Defense document - KC swears she didn't report.......

[cecybeans]

She is only swearing she SAID. Yep, I see defense new theory. She was protecting someone else.

Well, I wonder who she is planning on throwing under the bus. GA and CA have certainly not been worried about security (unless you count the protestors last year). So they evidently did not feel KC was protecting them from an outside threat. I have a feeling they need to be saved for "mitigating" circumstances.

So who was she "protecting"? Not JG or Amy, she could hardly wait to implicate them. I hope not AL or RM.

These witnesses are going to have to line up and take a number like in a deli to see who needs to lawyer up.

 

[lin]

I think the reason for the added info to the motion to dismiss charges I & II is that the SA responded to the original motion that it was legally flawed and should not even be considered for that reason.

In this clip http://www.clickorlando.com/video/21210525/index.html, it says the motion to dismiss can only be considered in very limited circumstances and it fails to include sworn statements by the defendant which is required. "Must swear to any or all material facts" that would prove her innocence and the state would have to agree to those facts. As to circumstantial evidence, the state says they have to wait until it is presented to a jury to decide to dismiss, as reported by clickorlando.
I think the added sworn statements by kc to the motion is an attempt to satisfy the requirements to dismiss as outlined in the clip.

1. This has been bugging me for a few days now and now with this filing, it's too much. I demand to know who gave Muzikman permission to take a vaca??

2. ITA, QB. It will be soooo interesting to read exactly what KC wrote in her affidavit. Did she really swear she dropped Caylee at ZG's? Or did she swear she told investigators that? And so on. The point is to list the material facts and imo this is an important fact and an important differentiation.

IMO, from the brief description given, (thanks Macushla and news thread contributors Angel and QB!), this will not be found to be a statement of material facts, much less an adequate one.

 

[lin]

I'm trying to come up with some facts that Casey can actually agree with the SA on. Let's see..
1. Caylee was a real child
2. Caylee was her biological child
3. Caylee was murdered and the body was dumped in a swamp area
4. Casey can swear she never reported Caylee missing
5. Casey can swear that she didn't have a job at Universal

Those would have been better items to agree upon as a defense attorney. Casey needs to be found GUILTY, but she needs to be found guilty while being defended by a competent defense team.

In spite of JB, the defense team is actually more than competent as are the "star" experts announced as hired by the defense. KC will get nowhere with an inadequate defense claim. The problem in this case is not the professionals, it's their client who has boxed them in and the particular facts of the case which appear insurmountable. Raising Johnny Cochran, Clarence Darrow, et al would net the same result, imo.

 

[believe09]

Well, I wonder who she is planning on throwing under the bus. GA and CA have certainly not been worried about security (unless you count the protestors last year). So they evidently did not feel KC was protecting them from an outside threat. I have a feeling they need to be saved for "mitigating" circumstances.

So who was she "protecting"? Not JG or Amy, she could hardly wait to implicate them. I hope not AL or RM.

These witnesses are going to have to line up and take a number like in a deli to see who needs to lawyer up.

Wait for it...wait for it.... CA. This is why she wanted to see GA alone-she wanted to convince him that she was protecting "mom" the whole time......just throwin that out there.

 

[lin]

The problem with the stated "so called facts" is that there is no Zanny the Nanny. If the Defense pushes forward with that revelation as their basis of facts to support a dismissal, then the State voids it with the reasoning that Casey didn't drop Caylee off with a nanny because it would imply that she actually had a job that she was at, which during the interrogation at Universal it was confirmed by Casey that she really didn't work there. FACT

Casey is so very guilty of this crime, BUT... I shake my head in disbelief at the incompetence of her defense. Who in their right mind would use her sworn affidavit that she dropped her little girl off with a nanny, one that doesn't exist!:loser:

She may have only sworn that she told LE that -- it may not be worded to indicate that the act really happened.

ETA: Remember, the undisputed facts of the case show...

 

[lin]

Well the SODDI had better be Mafia Martians, because so far we haven't seen anybody else who remotely qualifies as someone who would want to kidnap and kill Caylee. (And maybe ZFG was a "10" Martian.) I'm surprised KC hasn't heard "voices" yet repeating the script.

I cannot imagine how the defense will divert blame to CA simply because she finally called LE after 31 days and interrupted the partying, uh, the script.

Maybe one of our legal eagles could think of a reason this would fall in the category of defense strategy and not just idiocy.

Our dear sleutherontheside may have neglected to put in a sarcasm alert... I don't think she's suggesting it makes sense but that because CA called, she's the one that started everything, ergo, it's CA's fault. We all know in A-fantasy-land that it's not KC's fault...

 

[Macushla]

1. This has been bugging me for a few days now and now with this filing, it's too much. I demand to know who gave Muzikman permission to take a vaca?? *SNIP*

Lin: This just might merit it's own thread. Musikman certainly did not ask for permission from everyone here on WS! Wait - could he have been 'kidnapped' by whomever is behind trying to frame KC? Should we be worried?

Sorry, OT - but Lin's #1 made me laugh out loud!

 

[magic-cat]

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/1005%20Casey%20Motion.pdf

Here is a handy link to the states motion to strike and it just makes this "sworn statement" from Casey seem that much more bizzarro!

 

[Bakersmom]

She may have only sworn that she told LE that -- it may not be worded to indicate that the act really happened.

ETA: Remember, the undisputed facts of the case show...

That makes sense. I just want this conviction in the future to be nice and clean with no possibility of a re-trial. Caylee needs justice, her life mattered, and in my humble opinion crimes against children should be punishable by death and no less.
I understand her parents wanting to support her, Casey is their child, but I am a Mother too and if my son took the life of an innocent child I would be heartbroken but I would beg for the courts mercy and ask to hold his hand as the death penalty is carried out. I know this sounds harsh, but I believe in the innocense of children and we all have free will, she could have chosen to drop Caylee off at her Mom's and took off on her own.

 

[lin]

I'm sure this has to do with " when everyone hears KC's statement as to what happened we will all understand" I'm just trying to make sense of all of it, but.... I have sat and thought about all the events that have taken place in this case and have come to the conculsion that you just can't figure out CRAZY!:confused

Clearly you haven't had your morning Kool-aid or it would all make perfect A-sense!

And...

Nice to have you posting with us, Bforster!​

 

[TotallyObsessed]

This is just too much. I seriously cannot believe that the only "undisputed" facts that KC will swear to are LIES! That says it all.

 

[magic-cat]

Ok. So as far as I can determine, Casey's sworn statement is an irrational and illogical one, and that it in NO way proves or even denotes her innocence...so...back to the drawing board Jose...

 

[magic-cat]

Failing to report ones own child missing/endangered for 31 days is NO indication of innocence. They cannot argue her innocence based on this statment so I think the state will throw them another curve ball on this one...

 

[lin]

Ok, I will first disclose I have only had three cups of coffee this am, but I am sitting here doing the "huh ..........." "excuse me, but what?????"


Are we missing something here ........ why? unless JB is going on some assumption (not me, lol) that the initial report was in error. Which it wasn't because each of the sworn affidavits signed by the A clan have the 6.09.08 date as last date Caylee was seen.

Where is JB going with this. I want to read it. Not really but I need a good laugh today since my Tigers lost last night :sick:.

Slight typo --- I'm sure you meant to write "lin's Tigers" as clearly, those are my boys. But to keep us on topic, I needed this laugh this morning, as provided by this farce* of an affidavit, due to the good guys being thwarted.


*Ok, so I haven't actually read it yet but still have no doubts it is a farce.

 

[lin]

CONSISTENCY ALERT:

The defense just did something consistent -- the description of the affidavit matches perfectly their inartful attempt at a Motion to Dismiss!

 

[lin]

1. This has been bugging me for a few days now and now with this filing, it's too much. I demand to know who gave Muzikman permission to take a vaca?? *SNIP*

Lin: This just might merit it's own thread. Musikman certainly did not ask for permission from everyone here on WS! Wait - could he have been 'kidnapped' by whomever is behind trying to frame KC? Should we be worried?

Sorry, OT - but Lin's #1 made me laugh out loud!

And a perfect "10" too -- he may not even try to escape!

 

[magic-cat]

The more I read the Motion to Strike and consider this ridiculous sworn statement the more I am concerned that Jose is not competent to even represent this perp. This has got to be THE most ignorant response to date from this group who has been loosely named a "dream team"...No dream team would be so stupid, and so sorry to say that but stupid is as stupid does and this is plain stupid!

The sworn statement does not allude to her innocence or the possibility that she committed a lesser crime...

My head is going to explode on this one for certain!!!

 

[lin]

Failing to report ones own child missing/endangered for 31 days is NO indication of innocence. They cannot argue her innocence based on this statment so I think the state will throw them another curve ball on this one...

I agree with you but iirc, that wasn't the point of the affidavit or their motion. They're alleging that all of the undisputed facts, even when taken in the light most favorable to the prosecution, do not add up to even a prima facie case. Not reporting her daughter missing would be grounds for neglect, but not felony abuse; saying she dropped the baby off with a sitter does not prove she murdered her; etc.

 

[Mendara]

Maybe becaue KC is going to say that she dropped of Caylee with Zanny and so she felt she was safe and didnt need to report her missing

EXACTLY! You hit the nail on the head. His DEFENSE of her STUPID behavior while Cayle was missing will be that CASEY did not think Caylee was in trouble or in danger and therefore her behavior is irrelevant. Remember KC told everyone under the sun that Caylee was with her nanny. What absolutely SHOCKS me is that he will go to trial with the NAnny story! IMO

 

[Mendara]

What about the conversation with her brother and mother where she admitted her child had been missing for 31 days..? That was what prompted the first 911 call.

YES but in the same converstation she told them that she spoke to Caylee that very day and she was fine and in NO danger. She even told the 911 operator. The dangerous kidnapping story was born from the mouths of the A's.