costalpilot
Active Member
she cant fire themNicki, I don't think for a minute that KC would allow that. She isn't going to permit herself or permit the defense to associate her in any manner with Caylee's death. She'd fire them first!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
she cant fire themNicki, I don't think for a minute that KC would allow that. She isn't going to permit herself or permit the defense to associate her in any manner with Caylee's death. She'd fire them first!
I've just been sitting here wondering what the defense's opening statements would be, and trying to see what they might come up with that's even halfway plausible.
I have a hunch that they are going to claim that KC did give Caylee to someone for safekeeping while the drama played out at her house--only for obvious reasons they can no longer claim it was ZFG. Who they will claim it is I have no idea. That is the only way I see them getting around the 31 days and the partying.
Where did you get this letter? Who did she send it to? This is my theory-weird.
This is ICA letter to Robyn Adams in 2009 approx. The letters were released into evidence after Mason came on board so sometime after March 2010.
Link to this particular transcribed letter at Hinky Meter
http://www.thehinkymeter.com/Library/CMA/letters/cmaletter13585-13595.pdf
Here is what I believe the defense will claim in opening statements. Defense team will say that Casey left the house without Caylee, and that Casey never knew what happened to Caylee. They will then claim that they are going to show that their client had nothing to do with Caylee's death, and that while she was partying she had no idea of Caylee's whereabouts.
They will say that Cindy had no idea what happened to Caylee either, and she mistakenly believed that Casey did, and that is why she called 911, and kept calling Casey to inquire about Caylee. It will come out that Casey was afraid of George Anthony, and at some point figured out he was responsible for Caylee's death. Because she feared for her own life, she protected her father by keeping silent.
They will claim the whole ZFG story was made out of duress because Casey so feared for her own life.
In other words, George was the reason that story came out.
It crossed my mind for a fleeting moment recently too. ewwww
yup you know it! Not saying it did (kinda makes me sick) but I was tarnished when a patient of mine was a product of incest and his mama was 33! The dad/granddad was 74... uke:I have to say I just said the same thing yesterday....My husband thought I was crazy! I said I just was trying to guess what kind of rabbit the defense is going to pull out of their hats! RK and ICA doubt it....but stranger things have happened in this case...................
I believe he will say that Caylee drowned & was too scared to tell anyone because of the abuse & her PTSD...& that she partied etc wrote those checks & shopped because she was trying to forget...And, I think he will say that the police arrested her to quickly & she was too scared to tell even them
http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-na...hony-called-defective-lawyer-by-former-client
Wonder if JB dispatched CM over the lunch break to get MORE smoke and mirrors. After opening statements they may have concluded that they didn't stock up on enough initially.
I was thinking about this the other night because I was reading through the jailhouse letters again where ICA states she gave Caylee to the "real" Zenaida. It was as if she was saying okay, not that ZFG the one I told the cops about, but the real one. When I was reading this I was wondering how the defense team were going to say okay she was lying to LE, there was no nanny - because all the State have to do is bring up that letter where she is still saying there is a nanny or a Zenaida.
So your theory makes a lot of sense. There was a criminal defense attorney on tv saying you must be very careful if you are going to put yourself at the scene of a crime because you are asking a jury to believe you were there and it was an accident, but you didn't do anything to cause the death. This attorney said that this scenario is fraught with danger and no way would he advise a client to admit to putting themselves at the scene of the crime at the time of death, because a jury is just as likely to believe that you're lying. At the end of the interview he didn't believe that the defense would go down the road of accident theory.
I don't think they will either - the defense has to explain that jailhouse letter and I believe they will say that ICA gave Caylee to "someone" probably much like the Elizabeth Johnson case.
So defense theories they can't use...
1. Accident - ICA won't admit to that because she would still get serious jail time, can't put client at scene of crime at time of death
2. George did it - No one is going to believe this, there is no proof whatsoever to support this claim, nor can a case be made for reasonable doubt.
3. ZFG (LE statements) ex members of the defense team have already come out and said this is a lie - This Zenaida does not exist
4. Roy Kronk - again no one will believe this as this man was unknown to the family, had no access to Caylee and Caylee was in possession of her mother at last sighting - no discernible proof to back these allegations.
5. JGrund - once again, no access no proof
I think the mitigation experts/investigators poured over ICA's scribblings from jail and are using everything they can in there - and that is where all the mitigation excuses come from and the "REAL" Zenaida.
I was wrong, wrong, wrong. Never would have believed the defense would say what they did today. I'm stunned and have no words.