What Is the Defense Strategy?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Incidentally, does anyone really (TRULY) believe that ICA (given the truth of what we actually know about her...lies, theft, more lies, more theft, no job, etc...) would sit in jail if she wasn't the SODDI (meaning she is the guilty party)? If her dad did kill Caylee, how many websleuthers...or for that matter, anyone with common sense, would believe that the ICA we have come to know and loathe...would sit in jail for almost as long as her daughter had been alive for someone else? Not happening.

Again, this is why, as wftv explained the Defense is so desperate to get some mitigating factor in the guilt phase of trial by way of ICA told them...and they want us to believe that while ICA has a pattern (going back to highschool and even before of telling lies) that she is telling the truth now...they just won't put her on the stand to prove it...they want someone else (probably CA) to tell ICA's new story...sickening.

Why not just put your client on the stand? Oh...I forgot...because she might be ripped to shreds because of her classic inability to tell the truth...????
 
What if it wasn't a pool drowning? What if DT got Tone to testify that Caylee was there one night when he went to bed, and was gone when he got up? What if DT asked him if it was possible that Caylee woke up during the night, would he have heard her? Had KC ever gotten up with Caylee in the night and fallen asleep on the couch with her? Or alternatively did she ever take her out to the car? How much room was there on the couch, would it have been crowdeed if KC had fallen asleep with Caylee there? How did they sleep there, positioning?

The point being maybe for the questioning to lead up to the fact that perhaps KC fell asleep on the couch with Caylee (or in the car) and that somehow she ended up getting smothered.

Tony and KC have both said that Caylee never spent the night at his house, so in order for him to testify to this, it would mean he had lied about everything else, presumably for KC.
I don't think he could have passed his polygraph if LE found any indication he was covering for her.
 
What is bothering me is the fact that the DT tried to get one of their experts to testify to the possibility that one of Caylee's wet, chlorine-soaked swimsuits might have caused a chemical reaction with something else, thereby releasing chloroform.

However, they were trying to prove this theory as a 'hypothetical' one.

If they would have been able to prove this chemical reaction was possible in the hypothetical swimsuit scenario, does it not make sense that they could also prove it is possible that baby Caylee, recently drowned in a pool of chlorinated water, could produce the same chloroform?

So, was the swimsuit thing just an attempt to prove this reaction was possible? If so, I say they are going to go with the drowning baloney.

I am more and more sickened as the days go by.

And as far as throwing KC on the stand. I think the DT might just be so delusional as to think, once the jurors gaze into those gorgeous (cough, cough), snake eyes that sit so closely on the sides of KC's ample nose, the jury will have no choice but to believe she is truly beautiful (cough, cough, small seizure here) and that she could do no wrong.

Sickened more and more by the hour now.
 
Like I said before, it is throw GA under the bus time, for the Defense. All of the evidence leads back to ICA...henceforth, ergo, thusly, the Defense has to explain why that evidence leads back to the A home and ICA. Rather than admit responsibility for and knowledge of precisely what happened to Caylee...the Defense has chosen the tactic that (1) mothers do not kill their children, in their minds it is unheard of and rare (not really, statistics show and as a recent article that made its way onto our board suggests 100 of these murders (matricide) occur each year in America) and ICA is just a young, strapped, stressed out, innocent mother with all of these enormous pressures on her (like what? paying bills? not. paying rent? not. stuck with her kid 24/7 and juggling a job? not.)

(2) If mothers do kill their children or if an "accident" happens and they don't call 911 and instead duct tape them and triple bag them like trash and leave them on the side of the road...that there just has to be some hideous trauma in their past that explains it (If ICA were a man, would we even be listening to this bullchit? No.)

(3) Stall, fight the gag order and the speedy trial to get as much money and sympathy from a media who has mostly lost all of their journalistic creed/morals/ethics and then try to bait the public with this "you won't believe how innocent ICA is...we've got the bad guy...it just isn't her...we just won't tell anyone until we lay it out in court...oh...yeah...and ZFG doesn't exist even though we have spent two years pretending that she did....we just couldn't find a SODDI, we thought we'd nail Kronk with touch DNA but that didn't work, and we couldn't nail Jesse nor Tony (which saddens the Defense) so now we are left with blaming her dad, because well, that is how we roll (ethics go out the window, apparently when you are a Defense attorney).

GA is the latest victim of the Defense.

Incidentally, how much weight should we give anything that ICA says now? Well, if I am CBS or TruTv, A LOT of weight apparently. Or WESH...cuz anything she says now has to be the truth. Interestingly enough CBS apparently, doesn't want viewers to hear her first jail call home (and only one) to hear how awesomely rude, spiteful and just flat out not caring about the whereabouts of Caylee she was...it was more about Tony's phone number that she needed to have.

I can say this much, ICA will be found guilty. Those in the media and who sympathize with Ms. Anthony who think that a guilty verdict against her is "miscarriage of justice" need to hop into a hot trunk of a Pontiac Sunfire during the afternoon in June in Orlando and think long and hard about just how unfairly Ms. Anthony has really been treated.

Wow! What a great post! I'm going to put this on my desktop to bring myself back to reality when it starts getting deep. Not like it hasn't already, but it is a really truthful synopsis of how I feel. Thank You.
 
What is bothering me is the fact that the DT tried to get one of their experts to testify to the possibility that one of Caylee's wet, chlorine-soaked swimsuits might have caused a chemical reaction with something else, thereby releasing chloroform.

However, they were trying to prove this theory as a 'hypothetical' one.

If they would have been able to prove this chemical reaction was possible in the hypothetical swimsuit scenario, does it not make sense that they could also prove it is possible that baby Caylee, recently drowned in a pool of chlorinated water, could produce the same chloroform?

So, was the swimsuit thing just an attempt to prove this reaction was possible? If so, I say they are going to go with the drowning baloney.

I am more and more sickened as the days go by.

And as far as throwing KC on the stand. I think the DT might just be so delusional as to think, once the jurors gaze into those gorgeous (cough, cough), snake eyes that sit so closely on the sides of KC's ample nose, the jury will have no choice but to believe she is truly beautiful (cough, cough, small seizure here) and that she could do no wrong.

Sickened more and more by the hour now.

Yes, I think the attempt was to establish that there was a reasonable alternative explanation to the high levels of chloroform in the car. However, since there was no independent evidence that KC put a wet pool-soaked bathing suit in the trunk of the car, JP sustained JA's objection and shut that particular hypothetical down. JP did the same with the attempt to introduce the experts' testimony re trauma induced stress. My guess is JP will do the same with any attempt to bring in this alleged "traumatic stress" caca via granting SA's motion in limine to exclude. Again, the DT cannot just mention theories which they know they will not be introducing substantive evidence on at trial.
 
What is bothering me is the fact that the DT tried to get one of their experts to testify to the possibility that one of Caylee's wet, chlorine-soaked swimsuits might have caused a chemical reaction with something else, thereby releasing chloroform.

However, they were trying to prove this theory as a 'hypothetical' one.

If they would have been able to prove this chemical reaction was possible in the hypothetical swimsuit scenario, does it not make sense that they could also prove it is possible that baby Caylee, recently drowned in a pool of chlorinated water, could produce the same chloroform?

So, was the swimsuit thing just an attempt to prove this reaction was possible? If so, I say they are going to go with the drowning baloney.

I am more and more sickened as the days go by.

And as far as throwing KC on the stand. I think the DT might just be so delusional as to think, once the jurors gaze into those gorgeous (cough, cough), snake eyes that sit so closely on the sides of KC's ample nose, the jury will have no choice but to believe she is truly beautiful (cough, cough, small seizure here) and that she could do no wrong.

Sickened more and more by the hour now.

You may not post often, but when you do its pretty funny :floorlaugh:
 
What is bothering me is the fact that the DT tried to get one of their experts to testify to the possibility that one of Caylee's wet, chlorine-soaked swimsuits might have caused a chemical reaction with something else, thereby releasing chloroform.

However, they were trying to prove this theory as a 'hypothetical' one.

If they would have been able to prove this chemical reaction was possible in the hypothetical swimsuit scenario, does it not make sense that they could also prove it is possible that baby Caylee, recently drowned in a pool of chlorinated water, could produce the same chloroform?

So, was the swimsuit thing just an attempt to prove this reaction was possible? If so, I say they are going to go with the drowning baloney.

I am more and more sickened as the days go by.

And as far as throwing KC on the stand. I think the DT might just be so delusional as to think, once the jurors gaze into those gorgeous (cough, cough), snake eyes that sit so closely on the sides of KC's ample nose, the jury will have no choice but to believe she is truly beautiful (cough, cough, small seizure here) and that she could do no wrong.

Sickened more and more by the hour now.

Sickened as well. Then I remember that the truth will prevail here. Excellent insight, BTW. The high levels found in the trunk would either indicate (1) Caylee was cholorformed to death...or (2) there was a massive clean up of the trunk after the fact by CA and GA or just GA...the cleanup is worrisome for the defense because why in the H E double hockey sticks (L L) would her parent(s) clean out ICA's car trunk unless they thought Caylee was in there and as fate would have it ICA just might actually get punished for something? I think the A's parental guilt likely stems from IMO that ICA and CA fought on the evening of the 15th and ICA left with Caylee that evening...so they feel guilt...as though if there had not been a fight and they (IMO) hadn't kicked ICA out (not Caylee just ICA though in my version ICA just grabbed Caylee and left) all would be well in Anthony land (not).

I have no idea how the SA will present the evidence. How they will lay out how Caylee died/was murdered...but I do know that the defense views the levels of chloroform to be problematic to their defense. JMO. If they want to throw GA under the bus...then for some reason the chloroform levels don't jive with that...likely because the A's didn't use certain products in their pool nor did they have them on hand in their garage/house. Something tells me that the computer searches are more concise as to who, when, where, how...what...that they rule out anyone other than ICA. JMO.
 
I distinctly remember that CA told YM that she didn't give it to him because there was nothing relevant on it and YM stated that was for LE to decide. Never heard anything after that about the receipt. Was it furnished in discovery by either side? I don't recall seeing it.

Wasn't that conversation about her JC Penny statements. Cindy maintained she offered up the receipts found in ICA's bag to LE and no-one was interested in taking them from her. I actually believe her on this. She ended up giving them to Baez. Lee went to Baez' office and copied down what was on each receipt and gave that info to Cpl Eric Edwards. Must have been early on, when LE were still on his speed dial. :crazy: Anyhow, it came out at one of the recent hearings (Agents of the State) that LDB subsequently issued a subpoena for the receipts. I guess that means Baez handed them over.

I'm not positive, but fairly sure that the so called missing receipt was found in Tony Lazarro's jeep. It was for Hess Gas Station. Don't know if Cindy ever voluntarily handed over her credit card statements but I'll wager the State got them one way or another.
 
Since the bus might be headed for GA, (I did not search this forum for this answer, sorry), does anyone know offhand why GA was the only one who testified in front of the Grand Jury? and isn't his testimony what prompted ICA's arrest? I may be wrong here. Just trying to figure out why no one else testified in front of GJ. I know that testimony is sealed, but am just confused, if the bus is headed his way, can anything he testified to ever be made public? I know the answer is probably "no", but why didn't anyone else testify in front of the GJ does anyone recall?
 
Has anyone kept track of how many motions Baez has filed? Is it true that Baez teaches Law at a college nearby?

I just came across this old article...

http://www.wftv.com/news/18551642/detail.html#-

Baez is not teaching freshmen, he's teaching upper-level classes how to get ready for trial.

Jose Baez passed the bar exam just three years ago. He has already confused jurisdiction and botched a motion in the Casey Anthony case. Now, he's teaching law students at FAMU.

....


Even though students were told not to talk to Eyewitness News, several said Baez has hired FAMU students to help him work on the Anthony case outside of the classroom.
 
Since the bus might be headed for GA, (I did not search this forum for this answer, sorry), does anyone know offhand why GA was the only one who testified in front of the Grand Jury? and isn't his testimony what prompted ICA's arrest? I may be wrong here. Just trying to figure out why no one else testified in front of GJ. I know that testimony is sealed, but am just confused, if the bus is headed his way, can anything he testified to ever be made public? I know the answer is probably "no", but why didn't anyone else testify in front of the GJ does anyone recall?

There was no one else I guess that had any reason to. All I could find was this.....

http://www.wftv.com/news/17684992/detail.html
 
There was no one else I guess that had any reason to. All I could find was this.....

http://www.wftv.com/news/17684992/detail.html

Thank you for that, I read the article, I am still confused as to why he testified, did he volunteer, was he chosen for some specific reason, did the SA choose him....do we even know? does anyone on the forum know? I just find it bizarre he might be blamed, but he was the only A who testified at that timeframe. But this whole thing is so bizarre....
 
Thank you for that, I read the article, I am still confused as to why he testified, did he volunteer, was he chosen for some specific reason, did the SA choose him....do we even know? does anyone on the forum know? I just find it bizarre he might be blamed, but he was the only A who testified at that timeframe. But this whole thing is so bizarre....

It does appear that he did this voluntarily which indicates he's the only one that did the right thing. I found this interesting from that article. It indicates that he knew by October of 2008 that his grandaughter was not coming back.

"Prosecutors said they have all the forensic evidence they need to ask a grand jury to indict Casey. Eyewitness News also learned her own father is expected to testify against her in front of the grand jury."
 
I think you can use ammonia mixed with something else to make chloroform. Not sure, may have to ask JoyPath but I think ammonia has some chemical compounds that are commonly found in decomposition also. jmo

Ammonia itself almost knocks me out!

I just read that our bodies make ammonia - so we have some in us at all times.

It said if you mix ammonia with bleach you get chlorine gas.
Also keep out of reach from children and pets but its a very good multipurpose cleaner and is also found in fertilizer.
 
It does appear that he did this voluntarily which indicates he's the only one that did the right thing. I found this interesting from that article. It indicates that he knew by October of 2008 that his grandaughter was not coming back.

"Prosecutors said they have all the forensic evidence they need to ask a grand jury to indict Casey. Eyewitness News also learned her own father is expected to testify against her in front of the grand jury."

http://law.jrank.org/pages/1263/Grand-Jury-subpoena-testify.html

According to this witnesses for a GJ are called by subpoena. I do not think GA had a vote on whether he would appear or not.
 
It does appear that he did this voluntarily which indicates he's the only one that did the right thing. I found this interesting from that article. It indicates that he knew by October of 2008 that his grandaughter was not coming back.

"Prosecutors said they have all the forensic evidence they need to ask a grand jury to indict Casey. Eyewitness News also learned her own father is expected to testify against her in front of the grand jury."

Thanks again. I guess my thought is could this be his "punishment" for testifying, even if he was subpoenaed, I don't know if this was Plan J by the DT, they are at the end of the proverbial Universal Hall with their plans I realize, but maybe, as a last resort, which is where the DT seems to be, they had this in their back pocket, and now he will get his due for daring to testify again ICA. Just a thought. IMO.
 
http://law.jrank.org/pages/1263/Grand-Jury-subpoena-testify.html

According to this witnesses for a GJ are called by subpoena. I do not think GA had a vote on whether he would appear or not.

Yes, I remember GA enroute to the GJ with attorney Nejame. GA looked like he was in a lot of emotional pain but the story was he was doing the right thing. That was based on statements he had made before GA drank CA's Koolaid and the A's went into overdrive to save ICA. CA and ICA were bitter but GA had no option.

You can argue that was when he was trying to do right by Caylee but also spin it that he threw his daughter under the bus to save himself .. If you ignore a lot of facts.
 
Yes, I remember GA enroute to the GJ with attorney Nejame. GA looked like he was in a lot of emotional pain but the story was he was doing the right thing. That was based on statements he had made before GA drank CA's Koolaid and the A's went into overdrive to save ICA. CA and ICA were bitter but GA had no option.

You can argue that was when he was trying to do right by Caylee but also spin it that he threw his daughter under the bus to save himself .. If you ignore a lot of facts.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7N8pDbmaqE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7N8pDbmaqE[/ame]

Was this the video?
 
Yes, I remember GA enroute to the GJ with attorney Nejame. GA looked like he was in a lot of emotional pain but the story was he was doing the right thing. That was based on statements he had made before GA drank CA's Koolaid and the A's went into overdrive to save ICA. CA and ICA were bitter but GA had no option.

You can argue that was when he was trying to do right by Caylee but also spin it that he threw his daughter under the bus to save himself .. If you ignore a lot of facts.

You can argue that was when he was trying to do right by Caylee but also spin it that he threw his daughter under the bus to save himself.. If you ignore a lot of facts.

BBM


Cyber - I'm not sure I get what you mean by this.



Nevvvvvermind.........I reread it and it makes sense now.
 
I'm just guessing, but some people question whether or not GA is the true sociopath.

Also, I just read where Grand Jury peeps are called to testify by the State and LE. The article I read pointed out that whatever is asked is USUALLY kept secret. There isn't an explanation of when the 'usually' is not. Ugh!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
73
Guests online
742
Total visitors
815

Forum statistics

Threads
589,922
Messages
17,927,695
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top