2011.05.12 Nancy Grace

[JDzWife]

On HLN, Beth Karas interviewed prior atty BC. Brad stated he believes the defense will put ICA on the stand to testify, especially after the defense tilted their hand with potential bombshells... 1) ICA was sexually abused, 2) ICA was verbally and emotionally abused, and most shocking, 3) ICA was used as a pawn to cover up parental misconduct.

While #1 and #2 are possible, and if they were, that is no excuse for what happened to Caylee. Not sure what to think of #3. Cindy and George better run while they can.

 

[TiaM]

I call total BS

I personally have 2 friends who were molested as children into early teens - 1 by a neighbor, 1 by family and neither of them have ever harmed a hair on the heads of their children.

If anything, they are even more protective of their children due to this.

ICA is despicable.

 

[sindydee]

NEWSFLASH - ***EARTH TO J.B***

Like I said before and I will say again, this did NOT work for the Menendez brothers and it's not going to work at this trial either.

It's a last resort tactic as the: "Big moment of truth that Jose has promised us at the trial - that will make us all 'GASP' with astonishment and all will become clear about what happened to Caylee" well there isn't one. As we all knew anyway.

She is up **** creek without a paddle.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

If Casey was sexually abused as a "child", I doubt that it was her brother, Lee.

How old is Lee? Isn't he just a few years older than Casey?

I have thoughts about possible sexual abuse within "the family", but Lee is last on my list. jmo

 

[Linda7NJ]

I read Andrea Lyon's book when it came out several months ago. In it, she describes the case of a young woman who said she killed her little girl because her parents said they were going to get custody of her. The young woman was so terrified that the child would be subjected to the same horrendous sexual abuse she, herself, had endured at the hands of her father, acquiesced to by her mother, that she killed the child rather than allow that to happen.

I no longer remember the details, exactly, but as I was reading, I wondered if KC's DT might try the same story. It was successful for that client.

Except she can't take the stand, leaving no way to get it infront of the jury and she will never admit to killing her own child. Accident, maybe.....but hoes a person accidentally wrap duct tape around the head of their two year old?imo

 

[Brassband]

I'm having a hard time believing that Casey will ever admit to killing Caylee. If the jury gives her Life, would any of her family come and visit her in prison? Would she tell guards no visits from family? I doubt it. If found innocent, would she go back home and leach off of family again, even though they "abused" her? Boy, this is a whole lot of hooey to try to swallow.

 

[mydailyopinions]

If this is to be the defense's way of explaining the 31 days away, I hope they find a way to explain how this "molested" client willfully left a little girl in the hands of the so called "molesters" day in and day out while she went out on the town partying.

Better dig that hole deeper than 6 feet. JMHO

 

[NocturnalLady]

I know this isn't a popular opinion but think it's possible that Casey was abused, sexually or otherwise. You never know what goes on behind closed doors. I have no real evidence that it happened but I have no evidence it didn't either. Just because Casey is a sociopath (IMHO) doesn't mean she wasn't abused. HOWEVER no abuse justifies killing a child. Ever. If Casey went through abuse I do have sympathy for her - no one deserves that no matter how messed up they are. But that sympathy won't extend in any way to giving her a pass for her actions.

I'm wondering if the DT is planning on going with the accident theory and saying that Casey just couldn't tell because of the abuse she endured and the messed up family dynamics that had turned Casey into a messed up individual. I don't think the DT could use the abuse excuse to explain a deliberate killing of Caylee but they might think they could stretch that to cover an accidental killing of Caylee. (I personally don't think that is what happened, I think Casey purposely murdered Caylee in cold blood).

The statement of Finell's that really has me wondering is that Casey was used as a decoy to cover up her parents own misdeeds. Is this a sign that the DT is going with the GA killed Caylee scenario? Or possibly that Casey took the fall for GA for stealing/misusing family money? Remember the money that GA admitted to police he lost in the online money scam? The same money that he has alternately said he lost in online gambling? There have been other speculations as to what he really did with that money but I won't go into that because I'm not sure if that violates rules and I don't want to be tossed! Anyhow I think this might be where the DT is going with the "Casey used as a decoy for her parents misdeeds". They might say the money Casey was accused of stealing had actually been stolen by GA - that's less of stretch (IMHO) than that GA killed Caylee and Casey is covering for him. What do you all think?

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I know this isn't a popular opinion but think it's possible that Casey was abused, sexually or otherwise. You never know what goes on behind closed doors. I have no real evidence that it happened but I have no evidence it didn't either. Just because Casey is a sociopath (IMHO) doesn't mean she wasn't abused. HOWEVER no abuse justifies killing a child. Ever. If Casey went through abuse I do have sympathy for her - no one deserves that no matter how messed up they are. But that sympathy won't extend in any way to giving her a pass for her actions.

I'm wondering if the DT is planning on going with the accident theory and saying that Casey just couldn't tell because of the abuse she endured and the messed up family dynamics that had turned Casey into a messed up individual. I don't think the DT could use the abuse excuse to explain a deliberate killing of Caylee but they might think they could stretch that to cover an accidental killing of Caylee. (I personally don't think that is what happened, I think Casey purposely murdered Caylee in cold blood).

The statement of Finell's that really has me wondering is that Casey was used as a decoy to cover up her parents own misdeeds. Is this a sign that the DT is going with the GA killed Caylee scenario? Or possibly that Casey took the fall for GA for stealing/misusing family money? Remember the money that GA admitted to police he lost in the online money scam? The same money that he has alternately said he lost in online gambling? There have been other speculations as to what he really did with that money but I won't go into that because I'm not sure if that violates rules and I don't want to be tossed! Anyhow I think this might be where the DT is going with the "Casey used as a decoy for her parents misdeeds". They might say the money Casey was accused of stealing had actually been stolen by GA - that's less of stretch (IMHO) than that GA killed Caylee and Casey is covering for him. What do you all think?

I just read over on the NG thread (I think) that Andrea Lyon wrote about a case in her book where a woman had been abused as a child, her mother threatened to take her child away, and the daughter snapped and killed her child rather than expose her to that type of abuse. If that is true, the DT got their defense strategy straight out of the pages of a book.

HAHAHA! Sorry - forgot which thread I was on.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Who is responsible for leaking information about the DT's strategy and/or contents of opening statement to the media just days before the trial is set to begin?

 

[Gma Kat]

I read Andrea Lyon's book when it came out several months ago. In it, she describes the case of a young woman who said she killed her little girl because her parents said they were going to get custody of her. The young woman was so terrified that the child would be subjected to the same horrendous sexual abuse she, herself, had endured at the hands of her father, acquiesced to by her mother, that she killed the child rather than allow that to happen.

I no longer remember the details, exactly, but as I was reading, I wondered if KC's DT might try the same story. It was successful for that client.

I have wondered from time to time about this possible approach as well.

As a sexual abuse/incest survivor I can honestly say that no one but the A's know if ICA was sexually abused as a child. Nothing about her behavior is a yes or no indicator. I was raised to keep up appearances. My family was middle-class, white picket fence, church going, community involved........NO ONE ever suspected and I was too terrified and programmed to rock the boat. Not until I was in my 30's did I find the courage to tell my first person (a total stranger at that) so I won't go down that road that it is impossible. So there doesn't have to be police reports, child services reports, doctor reports, or anything whatsoever. It isn't called a "Dirty Little Secret" for nothing.

Now here is my big problem with this scenario and it being an excuse for ICA murdering her child......she left Caylee with GA and CA as much as possible. IF she was afraid of the abuse GA/LA or CA would heap upon her precious daughter, then why not be fighting to get out of that house at any cost? Why allow Caylee to be alone with her parents and/or brother? This and this alone is enough for me to scoff at the abuse theory. But not any of the reasons in my first paragraph.

Hope that makes sense and was not just another of my tirades!!!

 

[OldNWize]

Y'all, I don't typically divulge this info on a whim, but this line of defense really makes my blood boil! I was sexually abused as a child and my Mother didn't do anything to prevent it or to stop it. So, I know first-hand how horrific this is. BUT, because of having experienced that, I do everything in my power to protect and nurture children that have, or might possibly be in that situation.

You don't freakin' kill your child to protect them! This is a vile excuse as far as I am concerned. So sorry for the rant - I am going to go crack open a bottle of wine and calm down.:drink:

 

[logicalgirl]

For me the really interesting about the sexual abuse angle or even physical abuse is how it is regarded in a large number mitigation phases of death penalty cases.

And this is important - the jury acknowledges the testimony of whatever witnesses have been put forward and the arguments of the defense regarding the defendant's past history - however in every case I've read - the jury has chosen to ignore these details in their sentencing decisions.

And some of the of the information in the abuse phase of the penalty has been truly horrific. Some of it is so sad.

Ignored by the jury.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Who is responsible for leaking information about the DT's strategy and/or contents of opening statement to the media just days before the trial is set to begin?

IMO The DT is responsible. They float it now to guage how it's recieved

 

[Gma Kat]

Y'all, I don't typically divulge this info on a whim, but this line of defense really makes my blood boil! I was sexually abused as a child and my Mother didn't do anything to prevent it or to stop it. So, I know first-hand how horrific this is. BUT, because of having experienced that, I do everything in my power to protect and nurture children that have, or might possibly be in that situation.

You don't freakin' kill your child to protect them! This is a vile excuse as far as I am concerned. So sorry for the rant - I am going to go crack open a bottle of wine and calm down.:drink:

:therethere: sista...........


:toastred: ..............to survival!

 

[TotallyObsessed]

Y'all, I don't typically divulge this info on a whim, but this line of defense really makes my blood boil! I was sexually abused as a child and my Mother didn't do anything to prevent it or to stop it. So, I know first-hand how horrific this is. BUT, because of having experienced that, I do everything in my power to protect and nurture children that have, or might possibly be in that situation.

You don't freakin' kill your child to protect them! This is a vile excuse as far as I am concerned. So sorry for the rant - I am going to go crack open a bottle of wine and calm down.:drink:

Thank you for your very personal view on this matter. You said it so succinctly....You don't kill a child to protect them. While the DT may put that forth to create reasonable doubt about assessing the death penalty, it is certainly not an excuse.

 

[NocturnalLady]

I just read over on the NG thread (I think) that Andrea Lyon wrote about a case in her book where a woman had been abused as a child, her mother threatened to take her child away, and the daughter snapped and killed her child rather than expose her to that type of abuse. If that is true, the DT got their defense strategy straight out of the pages of a book.

Yes I read that too. That might be where they are going with this but I don't think it's their best option nor do I think it will work with a jury.

I think a better option is the accident theory with Casey too scared to tell. The DT could highlight how CA acted like SHE was Caylee's mother and say that Casey was terrified (as she in fact said she was) of her mother and "knew she would never be forgiven" if something bad happened to Caylee. They could even explain the heart shaped sticker as a crazy but intended to be loving "goodbye" to her child. I'm not saying I think this will work with a jury either but at least it fits in better with the facts of the case (IMHO) than blaming GA directly does.

 

[Quiche]

I've always wondered about GA... jmo

 

[technicalconfusion]

I read Andrea Lyon's book when it came out several months ago. In it, she describes the case of a young woman who said she killed her little girl because her parents said they were going to get custody of her. The young woman was so terrified that the child would be subjected to the same horrendous sexual abuse she, herself, had endured at the hands of her father, acquiesced to by her mother, that she killed the child rather than allow that to happen.

I no longer remember the details, exactly, but as I was reading, I wondered if KC's DT might try the same story. It was successful for that client.

Seems to me I saw this on a CSI show - CSI Vegas I believe. You know how they rip from the headlines.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

IMO The DT is responsible. They float it now to guage how it's recieved

I figured as much. Very unprofessional, but what else is new with Baez & Co.?