What Is the Defense Strategy?

[logicalgirl]

I'm thinking they are going to HAVE to drug Casey for the trial. If she is this irritating in four days of hearings, there is no way the defense is going to last two months or so with the trial with her doing that. We may see the defense smack their own client in court if that's the case. I think they have talked to her, over and over, and I think it's not working. They are going to have to almost put her to sleep to get her to sit still and not do anything. I'm half surprised that they don't have her diagnosed ADHD or OCD and get her drugs for that because she is definitely one or both of those.

As for their strategy, they are just inept. There are actually good points being raised (just because we don't believe those points doesn't mean that they aren't good points that need to be looked at). The problem is that the defense just can't seem to make a good argument for ANYTHING to save their lives. If they could argue halfway decently, they might win more motions. Instead, they use idiotic arguments like calling Casey Anthony a scared child. I mean really? Are they really that stupid? I'm starting to think this whole trial is going to be just bad, ridiculous arguments that the overly competent LDB and JA are going to crush under their feet each time.

I just don't understand how they can't see how much their ineffective argumentation skills are killing Casey more and more each day. How can they call themselves lawyers? I can't believe she can't see what buffoons she has for lawyers. It's just so sad and pitiful who she has arguing for her life. And all they are going to do is aid in her death in the end. I should be happier about that, but it pains me that that her representation is just so completely bad. Then again, she's the one who continues to be happy with them.

When CM used this phrase "this child" speaking about ICA and implied she was afraid of these very big bad policeman - I think my jaw hit my desk in amazement!

WTH? Hello, Mr. Mason? You are representing an alleged child murdered, who the SA is accusing of cruelly killing a tiny two and a half year old baby girl! Do you really want to point out the size difference between the (alleged) murderer and her tiny victim. Are you sure you want to draw this parallel and have the jury focus on this tiny victim? Are you really going there?

Epic fail! And big points for the SA.

 

[Whome?]

I'm thinking they are going to HAVE to drug Casey for the trial. If she is this irritating in four days of hearings, there is no way the defense is going to last two months or so with the trial with her doing that. We may see the defense smack their own client in court if that's the case. I think they have talked to her, over and over, and I think it's not working. They are going to have to almost put her to sleep to get her to sit still and not do anything. I'm half surprised that they don't have her diagnosed ADHD or OCD and get her drugs for that because she is definitely one or both of those.

As for their strategy, they are just inept. There are actually good points being raised (just because we don't believe those points doesn't mean that they aren't good points that need to be looked at). The problem is that the defense just can't seem to make a good argument for ANYTHING to save their lives. If they could argue halfway decently, they might win more motions. Instead, they use idiotic arguments like calling Casey Anthony a scared child. I mean really? Are they really that stupid? I'm starting to think this whole trial is going to be just bad, ridiculous arguments that the overly competent LDB and JA are going to crush under their feet each time.

I just don't understand how they can't see how much their ineffective argumentation skills are killing Casey more and more each day. How can they call themselves lawyers? I can't believe she can't see what buffoons she has for lawyers. It's just so sad and pitiful who she has arguing for her life. And all they are going to do is aid in her death in the end. I should be happier about that, but it pains me that that her representation is just so completely bad. Then again, she's the one who continues to be happy with them.

I agree with your post,and with all the "specialist" that she has seen,you would think that the defense would have addressed this issue and had her medicated during these preliminary hearings to "test the waters" regarding her behavior,prior to trial. I am "done" addressing how bad the DT is, they think they are the "greatest" trial attys out there and I for one am comfortable in letting them believe this, I will not be giving them any tips to improve their "performances" let them sink or swim fwiw. JMHO :innocent:

 

[LambChop]

If KC knew enough to lie, she knew enough to ask for an attorney. I don't think she thought she was under arrest because she wore the very article of clothing to the interview that she had purchased with a stolen check. If you THOUGHT you were under arrest who would do that. Here let me hand you some more evidence since I'm under arrest!!!!!!!! So I guess the pictures in the hoodie gave defense an "Ut oh" moment. jmo

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I don't know about "drugging" KC, but I think I am going to have to have a doctors visit for myself lined up right before this trial begins!!! I might have to be the one drugged to get through it.

 

[LambChop]

Lee's "warts and all" testimony told me he was through playing and equally finished with being played, be it by his parents, sister, defense, or state. He was just going to go in there and lay it all out.
GA and CA during the closings, while LDB was speaking, looked as though they were having their noses rubbed in their own poo, er lies.
If the defense plans to go this route for trial, no matter who they try to chunk the blame onto, the jury will see through it.

To coin a favorite Anthony word, "Absolutely!!!"

 

[LambChop]

When CM used this phrase "this child" speaking about ICA and implied she was afraid of these very big bad policeman - I think my jaw hit my desk in amazement!

WTH? Hello, Mr. Mason? You are representing an alleged child murdered, who the SA is accusing of cruelly killing a tiny two and a half year old baby girl! Do you really want to point out the size difference between the (alleged) murderer and her tiny victim. Are you sure you want to draw this parallel and have the jury focus on this tiny victim? Are you really going there?

Epic fail! And big points for the SA.

CM's attempt to paint his client as helpless because of her size just kind of hangs there in the air and you feel he's like a person who has something hanging from his mustache, you're not sure what it is but you are too embarrassed for him to tell him. jmo

 

[TotallyObsessed]

CM's attempt to paint his client as helpless because of her size just kind of hangs there in the air and you feel he's like a person who has something hanging from his mustache, you're not sure what it is but you are too embarrassed for him to tell him. jmo

OMG. I just busted out laughing. My kids used to say "bat in the cave" .... How funny.

 

[Whome?]

I don't know about "drugging" KC, but I think I am going to have to have a doctors visit for myself lined up right before this trial begins!!! I might have to be the one drugged to get through it.

You and me both, I got thru the OJ trial,but I was much younger then,the last few days have drained me physically and emotionally, I don't know how I am going to make it,but I'm gonna give it a shot :sheesh:

 

[LancelotLink]

I agree with Aedrys, that on the surface, it appeared they may have something to argue here. Makes me wonder how a real lawyer would have handled this. What I heard last night was a bigger farce than even I expected. Overreaching would be an understatement. The defense took pains to paint an LE interview as something akin to a gang rape. I was insulted by this tactic and it proved to me that these arguments are and have always been without merit. If you have to paint a scenario that disgusting to make your point, then IMO you don't have a point. Once again, the defense squandered any credibility they sought.
Throughout these hearings, both JB and CM have behaved and reacted like two boys caught doing something they should not have done. Their facial expressions show two sheepish liars.
After LDB quashed their arguments into dust, CM can only resort to yuck yucks, chuckles and insults.
This was fascinating to watch and hear.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

You and me both, I got thru the OJ trial,but I was much younger then,the last few days have drained me physically and emotionally, I don't know how I am going to make it,but I'm gonna give it a shot :sheesh:

Oh me too. Wouldn't miss it for the world. I remember coming home from work and then watching the replay of the OJ trial on tv each night and fighting with my ex. We had opposing views. Imagine that...he is my "ex"!

 

[Mendara]

I think they are going to gointo court with the strategy of LE just focusing on KC and not looking for ZG they may say that ZG duped KC and that ZFG may not even be the perps name, who knows. That the woman obviously lied to KC about where she lived etc. They will say KC is young and yes wasn't the best mother because of her age and that she was under a lot of pressure from her mother to move out and get her own job and this explains the lie about working and her continuing her lies with LE, because she feared her mother.

They will say her family life was the cause of her lies that she felt so much pressure to keep her parents at bay that she often lied. They will say she really did try to find Caylee on her own because she was afraid of her mother and failing so badly as a mother (KC will be intructed to cry at this point).

The doubt they will raise is that YES she is a liar but only because of her mother - and there really was a kidnapper, but this woman may not even be named ZG and that this woman may have even tried to steal the REAL SawGrass ZF's indetity and that LE never looked for Caylee.

The defense does not have to state facts only theories that raise doubt. The burden is on the state to raise facts and convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that KC is guilty.

In KC's favor is her age (she is young)
Her looks (sorry but she doesn't look like a killer)
The length and depth of her lies about ZG - a jury has to believe that KC lied for 2 years about this woman - that will be a hard pill to swallow because how can someone be so pathological that the nanny was a lie for 2 years?

They can say she lied to LE because she was scared.

You can see in videos and transcripts how overwhelming her parents are and the defense can twist it in her favor.

MO

 

[Whome?]

Oh me too. Wouldn't miss it for the world. I remember coming home from work and then watching the replay of the OJ trial on tv each night and fighting with my ex. We had opposing views. Imagine that...he is my "ex"!

I too watched it at night, that is when Court TV was really "Court TV", I remember Catherine Crier at the end of each day summarizing everything,those were the days when CTV really showed a trial,Frankly I don't know what they do today or how they service their viewing public. Just a bunch of talking heads IMO :waitasec:

 

[Whome?]

I think they are going to gointo court with the strategy of LE just focusing on KC and not looking for ZG they may say that ZG duped KC and that ZFG may not even be the perps name, who knows. That the woman obviously lied to KC about where she lived etc. They will say KC is young and yes wasn't the best mother because of her age and that she was under a lot of pressure from her mother to move out and get her own job and this explains the lie about working and her continuing her lies with LE, because she feared her mother.

They will say her family life was the cause of her lies that she felt so much pressure to keep her parents at bay that she often lied. They will say she really did try to find Caylee on her own because she was afraid of her mother and failing so badly as a mother (KC will be intructed to cry at this point).

The doubt they will raise is that YES she is a liar but only because of her mother - and there really was a kidnapper, but this woman may not even be named ZG and that this woman may have even tried to steal the REAL SawGrass ZF's indetity and that LE never looked for Caylee.

The defense does not have to state facts only theories that raise doubt. The burden is on the state to raise facts and convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that KC is guilty.

In KC's favor is her age (she is young)
Her looks (sorry but she doesn't look like a killer)
The length and depth of her lies about ZG - a jury has to believe that KC lied for 2 years about this woman - that will be a hard pill to swallow because how can someone be so pathological that the nanny was a lie for 2 years?

They can say she lied to LE because she was scared.

You can see in videos and transcripts how overwhelming her parents are and the defense can twist it in her favor.

MO

AHHHHH I think you may want to answer your phone,cause I believe JB and CM will be calling you to help with the defense of this case LOL :innocent:

 

[Mendara]

AHHHHH I think you may want to answer your phone,cause I believe JB and CM will be calling you to help with the defense of this case LOL :innocent:

but I forgot to add - they may not know how to present this argument properly and it may fall flat. But it would be the way I would go if I were JB.

I would also tell her not to write anything during the trial and to listen to every witness and make eye contact.

I think her scribbling and passing notes to him will make the jury think that she is testifying without taking the heat of getting on the stand.

I would also encourage the Anthony's to continue their gum chewing and shaking of their heads - it will show the jury that they are incredibly rude, arrogant and judgemental, that they are angry and manipulative - exactly what I want the jury to think of them.

 

[logicalgirl]

I think they are going to gointo court with the strategy of LE just focusing on KC and not looking for ZG they may say that ZG duped KC and that ZFG may not even be the perps name, who knows. That the woman obviously lied to KC about where she lived etc. They will say KC is young and yes wasn't the best mother because of her age and that she was under a lot of pressure from her mother to move out and get her own job and this explains the lie about working and her continuing her lies with LE, because she feared her mother.

They will say her family life was the cause of her lies that she felt so much pressure to keep her parents at bay that she often lied. They will say she really did try to find Caylee on her own because she was afraid of her mother and failing so badly as a mother (KC will be intructed to cry at this point).

The doubt they will raise is that YES she is a liar but only because of her mother - and there really was a kidnapper, but this woman may not even be named ZG and that this woman may have even tried to steal the REAL SawGrass ZF's indetity and that LE never looked for Caylee.

The defense does not have to state facts only theories that raise doubt. The burden is on the state to raise facts and convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that KC is guilty.

In KC's favor is her age (she is young)
Her looks (sorry but she doesn't look like a killer)
The length and depth of her lies about ZG - a jury has to believe that KC lied for 2 years about this woman - that will be a hard pill to swallow because how can someone be so pathological that the nanny was a lie for 2 years?

They can say she lied to LE because she was scared.

You can see in videos and transcripts how overwhelming her parents are and the defense can twist it in her favor.

MO

Sure if I was a juror, I would believe those arguments, as long as I didn't get to hear any evidence at all from the SA.

If she was not guilty, if she did not do this crime, and her daughter was indeed missing, shouldn't she have been more frantic to find her child than she was afraid of the LE?

If it was me I would have said stop asking me these stupid questions - go find my baby!!! "said" was an understatement - screamed would have been more like it.

I would not have been smirking and preening and looking like I believed all these big good looking guys thought I was "hot".

Edited to add this post before your second post Mendara.

 

[logicalgirl]

I would imagine that the Defense will be trying to limit mentions of the real victim, a toddler, Caylee Anthony, at trial. JMO, but it does them no good to mention the real victim, when they are trying to "paint" their client as a fake victim. I hate it. We all hate it. But it doesn't benefit whatever the Defense strategy is/will be to have the jury fixated on the cute child/adorable little girl/angelic toddler we all would have adopted had we known what was going on with her mother and in that house...the Defense, if anything, would like us, as per CM's rather inadequate summation and later rebuttal today during the hearings...to view ICA as the "scared, helpless, young mother, barely out of highschool, confronted with the real world and just so helpless and strapped and scared..." it is what I have said from day one since I have been posting on this forum.

The reality is that ICA is a grifter, a very experienced young lady (both at stealing and lying and well...bedroom games), selfish, entitled, lazy (hadn't held down an ACTUAL job since 2006) irresponsible and absolutely BRISTLES at being confronted with the truth. But the Defense would rather have the jury see her as being the opposite.

It will not work. It is one more injustice against Caylee...but unless the Defense intends to say that ICA is all of the things that she appears in truth to be, I doubt the Defense wants the jury to be thinking of the real child, the real victim and the real angel in this case, Caylee Anthony, the only person in this case that actually matters. Oh well. They will lose...and Casey deserves to stand in front of the HHJP as he reads a "Guilty" verdict to her. She will be punished. At least Caylee is far far away from the absolute wreckage of her family.

IMO, it takes more than hitting the "Thanks" button to say "Thanks" for this post. :rocker:

 

[LambChop]

I think they are going to gointo court with the strategy of LE just focusing on KC and not looking for ZG they may say that ZG duped KC and that ZFG may not even be the perps name, who knows. That the woman obviously lied to KC about where she lived etc. They will say KC is young and yes wasn't the best mother because of her age and that she was under a lot of pressure from her mother to move out and get her own job and this explains the lie about working and her continuing her lies with LE, because she feared her mother. I believe LE tried to find ZFG and there is no evidence she ever existed, nor JMH, or Ms. Lewis other than in KC's mind. KC has lied, stolen money from her family and I do not think defense wants all that brought into the trial. It's opening a door.

They will say her family life was the cause of her lies that she felt so much pressure to keep her parents at bay that she often lied. They will say she really did try to find Caylee on her own because she was afraid of her mother and failing so badly as a mother (KC will be intructed to cry at this point). LE can clearly prove KC was not looking....they have her cell phone pings and her constant text messages and calling friends. Another open door for SA that defense does not want to open.

The doubt they will raise is that YES she is a liar but only because of her mother - and there really was a kidnapper, but this woman may not even be named ZG and that this woman may have even tried to steal the REAL SawGrass ZF's indetity and that LE never looked for Caylee.Liar, oh no, defense trying to stay away from that glaring problem KC has. Watch out for that swinging door.

The defense does not have to state facts only theories that raise doubt. The burden is on the state to raise facts and convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that KC is guilty.

In KC's favor is her age (she is young) So you are saying young mother's do not kill their babies, Susan Smith comes to mind. Oops another door, watch out.
Her looks (sorry but she doesn't look like a killer) This is true and was also true of Mr. Bundy.
The length and depth of her lies about ZG - a jury has to believe that KC lied for 2 years about this woman - that will be a hard pill to swallow because how can someone be so pathological that the nanny was a lie for 2 years?And she also lied about having a job for 3 years. There are those lies again. Then there are the ones about her attending college for almost 3 years. If they focus on her lying marathon the trial could take three years to complete. It's all about opening the door. Let's hope defense has enough sense to be "door shy",

They can say she lied to LE because she was scared. She looks really, really scared in that picture taken by LE in her "stolen" hoodie. Don't think that would work either, but good try.

You can see in videos and transcripts how overwhelming her parents are and the defense can twist it in her favor.

MO

You made some good points but with all due respect many, many people (some of our posters here admit) have had very controlling parents/parent and none of them have killed their child. She did not kill her child because of her parents. KC killed her child because it was inconvenient to have her in her life now. She has moved on to the "beautiful life" and there clearly was no room for a small child in it. Those 31 days paint a very, very clear picture of KC's new life and a child was not part of it. KC had a choice to remove herself from her parents home and at 22 years old you are expected to act like an adult and in particular if you have a child.

So, see, it would depend on how you look at it. I thought all was lost when CM gave his speech yesterday and then LDB got up and made her statement and it was done so clearly and unemotionally with factual information. This is what juries process not long continually pleadings that their client cannot functionally think for herself and is, herself a victim. Your child is missing and you admit you know she is missing and you go to Blockbuster and rent two movies about a kidnapping and a missing child. That is just so sick.....jmo

 

[LambChop]

If the defense tries to use poor, helpless, unknowing KC scare of those big policemen, I think the jury taking a look at her diary entry (2003) would change their mind. For a junior in high school she appeared to have a good deal of self-confidence that she made the right decision on a very important life issue. And wasn't KC who told her father to stop acting like a cop when he asked her some questions. So she knew the ropes regarding LE. jmo

 

[logicalgirl]

If the defense tries to use poor, helpless, unknowing KC scare of those big policemen, I think the jury taking a look at her diary entry (2003) would change their mind. For a junior in high school she appeared to have a good deal of self-confidence that she made the right decision on a very important life issue. And wasn't KC who told her father to stop acting like a cop when he asked her some questions. So she knew the ropes regarding LE. jmo

And took it even further by dating and sleeping with one just a few months earlier....

Not exactly the behavior one would expect from someone who is intimidated by the LE.

 

[Mendara]

You made some good points but with all due respect many, many people (some of our posters here admit) have had very controlling parents/parent and none of them have killed their child. She did not kill her child because of her parents. KC killed her child because it was inconvenient to have her in her life now. She has moved on to the "beautiful life" and there clearly was no room for a small child in it. Those 31 days paint a very, very clear picture of KC's new life and a child was not part of it. KC had a choice to remove herself from her parents home and at 22 years old you are expected to act like an adult and in particular if you have a child.

So, see, it would depend on how you look at it. I thought all was lost when CM gave his speech yesterday and then LDB got up and made her statement and it was done so clearly and unemotionally with factual information. This is what juries process not long continually pleadings that their client cannot functionally think for herself and is, herself a victim. Your child is missing and you admit you know she is missing and you go to Blockbuster and rent two movies about a kidnapping and a missing child. That is just so sick.....jmo

I am sorry, I am not a KC defender I was just throwing out there what I think the Defense's strategy will be. I do understand that the state will have evidence to contradict many of these points and I am not saying they CAN win with this strategy, just that it is what I think they will use.

There is a lot of circumstantial evidence and some scientific as well. But CM is a story weaver, I fully expect him to paint the picture of a girl who was a young mother with a lot of pressures on her, from a very controlling family and that she learned to lie early on to appease her mother. I can see him saying she wanted to appear to be something she wasn't, EMPLOYED, WELL TO DO, MOTHER OF THE YEAR etc. and that her lies and her commitment to keep those lies under control while Caylee was missing were attributed to her keeping up that fake person she created.

He could say these things..I don't think it is a good idea, but it is the only thing I can see them going with.

LE did look for ZG, but they could say ZG may have made up that name and that Jeff and Lewis were names she gave to keep her parents at bay and that she was always trying to solve her own problems in secret.

We all know this is malarkey - but I can see this going down that path. Her fear of being exposed to her family and friends was greater than her fear of a woman she thought she knew holding Casey. That she never thought that Woman would KILL Caylee.

But again I am no KC defender just throwing it out there. So please don't beat me up


MO