Websleuths
Go Back   Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community > Featured Case Discussion > Caylee Anthony 2 years old

Notices

Caylee Anthony 2 years old Not reported missing for a month after she was last seen.


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1976  
Old 04-18-2011, 07:04 PM
logicalgirl's Avatar
logicalgirl logicalgirl is offline
Peace Hawk
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by ynotdivein View Post
Well. First, I think that these would be interesting questions for our verified lawyers.

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

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.
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.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to logicalgirl For This Useful Post:
  #1977  
Old 04-18-2011, 07:11 PM
Whome?'s Avatar
Whome? Whome? is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by logicalgirl View Post
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?

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
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Whome? For This Useful Post:
  #1978  
Old 04-18-2011, 07:11 PM
Gma Kat's Avatar
Gma Kat Gma Kat is offline
Wantonly distributing my opinion........
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cali
Posts: 1,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solace View Post
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?
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.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Gma Kat For This Useful Post:
  #1979  
Old 04-18-2011, 07:13 PM
strach304's Avatar
strach304 strach304 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anais View Post
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.
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.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to strach304 For This Useful Post:
  #1980  
Old 04-18-2011, 07:14 PM
Meemom's Avatar
Meemom Meemom is offline
Rest in Peace
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 564
Quote:
Originally Posted by darnudes View Post
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.
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
__________________
Nothing on this Earth is as valuable as a child's life, nothing on this Earth is more wonderous than their love.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Meemom For This Useful Post:
  #1981  
Old 04-18-2011, 07:21 PM
SoCalSleuth SoCalSleuth is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solace View Post
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?
If the alleged "event" was, in fact, sexual abuse by GA, then GA would have to take the stand and admit it because there would need to be evidence introduced that whatever KC told the Psychologist happened, did, in fact, happen, before the expert could testify about it, otherwise it's hearsay and inadmissible. If you recall at the hearing, JP stated this is hearsay JB, where's the hearsay exception? And JB had none.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to SoCalSleuth For This Useful Post:
  #1982  
Old 04-18-2011, 07:22 PM
Whome?'s Avatar
Whome? Whome? is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by darnudes View Post
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.
OMG !!!! this could really get nasty,never thought the A's might stoop to this level. But with this group you never know
The Following User Says Thank You to Whome? For This Useful Post:
  #1983  
Old 04-18-2011, 07:23 PM
watcher9 watcher9 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: North GA
Posts: 2,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by LambChop View Post
When KC was stealing money from her family she knew they would not call her on it. KC owed RM money and apparently he was trying to get it back from her. He let it be known he wanted the money back. What does KC do but openly use Amy's checkbook knowing that Amy would return. KC knew Amy was not going to just let her get away with it so why would she do it? KC did not care because at some point KC knew she was going to be held accountable for Caylee so she was living it up while she could without worrying about what the consequences would be. Using Amy's checkbook and writing her own name on the checks shows KC did not expect to get away with murder. She was enjoying her time in the Sun.


I agree with your post completely.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to watcher9 For This Useful Post:
  #1984  
Old 04-18-2011, 07:27 PM
logicalgirl's Avatar
logicalgirl logicalgirl is offline
Peace Hawk
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whome? View Post
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
You are right whome, I'll have that drink handy - but I'll just let the board explode. I know I'm going to need time to and time for and some then to settle down and just before my fingers will hit the keys....
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to logicalgirl For This Useful Post:
  #1985  
Old 04-18-2011, 07:31 PM
Ricki's Avatar
Ricki Ricki is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: CT
Posts: 6,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by LambChop View Post
When KC was stealing money from her family she knew they would not call her on it. KC owed RM money and apparently he was trying to get it back from her. He let it be known he wanted the money back. What does KC do but openly use Amy's checkbook knowing that Amy would return. KC knew Amy was not going to just let her get away with it so why would she do it? KC did not care because at some point KC knew she was going to be held accountable for Caylee so she was living it up while she could without worrying about what the consequences would be. Using Amy's checkbook and writing her own name on the checks shows KC did not expect to get away with murder. She was enjoying her time in the Sun.
That is a way to explain her 31 days of the beautiful life.
  #1986  
Old 04-18-2011, 07:36 PM
logicalgirl's Avatar
logicalgirl logicalgirl is offline
Peace Hawk
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,006
I would love to pose Richard Hornsby the question:

Mr. Hornsby, given the deep pothole Baez currently finds himself in - if you were in his place (sorry if that sounds too insulting for him to even comtemplate ) "What would you say as an opening statement for this trial and this defendant"?

I'm hoping he will breeze in one day soon and give us answer to that question.
Really really hoping!
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to logicalgirl For This Useful Post:
  #1987  
Old 04-18-2011, 07:39 PM
LambChop's Avatar
LambChop LambChop is offline
WS Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: CT/NC
Posts: 17,531
Isn't it true that defense can't represent something as fact when they know that it is not true? There is no proof of anything KC has said because we all know she lies, even about little insignificant things so unless she takes the stand I'm not sure how they will float some of these theories. While JB may not know better....CM does.

KC sure did not look happy after that in-chambers meeting last week. She did not look at JB, got up, turned and left when the judge dismissed court. Back to square one, IMO. jmo
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to LambChop For This Useful Post:
  #1988  
Old 04-18-2011, 07:49 PM
shotgun09 shotgun09 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 369
I am back to LOL'ing every time I see this thread. The defense really has nothing...still. Their last chance at any resemblance of a strategy was getting the Mental Heads in, and that failed miserably. ICA's propensity to lie at every turn, admitted by her defense team no less, leads absolutely nowhere. Bring on the what ifs, and the State will bring the smack down on her with her extreme history of lying. Strategy? Ha!!!
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to shotgun09 For This Useful Post:
  #1989  
Old 04-18-2011, 07:53 PM
LambChop's Avatar
LambChop LambChop is offline
WS Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: CT/NC
Posts: 17,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by darnudes View Post
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.
I don't believe CA's brothers were around at the time. They all live in different states. I mean, in the jailhouse letters KC tells JA she suspects her parents. Right. GA drove the car home and removed the battery so no one could take the car, CA called 911. The only one hiding was KC. KC has screwed up so badly logic just keeps bringing us back to the one and only person who could have done this, who appeared to be unaffected by the fact that her 2 year old was missing. The more she changes her story the more common sense kicks in and says, no way. jmo
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to LambChop For This Useful Post:
  #1990  
Old 04-18-2011, 08:03 PM
miss plum miss plum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 932
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalSleuth View Post
If the alleged "event" was, in fact, sexual abuse by GA, then GA would have to take the stand and admit it because there would need to be evidence introduced that whatever KC told the Psychologist happened, did, in fact, happen, before the expert could testify about it, otherwise it's hearsay and inadmissible. If you recall at the hearing, JP stated this is hearsay JB, where's the hearsay exception? And JB had none.
GA has already said in court that he would do anything to save KC, so if he does take the stand and admit it, his testimony will be easily refutable.
Things said by As are going to have very little weight in this trial. I barely bother to read or listen to a thing any of them says anymore, and I am a person who is deeply engaged with this case. I think the jury will suffer the same ennui that comes from listening to lie after lie after contradiction after revisionism. The evidence, the what we can see and the what we can know independently of anything they say will stand in stark relief to their endless obfuscations and manipulations and will be all the stronger for it. 31 days. Never reported missing by KC. Duct tape. Tattoo. Burial materials came from home. Death smell in car. etc, etc.

Last edited by miss plum; 04-18-2011 at 08:13 PM.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to miss plum For This Useful Post:
  #1991  
Old 04-18-2011, 08:09 PM
miss plum miss plum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 932
The only possible sensible strategy the defense might have is that they are trying to show KC before trial that every single potential avenue of defense is futile, and leads to the dead end of the hallway, and that she should plead out while she can. I could even respect CM if that is what he is doing here, and has been doing here all along.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to miss plum For This Useful Post:
  #1992  
Old 04-18-2011, 08:12 PM
LambChop's Avatar
LambChop LambChop is offline
WS Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: CT/NC
Posts: 17,531
Hummmm. I wonder what defense will put down in their statement of facts due on Thursday????
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to LambChop For This Useful Post:
  #1993  
Old 04-18-2011, 08:16 PM
Whome?'s Avatar
Whome? Whome? is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by logicalgirl View Post
I would love to pose Richard Hornsby the question:

Mr. Hornsby, given the deep pothole Baez currently finds himself in - if you were in his place (sorry if that sounds too insulting for him to even comtemplate ) "What would you say as an opening statement for this trial and this defendant"?

I'm hoping he will breeze in one day soon and give us answer to that question.
Really really hoping!
With all due respect logicalgirl,I don't want Richard to answer that question,I don't want JB to get any new ideas,cause as it stands today,"he's got nuthin" let's keep him that way. JMHO
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Whome? For This Useful Post:
  #1994  
Old 04-18-2011, 08:16 PM
Whome?'s Avatar
Whome? Whome? is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by LambChop View Post
Hummmm. I wonder what defense will put down in their statement of facts due on Thursday????
A big question mark
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Whome? For This Useful Post:
  #1995  
Old 04-18-2011, 08:22 PM
shotgun09 shotgun09 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by LambChop View Post
Hummmm. I wonder what defense will put down in their statement of facts due on Thursday????
The only thing I can think of is "Arpaad Vass is NOT a chemist" Hahaha!
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to shotgun09 For This Useful Post:
  #1996  
Old 04-18-2011, 08:49 PM
logicalgirl's Avatar
logicalgirl logicalgirl is offline
Peace Hawk
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whome? View Post
With all due respect logicalgirl,I don't want Richard to answer that question,I don't want JB to get any new ideas,cause as it stands today,"he's got nuthin" let's keep him that way. JMHO

Whoops - you are absolutely right - I was getting carried away there!
The Following User Says Thank You to logicalgirl For This Useful Post:
  #1997  
Old 04-18-2011, 08:50 PM
logicalgirl's Avatar
logicalgirl logicalgirl is offline
Peace Hawk
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by LambChop View Post
Hummmm. I wonder what defense will put down in their statement of facts due on Thursday????

OOOOOOO - how exciting! I forgot about that LambChop! Clever you!!
The Following User Says Thank You to logicalgirl For This Useful Post:
  #1998  
Old 04-18-2011, 08:54 PM
logicalgirl's Avatar
logicalgirl logicalgirl is offline
Peace Hawk
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by shotgun09 View Post
The only thing I can think of is "Arpaad Vass is NOT a chemist" Hahaha!
Now THAT is funny!!!! Hahaha!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to logicalgirl For This Useful Post:
  #1999  
Old 04-18-2011, 08:56 PM
Whome?'s Avatar
Whome? Whome? is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by logicalgirl View Post
Whoops - you are absolutely right - I was getting carried away there!
The Following User Says Thank You to Whome? For This Useful Post:
  #2000  
Old 04-18-2011, 08:59 PM
comomx3's Avatar
comomx3 comomx3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by shotgun09 View Post
I am back to LOL'ing every time I see this thread. The defense really has nothing...still. Their last chance at any resemblance of a strategy was getting the Mental Heads in, and that failed miserably. ICA's propensity to lie at every turn, admitted by her defense team no less, leads absolutely nowhere. Bring on the what ifs, and the State will bring the smack down on her with her extreme history of lying. Strategy? Ha!!!

I was just thinking this exact same thing- the title of this thread is VERY complimentary towards the DT. It should say, Do they have a strategy...... not What is their strategy.This is actually my favorite thread. I wish I could stop my life and watch this trial, every minute of it- but alas, I can't. So I'll have to pick up the highlights. The opening statement is going to be a doozy and I hope someone types it here word for word.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to comomx3 For This Useful Post:
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
defense strategy, shotgun, statement of fact

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Access to Casey's Car - Defense Strategy? dreamerlin Caylee Anthony 2 years old 87 03-24-2011 02:09 AM
Defense What is their strategy? #1 FIND'HER Caylee Anthony 2 years old 676 05-13-2009 10:31 AM


© Copyright Websleuths 1999-2012 New To Site? Need Help?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:29 AM.

Advertisements

Pre-Order Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony today!