What Is the Defense Strategy?

[Aedrys]

I'm starting to wonder if the defense team just doesn't get it the way we do. Where we see defeat and being screwed nine ways to Sunday, they just see a massive conspiracy to frame their client, so none of it matters anyway. It's like they cannot see that their hearing performances, bad motions, and overall attitude towards the judge and the SA is going to make them lose this case about as equally as the evidence itself. They aren't wrong, it's everyone else who is wrong. It's the mean judge and SA that's going to put Casey away for life or kill her, not their antics, not their ineptness, and not the massive evidence against her.

It reminds me of people I've known that cannot be wrong. All the evidence is there in their face, yet they cling to something that makes them superior. They are useless to argue with because even if all of the evidence is on your side, they are still right and you can't convince them otherwise. I wonder if the defense is heading into the trial with much the same attitude. They just think in the end they're right, even if Casey gets the death penalty. It's not their fault they lost, it's everyone else's.

I really think they have resigned themselves to the fact that it's a massive conspiracy, and no matter what they do, she's going to be found guilty, so they might as well work harder on the mitigation phase than the actual trial. It's not that they think they'll lose because they're wrong - it's that they'll lose because HHJP and the SA won't let them win, a very bullheaded way of thinking. I really think, even after getting a guilty verdict, they'll be just as asinine and egotistical as if they had won - they cannot just concede that their client is guilty as sin and the case is not winnable. Their pride and ego just keeps them going no matter how bad it gets, which is why I don't think they'll ever plea even though they should have a long time ago.

In sum, they are exactly like their client and her parents, practically twins. And that ensures that this going to trial, and they will lose spectacularly in the courtroom. But it won't be their fault, never their fault. I'm sure they'll find some way to blame it even on the jury when that guilty verdict comes down.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

Having interacted closely with numerous "business professionals" during my working years, it was my experience that those who were inept rarely recognized they were, in fact, inept. Often it seemed they "could not see the forest for the trees".

IMO Baez is just wholly inept. Has been since the get go. Attended a fourth rate law school, was deficient in ethics to the point of being disallowed to practice for 8 years, etc.

Mason is another story. Inititally thought to have the ability to bring experience and skill to this defense team, there is obviously a problem. And I do NOT attribute it to age. The man is not THAT old and believe me, there are plenty of people who are far older than he is who are far sharper than he is.

I am assuming Mason came by his reputation as an outstanding defense lawyer based on prior performance. Unfortunately (or fortunately in this case) it just isn't THERE any more. And I've seen this before.

Be it mini-strokes, encroaching vascular insufficiencies, or whatever, there are numerous cases of folks who were formerly high level thinkers who just lose their "executive function" capacities as time goes by. Many times this is subtle and it doesn't happen overnight. Sometimes it is a long, slow process. But it is observable to those who have had longtime interactions with the person.

Regarding the defense having a "strategy", I think the only one they have is to try to keep her from getting the death penalty.

 

[Numbers]

Their strategy - if you want to call it that - is to keep tap-dancing. They are out of sync and out of tempo, but they think that if they keep a tap-tap-tappin' you won't notice the 20,000-ton gnu in the room.

Judge Perry will be along on May 16th to utter those soon-to-be-famous words: "Ya'll see the big gnu?"

 

[ynotdivein]

OK, I just had what I think might be a "light-bulb" moment of insight into the story that the defense will try at trial (having painted themselves neatly into a wee small corner IMO):

Caylee's death was an accident, whether drowning, choking, or some other cause that resulted in death due to KC's negligence. The flurry of calls the afternoon of the 16th were when KC was trying to contact her parents for help. When she couldn't reach them, she panicked out of fear of Cindy's wrath and hid the body in her trunk and tried to pretend all was well by going out with TL. The movies they chose that night actually GAVE HER THE IDEA of staging a kidnapping. She tried to do this by applying the duct tape; Caylee was already in a stage of decomposition such that the tape would not stick to her skin, so KC "wasted" one strip in the attempt to tape her mouth only, and then had to affix the ends of the tape into Caylee's hair to get it to stick. She couldn't bring herself to dispose of Caylee until the smell started--and then she left her close to her home in a place that she could visit... She was too afraid of what would happen to her if she told her parents, and she hoped that if Caylee's remains were found, the duct tape would play into the kidnapping story she had concocted...

OK nevermind. I can't even keep exploring this scenario as a hypothesis. But I do wonder if the defense will try to say that the movies she watched with Tony actually gave her the idea of the kidnapping story, and once she was married to that story she was stuck with it?

(I do not believe this is what happened, for the record. I think it can all be blown apart by the SA. But what else do they have?)

 

[logicalgirl]

Having interacted closely with numerous "business professionals" during my working years, it was my experience that those who were inept rarely recognized they were, in fact, inept. Often it seemed they "could not see the forest for the trees".

IMO Baez is just wholly inept. Has been since the get go. Attended a fourth rate law school, was deficient in ethics to the point of being disallowed to practice for 8 years, etc.

Mason is another story. Inititally thought to have the ability to bring experience and skill to this defense team, there is obviously a problem. And I do NOT attribute it to age. The man is not THAT old and believe me, there are plenty of people who are far older than he is who are far sharper than he is.

I am assuming Mason came by his reputation as an outstanding defense lawyer based on prior performance. Unfortunately (or fortunately in this case) it just isn't THERE any more. And I've seen this before.

Be it mini-strokes, encroaching vascular insufficiencies, or whatever, there are numerous cases of folks who were formerly high level thinkers who just lose their "executive function" capacities as time goes by. Many times this is subtle and it doesn't happen overnight. Sometimes it is a long, slow process. But it is observable to those who have had longtime interactions with the person.

Regarding the defense having a "strategy", I think the only one they have is to try to keep her from getting the death penalty.

I'm curious to know if we have ever seen any statistics on how many "wins" Mason has had as compared to how many "losses" in his career.

Because it occurs to me that I define a great defense lawyer as winning - that is getting a not guilty verdict. But what if a great defense lawyer is one who defends his client to the very best of the law's ability? That your client get a fair trial and a fair sentence when they are indeed guilty.

I don't think we have seen RHornsby bleating on and on about his client's innocence. But he has frequently mentioned he doesn't think the penalty should be as harsh as the State is asking for - and maybe that's what it's about - just a solid defense.

The reason I've been mulling this is because it appears HHJP respects Mason, but from what we've seen of him, his defense tactics are questionable. Although he's been quite sharp in some of the depositions he's done. ( I'm not saying I like his kind of questioning, but I can see the value from a defense point of view) So maybe it's not that Mason wins, he just puts on a good defense?

Also, and sorry to be so long winded - I don't see Jose expecting to win this one. I think he's there for the glory - he wants those "moments" in court, and wants to be seen as some one who puts on a good defense and fights the "good fight" for an obviously guilty client. I don't believe he started out this way, but around January last year he started to lose some steam, and seems to be settling for just getting through this unscathed, with a lot of very free very big publicity. Of course he consistently screws up because he's just not that capable, but in his mind - he thinks he is. I don't think he cares a tinkers whatever for ICA anymore. All IMO

 

[LambChop]

At least one problem with the theory above, the jaw drops after death and rigor sets in. jmo

 

[logicalgirl]

I agree about Tony being a big factor here. Correct me if I am wrong, but I remember reading through the long batch of texts on another site back when they were released. There were a lot of back and forth ones between Tony L. and Casey about him never getting a chance to spend any alone time with her. And she says her nanny is out of town, but when she gets back they will have more time together, bla bla bla.

But then, on one of the last nights Caylee is seen alive, Casey messages Tony and says should I come with or without 'snotnose.' He replies 'WITHOUT." That hit me like a ton of bricks. Could it really be that simple and that callous and heartless and evil?

I also agree that the hospital story is manufactured drama. The truth is uglier than that. Casey was not jealous because she didn't want to lose Caylee's love and allegiance. She didn't give a chit about that, imo. Casey just didn't want to share her parents 'love' and adulation WITH CAYLEE. Casey wanted it to be all about her, not about little Caylee. imo

I remember that exchange well and was equally shocked. Not by Tony's response because let's face it - lots of single guys are after sex wherever they can get it, but I did give him some credit for saying "without" rather than "whatever". What kind of guy doesn't care there is a small child in the room while he getting it on with the mother?

ICA on the other hand......:banghead: :loser:

 

[AlwaysShocked]

Once again, to clarify: The "snot nose" exchange was with Deputy Anthony Rusciano, not with Tony Lazarro.

 

[debbie0604]

I understand an Alford plea to mean for a suspect- they have enough evidence to convict me (so I'll do the time), but I'm not actually admitting I did it.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Alford_plea_usage

Supreme Court of Florida has held that "a judgment of guilt entered upon an Alford plea is conclusive proof of guilt of the criminal offense charged". The Florida Bar v. Cohen (1991)

The courts make an effort to determine defendants are entering the plea by their own choice, and that there is a factual basis for the plea; they accomplish this by questioning the defendant about their choice and the prosecution about the potential case against the defendant. Once entered, the plea is treated as a standard guilty plea.

IMHO I just don't see KC entering an Alford plea.

 

[strawberry]

Kobi was on Prime News today..I was surprised when they introduced him as a member of the defense team. I thought he was no longer on it. Anyway, Vinnie P kept saying "the alleged lies" by Casey were coming in but Kobi came right out and said, well her LIES absolutely don't help but science doesn't lie IF it was done correctly and is valid. So there you go. They're just going to try and poke holes in the junk science.

 

[logicalgirl]

Kobi was on Prime News today..I was surprised when they introduced him as a member of the defense team. I thought he was no longer on it. Anyway, Vinnie P kept saying "the alleged lies" by Casey were coming in but Kobi came right out and said, well her LIES absolutely don't help but science doesn't lie IF it was done correctly and is valid. So there you go. They're just going to try and poke holes in the junk science.

The experts like Mr. Scheaffer have been saying this from the get go even though most of us felt there was a ton of other evidence.

Let's face it - what else has Baez got other than to argue the forensics? :great:

Nada! :rocker:

Wouldn't you agree, Jose? :seeya:

 

[celticthyme]

What I still can't figure out is if they are allowing Casey to drive the defense bus, or if she would even listen to her attorneys if they strongly advised her to take a plea. The problem is that we just can not think like Casey . . . (which Deo Gratias is a good thing). If Baez et al are drinking the Casey Koolaid, then all bets are off, and she is going down. If they could get her to say it was a drowning or other kind of accident, which she tried to cover over as a kidnapping, she may not get the DP. If, as many above thread state that they just don't/can't see this case the way those of us on the outside do, my question would be, Why Not??? They just can not be that isolated from reality can they?? And science does not lie. They may try to disagree with findings or call it junk science, but what will be allowed in . . . is evidence.

 

[strawberry]

With ICA seeming to be lost in an "I'm a lawyer" fantasyland, I was wondering the other day if they will have a psychiatrist testify. Looks like they will:

http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/looking_for_love_tdsEPxsuLW47Auna6XmOMP#ixzz1HCNw80LN

"The defense also wants to call Jeffrey Danziger, a well-known Central Florida psychiatrist who frequently testifies at criminal trials, as a witness."

ETA: I wonder if he's going to say she's bipolar:

http://www.jeffreydanzigermd.com/jeffrey_danziger_md_002.htm

 

[logicalgirl]

With ICA seeming to be lost in an "I'm a lawyer" fantasyland, I was wondering the other day if they will have a psychiatrist testify. Looks like they will:

http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/looking_for_love_tdsEPxsuLW47Auna6XmOMP#ixzz1HCNw80LN

"The defense also wants to call Jeffrey Danziger, a well-known Central Florida psychiatrist who frequently testifies at criminal trials, as a witness."

ETA: I wonder if he's going to say she's bipolar:

http://www.jeffreydanzigermd.com/jeffrey_danziger_md_002.htm

Now this is one witness from the defense I will be very interested in hearing from. Hope he isn't going to testify with "excuses" for ICA's behavior because Ashton and LDB will have their legal big guns ready.

 

[logicalgirl]

With ICA seeming to be lost in an "I'm a lawyer" fantasyland, I was wondering the other day if they will have a psychiatrist testify. Looks like they will:

http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/looking_for_love_tdsEPxsuLW47Auna6XmOMP#ixzz1HCNw80LN

"The defense also wants to call Jeffrey Danziger, a well-known Central Florida psychiatrist who frequently testifies at criminal trials, as a witness."

ETA: I wonder if he's going to say she's bipolar:

http://www.jeffreydanzigermd.com/jeffrey_danziger_md_002.htm

Cindy maybe - LOL - but even if he does I think the response would be - So What? Clearly not in a manic phase when she coldly and calmly disposed of Caylee's body and artfully avoided her family for 31 days.

 

[strawberry]

Cindy maybe - LOL - but even if he does I think the response would be - So What? Clearly not in a manic phase when she coldly and calmly disposed of Caylee's body and artfully avoided her family for 31 days.

True, she looked very relaxed in the Blockbuster video with her hand in Tony's pocket. Not at all Charlie Sheen-like.

 

[Patriciao]

So, when Jose had YM on the stand he was making his argument that LE had Casey or saw Casey as a suspect. And, that is so her statements to LE could be thrown out and not used at trial. Okay.

What I did not understand until today was what he did to that: he brought up the smell in the car. The smell of death. YM tried to avoid the subject(just as they told George they did during the GJ hearing but found that the way the questions were worded they had to bring it up, just like now and the same transcript where YM tells George this is the one YM was reading off of.) Did that make any sense to anyone but me?

YM said he didn't remember who told him about the smell of death, but Jose pushed the subject and brought out the transcript where it is George who tells LE that he smells "what he doesn't want to say human" and then YM is forced to agree and say that George did say that.

Jose says to YM, the father comes to you and tells you he smelled death in the car and you don't think of her as a suspect? YM says, no. Jose brings up how she lied...and yet YM was not suspicious?

I'm thinking, this is crazy to bring up the stuff I would think makes your client look guilty. But I figure they figured get this part: say Casey was in custody and get statements thrown out. And the smell of death, oh it was there and Casey did lie but that is all a part of the "ah ha defense moment that comes later" this is just stage one.

I wonder if they had a plan b for if they did not win these motions?

:twocents:

So is the point that JB is trying to make this: If the police have someone that they think could be a suspect in a crime, they must immediately arrest them and read them their rights before questioning them any further? I hope that this BS that Baez and Cheney have been doing comes back to bite them in their keisters.
On another point I don't think George had the smells like a dead body conversation with detectives until after Casey was questioned at universal.

 

[Capri]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...nthony-trial-motions-20110322,0,3468691.story

The defense also wants to call Jeffrey Danziger, a well-known Central Florida psychiatrist who frequently testifies at criminal trials, as a witness.

 

[faefrost]

With ICA seeming to be lost in an "I'm a lawyer" fantasyland, I was wondering the other day if they will have a psychiatrist testify. Looks like they will:

http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/looking_for_love_tdsEPxsuLW47Auna6XmOMP#ixzz1HCNw80LN

"The defense also wants to call Jeffrey Danziger, a well-known Central Florida psychiatrist who frequently testifies at criminal trials, as a witness."

ETA: I wonder if he's going to say she's bipolar:

http://www.jeffreydanzigermd.com/jeffrey_danziger_md_002.htm

Aren't they already well past the deadline for bringing in any psych issue during the guilt phase of trial? I seem to remember that that ship sailed ages ago?

 

[LambChop]

Aren't they already well past the deadline for bringing in any psych issue during the guilt phase of trial? I seem to remember that that ship sailed ages ago?

CM wanting HHJP to share with him a senior moment.