CASEY's NEW DEFENSE?

[c'monalready]

My original theory was that Casey was going to try to make Caylees death look like foul play against herself and her daughter using the car. I think it's why she left the purse on the front seat. Could also explain why they found traces of Chloroform in the trunk. She's seen people kidnapped in the movies using chloroform and probably thought she could outsmart the cops by pouring it in the trunk?? Obviously her plan went south at some point when she decided to call her boyfriend to pick her up at the Amscot.

 

[weasel]

<<My original theory was that Casey was going to try to make Caylees death look like foul play against herself and her daughter using the car. I think it's why she left the purse on the front seat. Could also explain why they found traces of Chloroform in the trunk>>

I think you just may be onto something, here. This is an interesting theory. I seem to recall reading Casey's statement to police in which she repeats more than once that she went to her boyfriend's apartment where "she felt safe".

 

[Annbelle]

What line of defense do you think is coming?
SYBIL ? (MPD-multiple personality disorder)
Menendez ? (abuse by parents- sexual, physical emotional)
PMS ?
Incest ?
The devil made me do it.

 

[DianeB]

Accidental death and untroubled acknowledgment that Zenaida was a lie.

But not until she absolutely has no other option.

 

[AlwaysHoping]

3.) If the argument on July 15th was soooo bad and her parents were going to throw her out then why didn't she leave that very night? IMO - most people would especially impetuous individuals.

You have a VERY good point with this queston - I have a 20 yr old daughter and if we had gotten into an argument like that (didn't I see somewhere that the neighbors could hear the yelling?) She would "flounce" out at that very moment. I'm having such a hard time with the timeline - I didn't even put this together - WHY WOULD SHE STAY that night?

 

[DianeB]

You have a VERY good point with this queston - I have a 20 yr old daughter and if we had gotten into an argument like that (didn't I see somewhere that the neighbors could hear the yelling?) She would "flounce" out at that very moment. I'm having such a hard time with the timeline - I didn't even put this together - WHY WOULD SHE STAY that night?

I thought she didn't stay. Didn't Clint, her boyfriend's houseguest, remember her being there on the night of the 15th after he returned from visiting his own father in Jax?

 

[AlwaysHoping]

I thought she didn't stay. Didn't Clint, her boyfriend's houseguest, remember her being there on the night of the 15th after he returned from visiting his own father in Jax?

I really need to go back and read the timeline thread now - I'm even questioning myself - now that you said that - this case has me so confused :waitasec: - it's a wonder KC can keep the lies straight (IMO).

 

[Clock's Tickin]

What line of defense do you think is coming?
SYBIL ? (MPD-multiple personality disorder)
Menendez ? (abuse by parents- sexual, physical emotional)
PMS ?
Incest ?
The devil made me do it.

Defense is "I didn't do it!"
The girl will NEVER admit wrongdoing because even if she was responsible, SHE doesn't believe that...and never will. It's not her fault she was in the jail, remember?

 

[LCoastMom]

quote [footballmom]
"3.) If the argument on July 15th was soooo bad and her parents were going to throw her out then why didn't she leave that very night? IMO - most people would especially impetuous individuals"

Do you mean June 15? Casey wasn't with Cindy and Caylee visiting grandparents; was she?

Could be Cindy had already put Caylee to bed, she didn't want to wake her.

If KC can go out and party with her friends, hang at the beach with ex-boyfriend, etc, etc in the days following the loss of her daughter, with out batting an eye; how troubled would she have been from a fight with her parents? Not very would be my guess.

You have to realize KC does not process events the same way most of us do, I don't think the wrath of her parents is worth a blimp on her radar. Remember "dramaaaaaa" she acknowledged an event at her parents house, but never said she was involved, or was the cause.

 

[FootballMom]

dang.... yes, I meant June 15th.... THANK YOU!!! gotta go find all my other posts and clean that up....

 

[Sleuth5]

All bets are off with this woman, so it's entirely possible the story will continue to get weirder and more unlikely before it's over. However, I have a problem with a detail that I think will be something of an insurmountable obstacle to the defense -- at least in terms of reasonable doubt.

If Casey sticks with this asinine story about the abduction, she's opening herself to conviction on the basis of the car. Assuming LE has solid evidence linking the body of her daughter to the car, she has given no version of this story that would explain how the "kidnappers" knew where her car would be when it ran out of gas. That's going to tip any normal juror over the edge. It's obvious that the defense wants to posture that someone "put the body in the car" after it was abandoned. The problem is that that someone not only "put the body in the car after it was abandoned," they also took it right back out again. Getting a jury to buy that she knew nothing about that -- that it all happened in the parking lot at Amscot after the abduction -- is not possible in my opinion. There's just no way they will convince them without solid evidence that the "kidnappers" contacted her after the abduction and before the towing. Of course, such evidence does not exist.

 

[lowa1]

I think in the discovery docs she said re: Zanny the nanny. That's the story I am sticking with. I think she better stick with the story of the Sawgrass Apts., it light of all her other lies as any now further embellishment will be dismissed by a jury. I think there is speculation on her adding to her story by LP and RD...not sure if the family has mentioned the park/zanny/sammy story but if they do they need to go back to the interview with LE at the universal conf. room and remember that that is her story and she better stick to it.
Of course no one is buying that story either so I think her goose is cooked.

One problem with Zanny/Nanny/Sammy story is no one can REALLY prove this conversation ever happened. I am not saying it didn't happen just saying can it be proven?

 

[DTFulmer]

All bets are off with this woman, so it's entirely possible the story will continue to get weirder and more unlikely before it's over. However, I have a problem with a detail that I think will be something of an insurmountable obstacle to the defense -- at least in terms of reasonable doubt.

If Casey sticks with this asinine story about the abduction, she's opening herself to conviction on the basis of the car. Assuming LE has solid evidence linking the body of her daughter to the car, she has given no version of this story that would explain how the "kidnappers" knew where her car would be when it ran out of gas. That's going to tip any normal juror over the edge. It's obvious that the defense wants to posture that someone "put the body in the car" after it was abandoned. The problem is that that someone not only "put the body in the car after it was abandoned," they also took it right back out again. Getting a jury to buy that she knew nothing about that -- that it all happened in the parking lot at Amscot after the abduction -- is not possible in my opinion. There's just no way they will convince them without solid evidence that the "kidnappers" contacted her after the abduction and before the towing. Of course, such evidence does not exist.

Sleuth, you are right. And this is where the whole idea that they will find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt takes hold for me. Who can make any other theory reasonable?

 

[unsaid]

1.) Do we know for a fact that the hair with the banding belongs to Caylee? Is it possible that Caylee's hair was in the trunk and so was the hair from a different corpse?

5.) Who the heck knows how to obtain funds from a checking account using the routing numbers and successfully forge checks unless you are experienced with it????
2.) What if Casey has been "employed" by an identity theft ring for the past two years?
3.) She has not had a "job" in 2 years.... I am certain the babysitter/nanny did not take care of Caylee out of the kindness of her heart. There had to be some form of payment/arrangement. Maybe the "nanny" works for the ring and it is her "job" to take care of the kids?

2.) LE is taking their time to build a rock solid case. They are not "leaking" information. They are required to release some information under Florida law and the rest they are doing to keep the rest of us informed as much as possible. They know the entire world is worried about Caylee and they want us to know as much as they can so we can help her without compromising their case.
3.) I think the FBI is ALL over this case.... they just don't want people to know that they are so it doesn't compromise the investigation.

GREAT POST! Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. I just quoted the parts that most intrigued me so I can comment.

1) You mentioned the hair in the trunk thing which is also my major point of doubt. We don't know for a fact that it was Caylee's or that it was not compromised by the chloroform in the trunk.

5,2) I really think she could have been involved with more than just petty theft. My reasoning leads me the same place yours went- the bigger the crime, the worse the criminal.

3) I'm not convinced that she ever had a nanny, she had no use for one and no steady funds. But I'm dying to know what Casey did with most of her days and what she did with Caylee during those days if she was giving everyone the appearance that she worked. Maybe people weren't as fooled as she thought they were since Cindy was kicking her out and telling her to finally get a job. If it happened to be true that someone did take Caylee...I don't think it was a nanny.

2) I have mixed feelings about the info LE is putting out. Everything they are doing is to move the investigation forward, including the release of information. So who's to say that they don't manipulate the facts a little to try to get a response out of Casey? They are only presenting pieces of the evidence, carefully selected pieces of evidence to achieve a particular effect. The whole story the evidence tells is probably totally different than what the public is getting.

3) Yeah, the FBI has been keeping a low profile. I'll assume it's because that's how they operate.

From what I see right now, the defense against a murder charge is pretty strong. The neglect and false statements...not so much.

 

[unsaid]

Sleuth, you are right. And this is where the whole idea that they will find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt takes hold for me. Who can make any other theory reasonable?

I don't believe that they even have to have another solid theory to get her off on reasonable doubt. If the jury has reason to doubt her guilt, that's all they need.

It is possible to say "it could've been someone else" to almost all of the evidence presented so far and that's without even knowing who that other person is exactly.

 

[MrBosox78]

From what I see right now, the defense against a murder charge is pretty strong.

snip

IMO none of the "theories" posted would bring even a grain of doubt much less reasonable doubt to even the few FACTS we know about the case right now.

If there is no body and no confession, a conviction will be based partially on circumstantial evdience and they will have no problem putting her away for Murder in the 1st with all they have on her. IMO of course.

 

[Capri]

and who will they call for character witnesses? Does she have anyone?

 

[belladonna]

OT... has anybody seen the handwriting anaylsis that we were talking about a week ago?

 

[Capri]

Did you also hear the theory that casey had just had an abortion and took the fetus home in a container of chlorform and it spilled?? We are grasping at straws.

ok, that's a new one for me- well, i guess if you're gonna stretch, then stretch, right?

 

[unsaid]

snip

IMO none of the "theories" posted would bring even a grain of doubt much less reasonable doubt to even the few FACTS we know about the case right now.

If there is no body and no confession, a conviction will be based partially on circumstantial evdience and they will have no problem putting her away for Murder in the 1st with all they have on her. IMO of course.

Forget the theories. I just don't think that the evidence makes it clear that CASEY actually did it. That's where the reasonable doubt is and that's all the defense needs.