What Is the Defense Strategy?

[Solace]

Originally Posted by wenwe4

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.

Wenwe,

Baez has so little to work with that I think he is going to come out with the most outrageous because he has so little. He has to paint her as a victim and the first way to do that is through sexual abuse, imo.

[drip~drop]

Originally Posted by ZsaZsa

There's still that thing about going to JG's house for a shower when she didn't need one. I don't think we have heard the last of that. ICA may be stupid but she's cunning too...

...a few hairs from his brush maybe?
But why then would she leave the door open?

[momshrink]

Originally Posted by nort

I'm with the idea that they will make it look like GA, CA, ICA & LA all could have done it. With no DNA at the scene that could be plausable. So instead of finding anyone who did it they will say reasonable doubt for ICA because a few people could have done it.

ITA - the DT is going for reasonable doubt. That is all they have.

[drip~drop]

Originally Posted by Whome?

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

I just hope it's not the
"The server is too busy right now try again later"

[logicalgirl]

Originally Posted by Solace

No one said George is the killer, not yet. I don't think they will go with that. I am saying, once again, that Baez is gong to offer the excuse of sexual abuse for the 31 day delay in telling anyone. Schaeffer, wftv's spokesman for this case, thinks George is the perfect fall guy re sexual abuse as it goes right along with KCs stealing, lying and promiscuity. It does not have to go to the penalty phase and Baez does not have to admit guilt - it is simply an explanation for the 31 day delay.

I would bet money that he opens with this. He has made reference in the hearing to stress syndrome due to happenings years ago. He is going to do it, imo. And frankly, all he needs is one person on the jury who believes the sexual abuse theory and with this dysfunctional family, it is not hard to believe.

They could still go with the kidnapping and it does not have to be Zanny.

Okay so you are saying they are throwing in the sexual abuse just for colour then, to explain why she lied stole and partied before and after the "incident", but the actual "incident" is SODDI. Uh huh.

Okay - I'll be content if Baez floats that. sure he can implicate George, which in turn implicates Lee and Cindy and then yes, he would achieve his statement that these three are agents of the state. I'm confident JA can counter that information rather smoothly, in quite a dramatic fashion. But it will make for interesting trial press.

And it will certainly speed things along more quickly to a guilty verdict and Justice For Caylee. IMO

[logicalgirl]

Originally Posted by Solace

Wenwe,

Baez has so little to work with that I think he is going to come out with the most outrageous because he has so little. He has to paint her as a victim and the first way to do that is through sexual abuse, imo.

Just so I am clear on what you believe he is going to say - he is going to say she was a victim, but really just an innocent bystander despite the strongest circumstantial evidence Bill Scheaffer has ever seen in a murder trial. That ICA is an innocent victimized bystander and it was SODDI.

Okay.

[LambChop]

Originally Posted by Solace

Wenwe,

Baez has so little to work with that I think he is going to come out with the most outrageous because he has so little. He has to paint her as a victim and the first way to do that is through sexual abuse, imo.

But that is not a reason for killing your child. If, in fact, KC will claim abuse CA would have to be apart of that also. She lived in the same home and for the most part controlled the household. GA pretty much worked at night and KC did not come forward with anything horrific that we have heard through her writings, almost it could have happened but I'm not sure.

If this were true wouldn't she want to stand before the jury and tell them what happened. She does not have to do it but in order for anyone to believe her, because she really does spin some whoppers, she would have to testify during the guilt phase for anyone to take it seriously. This is not a case of self defense.

I think her statements to her friends at times shows KC did not want this responsibility. In her letter from the jailhouse KC writes that Caylee was in a better place. Who says that with the death of a child? "She will never have to worry about being hurt.." now there is a profound statement, true now that Caylee has suffered the ultimate hurt of all times, her death in which she appears to have suffered by the very hand that was suppose to protect her.

Defense starts to open these doors there's a lot more behind them then just taking KC's word for it. There's a ton SA can use to discredit her accounting. They are in a corner, for sure. jmo

[Solace]

Originally Posted by LambChop

But that is not a reason for killing your child. If, in fact, KC will claim abuse CA would have to be apart of that also. She lived in the same home and for the most part controlled the household. GA pretty much worked at night and KC did not come forward with anything horrific that we have heard through her writings, almost it could have happened but I'm not sure.

If this were true wouldn't she want to stand before the jury and tell them what happened. She does not have to do it but in order for anyone to believe her, because she really does spin some whoppers, she would have to testify during the guilt phase for anyone to take it seriously. This is not a case of self defense.

I think her statements to her friends at times shows KC did not want this responsibility. In her letter from the jailhouse KC writes that Caylee was in a better place. Who says that with the death of a child? "She will never have to worry about being hurt.." now there is a profound statement, true now that Caylee has suffered the ultimate hurt of all times, her death in which she appears to have suffered by the very hand that was suppose to protect her.

Defense starts to open these doors there's a lot more behind them then just taking KC's word for it. There's a ton SA can use to discredit her accounting. They are in a corner, for sure. jmo

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.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by logicalgirl

Just so I am clear on what you believe he is going to say - he is going to say she was a victim, but really just an innocent bystander despite the strongest circumstantial evidence Bill Scheaffer has ever seen in a murder trial. That ICA is an innocent victimized bystander and it was SODDI.

Okay.

yup, according to Schaeffer, George is the perfect fall guy.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by logicalgirl

Just so I am clear on what you believe he is going to say - he is going to say she was a victim, but really just an innocent bystander despite the strongest circumstantial evidence Bill Scheaffer has ever seen in a murder trial. That ICA is an innocent victimized bystander and it was SODDI.

Okay.

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.

[Softail]

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? 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?

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Softail

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? 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?

What is MHE?

[Softail]

Originally Posted by Solace

What is MHE?

Mental Health Expert

[logicalgirl]

Originally Posted by Solace

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.

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.

[SoCalSleuth]

Originally Posted by Softail

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? 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?

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.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by SoCalSleuth

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Softail

Mental Health Expert

Thank you Softail.

[SoCalSleuth]

Originally Posted by Solace

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.

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.

[Snaz]

Originally Posted by wenwe4

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.

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

[RR0004]

Originally Posted by Softail

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? 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?

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!

[Solace]

Originally Posted by SoCalSleuth

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.

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.

[SoCalSleuth]

Originally Posted by RR0004

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!

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.

[SoCalSleuth]

Originally Posted by Solace

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.

Not a clue.

[RR0004]

Originally Posted by Solace

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.

They kicked George out? I never heard of this.

[RR0004]

Originally Posted by SoCalSleuth

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.

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.