Defense Witness List-where's the "full story"?

[SoCalSleuth]

Very true. But remember the defense will be aiming at the "poor girl lost it" she didn't know what to do, she was afraid she would be blamed, she was confused, she tried to make it look like someone else did it.

Most juror's won't fall for it. But if even one does then it's a problem.

Yes, if it is a hung jury the state has the options of either a plea deal or a retrial. But when you factor in the cost of a new trial, it is a burden on the state and one they take seriously. That is why in a lost cause guilty client case, the defense will often take this tactic. And there is always the possibility that they will convince the jury that the state didn't make their case and that there is some reasonable doubt as to what happened. Which is something to take seriously in a case where the state cannot prove a cause of death.

If KC takes the stand to testify then I can see the poor little lost girl tactic. But if she doesn't testify how would they get the theory of the poor little lost girl into evidence? Statements made in opening statement are not evidence and questions asked at trial aren't evidence and the jury will be instructed on that. So how do you think they would get evidence in of such a theory??

 

[BonKai]

After the State puts on the Zanny material from KC's mouth and statement regarding June 9th, I suppose JB could try the "Officer, you knew my client was lying, correct? Good, then we need not discuss any more of her lying. You do not know with 100% certainty that my client killed Caylee, do you? (No one can say yes to this, they all say 'based on the evidence, blah, blah, blah it is my belief that she did.) All you really know is that she lied BOTH times you spoke to her, correct? You do not know the truth, do you? And, am I safe to assume that you have not spoken to her since July 16, 2008? Therefore, would it be correct to assume that you do not know what she has said since that time regarding a terrible drowning accident in the family pool? Thank you."

9 million objections later, it would be striken, but the jury would have heard it. One thing that you can not do is make people forget; disregard it, yes. But they never forget it.

Harp on how no one has heard the accidental drowning story. Every witness gets a drowning story. It can't be disproven now. There is no cause of death. They have CA and GA with the ladder in the pool/gate open on June 17th, the neighbor who CA said heard someone in the pool during the day on the 16th, the swim suit that was first announced as having been found with the body, (where did the swimsuit go, btw?)

JB's best bet is to admit on KC's behalf that it was all an accident and a mentally disturbed mother whose own mother tried to choke her to death before throwing her out to the wolves to fend for herself and her baby, KNOWING she had no job or Nanny to help her and then both parents turning their backs to her, refusing to even take her calls when she needed them most. Completely dependant on her parents for all support, she was unable to figure out what to do on her own and became a person no one recognizes in order to cope with everything tumbling in at once. No money, no gas, no where to stay, she had to steal from her friends and mooch off of everyone for a spot to stay overnight. She was able to block the event so completely that she only remembered it recently, but is too afraid to speak after all her lies, because there is no reason for anyone to believe her now.

WOW! That is a brilliant defense strategy!
I hope JB doesn't read this! LOL

 

[Where's Andre]

...except her attorneys will have to defend why she then placed duct tape over her daughter's mouth, but a heart sticker over the tape, put her in a garbage bag and threw her in the woods by the side of the road. Further, she is not insane and they will have an impossible time proving she "blocked" anything from her memory (especially without any psychologists listed as witnesses for the Defense.) No jury will buy it. IMHO.

I agree. That's the defense's biggest problem and why they will try whatever they can to attack the integrity of the crime scene and the forensics. If LE does indeed have a forensic link between the dump site and the Anthony home, it's pretty hard to explain away to a jury.

So unless they plea-out they are down to a SODDI, or the Nanny mafia defense, or I was framed by the big bad OCSO and FBI or some other dude defense. A very weak hand in my opinion.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

ORLANDO, Fla. -- The attorney for Casey Anthony filed a motion late Friday afternoon seeking more information about an ex-boyfriend of his client's who posted a picture on MySpace that showed a man and woman with the title "win her over with chloroform."

Jose Baez wants prosecutors to turn over information about Ricardo Morales, including details about a forensic examination conducted on his computer.
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/18557977/detail.html

Looks like Baez will still continue with the SODDIT (some other dud did it theory).

 

[Crabcake23]

JB sure doesn’t like to do things the way that it's done. Even I know, not being an attorney that you have to state full names of all parties to be called at a trial. You can’t just ditto the other sides. Even if all he has ever done in the past is DUI and Drug Busts trials the proper procedure is the same. To me it smacks of someone never actually doing any of his own work.
He was at the Miami Dade Public Defenders office if IIRC. I wonder what he actually did in that office?

I also wonder how long the judge is going to give JB procedural lessons for free in the courtroom? I also wonder if all of JB incomplete, incorrect and not on time motions will or can be used to declare incompetent council resulting in an appeal?

:clap:applause, applause!:clap:

 

[Baznme]

After the State puts on the Zanny material from KC's mouth and statement regarding June 9th, I suppose JB could try the "Officer, you knew my client was lying, correct? Good, then we need not discuss any more of her lying. You do not know with 100% certainty that my client killed Caylee, do you? (No one can say yes to this, they all say 'based on the evidence, blah, blah, blah it is my belief that she did.) All you really know is that she lied BOTH times you spoke to her, correct? You do not know the truth, do you? And, am I safe to assume that you have not spoken to her since July 16, 2008? Therefore, would it be correct to assume that you do not know what she has said since that time regarding a terrible drowning accident in the family pool? Thank you."

9 million objections later, it would be striken, but the jury would have heard it. One thing that you can not do is make people forget; disregard it, yes. But they never forget it.

Harp on how no one has heard the accidental drowning story. Every witness gets a drowning story. It can't be disproven now. There is no cause of death. They have CA and GA with the ladder in the pool/gate open on June 17th, the neighbor who CA said heard someone in the pool during the day on the 16th, the swim suit that was first announced as having been found with the body, (where did the swimsuit go, btw?)

JB's best bet is to admit on KC's behalf that it was all an accident and a mentally disturbed mother whose own mother tried to choke her to death before throwing her out to the wolves to fend for herself and her baby, KNOWING she had no job or Nanny to help her and then both parents turning their backs to her, refusing to even take her calls when she needed them most. Completely dependant on her parents for all support, she was unable to figure out what to do on her own and became a person no one recognizes in order to cope with everything tumbling in at once. No money, no gas, no where to stay, she had to steal from her friends and mooch off of everyone for a spot to stay overnight. She was able to block the event so completely that she only remembered it recently, but is too afraid to speak after all her lies, because there is no reason for anyone to believe her now.

Feasible but the duct tape with the heart shaped sticker blows this theory to kingdom come.

 

[sheribaaby]

The sticking point for the Defense is that the Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(d)(1)(A) requires the defendant to furnish a written list of the names and adresses of all witnesses. The problem is that while the Defense has all of the names they have no addresses since none of them exist, i.e.,

ZFG, Juliette, Jeff MH, Raquel, Samantha, Thomas F, etc. :waitasec:

Lots of defense witnesses . . . . . still looking for them.

:clap:

 

[MissJames]

First she only needs one juror to block a conviction. She is young white and reasonably good looking which means the jury will be somewhat predisposed to offer her some doubt or lienency. So the defense will offer up an alternate story, one that is most likely to gain some sympathy for KC, and maybe be less likely to convict if they thought that it wasn't something done on purpose. An accident of some type + KC blocking it out might be enough to convince a juror to lessen the charge or even outright deadlock the jury.

And a plea is final, there is no chance at aquittal. Also the right to appeal is lost. Besides I know JB was asking for a plea deal before Caylee's remains were found, but I never heard that the state ever offered a deal to her. So it could very well be that she was never given an opportunity to plead out.

But,unless they put KC [liar,liar ,pants on fire] on the stand ,they will have to have witnesses to bring the story forth.They can say what they want at opening,but the jury will want to see witnesses to back the story up.That was a big failure in the SP case.

 

[zoey]

I saw the thread. JB is not there to teach. It's to get free clerical help in putting his case together. It is obvious from what we have seen so far that he doesn't even site past case in his motions. He wants everyone else to do his work for him. To me that says Laziness veiled in Arrogance

he is to busy being at the jail and on tv interviews oh yeah and complaining of media.....:boohoo:

 

[MissJames]

Very true. But remember the defense will be aiming at the "poor girl lost it" she didn't know what to do, she was afraid she would be blamed, she was confused, she tried to make it look like someone else did it.

Most juror's won't fall for it. But if even one does then it's a problem.

Yes, if it is a hung jury the state has the options of either a plea deal or a retrial. But when you factor in the cost of a new trial, it is a burden on the state and one they take seriously. That is why in a lost cause guilty client case, the defense will often take this tactic. And there is always the possibility that they will convince the jury that the state didn't make their case and that there is some reasonable doubt as to what happened. Which is something to take seriously in a case where the state cannot prove a cause of death.

This is too big.The duct tape alone can be seen as torture to a 2 year old child .Abuse at the very least,resulting in death.They will retry unless they get a plea with a long stay in prison IMO.
I think JB is going to go with SOPDI defense.

 

[Nosey Parker]

After the State puts on the Zanny material from KC's mouth and statement regarding June 9th, I suppose JB could try the "Officer, you knew my client was lying, correct? Good, then we need not discuss any more of her lying. You do not know with 100% certainty that my client killed Caylee, do you? (No one can say yes to this, they all say 'based on the evidence, blah, blah, blah it is my belief that she did.) All you really know is that she lied BOTH times you spoke to her, correct? You do not know the truth, do you? And, am I safe to assume that you have not spoken to her since July 16, 2008? Therefore, would it be correct to assume that you do not know what she has said since that time regarding a terrible drowning accident in the family pool? Thank you."

9 million objections later, it would be striken, but the jury would have heard it. One thing that you can not do is make people forget; disregard it, yes. But they never forget it.

Harp on how no one has heard the accidental drowning story. Every witness gets a drowning story. It can't be disproven now. There is no cause of death. They have CA and GA with the ladder in the pool/gate open on June 17th, the neighbor who CA said heard someone in the pool during the day on the 16th, the swim suit that was first announced as having been found with the body, (where did the swimsuit go, btw?)

JB's best bet is to admit on KC's behalf that it was all an accident and a mentally disturbed mother whose own mother tried to choke her to death before throwing her out to the wolves to fend for herself and her baby, KNOWING she had no job or Nanny to help her and then both parents turning their backs to her, refusing to even take her calls when she needed them most. Completely dependant on her parents for all support, she was unable to figure out what to do on her own and became a person no one recognizes in order to cope with everything tumbling in at once. No money, no gas, no where to stay, she had to steal from her friends and mooch off of everyone for a spot to stay overnight. She was able to block the event so completely that she only remembered it recently, but is too afraid to speak after all her lies, because there is no reason for anyone to believe her now.

:clap:Excellent theory, DotsEyes. However, after trying to clear my overloaded brain of what I know as a WS, and imagining myself as one of the jurors, I have problems with this.

1. KC's supposed "blocking" of a tragic drowning accident is not borne out by her behaviour afterwards. The lies to CA and friends about Caylee's whereabouts is a conscious recognition of her not being in KC's care and custody - so where did KC think she was? JB can't say his client "felt" she was with the nanny, because the nanny never did exist. Too much calculated effort went into the nanny story for someone with an amnesia type state of mind.

2. If she was ejected from the support of the family home, why did her mother spend at least a month trying to track her and Caylee?

Just these two things rule out this defence for me, not to mention everything else that will be presented at trial. :behindbar

 

[Theonly1]

Harp on how no one has heard the accidental drowning story. Every witness gets a drowning story. It can't be disproven now. There is no cause of death. They have CA and GA with the ladder in the pool/gate open on June 17th, the neighbor who CA said heard someone in the pool during the day on the 16th, the swim suit that was first announced as having been found with the body, (where did the swimsuit go, btw?)
.

Hi DotsEyes,

If the State can show that Caylee likely died on June 15th in the early morning hours then CA and GA and Lee and the Yorkies can splash in the pool all day long on June 16th, and everyone in the neighborhood can hear the splashing and it isn't going to make a bit of difference. I haven't heard or seen anything about a bathingsuit being with the remains. We would have seen it in the last document dump, correct? Why mention the white shorts, size 3T shirt, Winnie the Pooh blanket but neglect to mention a bathingsuit? I don't think a bathingsuit was found with the bones and I'd venture a guess that the outfit that was found was the same one from Father's Day.

T

 

[Zingo]

Interesting discussion ...

IMO, the only way out is if KC were to assert that she was covering for someone in her family, possibly a male member of the family. But what jury is going to buy that?

Talk about adding insult to injury: what if KC blamed all this on her dad???

Think about it: George was the last one to see Caylee alive supposedly (besides KC). And if something happened, and the two of them buried her, then KC could legitimately say that she didn't want her Dad to go to jail.

The question is: would George ever take the blame to spare KC?

I know this is far-fetched, but as far as defenses go, there really isn't a good defense for KC.

But some defense attorney said that the defense really doesn't have to "tell a story" like the prosecution does.

My best guess is that JB will attack the OCSO and their forensics. He will throw up red herring after red herring, and in the end his client will be convicted of murder.

 

[Zingo]

Interesting discussion ...

IMO, the only way out is if KC were to assert that she was covering for someone in her family, possibly a male member of the family. But what jury is going to buy that?

Talk about adding insult to injury: what if KC blamed all this on her dad???

Think about it: George was the last one to see Caylee alive supposedly (besides KC). And if something happened, and the two of them buried her, then KC could legitimately say that she didn't want her Dad to go to jail.

The question is: would George ever take the blame to spare KC?

I know this is far-fetched, but as far as defenses go, there really isn't a good defense for KC.

But some defense attorney said that the defense really doesn't have to "tell a story" like the prosecution does.

My best guess is that JB will attack the OCSO and their forensics. He will throw up red herring after red herring, and in the end his client will be convicted of murder.

 

[Zingo]

Interesting discussion ...

IMO, the only way out is if KC were to assert that she was covering for someone in her family, possibly a male member of the family. But what jury is going to buy that?

Talk about adding insult to injury: what if KC blamed all this on her dad??? Think about it: George was the last one to see Caylee alive supposedly (besides KC). Would she be that brazen? She could claim years of "abuse" by George (we've all seen his temper on display, and his suicide attempt could be explained as 'guilty conscience.') She could say that he threatened her if she told the truth, and that she was afraid he might hurt her mom. None of this would be true, of course, but it would perpetuate KC's victim mythology.

The question is: would George ever take the blame to spare KC?

I know this is far-fetched, but as far as defenses go, there really isn't a good defense for KC.

But some defense attorney said that the defense really doesn't have to "tell a story" like the prosecution does.

My best guess is that JB will attack the OCSO and their forensics. He will throw up red herring after red herring, and in the end his client will be convicted of murder.