Reasonable doubt-Jury instructions and More #2

[Brini]

But if the defense does not bring up an accident theory can the jury consider one of their own? That's why I think they are screwed. The first DP attorney is no longer on the team and from what I've seen of Baez, no way will they even consider anything but KC had nothing to do with it. So after reading this thread and what constitutes reasonable doubt I don't see how the jury should even be able to consider it as an accident.

It won't even be tried.

JB would have to put KC in the stand. KC could not survive a cross-ex, even in the unlikely case that her testimony didn't provoke jurors into either floor laughs or rage

 

[MissJames]

Thank you. I'm very flattered especially because I enjoy your posts too! My only complaint is I don't run across you often enough.

I certainly don't think it's a bad question and it's one I've been suggesting, as recently as this morning. Accident theories would be better developed on the accident thread, imo. I quoted substantially from that thread and referenced it multiple times. It just seems kind of unfair to go over the ground that's been well tilled in that thread. But at least I don't have to work too hard; it's already done.

I've also posted that I've seen no indication from the defense they have any intention of going with an accidental death defense. MissJames corrected me that accidental death was suggested as a possibility in the opposition to the death penalty written by TL.

Even so, I've seen nothing from the current defense team to indicate they're going for anything other than complete exoneration. They've been very vocal in proclaiming their client "innocent" and with all the hyperbole attached it seems to me they'd lose some credibility with a jury to change their tactics at trial. That is assuming they can't find 12 that haven't heard their loud and frequent proclamations over the last year or so. Of course, they've been quieter lately so maybe they're rethinking that but I don't think so. I think their reticence now is because of 1. AL as lead counsel demands JB and LKB shut up and 2. that they're seeking a change of venue.

The defense hasn't been forthcoming about their theory, imo, because they don't know what it is yet. They just know that KC won't admit to anything or accept any defense theory that doesn't lead to her being on the beach very soon. It's not a 'let's see where the evidence leads and then come to a conclusion.' It's more like starting with the conclusion and desperately seeking a theory to support it. Ain't gonna happen, imo.

Anyway, enough of the rambling (see why it's dangerous to flatter me??) and back to your question. I think the accident theories started on this thread as exploring the applicable law and rules to see how they may be introduced and the level of proof needed at trial. But since I have been more in the business of debunking them than presenting them, that's just a guess.

Just for the record ,I don't think they will go with the accident defense unless AL wants to ,and KC agrees.
This has a lot more to do with KC and JB walking all the way down that hallway togther.They both seem to want to take it to the end.
I do think there are other lawyers who would push for it,including Lemar.That's why he didn't come back when the DP was put on the table IMO.

 

[MissJames]

eek! I got so into pontificating I didn't answer your other question: My best guess based on what we've seen so far is that the defense is going to stick with SONDI and either a) say that LE focused on KC from jump and refused to find the "real" ZFG or b) follow CA's lead and allude to ZFG being an alter-ego of whomever they decide will most easily fit under a bus.

Both will fail, imo because:

a) KC cannot produce anything to show this woman ever existed, not even a fuzzy half in shadow ZFG in the distant background of some other pic much less any contact info or address for this woman that supposedly she had known for four years. No wait, it was six years. No wait, it was... nevermind. Her own conflicts in describing this woman will prove she never existed. The defense will not, imo, be able to overcome this unless they can produce something to show that she existed outside of KC's fevered imagination.

b) see above and there's that pesky little fact that no one other than KC had access to the child. If she doesn't name a name of anyone else who had access then she can't easily throw anyone else under the bus, kwim?

I expect the defense has rejected an accidental or death due to negligence based on the reasoning outlined in the no accident thread and probably more reasons than even we've thought of. There is just too much to exclude this theory. So they're kind of stuck with the imaginanny defense much to their chagrin, I'm sure. Be assured the state will introduce KC's statements about the imaginanny unless by some miracle they're excluded. So how can they get out of the sworn statements of the only witness without putting her on the stand? And again, just cos I think it's a clever phrase, (not that I thought of it), putting her on the stand would be suicide by jury, imo.

You may have discussed this before,but ,do you think the defense might try to show that other people within the household had access to everything KC did,including Caylee?

 

[lin]

You may have discussed this before,but ,do you think the defense might try to show that other people within the household had access to everything KC did,including Caylee?

Without a doubt, imo. This will be more to try to lessen the impact as to KC's guilt than pointing toward the grandparents tho, imo. 'Of course KC had access to her own daughter's blanket. That's to be expected. But she wasn't the only one with access...' I don't see it getting them anywhere. KC had sole custody and control of the child until the child disappeared/was murdered. JB can't say that GA, for example, also had access blah blah blah and so it could have just as easily been him. KC is the natural guardian and it's assumed Caylee is in her care and control unless and until such time as some evidence is presented to show a reasonable explanation for why she wasn't in KC's care. KC's attempt at that was the imaginanny. I don't see how JB can put Caylee with anyone other than KC without some evidence, like a witness, a traffic camera, something. And it doesn't appear that KC will be pointing a finger at anyone.

No reasonable juror, imo, is going to understand much less accept a mother refusing to point a finger at her child's murderer. To protect her parents' safety? Wouldn't that be better accomplished by getting the murderer(s) off the street?

ETA: What are your thoughts on this?

 

[lin]

Just for the record ,I don't think they will go with the accident defense unless AL wants to ,and KC agrees.
This has a lot more to do with KC and JB walking all the way down that hallway togther.They both seem to want to take it to the end.
I do think there are other lawyers who would push for it,including Lemar.That's why he didn't come back when the DP was put on the table IMO.

I've been pondering that phrase you used: 'KC and JB walking all the way down that hallway together.' Just beyond excellent, imo. So apt and so very clearly, inescapably accurate, imo.

 

[MissJames]

Without a doubt, imo. This will be more to try to lessen the impact as to KC's guilt than pointing toward the grandparents tho, imo. 'Of course KC had access to her own daughter's blanket. That's to be expected. But she wasn't the only one with access...' I don't see it getting them anywhere. KC had sole custody and control of the child until the child disappeared/was murdered. JB can't say that GA, for example, also had access blah blah blah and so it could have just as easily been him. KC is the natural guardian and it's assumed Caylee is in her care and control unless and until such time as some evidence is presented to show a reasonable explanation for why she wasn't in KC's care. KC's attempt at that was the imaginanny. I don't see how JB can put Caylee with anyone other than KC without some evidence, like a witness, a traffic camera, something. And it doesn't appear that KC will be pointing a finger at anyone.

No reasonable juror, imo, is going to understand much less accept a mother refusing to point a finger at her child's murderer. To protect her parents' safety? Wouldn't that be better accomplished by getting the murderer(s) off the street?

ETA: What are your thoughts on this?

When each piece of evidence comes up the defense could inquire if anyone else had access ,mostly items from the home,the car.
I'm not sure if there is a way the defense can use the A's behavior since the disappearance.They went to great lengths to keep "Caylee is Alive' going.
If there is a way to bring in their lies and coverups to the defense advantage I think they will.
The A's make a bigger target than anyone else [Zanny,JG,Amy],simply because of their behavior and the fact most items came from their home.
I'm just not sure they can bring the A's behavior in.

 

[MissJames]

I've been pondering that phrase you used: 'KC and JB walking all the way down that hallway together.' Just beyond excellent, imo. So apt and so very clearly, inescapably accurate, imo.

I can't take credit for it.Another poster used it first.If it wasn't so late I would find it to give them credit.

 

[Brini]

Well, here's the credibility test.

If, God forfend, you accidently killed a child (or let one die), would you be able to do ANYTHING other than lie in bed in the fetal position, for months? Or, be sedated into unconsciousness?

The normal response would be incapacitating guilt and regret, even in the event of a total accident.

 

[Tuba]

In this thread but part #1, spillage from attorneys representing parties to this case included "....to put her away for life" and "There is circumstantial evidence of a possible homicide", both quotes from Jose B. We don't want to forget, though, that Ts. Luka talked at the end of the year about the fact that "at that time we didn't know who was responsible for Caylee's death." That is a big one. He knows, therefore Lee knows and this was before the memorial and the gushing praise & protests of love for his sister.

In the service of collecting assessments from involved attorneys, I would like to add this from Brad Conway to ABC. Question from Chris Cuomo, "Is there reason to believe that it could be anyone else involved in this? Do you know of any theory that rules out Casey Anthony as being under the umbrella of suspicion?" Brad Conway answers, "I do not. No. I don't"

 

[lin]

In the service of collecting assessments from involved attorneys, I would like to add this from Brad Conway to ABC. Question from Chris Cuomo, "Is there reason to believe that it could be anyone else involved in this? Do you know of any theory that rules out Casey Anthony as being under the umbrella of suspicion?" Brad Conway answers, "I do not. No."

Thanks, Tuba. Found the video; begins around 2:10:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgw59hJTGrA"]YouTube - Good Morning America 6/16/09 Brad Conway[/ame]

Also found this one wherein at about 4:53 Brad admits KC exchanges letters through Baez:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUhHR7UnbQY"]YouTube - Today 6/22/09 Brad Conway w Dr. Wecht & Dr. Spitz[/ame]

How can this not be a violation?

 

[Tuffy]

Thanks, Tuba. Found the video; begins around 2:10:

YouTube - Good Morning America 6/16/09 Brad Conway

Also found this one wherein at about 4:53 Brad admits KC exchanges letters through Baez:

YouTube - Today 6/22/09 Brad Conway w Dr. Wecht & Dr. Spitz

How can this not be a violation?

Innoccent question: Is exchanging letters through an attorney a violation only if the letters contain inappropriate communications? Isn't that why mail that comes to the jail for inmates screened? If there is no inappropriate exchanges would it be okay?

 

[lin]

Innoccent question: Is exchanging letters through an attorney a violation only if the letters contain inappropriate communications? Isn't that why mail that comes to the jail for inmates screened? If there is no inappropriate exchanges would it be okay?

Equally innocent answer: This has already been explained by those much smarter than am I; JB's likely explanation if called on the carpet is work product/privilege; they're "discussing" her defense through the letters. To get the letters to see if there is anything inappropriate would be a very uphill battle for the prosecution, is my understanding, and one they don't have great odds of even winning.

I'm just venting about the general "wrongness" of being able to skirt the rules that way. And to not only do it but to, in essence, brag about it; rub our collective noses in the fact it's being done.

ETA: Another narcissistic trait --- special rules for special narcissists, um, I mean 'people' yeah, that's what I meant.

 

[Tuffy]

Equally innocent answer: This has already been explained by those much smarter than am I; JB's likely explanation if called on the carpet is work product/privilege; they're "discussing" her defense through the letters. To get the letters to see if there is anything inappropriate would be a very uphill battle for the prosecution, is my understanding, and one they don't have great odds of even winning.

I'm just venting about the general "wrongness" of being able to skirt the rules that way. And to not only do it but to, in essence, brag about it; rub our collective noses in the fact it's being done.

ETA: Another narcissistic trait --- special rules for special narcissists, um, I mean 'people' yeah, that's what I meant.

Thanks for the answer, lin.

And for the bolded portion:

I completely agree. I feel that way too!

 

[lin]

Thanks for the answer, lin.

And for the bolded portion:

I completely agree. I feel that way too!

pssst... Tuffy....

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez10wjD3Xc4"]YouTube - Tommy James & The Shondells - I Think We're Alone Now (LIVE)[/ame]