Defense What is their strategy? #1

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is Baez still the lead attorney? I wonder what role LKB is going to take. Is she 2nd chair? By the sounds of it the defense is going to need to long tables put end to end to seat all of the attorneys involved in this case! Whoever is footing the bill for the defense must be loaded and doesn't mind spending all of that money on the Princess :rolleyes: and her followers. Whoever is footing the bill hasn't given little Caylee a second thought just like most everyone that was involved in her life and then afterwards. It makes me sick.
I feel like no one really cared about little Caylee except maybe her great grandparents. No one cared enough to put her first anyway. And now that she is dead it is all about Casey. Casey is probably in hog heaven with all of the attention. Mom and dad whining over her and probably writing every day with promises that she will be set free. Baez feeding her lines of BS and sneaking a hug or kiss when ever possible. People sending in money for her account. Nancy Grace said that someone has sent her 5 checks. Wonder how much they came to? How can people be so blind :waitasec:

It will be a terrible thing if this monster is set free because someone didn't use common sense when they placed their vote. I know I will just be sick if that happens. Got to hang on to the faith. That's all we have to hang onto.
Caylee just can't be let down again.
 
I think they will say RM was the "nanny" hence the similarities in the last names. He was watching Caylee for KC on the night of 7/16 because she told him she had to work, however, he found out she was out at fusion with Tony L. He either out of rage "chloroformed" Caylee and put her in KC trunk to get back at her. Or he accidentally used to much chloroform to put her to sleep. Either way, KC freaks and either comes up with the sawgrass story to protect her and her accomplice (RM) or because RM threatened her.

I am not sure I would buy this theory, but it might explain the pictures of her being so happy the night after Caylee supposedly was kidnapped. It would also explain the child in the trunk and the level of chloroform found. They could also argue that he had access to her laptop as well as her house.

It might make a juror doubtful.
 
Playing defense here so don't be mean. There is no evidence that the tape was put on before death so therefore it may not have been an intentional act, meaning an intentional death. Yes the act itself of putting the tape on is intentional. Someone doesn't accidentally put tape on someones mouth, but there is no transferred intent here. Meaning intentionally putting tape on someones mouth does not equal intentionally killing a person. Therefore, the tape could have been post death as a way to "stage" a kidnapping.
 
I think they will say RM was the "nanny" hence the similarities in the last names. He was watching Caylee for KC on the night of 7/16 because she told him she had to work, however, he found out she was out at fusion with Tony L. He either out of rage "chloroformed" Caylee and put her in KC trunk to get back at her. Or he accidentally used to much chloroform to put her to sleep. Either way, KC freaks and either comes up with the sawgrass story to protect her and her accomplice (RM) or because RM threatened her.

I am not sure I would buy this theory, but it might explain the pictures of her being so happy the night after Caylee supposedly was kidnapped. It would also explain the child in the trunk and the level of chloroform found. They could also argue that he had access to her laptop as well as her house.

It might make a juror doubtful.


I don't think it would explain her happiness at all, especially during the weeks after Caylee was missing. Plus, there was a period of time where RM was out of the country and KC could have gone to the police without fear.
 
Playing defense here so don't be mean. There is no evidence that the tape was put on before death so therefore it may not have been an intentional act, meaning an intentional death. Yes the act itself of putting the tape on is intentional. Someone doesn't accidentally put tape on someones mouth, but there is no transferred intent here. Meaning intentionally putting tape on someones mouth does not equal intentionally killing a person. Therefore, the tape could have been post death as a way to "stage" a kidnapping.


That is true ... the problem I have with the defense positing any accident theory is this ... If it were an accident the forensic evidence would be the same ... especially since no cause of death can be determined. Everything else can be explained away ... similar to the way that you did, Warbuckle. There would be no need to hire expensive high profile experts to counter the so called "junk science" ... in fact there would be no need to call the findings "junk" at all ... they would simply say ... "It is what it is" and then explain why!
 
Also Baez says "My client is innocent" ... and Lee says "To this day, I believe everything my sister tells me is the truth" ... this tells me that the defense is sticking to KC's story as is ... Nanny and all! You have to ask why did KC plead not guilty to ALL charges, including lying to the police? I think that they are going to, as preposterous as it sounds to us, ... stick with the original story.

I remember a philosophy class that I took my Freshman year in college where the professor gave us an exercise ... he said "I want you to prove to me that you exist" ... it sounds easy, right? But each student came up to the front of the class confident that they could prove their existence ... and each time the professor would calmly explain how whatever was done or said in no way proved our existence. I know that this is really abstract ... but it is what comes to my mind when ever I think of the defense strategy ... prove that ZFG does not exist! Now, I do not think that Philosophy 101 will affect the jury ... I believe that they will roll their eyes, just like so many of us in that classroom did!
 
I remember a philosophy class that I took my Freshman year in college where the professor gave us an exercise ... he said "I want you to prove to me that you exist" ... it sounds easy, right? But each student came up to the front of the class confident that they could prove their existence ... and each time the professor would calmly explain how whatever was done or said in no way proved our existence. I know that this is really abstract ... but it is what comes to my mind when ever I think of the defense strategy ... prove that ZFG does not exist! Now, I do not think that Philosophy 101 will affect the jury ... I believe that they will roll their eyes, just like so many of us in that classroom did!

Curious, did anyone try walking up and peeing on the professors desk? At a minimum, the response would have been different on at least one point.

The offender could then simply say, "It wasn't me." If challenged, "Prove it".
 
Curious, did anyone try walking up and peeing on the professors desk? At a minimum, the response would have been different on at least one point.

The offender could then simply say, "It wasn't me." If challenged, "Prove it".

MarleneM, loved your answer. I bet you were the class clown, huh? Really, it's hard to deny a puddle of pee. I appreciate your style of thinking.
azwriter.
 
It seems to me that before the body was found, there was some sort of deal on the table. Maybe KC would say there was an accident and she freaked, and she would lead the police to the body for a relatively light sentence, possibly for as litte as 10 years. Police usually do deals to get a body, especially when a child is involved. Geraldo had said there was a deal on the table. People were poking around in the area where the body was ultimately found. George and Cindy suddendly became emotional wrecks at that time, and visably so. Mark Nejame quit. Then, looking sullen and hollow, the Anthonys started the Caylee sightings leading to Larry King. They could have been made aware that the body hunt was on to do a deal, which caused their decline and they could have been using the media to put pressure on the police for a good deal.

After the body was found, I think all prior offers came off the table, and that's where we are now. The prosecution intends to put this littlebabykiller with the big eyes and the big lies away for ever, leaving the defense with a horrible mess to try to defend this awful woman and absolutely no good way to mount any defense that has a realistic chance of works. Just like KC waited too long to report her baby missing, she waited too long to deal. Now, it's too late for the defense, so, they're stonewalling, stalling, blaming the innocent and playing games. It's so frustrating that they even try. It doesn't seem to serve justice, but hell, if they want to go for innocent, let them. It drives me crazy though. People can spout justice for Casey all they want, but where the hell in this gawd-awful mess of a American 'justice system' is there justice for Caylee Marie Anthony, the ONLY CMA who SHOULD matter here, but who doesn't even seem to matter to her own family. This case is just maddening. It's more proof to me that however just and good our system used to be, it's not anymore. It's just broken. Justice delayed like this, and played like this, is justice denied. When someone's baby goes missing and unaccounted for, for a long period of time, UNREPORTED, that should be all anyone has to prove to put the person who lost their child in jail FOREVER!

Yolorado, like you I too belive there was a deal offered. But my question about that is did Casey turn it down flat, or did her attorney advise her to not take it?
I do agree that Casey not reporting her child missing is a strong piece of evidence that will be a main deciding point with the jury. There's no way you can justify not calling authorities about a kidnapping.
jmo
 
I think Baez scoffed at that deal in the very beginning. No dealing anymore.

I want justice for Caylee and for KC to rot in prison forever.

What KC is faced with is an attorney, who just like her parents will not allow her to accept responsibility for her actions. Throwing innocent people out there as the one who murdered Caylee when the only person sits right in jail where she is supposed to be. KC is 100% innocent, my arse....:banghead: If Baez wants to pull this off, KC needs to take the stand, which, IMO, will never happen. The prosecutors will make minced meat out of her, she will fumble for her words and we will see the anger and rage Caylee saw the night KC took her daughters life.

What I do see is Baez putting the discord out there between KC and CA. He will tell of the controlling, domineering mother CA is and it won't be nice for CA. We may hear that KC did not want to be a mother and CA pushed it upon her. I see Baez trying to shift the blame.

I can't wait for the day this comes to trial, sans Baez's frivilous motions and all chit hits the fan. The jurors will take up for the victim, Caylee and find this atrocious mother KC guilty as charged.

It tore my heart up again to see the Anthony's sitting behind their daughter instead of behind the prosecution and wanting justice for Caylee. I wait for trial so I can see all LE/FBI/CSI sitting behind the prosecution, KC's former lover and friends and a guilty verdict....:behindbar

Buh bye KC.
 
I think the defense will try to to pin it on either George, Cindy, or Lee. With all the evidence pointing back to the A house and the lying going on in that family, they really have nothing to indicate anyone else. I can just see it now, Jose claiming that Casey didn't call 911 and made up the Zenida story because she couldn't bear to turn in a member of her family..she was so conflicted..just a victim like she said all along, you get it. It still wouldn't work, but it would be entertaining, to say the least.:)
 
Also Baez says "My client is innocent" ... and Lee says "To this day, I believe everything my sister tells me is the truth" ... this tells me that the defense is sticking to KC's story as is ... Nanny and all! You have to ask why did KC plead not guilty to ALL charges, including lying to the police? I think that they are going to, as preposterous as it sounds to us, ... stick with the original story.

I remember a philosophy class that I took my Freshman year in college where the professor gave us an exercise ... he said "I want you to prove to me that you exist" ... it sounds easy, right? But each student came up to the front of the class confident that they could prove their existence ... and each time the professor would calmly explain how whatever was done or said in no way proved our existence. I know that this is really abstract ... but it is what comes to my mind when ever I think of the defense strategy ... prove that ZFG does not exist! Now, I do not think that Philosophy 101 will affect the jury ... I believe that they will roll their eyes, just like so many of us in that classroom did!

That sounds like a great class.

You may be right that this is the strategy the defense plans on using. They might even say that ZG wasn't the nanny's real name, but a name she was using to excape things from her past. Now try and find the nanny.

I don't know.
 
*snipped*

I remember a philosophy class that I took my Freshman year in college where the professor gave us an exercise ... he said "I want you to prove to me that you exist" ... it sounds easy, right? But each student came up to the front of the class confident that they could prove their existence ... and each time the professor would calmly explain how whatever was done or said in no way proved our existence. I know that this is really abstract ... but it is what comes to my mind when ever I think of the defense strategy ... prove that ZFG does not exist! Now, I do not think that Philosophy 101 will affect the jury ... I believe that they will roll their eyes, just like so many of us in that classroom did!

The difference between our PHL 101 exercise (I did it too!) is that at some point, we're able to convince the other people sitting in the classroom that even if we are a sentient being but a figment of everyone's imagination, we are a collective figment and therefore just as sentient as if we were not having the exercise at all. There is no one else who can validate that the nanny was ever anything other than a figment. No one has ever seen her, no one has ever talked to her, no one has ever pretended to see or talk to her. Just Casey. Ergo, we can assume the Nanny is a figment that is real only to Casey. Since everyone else's perception is the same (that they have never seen or talked to the nanny) it is a system of logic to determine whether the nanny is a figment you're willing to beleive in, or exclude as logically possible.
 
Also Baez says "My client is innocent" ... and Lee says "To this day, I believe everything my sister tells me is the truth" ... this tells me that the defense is sticking to KC's story as is ... Nanny and all! You have to ask why did KC plead not guilty to ALL charges, including lying to the police? I think that they are going to, as preposterous as it sounds to us, ... stick with the original story.

I remember a philosophy class that I took my Freshman year in college where the professor gave us an exercise ... he said "I want you to prove to me that you exist" ... it sounds easy, right? But each student came up to the front of the class confident that they could prove their existence ... and each time the professor would calmly explain how whatever was done or said in no way proved our existence. I know that this is really abstract ... but it is what comes to my mind when ever I think of the defense strategy ... prove that ZFG does not exist! Now, I do not think that Philosophy 101 will affect the jury ... I believe that they will roll their eyes, just like so many of us in that classroom did!


I think you are absolutely correct. The prosecution and LE almost has provided the defense with their strategy. LE couldn't prove there WAS a ZFG, the defense only has to suggest there was (not prove it). The defense will not have to provided a physical ZFG, just a suggestion to provide doubt that "hey, maybe.......". But just what would that suggestive theory evidence be? Unless they pull witnesses off of the street who will say they saw/met/heard of ZFG, or they can produce cell phone records showing what LE hasn't, all they will have is the "mistruths" told by KC which have already been disproven by LE and the physical evidence they have provided.
 
The difference between our PHL 101 exercise (I did it too!) is that at some point, we're able to convince the other people sitting in the classroom that even if we are a sentient being but a figment of everyone's imagination, we are a collective figment and therefore just as sentient as if we were not having the exercise at all. There is no one else who can validate that the nanny was ever anything other than a figment. No one has ever seen her, no one has ever talked to her, no one has ever pretended to see or talk to her. Just Casey. Ergo, we can assume the Nanny is a figment that is real only to Casey. Since everyone else's perception is the same (that they have never seen or talked to the nanny) it is a system of logic to determine whether the nanny is a figment you're willing to beleive in, or exclude as logically possible.

Yes, logic and taxes. :) Bring on the W-2's!
 
According to this link, apparently, Casey's defense IS going to be someone else (the Nanny?) did it... Read here:

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/200...defense-and-the-odds-of-an-acquittal-page-2a/

Even though Baez claimed he wasn’t going to “disclose” his upcoming defense of Casey Anthony, Kenney-Baden did reveal that the defense is planning to use the “Sam Sheppard”, or “The Fugitive” defense. This means that the defense will be relying on a case that was sensational for its time, a case where Dr. Shepard was convicted in 1954 of murdering his wife. Shepard claimed a “bushy haired stranger” was the culprit. The 1960’s television show, “The Fugitive” was based on Shepard.

Using the Sam Shepard defense would mean the defense would have to prove someone else other than her mother Casey, murdered little Caylee. Since there are no witnesses to the crime, nor other suspects, other than the mysterious “nanny”, then the defense will have to rely on casting doubt on the prosecution’s forensic evidence, which is what Kenney-Baden alluded to during her appearance on the Today Show:

“This case may not be science, may not be accurate, may never have been tested, may not be reliable,” Baden said, pointing out that the defense team has yet to be given all of the state’s scientific evidence.

This will be the defense’s method of attack of the forensic evidence, casting doubt on the gathering, accuracy, reliability, and “science” of the evidence. Yet in the 1954 Sam Sheppard case, forensic evidence wasn’t the same as today with the advent of DNA and other scientific methods which were unknown in the 1950’s.

What the defense might try to prove is whether the forensic investigators for the prosecution “bungled” the evidence with faulty collection, “chain of evidence”, substandard testing procedures, or a relatively new science, the detection of the odor of human decomposition. The state of Florida has used the resources of FBI’s Quantico forensic unit as well as other accredited sources so the defense may find itself in an uphill battle in discrediting their findings, which most likely will be addressed by the numerous “hired guns” on Casey’s defense team.

In order for the state to garner a first degree (capital) murder conviction, the prosecution will have to prove premeditation. Two pieces of forensic evidence come to mind which may or may not bolster the state’s contention that Casey Anthony did intend to kill her daughter: the duct tape recovered from Caylee’s remains and the presence of traces of chloroform in the trunk of Casey’s car.

The prosecution will present witnesses who will testify to their findings, the defense will then have their own rebuttal witnesses, or “hired guns”, who will attempt to discredit the prosecution’s findings and/or witnesses who present the evidence. If the defense is unable to discredit the aforementioned forensic evidence, then the prosecution may be able to sway the jury into finding that Casey Anthony intentionally murdered her daughter Caylee.

The Duct Tape

According to forensic reports, duct tape was found covering Caylee’s mouth. The jury will be presented evidence which showed that when Caylee’s remains were discovered, her skull was separate from her body, and that all that remained on her skull was her hair and duct tape placed across her mouth. Other forensic evidence will show that the same type and brand of duct tape was found on a red gas can which belonged to the Anthony family. The red gas can was located in a backyard shed. Also found in the same shed, a black plastic garbage bag with yellow ties, a match to the one Caylee’s remains were found in.

Casey’s defense has already begun to attempt to discredit the duct tape evidence, because, to the defense and the prosecution, the duct tape takes on significant meaning. On February 18, co-counsel Linda Kenney-Baden had this quote for the press:

“Not only is this brand of tape the most widely sold in the United States, the State is relying on comparative analysis just like comparisons exposed as flawed in the study of bullet lead in 2004. These chemical studies have put hundreds of innocent people in jail.”

It’s yet to be determined if a jury will buy into Kenney-Baden’s claim that the duct tape comparative analysis is “flawed”.

On February 18, Attorney Jose Baez had this to say about the duct tape evidence:

“The defense said its own experts would conduct an objective analysis of the evidence. They noted the duct tape, found to be similar to that on the gas can, is the most widely sold duct tape in the nation. “It is just as important to focus on the fact that there are no fingerprints on the duct tape, and there never was any red sticker of any shape or size found on the tape,” defense attorney Jose Baez said.”

Yet FBI forensic investigators will present evidence that the duct tape did contain an “indentation” the size and shape of a heart shaped sticker. Prosecutors will also provide evidence that a heart shaped sticker was found where the remains were discovered. Evidence will also show a match between the sticker found at the site of Caylee’s remains, matched a sheet of heart shaped stickers found in the Anthony home.

Yet the defense will also have the extra burden of trying to explain to the jury just how someone else other than Casey Anthony had used the same type of black garbage bags with yellow ties, the same type of laundry bag, the same brand and type of duct tape, and the same type of heart shaped stickers found with Caylee’s remains that were also found in the Anthony home. The defense would have to tie the conspirators to the trunk of Casey’s car, to the odor of human decomposition, and to the Anthony’s home.
 
According to this link, apparently, Casey's defense IS going to be someone else (the Nanny?) did it... Read here:

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/200...defense-and-the-odds-of-an-acquittal-page-2a/
Thanks for that link-it is an interesting article, a good summary of the case, itemizing how much evidence the defense will have to overcome. Unless they can totally confuse the jury on the forensics, I don't think the defense has a chance. The circumstantial evidence is just too overwhelming. Definitely worth reading!

http://www..net/120032
 
The difference between our PHL 101 exercise (I did it too!) is that at some point, we're able to convince the other people sitting in the classroom that even if we are a sentient being but a figment of everyone's imagination, we are a collective figment and therefore just as sentient as if we were not having the exercise at all. There is no one else who can validate that the nanny was ever anything other than a figment. No one has ever seen her, no one has ever talked to her, no one has ever pretended to see or talk to her. Just Casey. Ergo, we can assume the Nanny is a figment that is real only to Casey. Since everyone else's perception is the same (that they have never seen or talked to the nanny) it is a system of logic to determine whether the nanny is a figment you're willing to beleive in, or exclude as logically possible.

Aaaaack... reading this at 5:30am... wow...

Are these imajenary people sitting in the imajenary classroom with you, who each firmly believe that he/she exists and is not imajenary, but who by perceiving the same of each other, that each other exists, hereby agree that the other, too, does exist, and therefore all exist- is your next class by any chance, Algebra, where Teacher will talk today about imajenary numbers (square root of a negative number)? Cuz if you believe in the existence of imagenary numbers, it's not that much of a stretch to believe in the existence of the nanny, right?

Must... go... back... to... bed...
 
If the jury only has the option of 1st degree murder, I think the defense will go with an 'accidental death' scenario. Casey got scared, hid the body, then lied her arse off. I heard a talking head say that if a juror believes it was an accident, they must vote NG. I don't know if that's correct and a few people have posed that question on this forum. I haven't seen an answer yet.

I don't think it will work though. I think a jury will see through the defense stunts. At least I hope so. But then again, look at what happened with OJ.
 
If the jury only has the option of 1st degree murder, I think the defense will go with an 'accidental death' scenario. Casey got scared, hid the body, then lied her arse off. I heard a talking head say that if a juror believes it was an accident, they must vote NG. I don't know if that's correct and a few people have posed that question on this forum. I haven't seen an answer yet.

I don't think it will work though. I think a jury will see through the defense stunts. At least I hope so. But then again, look at what happened with OJ.

If KC was giving Caylee sedatives, wouldn't it still be 1st degree murder? I think NG was arguing this point one night on her show.

As to OJ, there is no MarkF in this case and I hope no possibility of "jury nullification" especially in the death of a child.

JMO-Sue
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
156
Guests online
2,788
Total visitors
2,944

Forum statistics

Threads
603,655
Messages
18,160,396
Members
231,810
Latest member
uhohspaghettiO
Back
Top