What Is the Defense Strategy #2

Meemom

Rest in Peace
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
553
Reaction score
0
Me too darnudes! Don't feel bad--I've been in the legal field for 30+ years and I was wrong too. I can't believe this is the defense--JB put the needle in her arm as far as I am concerned. Is there anyone they did not throw under the bus? I think the DT made a terrible, terrible mistake with this defense. One thing that has always been clear about GA is that he loved Caylee. No one is going to believe if she drowned GA took no action to save her.

ITA- JB's opening statement didn't answer jack- but he did leave about a millon holes that the SA can sew up neatly. Do you think he's gonna go back and explain or cross on Roy K on just how RK came to posess Caylee's body and stage finding it to get this big reward? Seems to me JB is going to just piecemeal his defense and try to tackle different parts of the case, without any kind of coherent time/story line and the jury just will not buy this jumble!
JMO
 

SoCalSleuth

Verified Expert
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Messages
1,722
Reaction score
319
ITA- JB's opening statement didn't answer jack- but he did leave about a millon holes that the SA can sew up neatly. Do you think he's gonna go back and explain or cross on Roy K on just how RK came to posess Caylee's body and stage finding it to get this big reward? Seems to me JB is going to just piecemeal his defense and try to tackle different parts of the case, without any kind of coherent time/story line and the jury just will not buy this jumble!
JMO

If this was an accident, then why mention Roy Kronk at all? It makes absolutely no sense. And if he found the body and just wanted the reward--why bother moving it?
 

Kat

Kind words do not cost much
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
17,192
Reaction score
678
The defense is using the kitchen sink defense. Everything and the kitchen sink.
 

countzero

self timeout
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
2,806
Reaction score
0
My motto for life has always been:

"Life is not a rehearsal. You only get one chance at doing it. There are NO do-overs."

Apparently JB and crew believe there are do overs. Wrong JB and yo'll will see there are none available to you or ICA.

I knew JB wasn't-isn't (take your pick) smart enough to figure it out.

I need to throw some Jack into my coffee to even accept what was said by them today. Someone pinch me ... was that really what happened in court or did I hit the sc-fi channel on error?
 

Kentjbkent

DELETE ACCOUNT
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
3,816
Reaction score
1
Someone posted near the end of the trial thread & I want to repeat it here.

Now Baez has put out there that Casey knew of Caylee's death, but with GA denying the drowning, where does that leave the defense????? OOPS!

Quoting this post I copied over from the Sidebar thread so it would not get lost....

EXCELLENT POINT!
 

logicalgirl

Peace Hawk
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
16,024
Reaction score
0
Well there you have it! We struggled when this thread started and tried to think of something significant to say.

Here we are after watching/listening to Day One, and I think we are in pretty much the same spot - still struggling for something to say!

...... :loser: .......... :loser: .......... :loser:.......... :loser: ........ :loser: .............. :loser: ............. :loser:
 

grammieto5

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2008
Messages
4,354
Reaction score
3,551
The defense strategy as always is destroy the innocent and make the criminal the victim.
 

Fluffy Puppy

Active Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2003
Messages
1,626
Reaction score
0
Website
Visit site
I am thinking so lowly of the DT right now that I am wondering if the DT investigated the potential jurors for any sexual abuse history.

I am also wondering if this qualifies as a trial by ambush?
 

Fluffy Puppy

Active Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2003
Messages
1,626
Reaction score
0
Website
Visit site
If this was an accident, then why mention Roy Kronk at all? It makes absolutely no sense. And if he found the body and just wanted the reward--why bother moving it?

Agree. For some reason, I think Baez feels he had to address every possible thing that might come up. Probably, imo, because he has no testimony to counter the prosecution during the trial, and this is his only chance to plant doubt. That was it. He hopes he scored, because he isn't going to get another chance to get that story out. I think this was a bad, bad error because it is over and fell flat.

I noticed at one point later in the day even HHJP brought up that opening statements were not evidence. I think JB is hoping the jurors don't get that.
 

Oakley

New Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
3,990
Reaction score
0
When people have told so many lies who do you believe? The defense's strategy is (and this may've been planned for a long time) to portray this entire family as liars. If doubt can be cast on George, they might be successful. Seems to me George is walking the line between appearing to cooperate with both SA and DT. Since he's leaned both ways in the past, which way is he leading now? Guess that's another thread. But I am beginning to see the defense's strategy for the first time and I am afraid to say it is brilliant. I know about the mountains of evidence against Casey and I firmly believe that she and she alone did this. But George and Cindy have told so many lies, and I think it was a strategy all along for their daughter's defense. God help them, God help us, God help our legal system. Most of all, may the Truth prevail. How to do you separate it out with so many lies and so much deception? Does the SA know which side G & C are leaning toward?

ETA: There is no true *defense* for Casey b/c she along did it and covered it IMO
 

iluvmua

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
8,831
Reaction score
11,273
I think that would have been their best chance for Casey to be found not Guilty.

IF Casey had any other lawyer besides Jose, She WOULD have had a chance to go free.

It's very clear that Casey has some sort of mental issue and why the DF didn't go with that....... I have no idea.
 

faefrost

New Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
2,285
Reaction score
0
Apparently the defenses trial strategy comes from Jose having watched the movie "Suckerpunch" recently. He is admitting all of the lies and trying to sell the story that KC has created some elaborate fantasy world in order to retreat from the horrors of her abusive life.

Here's the huge problem with this. It is attempting to pull in some sort of psych defense or rationalization defense via a backdoor. He is trying to get a jury nullification via means outside of the proper rules, laws and procedures of the state of Florida and the Law. Yeah the jury may feel sorry for her dysfunctional family life (although after watching the testimony of George and Cindy I am more and more thinking that the jury will realize that KC was the source of the dysfunction and not the sufferer). It's JB trying to sell "You can't convict my client! IT'S NOT FAIR! No normal person would act like her so she can't be guilty or responsible."

At this point I think JB has a greater chance of pulling off a psych defense of himself than of his client. because this scheme of the DT's is just nuts.
 

Chanler

New Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2005
Messages
2,741
Reaction score
10
Apparently the defenses trial strategy comes from Jose having watched the movie "Suckerpunch" recently. He is admitting all of the lies and trying to sell the story that KC has created some elaborate fantasy world in order to retreat from the horrors of her abusive life.

Here's the huge problem with this. It is attempting to pull in some sort of psych defense or rationalization defense via a backdoor. He is trying to get a jury nullification via means outside of the proper rules, laws and procedures of the state of Florida and the Law. Yeah the jury may feel sorry for her dysfunctional family life (although after watching the testimony of George and Cindy I am more and more thinking that the jury will realize that KC was the source of the dysfunction and not the sufferer). It's JB trying to sell "You can't convict my client! IT'S NOT FAIR! No normal person would act like her so she can't be guilty or responsible."

At this point I think JB has a greater chance of pulling off a psych defense of himself than of his client. because this scheme of the DT's is just nuts.

Hi, FaeFrost. In the opening, Baez presented a sort of Rube Goldberg defense: For it to work, you had to go from A [sexual abuse and the irrepairable damage it did] to B [the accidental drowning of Caylee to C [Casey's totally dysfunctional behavior] to D [unspecified acts of George Anthony and Kronk]. As the trial has proceeded, he has been forced to make mostly unconvincing parries against George and various other prods and fumbles.

I think that on some levels, he is just hoping that some of this will generate some pity for Casey in the penalty phase. (I think that Casey, contemplating a long life in jail, feels betrayed by this crude patchwork quilt of a defense.)
 

sleutherontheside

Retired WS Staff
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Messages
9,875
Reaction score
12
Clearly the defense strategy is reasonable doubt and mitigation.

Their problem is........their theory isn't reasonable to anyone other than Ms. ICA herself.

It would appear she has snowed them too.
 

lemon

Heeding previous admonitions.
Joined
Sep 15, 2005
Messages
271
Reaction score
0
I've taken the liberty of writing up mock closing arguments for the defense. :innocent:


Once there was a beautiful, or maybe pretty, no, beautiful girl. Now it happened that she had to go and speak to Jeffrey Michael Hopkins, a wealthy Jacksonville man, and in order to make herself appear important she said to him, "I can turn imaginary jobs into paychecks."

Jeffrey Michael Hopkins said to the girl, "That is an art which pleases me well, if you are as clever as you say, come to-morrow to Jacksonville, and I will put you to the test.
And when the girl went to him he took her to a hotel room at Busch Gardens, and said, "Now if by to-morrow morning you have not given me proof that you can turn your imaginary job into paychecks during the night, you must die."

Thereupon he himself locked up the room, and left her in it alone. So there sat the girl, and for the life of her could not tell what to do, she had no idea how imaginary jobs could be turned into paychecks, and she grew more and more frightened, until at last she began to weep.

But all at once the door opened, and in came a nanny, and said, "Good evening, mistress, why are you crying so?"

"Alas," answered the girl, "I have to prove I can turn imaginary jobs into paychecks, and I do not know how to do it."

"What will you give me," said the nanny, "if I do it for you?"

"My blackberry phone. But I keep the sim card," said the girl.

The nanny took the blackberry phone. She seated himself in front of the computer, By morning she had typed and printed out emails from co-workers at Universal Studios.


By daybreak Jeffrey Michael Hopkins was already there, and when he saw the printouts he was astonished and delighted, but his heart became only more greedy. He had the girl taken to a room at Tampa General Hospital, and commanded her to provide more proof if she valued her life. The girl knew not how to help herself, and was crying, when the door opened again, and the nanny appeared, and said, "What will you give me if I provide proof for you?"

"The tiffany ring on my finger," answered the girl.

The nanny took the tiffany ring, again sat at the computer, and by morning had printouts about specific jobs for the girl to show Jeffrey.

Jeffrey Michael Hopkins rejoiced beyond measure at the sight, but still he had not proof enough, and he had the girl taken into the Hard Rock Hotel, and said, "You must further prove you can turn imaginary jobs into paychecks, in the course of this night, but if you succeed, you shall be my girlfriend."

Even if she be but a former detective and nurse's daughter, thought he, I could not find a richer wife in the whole world.

When the girl was alone the nanny came again for the third time, and said, "What will you give me if I provide proof for you this time also?"

"I have nothing left that I could give," answered the girl.

"Then promise me, to give me your first child."

Who knows whether that will ever happen, thought the girl, and, not knowing how else to help herself in this strait, she promised the nanny what she wanted, and for that she typed up a few emails from a boss at Universal Studios.

And when Jeffrey Michael Hopkins came in the morning, and found all as he had wished, he took her as a girlfriend.


A year after, she brought a beautiful child into the world, and she never gave a thought to the nanny. But suddenly she came into her room, and said, "Now give me what you promised."

The girl was horror-struck, and offered the nanny all the riches of Jeffrey Michael Hopkins if she would leave her the child. But the nanny said, "No, something alive is dearer to me than all the treasures in the world."

Then the girl began to lament and cry, so that the nanny pitied her.

"I will give you three days, time," said she, "if by that time you find out my name, then shall you keep your child."

So the girl thought the whole night of all the names that she had ever heard, and she sent a text message over the country to inquire, far and wide, for any other names that there might be. When the nanny came the next day, she began with Jeff, Juliet, Annabell, and said all the names she knew, one after another, but to every one the nanny said, "That is not my name."

On the second day she had inquiries made in the neighborhood as to the names of the people there, and she repeated to the nanny the most uncommon and curious. Perhaps your name is Raquel, or Zachary, or Samantha, but she always answered, "That is not my name."

On the third day her messenger popped up, and it said, "I have not been able to find a single new name, but as I came to the the forest at the end of Hopespring Drive, there I saw a little house, and before the house quite a ridiculous nanny was jumping, she hopped upon one leg, and shouted -

'To-day I bake, to-morrow brew,

the next I'll have the young girl's child.

Ha, glad am I that no one knew

that Rumpelstiltskin I am styled.'"

You may imagine how glad the girl was when she heard the name. And when soon afterwards the nanny came in, and asked, "Now, mistress, what is my name?"

At first she said, "Is your name Gloria?"

"No."

"Is your name Jules?"

"No."

"Perhaps your name is... Rumpelstiltskin?"

"Wrong again! I tricked you! It's Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzales. Now give me your child!"

And that, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is your "aha moment". Doesn't it all make sense now? Casey Anthony has been telling the truth this entire time and you must find her not guilty.

*I used the story here as my base http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/Rum.shtml*

 

tburk01

New Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
The narcissist treats newborn siblings and children as competitors. Yes, IMO she did this to Caylee. ICA reached a point of Narcissism off the chart with Caylee, to the point that NO ONE in her family even recognized it? They blew it off. Maybe they thought she was just jealous?
Now Caylee is dead. We still don't know how? But what we do know is that now ICA has accused GA of molesting her. OK. Why does she leave GA to babysit Caylee? Why does she trust GA or Cindy for that matter?

I need answers to these questions. I need to know what ICA/JB knows about being sexually abused as a young child that I missed?

JB will come back with some cockamamie story that ICA still loved and trusted him, even though he had his penis in her mouth and then she had to go to school the next day..
 

gngr~snap

Verified Pediatric Nurse Georgia
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
14,365
Reaction score
15,357
A death row pardon 10 min too late?
 

Nali87

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
5,277
Reaction score
534
I've been thinking about something else, analysing both sides of what we've been presented with until now; why this weird and complicated defense? Why not claim that Casey was frustrated and fed up with her responsibilites as a young single mom, in a moment or a fit of anger (blind rage) and took her frustration out on Caylee? (From the jailtapes we've seen how Casey Anthony gets when she's "frustrated") That could make it manslaughter instead of murder in the first degree IF I'm not mistaken about American Criminal Law. That to me, sounds more plausible than what JB is claiming.. I'm not all that familiar with American jurisprudence but I know of a Canadian case that got the sentence reduced because the accused experienced a blind rage that made him lose control. (The man in question shot his wife and then went to the strip club which could show similarities with Casey all-day-in-bed-party-behaviour after murdering her daughter.) I know the prosuction could claim that the searches on the computer and the choloform suggest premeditation (I guess I'd have to see the timelines of the searches) and I guess I will have to do some research about "rage" as a defense and how long a "rage" typically/can last, minutes, hours?
 

Amil

New Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2008
Messages
1,066
Reaction score
0
They can't introduce a new version of events such as an accident without notifying the state and without KC taking the stand. They can raise suspicion about someone else that was not investigated, but they can't say KC told me it was an accident etc. They can use witness testimony to raise doubts.

IMO

OMG they do read here!
 

panthera

Retired WS Staff
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
26,409
Reaction score
59
I've been thinking about something else, analysing both sides of what we've been presented with until now; why this weird and complicated defense? Why not claim that Casey was frustrated and fed up with her responsibilites as a young single mom, in a moment or a fit of anger (blind rage) and took her frustration out on Caylee? (From the jailtapes we've seen how Casey Anthony gets when she's "frustrated") That could make it manslaughter instead of murder in the first degree IF I'm not mistaken about American Criminal Law. That to me, sounds more plausible than what JB is claiming.. I'm not all that familiar with American jurisprudence but I know of a Canadian case that got the sentence reduced because the accused experienced a blind rage that made him lose control. (The man in question shot his wife and then went to the strip club which could show similarities with Casey all-day-in-bed-party-behaviour after murdering her daughter.) I know the prosuction could claim that the searches on the computer and the choloform suggest premeditation (I guess I'd have to see the timelines of the searches) and I guess I will have to do some research about "rage" as a defense and how long a "rage" typically/can last, minutes, hours?
Premeditation can occur "in the blink of an eye". Clearly if the duct tape was applied to Caylee's head before death, a reasonable person could anticipate Caylee would not be able to breathe and die. I believe the elaborate defense involving GA and RK is intended to remove Casey from any involvement in Caylee's death - as they state GA found Caylee after she'd drowned in the pool. I don't completely understand how RK eventually is supposed to end up with Caylee's remains before "finding" them in the woods. What I do think, however, is Casey gave her attorneys the drowning story, coupled with allegations of molestation against GA and LA, and the rest the defense concocted to attempt to explain away the forensic evidence. I cannot see the jury buying the story, especially the molestation and GA allegedly covering up his beloved granddaughter's death.

MOO
 
Top