Defense What is their strategy? #1

[trixi491]

What about the cell phone pings and computer activity that show Casey was at her parent's house or within a block of it until 4 p.m. on June 16?

Then Casey's pings show her going straight to Tony's apartment.

Yup, and that's why I said it's BS

 

[coco puff]

I'm so worried. What if the defense basically says KC lied about it being Zani that took Caylee? What if she says she was afraid to say the real name of the person who took Caylee because of their threats? What if she says it wasn't the Nanny at all and just a stranger? Please tell me this won't work!! Can we gather together some reasons why this defense won't work?

When did she first mention a threat?
Why didn't she yell at her mom not to call police or they would KILL Caylee?

 

[Robyn623]

She partied for 31 days and never told a soul that Caylee was "missing". Also, the decomp in her car. I'm sure there are many more reasons why that defense wouldn't work but those are the 2 that stuck out at me.

 

[rcvela001]

that has been my thoughts all along. I am wiating for the trial to see what happens.
How ever, she will have to take the stand to say anything at all.
I doubt JB would let her do that as it is considered a no-no.
They prosecution will have to use her signed statement to go on if she doesn't take the stand. and she cant change it now.
so, this will be an interesting one indeed.

 

[Mereille]

The defense better go with an accident theory, perhaps even blaming TL or someone else she was sleeping with and saying she lied to protect them. I reckon it is their only shot - There is no way that the sitter theory is going to help KC in court - personally if i was CA instead of parading around lying to the media in the beginning i would've focussed on getting JB thrown off the cae. There is no way i wouldv'e let him defend KC - CA was doing a better defense herself with the pizza theory, reported sightings oh - and not to forget the PI videotaping the remains before they were found.

KC has no defense - No story - nothing!!!! - All they can do is put holes in the prosecutions story - they are pretty much screwed - if KC gets off I am going to rob a million pounds from a bank in florida and hire JB

 

[Mereille]

that has been my thoughts all along. I am wiating for the trial to see what happens.
How ever, she will have to take the stand to say anything at all.
I doubt JB would let her do that as it is considered a no-no.
They prosecution will have to use her signed statement to go on if she doesn't take the stand. and she cant change it now.
so, this will be an interesting one indeed.

Ooooooooooooooh i love the newbie smilies

 

[coco puff]

that has been my thoughts all along. I am wiating for the trial to see what happens.
How ever, she will have to take the stand to say anything at all.
I doubt JB would let her do that as it is considered a no-no.
They prosecution will have to use her signed statement to go on if she doesn't take the stand. and she cant change it now.
so, this will be an interesting one indeed.

So you are saying that there is no way to introduce a new theory/story without KC getting on the stand???. i hope i hope i hope.....

 

[warbuckle]

The defense may say Casey was telling the truth when she said she had not seen Caylee in 31 days, being the morning of June 15?

There are no witnesses outside the family who have stated to have seen Caylee in the company of anyone other then Cindy on the afternoon of June 15, the only evidence that exists of Caylee last being alive (pic/vid) is in the company of Cindy.

As much as I don't believe for one minute that Cindy harmed Caylee, is there real proof that Caylee was taken out of the Anthony house by Casey on June 15/16?

Any proof that Casey had been home June 15/16?

The hair found in the back of the car is incriminating, but it was discovered after Cindy had inspected the trunk of the car and taken items (clothing) out of the car, can it be ruled out the hair got in there when the car was inspected by Cindy?

I liked that out of the box thinking. Perhaps it was CA who was trying to teach KC a lesson.

 

[warbuckle]

I got one. Suppose Ric was the "nanny" and he was watching Caylee while he thought KC was "working". He can't get her to sleep and uses the chloroform but over does it and kills her. When KC gets back she freaks out. Her and Ric come up with the Kidnapping story and the put caylee in the trunk until then can figure out what to do then evently dispose of her in the wooded lot. KC drives her care to Amscot and leaves it hoping it will be stolen. If this happened then the Defense could say the KC did not kill her daughter and still kinda stick with the "nanny" thing but only in the sense she used to tell her mom Ric was actually Zani.

 

[~ Amy ~]

I'm so worried. What if the defense basically says KC lied about it being Zani that took Caylee? What if she says she was afraid to say the real name of the person who took Caylee because of their threats? What if she says it wasn't the Nanny at all and just a stranger? Please tell me this won't work!! Can we gather together some reasons why this defense won't work?

When did she first mention a threat?
Why didn't she yell at her mom not to call police or they would KILL Caylee?

IMO It would have been a more believeable lie if KC would have used a story of a "stranger ", rather than the so-called nanny that she has spoke about for two years. I just can't see how the defense could go with a "stranger did it". Especially now when everyone knows that "zany the nanny" has been talked about in the A home for at least 2 years , as well as to Kc's friends. It looks like to me that the defense would have to produce "KC's zanny the nanny" the exact one that KC has talked about for 2 yrs , and let everyone know that KC blamed her out of fear of saying the strangers name etc. And at this point , I think if there was a real zanny in Kc's life , she would have already stepped forward along time ago ,to not only have her name cleared , but also so LE could put their focus on other avenues. Last I checked there is no phone records , no eye witnesses of KC's beloved zanny , and nothing to prove that this "zanny the nanny" even existed or exists. Not to mention if the defense were going to use the "stranger abduction" then why aren't they out here searching and using their TV exposure to find this stranger ? I just cant see the stranger abduction working at this point. In all reality "zanny the nanny" is a stranger to everyone... but KC. Hmmmm!!

 

[rcvela001]

So you are saying that there is no way to introduce a new theory/story without KC getting on the stand???. i hope i hope i hope.....

I believe that is correct. However, I am not a legal guru, so I will stand to be corrected.

I've always heard that lawyers dont/shouldn't put their clients on the stand unless absolutely necessary. And then again, JB has been saying "my client wants her day in court.....you don't know the half of the story......blah blah blah...." maybe he plans to let her take the stand.

 

[rcvela001]

I believe that is correct. However, I am not a legal guru, so I will stand to be corrected.

I've always heard that lawyers dont/shouldn't put their clients on the stand unless absolutely necessary. And then again, JB has been saying "my client wants her day in court.....you don't know the half of the story......blah blah blah...." maybe he plans to let her take the stand.

And you know what else? Purjury is a crime too!

she has so many half truths and lies to remember..............

 

[warbuckle]

no way would I put her on the stand but man I would love to hear her answer those tough questions under oath. I am wonder if a person in jail for murder cares about purjury.

 

[auntbaby]

To paraphrase Baez in court yesterday "I see evidence every day that my client is innocent". ????????
My mind is a simple one yes ,but, Since it is a hard fact that Casey did not report her helpless two year old child missing (or kidnapped) for 30 days, give or take, and then only did so after her mother forced her to, partied like a demon most of that time with a smile on her face (a real one) and lied to LE every step of the way with no remorse. How can he say that with a straight face? And as far as the whole "the bad people gave me a script and I wuz scared" crap, surely he won't use that, no woman on the jury who has a child will ever be able to "see" herself following Casey's footprints if that ever happened to her child. No woman who has ever had the mother's instinct to protect her child at all cost , will be able to even imagine themselves partying till they puke after some monster stole their child.
And yes , I know that Casey did not have that instinct. That is crystal clear.

 

[Whisperer]

I think they are going to tell us that casey has another and distinct personality. That covers "you only know half the story" and "I believe everything casey tells me".

 

[trixi491]

I'm so worried. What if the defense basically says KC lied about it being Zani that took Caylee? What if she says she was afraid to say the real name of the person who took Caylee because of their threats? What if she says it wasn't the Nanny at all and just a stranger? Please tell me this won't work!! Can we gather together some reasons why this defense won't work?

When did she first mention a threat?
Why didn't she yell at her mom not to call police or they would KILL Caylee?

If it was some stranger, the defense would be on the hunt for this person and warning the public about him/her. If there is a child murderer on the loose you don't just hold back that info because you want to wait for it to be revealed at court possibly 2 years down the road. Why would they also let their client sit in jail and not even attempt to look for the person who did this. If this person was able to threaten KC, she must have gotten a good look at him/her and should have put out a description once Caylee's remains were found. Also, if it was a stranger I would believe KC would have been WAY more worried than she seemed to be 6/16-7/15. She could say she didn't seem that worried b/c she knew deep down Zani loved Caylee and really would never hurt her. That's not the case with a stranger. Also, all cell phone pings on the 16th prove she was at the A house most of the day. I find it unlikely that a stranger broke into their house in day light to take Caylee. JMO.

 

[debbie0604]

I'm not worried.... defense is talking about a "bushy haired stranger" for their dense strategy... wonder if they are still going to use that? I'm not worried. I think the prosecution needs to remain cool. They got all the evidence.

 

[MsRyber]

I still think KC's fate is sealed.
The investigators took BAGS and BAGS of evidence from the A's.
There won't be ONE hair, ONE fiber or ONE smudge of DNA on any of her things that shows a nanny.
Reasonable doubt? Who in their right mind would believe a child who spends all of this time with the nanny wouldn't have at least some DNA from said nanny on her person, or on any of her belongings? That is simply an impossibility, IMO. Not on a doll, a blanket, a toy, a piece of clothing, nothing. Not in a car seat, backpack, or anything else.

I think it is over, over, over.

I am guessing "unit #210" at Sawgrass and resultant areas have been swabbed.
Caylee's never touched anything? Right.

All of the lies put together sealed many a person's fate, even with no DNA evidence.

I can't see any possible scenario where KC isn't found guilty.

 

[Bishoptutu]

If I was a juror on this trial and they tried to say the killer is still out there it would leave me to question the fact that the evidence shows there was no Zenida so its going to be hard to sell that one. Because the first assumption I would have would be if that person is out there how come each time the cops tried to find them they came up with nothing. They have got to find a smarter way to get over because that isn't going to fly. Once the prosecution keeps proving there is no Zenida the lie will point right back to KC to explain why she had no way to get in contact with her 'nanny'.

I'm not understanding why a plea hasn't happened? The more I think about the evidence the more I wonder WTH is Casey thinking?

 

[nyvictoria]

I still think KC's fate is sealed.
The investigators took BAGS and BAGS of evidence from the A's.
There won't be ONE hair, ONE fiber or ONE smudge of DNA on any of her things that shows a nanny.
Reasonable doubt? Who in their right mind would believe a child who spends all of this time with the nanny wouldn't have at least some DNA from said nanny on her person, or on any of her belongings? That is simply an impossibility, IMO. Not on a doll, a blanket, a toy, a piece of clothing, nothing. Not in a car seat, backpack, or anything else.

I think it is over, over, over.

You would think so, wouldn't you? I just hope they don't get too heavily into the forensics. Even a highly educated jury may get lost or bored with long accounts of cell phone pings, entomology, air samples, etc. DNA & FPs (or the lack thereof) along with Casey's behavior after the supposed kidnapping will slam the door to her cell permanently :behindbar