindy will go for KC. But as of now, the Anthonys have denied anything to do with this crime.

I could see Cindy backing this up. Anything is possible at this point.
 
Solace said:
Ok, that is very interesting. I guess we will see how low Cindy will go for KC. But as of now, the Anthonys have denied anything to do with this crime.

I could see Cindy backing this up. Anything is possible at this point.
Click to expand...

Everyone is assuming that it is sexual abuse allegations. Actually, I think it's something else--something that has never been publicly reported. I think that because the SA basically stated that if the alleged events were disclosed publicly the court wouldn't be able to "unring the bell", so to speak. The sex abuse allegations have been out there for awhile so they wouldn't fit into that scenario, jmho.
 
wenwe4 said:
Snaz, With all due respect . . . . Rape Victims typically blame themselves for the violent act. (If only I didn't: wear that outfit, drink too much, trust this guy, say no, listen to my inner voice, listen to my Mom/Friend/etc, go to that location, lead him on, answer that ad, look so cute, etc . . . . . on and on).

This is one of the biggest reasons victims do not come forward and pursue charges against the perp. They feel responsible in some way for allowing themselves to be taken advantage of.

I absolutely agree with you that it is never a rape victims mistake/fault - however that is not typically the victims view, and sadly - for most of the general public as we often blame female victims for somehow bringing on the act of rape. Tragically, rape is an act of violence/rage/power and control over someone else.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, what I was attempting to say (and not very clearly, apparently) is not that ICA may or may not blame herself in this fictional rape, but her MOTHER. Cindy is the one credited with making the comment that Caylee was Casey's mistake, not ICA.

That was the point I was trying to get to.... since Cindy has been credited with this statement, that it likely wouldn't fly as a defense that ICA was raped. Even if it were true, and ICA blamed herself for the rape, it is my opinion that her mother would not. I'm sure there are mothers out there who may blame their own daughters for being raped, but I would tend to believe they are in the minority rather than the majority. IMO MOST mothers would not call a child someone's "mistake" if said child were the result of rape.

That is all I was saying. I never intended to get into a discussion whether or not rape victims blame themselves. I am well aware of how often rape victims blame themselves, and therefore do not report the rape.

JMHO
 
Softail said:
According to "Response to State of Florida's Motion in Limine",

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/27597438/detail.html

We know that they were looking to use the MHE's in the guilt phase of the trial.

BUT - They say in this motion filed 4/18 (yesterday):

Because Dr. Danzinger and Dr. Weitz have both been removed from the guilt phase of the trial, the reports and express contents of will not be introduced at trial. However, the events referenced in the reports, which were gleaned through interviews with Ms. Anthony, are admissible as subject matter germane to the theory of the defense.

Is it just me? or do these sentences contradict each other? :waitasec: How can the reports and contents not be introduced at trial, but events referenced in the reports can be? More word gymnastics to get this in? :waitasec: :dunno:
Click to expand...
Still don't know how "events" can be referenced and cross-examined??? It would require Casey testifying...I don't know how much clearer the judge can be about this. You can throw "hypotheticals" out there, sure...but you can't use what she "said" to others...isn't that hearsay anyway? OY! I have to tell you, it makes me sick what they intend on doing to her father...really, truly, sick to my stomach. And his wife will allow this? How dare they...how dare they all! I hope the State shows every bit of tape showing Cindy crying foul...that LE didn't follow all the "tips" received...tapes of them flying all over the country looking for Caylee...everything, including an accounting of every penny they got!! If they're willing to give up George as the sacrificial lamb...then they should all be held responsible for this grand "conspiracy"- having Casey take the fall for a crime she didn't commit. Just thoroughly disgusted with all of them!
 
SoCalSleuth said:
Everyone is assuming that it is sexual abuse allegations. Actually, I think it's something else--something that has never been publicly reported. I think that because the SA basically stated that if the alleged events were disclosed publicly the court wouldn't be able to "unring the bell", so to speak. The sex abuse allegations have been out there for awhile so they wouldn't fit into that scenario, jmho.
Click to expand...

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.
 
RR0004 said:
Still don't know how "events" can be referenced and cross-examined??? It would require Casey testifying...I don't know how much clearer the judge can be about this. You can throw "hypotheticals" out there, sure...but you can't use what she "said" to others...isn't that hearsay anyway? OY! I have to tell you, it makes me sick what they intend on doing to her father...really, truly, sick to my stomach. And his wife will allow this? How dare they...how dare they all! I hope the State shows every bit of tape showing Cindy crying foul...that LE didn't follow all the "tips" received...tapes of them flying all over the country looking for Caylee...everything, including an accounting of every penny they got!! If they're willing to give up George as the sacrificial lamb...then they should all be held responsible for this grand "conspiracy"- having Casey take the fall for a crime she didn't commit. Just thoroughly disgusted with all of them!
Click to expand...

First, we do not know what the alleged "events" are so we don't know who, other than KC, has personal knowledge of them sufficient to offer testimony on them. Second, if it is the sexual abuse allegations KC would not have to testify to them--the alleged abuser could testify to them. Third, they can't "throw out hypotheticals" without there being underlying evidence admitted of the "facts" set forth in the hypotheticals. Fourth, we have no idea that they are planning to doing anything with GA, it's all just speculation.
 
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...

Not a clue.
 
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...
They kicked George out? I never heard of this.
 
SoCalSleuth said:
First, we do not know what the alleged "events" are so we don't know who, other than KC, has personal knowledge of them sufficient to offer testimony on them. Second, if it is the sexual abuse allegations KC would not have to testify to them--the alleged abuser could testify to them. Third, they can't "throw out hypotheticals" without there being underlying evidence admitted of the "facts" set forth in the hypotheticals. Fourth, we have no idea that they are planning to doing anything with GA, it's all just speculation.
Click to expand...
Of course...all speculation...including making any assumption about why they're going after the video that shows the duct tape on a table by George in the tent. I get that they may not use George...but still can feel disgust if they do.
 
Solace said:
Lambchop, Baez is never going to admit that KC killed her child. Never. He is going to use sexual abuse, imo, for the delay in contacting anyone for 31 days. He is going to say she is promiscuous, steals and lies all of this goes to sexual trauma and Cindy stood by and let it happen or just denied it..

KC said before she told Cindy and Cindy called her a liar.

No one said Baez is going to admit that KC did this.

Baez needs to get some sympathy for KC and imo this is how he will do it.
Click to expand...

But, if KC doesn't testify, how will he introduce the sexual abuse? In his opening/closing arguments? Can he do that without any testimony from anyone? Won't most of that be hearsay unless KC herself says she was abused?
 
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...

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....
 
Reality Orlando said:
But, if KC doesn't testify, how will he introduce the sexual abuse? In his opening/closing arguments? Can he do that without any testimony from anyone? Won't most of that be hearsay unless KC herself says she was abused?
Click to expand...
I think there will be a problem with anything Casey "says", more specifically, about her parents.
Don't we have a thread of all of Casey's lies? I kinda remember George having a stroke way back when.
 
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...
I'll vote for the big lie.
 
RR0004 said:
I think there will be a problem with anything Casey "says", more specifically, about her parents.
Don't we have a thread of all of Casey's lies? I kinda remember George having a stroke way back when.
Click to expand...

I understand, but what I can't figure out is how will Baez be able to introduce sexual abuse into the trial? Doesn't it have to come from someone who either witnessed it or KC herself? Can it be introduced through a psych eval? Who would testify that happened?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 69 more.
Total: 3,708 (members: 70, guests: 3,638)

Online statistics

Members online
70
Guests online
3,638
Total visitors
3,708
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,112
Messages
17,963,389
Members
228,686
Latest member
Pabo1998
Back
Top