2010.06.21 Cheney Mason Press Conference

[Aedrys]

Respectfully Quoted Intermezzo

Someone explained this for me in a post a while ago, (sorry I don't remember who). They said, this case is about Casey murdering her daughter. Not about who put the body "there." That satisfied me at the time, but I still wonder why they are so worried about who put the body there...or really the (not)fact that Casey "couldn't" have put Caylee's body "there."

So, what are they up to? What good does it, or would it do to put so much effort into "proving" Casey didn't dump her daughter's body, after she killed her? TIA.

...js...

Seems to me they are playing for the penalty phase. It makes no sense to argue whether the body was there or not unless you are trying to get your client LWOP instead of the needle. If someone else put her there, then someone else applied the duct tape, and this could all be a tragic accident that snowballed rather than a heinous crime of revenge.

Otherwise, it makes no sense to argue that her body wasn't there or somebody moved it. That is not arguing for innocence, that is trying to get a reduced sentence. Seems to me they know she's guilty, and they know the trial is going to go badly for them, so they might as well better prepare for the penalty phase than the actual trial. (Methinks the defense is seriously regretting getting HHJS to recuse himself).

I can't imagine why a defense attorney would jump over the trial and just prepare for the penalty phase (seems like an appellate issue if you ask me), but that seems to be their thinking. I just can't wrap my head around any other reason they would go this route. It's a far cry from Casey is innocent and we'll see the evidence in court, isn't it?

 

[njustice]

This is all just more defense spin. Bottom line, the definitive evidence that will prove Caylee's body was placed there after KC was incarcerated, as promised by the defense, does not exist. Rather than admit it, they want to apply logic to an illogical statement. Why? Because they don't have anything. They never have. My degree is not in law, but something tells me if they had any evidence at all to support KC's innocence, the trial would have already happened or she would no longer be in jail.

 

[Boots-OK]

Can a mod change the title of this thread? Colour me clueless, but I thought this was going to be about a shoe they found or something.

FWIW - I agree, Laece. I thought this was a thread about KC stepping out of her flip flop on her way into JB's office eons ago and didn't read here until today. JMO

 

[BondJamesBond]

Hehe. We're in violent agreement re: thread title. I could use some suggestions and I'll fix it tonight when I'm not on my blackberry (unable to edit) :banghead:

 

[The World According]

Hehe. We're in violent agreement re: thread title. I could use some suggestions and I'll fix it tonight when I'm not on my blackberry (unable to edit) :banghead:

For Bond:
New defense strategies emerge

Cheney Mason changes defense tactics

The Sky is falling

( kidding) Enjoy your dinner and your cold beer, we are on our very very best behavior to ensure you have no worries over us tonight. We wont name the thread Skipper takes the helm from Gillighan, promise.

 

[beach]

How about -

WTH is CM talking about anyway???

:floorlaugh:


kidding, Bond. well, sorta. lol

 

[Flow]

Can a mod change the title of this thread? Colour me clueless, but I thought this was going to be about a shoe they found or something.

It got my attention that's for sure so its good in a way.

 

[beach]

*putting on my serious face now*

CM's Presser post 6/21 Status Hearing


I can't vote for any "new strategy" type title change because I really, really don't think there is one. I think CM is just not up-to-snuff on the evidence/facts.

 

[The World According]

Agreed Beach

we are indeed still waiting on the very compelling reasons

and the proof that someone else placed Caylee's body in the woods that Todd proclaimed the defense had ( that was due by the way February 1st.)

In seriousness, the entire thread could be combined with the existing defense strategy thread that we already have, especially since there are likely to be various and sundry new lawyers and attempted strategies before it is over. God help us all!

If you need a little levity though, we have a thread in the members only section on this very matter.... What's your favorite? "Our experts are beyond the age of technology": Jose Baez

 

[BondJamesBond]

Thanks everyone. "...Press Conference..." beat out, "Man Bites Dog", by a hair

 

[BondJamesBond]

For Bond:
New defense strategies emerge

Cheney Mason changes defense tactics

The Sky is falling

( kidding) Enjoy your dinner and your cold beer, we are on our very very best behavior to ensure you have no worries over us tonight. We wont name the thread Skipper takes the helm from Gillighan, promise.

OT:

Hey, thanks, TWA. When's that cold beer gettin' here? :waitasec: You're having it delivered?

 

[chefmom]

Respectfully Quoted Intermezzo

Someone explained this for me in a post a while ago, (sorry I don't remember who). They said, this case is about Casey murdering her daughter. Not about who put the body "there." That satisfied me at the time, but I still wonder why they are so worried about who put the body there...or really the (not)fact that Casey "couldn't" have put Caylee's body "there."

So, what are they up to? What good does it, or would it do to put so much effort into "proving" Casey didn't dump her daughter's body, after she killed her? TIA.

...js...

IMO, they are trying to get around that duct tape. If they can even raise the tiniest of doubts that maybe someone else mighta coulda put that babies body there while KC was in jail, then they can say that THAT'S the person who put duct tape around that poor little babies face. If they can't, then they are just defending a monster, and they don't want to go out like that! JMO, of course.

 

[sayd]

For Bond:
New defense strategies emerge

Cheney Mason changes defense tactics

The Sky is falling

( kidding) Enjoy your dinner and your cold beer, we are on our very very best behavior to ensure you have no worries over us tonight. We wont name the thread Skipper takes the helm from Gillighan, promise.

Oh come on! Please name it that!! I haven't laughed this hard in months!

 

[100%Agave]

Agreed Beach

we are indeed still waiting on the very compelling reasons

and the proof that someone else placed Caylee's body in the woods that Todd proclaimed the defense had ( that was due by the way February 1st.)

In seriousness, the entire thread could be combined with the existing defense strategy thread that we already have, especially since there are likely to be various and sundry new lawyers and attempted strategies before it is over. God help us all!

If you need a little levity though, we have a thread in the members only section on this very matter.... What's your favorite? "Our experts are beyond the age of technology": Jose Baez

I don't know. I have rewritten this post several times and I just don't know what to say. I understand about reasonable doubt. I understand that it is their job to get KC off or the lightest sentence they can get her but...

what I don't get is ...

If someone else placed Caylee's body there, what is the reason for doing so?

If that person would be the killer, why is KC still in jail?

If that person only helped KC, wouldn't KC be able to name him/her and save them the necessity of looking for a scapegoat? And why isn't this person in jail already?

Really I understand reasonable doubt but none of the above makes me doubt that KC is guilty in the least. It doesn't even make me think twice about her guilt. It just makes me think that the defense is either very confused or totally clueless.

Would it make Caylee's murder any less heinous if KC only killed her and someone else dumped her poor little body?

So far, the only accidents that anyone has claimed could be possible involve Caylee being drugged to death or locked in a hot trunk until she died. Is that really an accidental death?

I just don't get the reasoning, I guess.

 

[ynotdivein]

IMO, they are trying to get around that duct tape. If they can even raise the tiniest of doubts that maybe someone else mighta coulda put that babies body there while KC was in jail, then they can say that THAT'S the person who put duct tape around that poor little babies face. If they can't, then they are just defending a monster, and they don't want to go out like that! JMO, of course.

Well said, chefmom. And based on what we've seen to date, if I were Lee, I would be VERY concerned to ensure I could verify my exact whereabouts from, oh, say, mid-June 2008 forward. Like, "at no time after June 1, 2008 was I ever in the same room with a roll of duct tape, or garbage bags."

MOO of course. But from what we're seeing of the defense's "spin-the-bottle" strategizing, it looks like Lee might be getting a big ole wet kiss from the defense at that trial.

ETA: 100%Agave said:

what I don't get is ...

If someone else placed Caylee's body there, what is the reason for doing so?

Maybe to frame the sister you abused for years. (NB I do not believe this for one second! But we must prepare for whatever filth the defense spews.)

If that person would be the killer, why is KC still in jail?

Because she is too cowed and embarrassed to ask for help, or too loyal to her abuser to turn him in.

If that person only helped KC, wouldn't KC be able to name him/her and save them the necessity of looking for a scapegoat? And why isn't this person in jail already?

See above--psychological issues of family loyalty/secrecy/abuse.

Really I understand reasonable doubt but none of the above makes me doubt that KC is guilty in the least. It doesn't even make me think twice about her guilt. It just makes me think that the defense is either very confused or totally clueless.

Me neither. The evidence is showing us piece by piece what really happened. The distractions and jaunts down dead-end streets from the defense are... well, just distractions.

Would it make Caylee's murder any less heinous if KC only killed her and someone else dumped her poor little body?

So far, the only accidents that anyone has claimed could be possible involve Caylee being drugged to death or locked in a hot trunk until she died. Is that really an accidental death?

Bingo.

 

[BondJamesBond]

I don't know. I have rewritten this post several times and I just don't know what to say. I understand about reasonable doubt. I understand that it is their job to get KC off or the lightest sentence they can get her but...

what I don't get is ...

If someone else placed Caylee's body there, what is the reason for doing so?

If that person would be the killer, why is KC still in jail?

If that person only helped KC, wouldn't KC be able to name him/her and save them the necessity of looking for a scapegoat? And why isn't this person in jail already?

Really I understand reasonable doubt but none of the above makes me doubt that KC is guilty in the least. It doesn't even make me think twice about her guilt. It just makes me think that the defense is either very confused or totally clueless.

Would it make Caylee's murder any less heinous if KC only killed her and someone else dumped her poor little body?

So far, the only accidents that anyone has claimed could be possible involve Caylee being drugged to death or locked in a hot trunk until she died. Is that really an accidental death?

I just don't get the reasoning, I guess.

IMHO, Agave, they just hafta play the hand they've been dealt. Which is an extremely carpy one. And they really need a bit of a 'perfect storm' to happen if they have a chance. And that involves getting a juror seated that is predisposed to conspiracies. Some people just cannot resist a conspiracy theory. For me it is kinduva close cousin to chronic victimhood - everyone is a victim and no one is responsible for anything. IF the defense can get a person like this seated...AND IF they can come up with just enough of a tale to tell...they have a chance, IMHO. It is an extremely, incredibly small chance IMHO, but, again...they hafta play the hand they've been dealt.

About the only thing a guilty defendant has going for them is that they don't have to prove they didn't do it. AFAIK, they just have to convince one juror that someone else *might* have done it...do that & its mission accomplished.

 

[100%Agave]

IMHO, Agave, they just hafta play the hand they've been dealt. Which is an extremely carpy one. And they really need a bit of a 'perfect storm' to happen if they have a chance. And that involves getting a juror seated that is predisposed to conspiracies. Some people just cannot resist a conspiracy theory. For me it is kinduva close cousin to chronic victimhood - everyone is a victim and no one is responsible for anything. IF the defense can get a person like this seated...AND IF they can come up with just enough of a tale to tell...they have a chance, IMHO. It is an extremely, incredibly small chance IMHO, but, again...they hafta play the hand they've been dealt.

About the only thing a guilty defendant has going for them is that they don't have to prove they didn't do it. AFAIK, they just have to convince one juror that someone else *might* have done it...do that & its mission accomplished.

BBM. I know and I guess that I just have never been one who thinks every thing that happens has some kind of conspiracy attached to it. I never seem to think in terms of possible conspiracies. For me, I can't even talk to people like that because I just don't get where they are coming from.

Even though we have seen no smoking gun, caught red handed on tape kind of evidence in this case, what we have seen is very compelling when put together. I know there are people out there who are actually looking for the smallest reason to not convict even when the evidence shows guilt but I am not sure that Florida is going to be the place to find one of those. Most of the people that I have talked to about this case, believe that she is guilty and want to see her convicted.

You are right, it is a very slim chance indeed.

 

[100%Agave]

Well said, chefmom. And based on what we've seen to date, if I were Lee, I would be VERY concerned to ensure I could verify my exact whereabouts from, oh, say, mid-June 2008 forward. Like, "at no time after June 1, 2008 was I ever in the same room with a roll of duct tape, or garbage bags."

MOO of course. But from what we're seeing of the defense's "spin-the-bottle" strategizing, it looks like Lee might be getting a big ole wet kiss from the defense at that trial.

ETA: 100%Agave said:

what I don't get is ...

If someone else placed Caylee's body there, what is the reason for doing so?

Maybe to frame the sister you abused for years. (NB I do not believe this for one second! But we must prepare for whatever filth the defense spews.)

If that person would be the killer, why is KC still in jail?

Because she is too cowed and embarrassed to ask for help, or too loyal to her abuser to turn him in.

If that person only helped KC, wouldn't KC be able to name him/her and save them the necessity of looking for a scapegoat? And why isn't this person in jail already?

See above--psychological issues of family loyalty/secrecy/abuse.

Really I understand reasonable doubt but none of the above makes me doubt that KC is guilty in the least. It doesn't even make me think twice about her guilt. It just makes me think that the defense is either very confused or totally clueless.

Me neither. The evidence is showing us piece by piece what really happened. The distractions and jaunts down dead-end streets from the defense are... well, just distractions.

Would it make Caylee's murder any less heinous if KC only killed her and someone else dumped her poor little body?

So far, the only accidents that anyone has claimed could be possible involve Caylee being drugged to death or locked in a hot trunk until she died. Is that really an accidental death?

Bingo.

Maybe, I am just harder to convince or harder on people but not one of those answers above convince me and they were really good. She just does not look or feel the part of sexual abuse victim gone bad.

I wonder.....if they use the sexual abuse angle, can the LE then file charges against LA and/or GA for sexual abuse even if KC does not want them charged?

Even if they can't GA and LA are going to be publicly humiliated and may find it hard to remain in Orlando as accused sexual abusers. So basically, their lives will be in the crapper.

If true, I do feel sympathy for her but at the same time, lots of people grow up with much worse lives than she ever thought about having and become productive members of society and don't murder their children.

 

[ynotdivein]

Maybe, I am just harder to convince or harder on people but not one of those answers above convince me and they were really good. She just does not look or feel the part of sexual abuse victim gone bad.

I agree 100% and yet we shouldn't put anything past this defense team. They can go so low, they've won the International Defense Lawyers' Limbo Competition 5 years running.

I wonder.....if they use the sexual abuse angle, can the LE then file charges against LA and/or GA for sexual abuse even if KC does not want them charged?

Hornsby indicated that if KC filed actual charges against them they would be investigated. So her accusation in the letters to her new ex BFF will not result in charges in and of themselves, unless she takes another step and files a report.

Even if they can't GA and LA are going to be publicly humiliated and may find it hard to remain in Orlando as accused sexual abusers. So basically, their lives will be in the crapper.

Well, if things don't go any further than the jailhouse notes I guess they have seen as much public humiliation as they are going to. But I do hear a bus engine revving up out there and I still bet it's aimed at Lee...

If true, I do feel sympathy for her but at the same time, lots of people grow up with much worse lives than she ever thought about having and become productive members of society and don't murder their children.

Could not agree with you more.

 

[ynotdivein]

IMHO, Agave, they just hafta play the hand they've been dealt. Which is an extremely carpy one. And they really need a bit of a 'perfect storm' to happen if they have a chance. And that involves getting a juror seated that is predisposed to conspiracies. Some people just cannot resist a conspiracy theory. For me it is kinduva close cousin to chronic victimhood - everyone is a victim and no one is responsible for anything. IF the defense can get a person like this seated...AND IF they can come up with just enough of a tale to tell...they have a chance, IMHO. It is an extremely, incredibly small chance IMHO, but, again...they hafta play the hand they've been dealt.

About the only thing a guilty defendant has going for them is that they don't have to prove they didn't do it. AFAIK, they just have to convince one juror that someone else *might* have done it...do that & its mission accomplished.

BJB, respectfully BBM. And it bears repeating:

everyone is a victim and no one is responsible for anything.

Wow. What family that we know of does that sound like?