2009.10.02 JB & TM on Early Show

[lin]

That is Bill Sheaffer! I love to listen to him, he is extremely articulate, and he summarises the latest reports/events so well, making the complicated terms comprehensible to me.

Bill Shaeffer is so brilliant I find him more of a honey every time he opens his mouth. Seriously. If I ever was in a position to recommend a criminal lawyer, THAT is who I'd recommend or someone like him. Someone smart, experienced, calm, in control and just freakin' brilliant, imo. I'd LOVE to see him in a trial.

But I guess more importantly, I believe him. What he says makes so much sense, kwim?

 

[lin]

if LKB and JB already know she is innocent and the know the reasons for KC's actions, why the heck are they delaying the trial?

Because they know the reasons for KC's actions and that she's not innocent. Delay keeps her in protective custody while they pray for a miracle and fading memories they can try to manipulate with their media tours.

 

[Valhall]

At first I thought she was guilty of something. I figured the SA had nothing because she was in and out of jail. Once They indicted her for murder, I still thought she was guilty of something. On Dec 11th I thought she was guilty of killing her daughter. By the 19th of December? Well by then the doubt begin to start with me. Roy Kronk story begins to eat at me. Then in each doc dump there is nothing new for SA. Then new twist. Tapes, Dominic Casey, Jim Hoover. Then the judge sealing some of Dominic Casey interview. Each little bizzare twist begins to add up. Now I wasn't born yesterday.. If things don't make a whole lot of sense, then there is someone else in the picture. I have seen this my whole life.
Now comes this new doc dump and the SA has no physical evidence. Yes I still think she is Guilty of something. I am here to provoke thought and learn from everyone. When I post something it may make some people angry, but my goal is to get someone to post something that I hadn't thought of.
In the begining I thought she was guilty. Then slowly as docs begin to get dumped and the bizzare twist, I begin to question my own opinion

I'd like to say thank you for posting this. It helps me understand where you're coming from. While I don't agree with certain points you make, I do understand your point of view now. I have to be real honest, I thought you were Cindy. Seriously.

I'll state this as well: I agree - she's guilty of something. I agree - it is the state's burden to prove such. I agree - I do not hold that what has been made available in releases so far guarantee a conviction of murder. I think people forget that 1. being a repugnant character, 2. exhibiting unacceptable behavior, 3. even having a dead body in your trunk - does not a murderer make. It can still be explained by accidental death.

The only thing preventing the explaining of an accidental death is that KC refuses to say that's what happened. And she's been given ample opportunities to (including several chances prior to being arrested the first time). Instead, she's maintained the whole "zanny the nanny" story - and that's it. That's gonna be hard to defend - and it's going to be terribly hard for a jury to swallow.

It is this consistent lie that may very well trump any lack of hard evidence and convict her on the murder charges. And she'll have no one to blame but herself.

 

[lin]

Falling apart? Don't celebrate too soon!
I think you may hope for that, but maybe you should ask Scott Peterson how important the absence of those items are to a Jury- you can reach him c/o Death Row.
The case against him was entirely circumstantial apart from one hair of his wife that was found. The Jurors listened to all the evidence against him, specially his behavior during the time when his wife went "missing" and after... he,like Casey was entirely without credibility. He also partied while his wife and child decomposed, in the ocean.

I find the similarities to be striking. Do you know if there is already a thread comparing the two cases? If not, perhaps someone who followed and retained a good grasp of the facts of the Laci and Connor case should start one?

 

[ZsaZsa]

Bill Shaeffer is so brilliant I find him more of a honey every time he opens his mouth. Seriously. If I ever was in a position to recommend a criminal lawyer, THAT is who I'd recommend or someone like him. Someone smart, experienced, calm, in control and just freakin' brilliant, imo. I'd LOVE to see him in a trial.

But I guess more importantly, I believe him. What he says makes so much sense, kwim?

Me too! All of the above!
Plus, he is very easy on the eye :clap:

 

[Valhall]

As follow up to notsosmart:

I'm going to follow up to drive the point home. IF this was an accidental death (no matter what the cause), and EVEN IF IT WASN'T and she just wanted to get out of it, in that first 24 hours all she had to do was say "she accidental drowned" or "she fell and hit her head" or "I gave her some medicine and I guess I gave her too much". I don't care. And my point is - with KC being an aficionado of lies - even if what she was saying was untrue, it would have given her a defense that at this time would have some pretty strong legs.

And this is where one of two things come into play: 1. Either it's KC's psychosis (i.e. she establishes a delusion/fantasy in her mind and that is the story that is going to become real if she states it and sticks with it), or 2. THERE WAS TOO MUCH INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE WITH THE BODY AT THAT TIME to pull off an accident.

An example of such incriminating evidence would be: duct tape over the baby's mouth. If she had said Caylee accidentally died upfront, she would still have to explain why there is duct tape over her daughter's mouth. I have contended that the duct tape was placed after the body started decomposing to prevent fluids that definitely would have started issuing from doing so...but when you look at her inability to take the accidental death excuse (even as a lie) - you have to start wondering if there was something about that body she knew damned well could not be explained as accidental. Was it that there was chloroform in the baby lungs? Or that the baby died of suffocation (i.e. taped mouth and nose prior to death)? SOMETHING prevented her from taking this out.

 

[lin]

sleutherontheside, I think we expect them to have an ace up their sleeve because they are world renown attorneys.. the "best of the best", and it's hard to think of them just throwing spaghetti on the wall, but I think that's exactly what they're doing. Why? Because they don't have anything. They've dug themselves in a hole by sticking with the easily disproved zanny story and KCs other ridiculous lies.
I don't think their client has divulged any true information to them which makes her that much harder to defend.

We all ask repeatedly why they don't just come out with this ever-so-great evidence that will exonerate KC now instead of waiting for trial... but it's extremely obvious that they're making up crap as they go. They've got nothing so all they can do is talk out of their butts on these media tours, wait ti'll trial, and cross their fingers that something else will come up that they can work with... anything.

Ok well good luck with that dream team!

Bill Shaeffer recently opined that KC had made the case very simple for the state. KC really came to the dream team so boxed in that the best just don't have anything to work with to defend her. Ok, so she's guilty and imo totally evil. They can work with that. I doubt it but maybe even they could have come up with some excuse for the 31 days. But KC, like her mother, thinks she is so smart that she can outfox everyone including the professional investigators and kept running her lying, manipulative mouth. KC nailed her own coffin shut and her mother has been on every tv show that would have her adding extra nails, imo. This isn't to suggest her father and brother haven't added a few nails but I think it is her mother that has by far done the most damage to KC and any chance she may have had at getting anything less than lwop. In fact, CA, imo, pushes the needle closer and closer every single time she gets on tv.

OneLostGirl mentioned that passive/aggressive personality in another thread with an excellent description [ame=http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4231380&postcount=707]here.[/ame] She* wrote:

"Yeah and I can't stop thinking this is Cindy's sneaky a$$ed personality disordered way of doing just that. These kinds of "mothers" can do some mean, down right evil with a smile on their faces and "love" in their hearts without anyone recognizing it for what it really is. It is a skill!"

My own dear mother, smartest woman I've ever known bar none, has said basically the same thing since day 32. CA is trying to get KC convicted and sentenced to death.

With this set of facts, with KC's behavior and string of ridiculous lies and ever since then with her own mother almost campaigning for her conviction (imo) I don't see how any team, no matter how skilled, really has much of a chance with this case.

JMO

*I am so sorry that OLG came by this knowledge the hard way but so very grateful she shares her great insight and knowledge with us! Not to mention those great avatars and other graphics!

 

[lin]

Me too! All of the above!
Plus, he is very easy on the eye :clap:

And gets easier on the eye every single time he opens his mouth. I find brilliance to be very attractive and he's got that in abundance! I am starting to become almost like a groupie for him, lol. "Oooh, Bill Shaeffer said something?? Where??? Where???"

ETA: I think I could listen to this guy discuss a grocery list -- he'd make it sound so interesting and bring up points I hadn't considered, etc.

 

[lin]

Oh I love him too... but it actually wasn't him. It was a younger gentleman.
And I think I was thinking of wesh... not wftv. Cause you're right... Bill S is the attorney that wftv consults with.

Sorry it's been a long week!

Richard Hornsby -- he's good too but imho Bill Shaeffer is just so much better!

 

[Valhall]

Bill Shaeffer is so brilliant I find him more of a honey every time he opens his mouth. Seriously. If I ever was in a position to recommend a criminal lawyer, THAT is who I'd recommend or someone like him. Someone smart, experienced, calm, in control and just freakin' brilliant, imo. I'd LOVE to see him in a trial.

But I guess more importantly, I believe him. What he says makes so much sense, kwim?

That and his "spenders". I think a man in a dress shirt and suspenders is so sexy.

 

[lin]

Just to clarify, the underlined, bolded attorneys you are talking about above refers to Al and LBK, right? They certainly seem to be well respected in some legal communities, but I don't think of either of them as a Johnny Cochran, F Lee Bailey, or anything of the other Dream Team from the ole OJ days...

But I do get your point! (Just didn't want JoseBGood to think you were talkin bout him should he be reading this forum! :laugh:

They may very well be of the same caliber if they had a different set of facts and didn't have the perp's own family working against them. I was stunned that there was a mistrial in the first Specter trial. Myself, I more blame that one engineer but some do credit LKB with it. And she was up against Alan Jackson and he was incredible, imo.

 

[lin]

It is the states burden to prove she is guilty. The defense does not have to say anything. It is the states resposibility to catch the real killer.

Obviously that does not work in the court of public opinion, but it does in the real court.

And it will work in this case. The state will easily be able to prove guilt and the defense may as well say nothing because there isn't a credible defense to explain so many of the compelling facts that show inescapable guilt.

 

[lin]

At first I thought she was guilty of something. I figured the SA had nothing because she was in and out of jail. Once They indicted her for murder, I still thought she was guilty of something. On Dec 11th I thought she was guilty of killing her daughter. By the 19th of December? Well by then the doubt begin to start with me. Roy Kronk story begins to eat at me. Then in each doc dump there is nothing new for SA. Then new twist. Tapes, Dominic Casey, Jim Hoover. Then the judge sealing some of Dominic Casey interview. Each little bizzare twist begins to add up. Now I wasn't born yesterday.. If things don't make a whole lot of sense, then there is someone else in the picture. I have seen this my whole life.
Now comes this new doc dump and the SA has no physical evidence. Yes I still think she is Guilty of something. I am here to provoke thought and learn from everyone. When I post something it may make some people angry, but my goal is to get someone to post something that I hadn't thought of.
In the begining I thought she was guilty. Then slowly as docs begin to get dumped and the bizzare twist, I begin to question my own opinion

What specific facts led you to conclude guilt?

What evidence has come out to dispute those facts?

A similar process has occurred with some other posters here. They initially became convinced of guilt and while most haven't wavered from that belief, sometimes some posters become concerned the state may fall short on proving it. The thing is, many of us have been discussing the evidence for over a year now. A jury will be examining it all together in a much shorter time frame. They won't be as jaded as are some of us. The 31 days, the partying, the stain in the trunk that many of them may view as showing the same outline of a small child in a fetal position as did one of the techs, etc. etc. etc.

Perhaps a review of the [ame=http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75997]Evidence thread, here, [/ame]would help you, in particular this post of Jolynna's from that thread:

The wadded up paper towels found in Tony's trash in KC's car trunk might be as damaging as the duct tape. On them was a substance like pig or human decomposition. The substance was infested with maggots.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c341/jazlynsmum1/papertowelanalyis.png

There was no fruit in the Pontiac trunk. It sounds like the flies from this e-mail exchange are "coffin flies" which would mean the maggots were baby "coffin flies". There is no mention of any other kind of flies

IF there were only "coffin fly" maggots on the paper towels and no blow-fly maggots, as Dr. Vass said, that is significant. It shows Caylee was probably put in the pontiac trunk alive.

Just putting Caylee into a trash bag would not have kept blow flies away.

http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=...Q&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=RPx1W2CaBN9s.2FiWa7ocA--

In one of the last motions from KC's defense, discovery from the entomologist was specifically requested. Could the entomologist hold the smoking gun that will prove aggravated child abuse and murder one?

If the jury is presenting with this compelling theory, does anyone here think the sentence won't be lethal injection? If Jolynna's theory is correct, and it not only seems very, very plausible but would also certainly explain the state's reversal on seeking the death penalty, how could anyone see this evidence and not demand a death sentence?

 

[lin]

I don't think anyone in this forum gets "angry". What is frustrating however, is when a poster continually posts opinions without a reference to docs and "evidence" released thusfar. It is thought provoking when someone can submit a theory for consideration and reference actual docs and investigative findings and suggest an alternative. It is not productive to state opinion and make statements that do no more than tell us what you believe. The entire premise of the legal system is to base findings on facts and NOT opinion. Any juror will be instructed to set aside their feelings and rely only on evidence and facts. As WS, we strive to maintain the same standard. Everyone is free to have their opinion, but this is not a website dedicated to opinions, it is a website dedicated to analyzing data and facts, finding alternative possibilities, and seeking the truth. CA would not permit LP into her home if he had preconceived notions. Posters here may have their notions, but should explain why, and give us something that will support the request to consider an alternative. I hope this helps and can be useful in your sleuthing.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

This should be a must-read sticky!!

 

[Jersey*Girl]

What specific facts led you to conclude guilt?

What evidence has come out to dispute those facts?

A similar process has occurred with some other posters here. They initially became convinced of guilt and while most haven't wavered from that belief, sometimes some posters become concerned the state may fall short on proving it. The thing is, many of us have been discussing the evidence for over a year now. A jury will be examining it all together in a much shorter time frame. They won't be as jaded as are some of us. The 31 days, the partying, the stain in the trunk that many of them may view as showing the same outline of a small child in a fetal position as did one of the techs, etc. etc. etc.

Perhaps a review of the Evidence thread, here, would help you, in particular this post of Jolynna's from that thread:



If the jury is presenting with this compelling theory, does anyone here think the sentence won't be lethal injection? If Jolynna's theory is correct, and it not only seems very, very plausible but would also certainly explain the state's reversal on seeking the death penalty, how could anyone see this evidence and not demand a death sentence?

Lin, I just wanted to say thanks for this. Yeah...we all love sleuther! I'm particularly grateful for Jolyanna's quote that you supplied. I took a hiatus from the Caylee threads b/c I was getting way too involved...needed to step away for a bit. The flies are significant. Can't wait to go over everything I missed - probably take me a week without sleep! Anyway, thanks.

 

[lin]

I think KC is a legend in her own mind. I really think that with JB watching her mail, she is getting supportive letters from people who either really believe in her or just pretending to. Either way, that is feeding her ego which is overblown anyway, and giving her a false sense of security that she will get off. Now combine that with the sugar coated information she is receiving from her families letters and her attorneys and she sits in jail not worrying much about the DP because she has all of these people telling her they believe in her and that nothing shows she murdered her daughter. Do you think she was told that people weren't impressed with the recent media campaign or was she told, "Honey, we went on TV and destroyed all of their so called evidence." I think she is being totally shielded from reality and that's easy to do because in a way, she always has because no one ever confronted her on her lies before.

I have a question for those legal eagles out there and I have wondered about it. Let's say I live in Florida and I am selected for the jury. Now we go to trial and she is convicted. Can the case be overturned or a mistrial declared because I am a member here and read and write about the case? I just always wondered what would happen in that situation.

Not likely but remote possibility; maybe if you lied and claimed you hadn't it would grounds for a re-trial.

ETA: It would have to be shown that your membership here affected the outcome of the trial and I doubt that can be done.