Defense What is their strategy? #1

[chicagofa13]

I have a question and don't know where to post it, so if you want to move, etc. please feel free.

Ok so the defense team adamanty states that KC is innocent. Can anybody explain why they would take this to trial vs. going to the state attorney and giving them the information to prove her innocence before trial?? Is it so they can prove their theory in a court of law, are they afraid the State Attny wouldn't follow up, is the defense doing their own investigation to bring out in court? OR is it "legally" beyond approaching the State Attorney at this point since charges have been brought against KC?

I guess I am asking if this is a legal manuever by her defense team or is it against not an acceptable legal practive to go to the State Attorney before the trial.

Thanks.

The other day I heard this discussed on one of the shows. They defense attorneys said if they had proof their client was innocent (and I took that to mean evidence OR another person was implicated), they would take it to the prosecution!!!! Not hold for trial. I don't know how it works in FL, but that seems pretty logical to me.

 

[DotsEyes]

You don't let your client sit in jail when you have proof of her innocence. You meet with the SAs.

Of course her lawyer is going to proclaim her innocence. Why is anyone surprised about this? Unless he is going to continue to say "no comment" for the duration of media onslaught through trial, "my client is innocent" is the next best thing. Of course, he also hints at evidence, but his client is still in her 9x12 a fact which speaks for itself.

 

[suspicious1]

You don't let your client sit in jail when you have proof of her innocence. You meet with the SAs.

Of course her lawyer is going to proclaim her innocence. Why is anyone surprised about this? Unless he is going to continue to say "no comment" for the duration of media onslaught through trial, "my client is innocent" is the next best thing. Of course, he also hints at evidence, but his client is still in her 9x12 a fact which speaks for itself.

My thoughts exactly!:clap:

 

[Interested57]

thanks for the replies. didn't know if it was a legal thing at this point that they could go to SA or not. Sounds like defense can go anytime they have proof of innocence.

 

[Psmith]

You don't let your client sit in jail when you have proof of her innocence. You meet with the SAs.

Of course her lawyer is going to proclaim her innocence. Why is anyone surprised about this? Unless he is going to continue to say "no comment" for the duration of media onslaught through trial, "my client is innocent" is the next best thing. Of course, he also hints at evidence, but his client is still in her 9x12 a fact which speaks for itself.

Quite.

I note that esteemed Baez is finally learning. To shut up. No, there is no evidence that does not connect his client.

People say that his strategy is to confuse rather than to refute.

Discuss.

 

[itsyourworld]

Quite.

I note that esteemed Baez is finally learning. To shut up. No, there is no evidence that does not connect his client.

People say that his strategy is to confuse rather than to refute.

Discuss.

he has a strategy?
/end discussion

 

[weasel]

Oh, itsyourworld, I love the way your mind works....that would be a sort of "evil genius" thing for JB to do...whip up a media frenzy, get good and famous, then win an appeal based on media frenzy....is he that smart? Or that devious?

I think he's trying to win an appeal on ineffective council.

 

[itsyourworld]

I think he's trying to win an appeal on ineffective council.

that would have worked if he'd decided to cross the river on his own, but having made whatsherface-linda second-chair, he can hardly plead ignorance or inability. he has regularly asserted a pattern of meeting with his client that seems well above the normal client/attorney schedule, as well as having made motions to the court, and then winning those motions, to have his legal team from all around the continent look at evidence provided by the state to give him their expert opinions. he makes a big show about wanting and needing the state's discovery documents, but he has at least on one occasion never bothered to pick them up, and on another occasion, never bothered to provide further documentation to the judge for consideration. he makes regular public statements regarding his client, even if it is to say she is "innocent and we will all understand in due time" what that means. his entire office seems involved with this case at some level. while he may have bumbled and um'd and stuttered his way through some ridiculous antics in court, the judge has called him on it, the opposing attorneys have called him on it, and as has been obviously demonstrated, his focus has been to pimp out pictures of Caylee. jose isn't incompetent. he's calculating and and an opportunist. like the anthony family, he's hooked up with people who are helping him build a large bank account.

i only am glad he is not an attorney working to protect Caylee in all this.

 

[trixi491]

In interviews JB says that there is an explainable reason for Casey's actions during the time Caylee was missing and that this information will come out in trial and show that she is innocent. What kind of possible excuse do you think they are going to give?

 

[Whisperer]

None....they will rest or plea out.

 

[Friday]

In interviews JB says that there is an explainable reason for Casey's actions during the time Caylee was missing and that this information will come out in trial and show that she is innocent. What kind of possible excuse do you think they are going to give?

I don't know, and I don't think JB knows either. LOL

 

[magic-cat]

There is simply NOTHING that could possibly make it understandable what Casey Anthony has done from day one, and I mean the one when she killed her, not the one when her parents discovered it...

Nothing will make it ok.
Nothing will make it seem reasonable.
Nothing will explain it.
Nothing will make the jurors go "Yeah, sure, that's why she did it"
Nothing added to nothing equals nothing, and THAT is the defense that they have.

What they will DO is attack the evidence and attack the science and attack the investigators...So I guess her defense is going to be:

ATTACK!

 

[Bobbisangel]

TH on NG last night said if KC wants to stick with ZFG/SODDI defense she will have to take the stand and point the finger. Which will open her up to cross examination. I would sooooooooooooooooo love to see that happen.

I would love to see her take the stand too but I doubt that will ever happen.

If they use the defense that someone else did it I don't think that will work either. Even though the defense doesn't have to prove anything I think jurys expect to learn who did it. Just like they want to know what the motive was for the murder. They want the whole story. If all they look at are the facts and the defense doesn't have any then Casey is screwed. The Pros will have lots of facts along with evidence and a motive. The defense will just look wishy washy if they don't name names and a motive.

If Casey is determined to use the Zanny the Nanny defense will her attorney have to go along with her? After her telling her parents that whole big story she would look pretty bad to change her story during the trial. Her parents still think the Nanny is the guilty party. Not that Casey cares what anyone including her parents think. She has hung on to that story the whole time though and she would really look guilty if she changes directions now.

She is screwed no matter what the defense does anyway. I can't wait to see the look on her face when the jury says GUILTY. She won't be expecting that.

 

[SoSueMe]

In interviews JB says that there is an explainable reason for Casey's actions during the time Caylee was missing and that this information will come out in trial and show that she is innocent. What kind of possible excuse do you think they are going to give?

They won't have any excuse. They won't prove someone else did it and they won't put Casey on the stand (even if they say they will). They can say anything to put doubt in the juror's minds. The only problem with this tactic is that jurors don't forget things that were promised and not delivered.

Technically, KC is innocent until proven guilty, so JB will keep saying it. Even if he thinks or knows KC is guilty, he will defend her innocence until she is convicted in a court of law.

I suppose their defense will be to attack the forensic evidence (air samples, hair samples, etc.). In another thread someone kept saying there is no direct evidence linking KC to the crime. All I can say to that is there was no evidence to directly link ScottP to that crime either. It's all circumstantial evidence and frankly, I think in the end, it will be KC's own words that will convict her.

For instance, I think the most damning piece of information is KC telling the detectives that she spoke to Caylee on July 15th. If they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee died in June, then KC's goose is cooked. That's JMO, but I'm sticking to it. :tongue:

Sue

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

They won't have any excuse. They won't prove someone else did it and they won't put Casey on the stand (even if they say they will). They can say anything to put doubt in the juror's minds. The only problem with this tactic is that jurors don't forget things that were promised and not delivered.

Technically, KC is innocent until proven guilty, so JB will keep saying it. Even if he thinks or knows KC is guilty, he will defend her innocence until she is convicted in a court of law.

I suppose their defense will be to attack the forensic evidence (air samples, hair samples, etc.). In another thread someone kept saying there is no direct evidence linking KC to the crime. All I can say to that is there was no evidence to directly link ScottP to that crime either. It's all circumstantial evidence and frankly, I think in the end, it will be KC's own words that will convict her.

For instance, I think the most damning piece of information is KC telling the detectives that she spoke to Caylee on July 15th. If they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee died in June, then KC's goose is cooked. That's JMO, but I'm sticking to it. :tongue:

Sue

ITA, especially with the bolded part. If she didn't murder Caylee, why would lie about talking to her a month later. This trial is going to be a science lesson for all of us.

 

[aprilshowers]

Sure is just like the sky is purple, and bigfoot exists.

HEY NOW! I went out walking yesterday, and there was a beautiful purple sky. ... As I was passing through the wooded area back to my house, I met with Bigfoot and his wife for lunch. Now PLEASE watch what you say!

:crazy:

 

[Alice]

Forgive me in advance if this has been discussed earlier.

Could the defense team come up with an alibi for KC during the trial or do they have to offer it beforehand so that it could investigated?

For instance, if KC sticks with either of the Zani the nanny stories the Prosecution, aside from pointing out that Zani doesn't appear to exist, will no doubt ask why jobless KC was bringing Caylee to Zani in the first place.

Could KC come up with some *advertiser censored*-n-bull story on the spot, re pleat with made up friends, places, etc. or would she have been required to tell her whole story prior to going to court?

I am just afraid that KC and co. are going to lie so much that the jury wont know which way is up and in the mist of that confusion might not be able to convict her.

 

[kathyn2]

The only way KC can testify is if she takes the stand. JB cannot do it for her. IF she takes the stand the prosecution will rip her to shreds with all her lies. You will NEVER see her take the stand. I also don't see anyone that is testifying in her behalf to tell a different story. The defense is using the prosecution witnesses. The defense intends to tear apart the prosecution case by tearing down the expert's testimony and praying they can get a jury that will believe there is reasonable doubt. Just 1 juror is all they need. That is going to be their ploy. You will never find out what sort of person supposedly did anything but KC. Or what other dude did it. Only that the evidence isn't good enough to prove KC did it. Even if they do find 1 juror that votes not guilty KC will still sit in jail til the next trial so I am not worried.

 

[Chezhire]

The only way KC can testify is if she takes the stand. JB cannot do it for her. IF she takes the stand the prosecution will rip her to shreds with all her lies. You will NEVER see her take the stand. I also don't see anyone that is testifying in her behalf to tell a different story. The defense is using the prosecution witnesses. The defense intends to tear apart the prosecution case by tearing down the expert's testimony and praying they can get a jury that will believe there is reasonable doubt. Just 1 juror is all they need. That is going to be their ploy. You will never find out what sort of person supposedly did anything but KC. Or what other dude did it. Only that the evidence isn't good enough to prove KC did it. Even if they do find 1 juror that votes not guilty KC will still sit in jail til the next trial so I am not worried.

:clap: Well said kathyn2. I'll add that the way JB will be telling Casey's "story" to the jurors will be in his opening and closing statements, and as he attempt to "poke holes" in the prosecution's fact & expert witnesses, one typically hears questions designed to echo the storyline he began developing in his opening statement.

 

[kathyn2]

There is no explainable reason for her actions and JB doesn't even have anyone slated to explain her actions. Thats just BS. As I state above, all he is going to do for his defense is tear down the prosecution case and hope he can get reasonable doubt. I would think the jury will fiind it odd that there isn't 1 friend or anyone testifying FOR her. At least not that I can see. Maybe he will put some shrink on to explain her actions after Caylee went missing but I doubt it. That opens KC up to a big can of worms if he puts a shrink on the stand.

In interviews JB says that there is an explainable reason for Casey's actions during the time Caylee was missing and that this information will come out in trial and show that she is innocent. What kind of possible excuse do you think they are going to give?