Former Defense Attorney,Todd Macaluso *Merged*

[SoCalSleuth]

Good luck with that. I know someone who was diagnosed as bipolar at the age of 22 after he had committed felony embezzlement and his atty wouldn't even consider it as a defense because he said it wouldn't fly. Bipolars display poor judgement during the manic phase but they still know right from wrong. Its not like schizophrenia where you can have a total disconnect from reality.

I wasn't referring to the murder. I was referring to them painting her as bi-polar to explain the partying after Caylee "disappeared".

 

[SoCalSleuth]

I'm just so confused as to why all these brilliant, high-profile attorneys are taking on this case? Do they honestly believe she is innocent? They can't be THAT oblivious. I can get why OJ's defense team joined the case--he was paying them a lot of money and was a celebrity. KC was a nobody with absolutely no money. Just doesn't make sense to me..

Some in the media have stated this trial is going to be "the trial of the century." Now if they lose and KC is convicted, how many people will really remember any of the attorney's names five years later. (Sure we will but I'm talking about the rest of the world) However, if they win, well, there ya have it--they will be the lawyers of the century. Remember, as good a lawyer as he was beforehand, no one knew (or cared) who F. Lee Bailey was until he got Sam Shephard acquitted.

 

[trixi491]

I wasn't referring to the murder. I was referring to them painting her as bi-polar to explain the partying after Caylee "disappeared".

Didn't KC say she took a psychological test and passed? And if she did, would these records throw that theory out the window?

 

[Verité]

The problem is that the jury system is infallible. Yes, the greatest system in the world but still infallible. . . .

Our jury system is infallible? . . .greatest. . .but infallible?
Are you sure it isn't even slightly fallible. . .sometimes. . .occasionally. . .once in a great while fallible, maybe?

 

[Verité]

Didn't KC say she took a psychological test and passed? And if she did, would these records throw that theory out the window?

Unlike polygraph tests, there are no pass/fail results in authentic objective & projective psychological tests administered during a psychological evaluation. Test "results" are interpreted by the expert conducting the evaluation. But, for every prosecution expert psychological or psychiatric conclusion, there would likely be dispute by an opposing, but equally impressive defense psychological or psychiatric expert.

 

[Bobbisangel]

I can't remember if it was on Nancy Grace or one of the other shows but it was brought up...what if Casey gave Caylee something that caused her death. One of the attorneys said that it still would be considered murder because she was given something by her mother that ended her life. I hope that is correct.

On Nancy Grace the other night it was said that some think the defense is going to try and blame a lover of Caseys. Not Tony but another one. The one who had chlorform on his website. Baez wants all of the info from the guys computer, etc. I wonder if this might be true or they are looking for someone to blame besides the Nanny.

 

[Bobbisangel]

I would not underestimate TM's ability in a courtroom. He is a compelling force before a jury. Out of all the attorney's on KC's team he is THE formidable opponent. JMHO.

But Caylee has the most powerful attorney/judge on her side. That is where I'm going to place my faith and believe that the best attorney/judge ever is going to make sure Caylee gets justice. If the Lord is in control it won't matter how good the defense is.

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

There is no bail offered on capital murder charges in FL.

Exactly! Why do lawyers come into a case such as this and start spouting their mouths off? Isn't that why the defense has this new super duper spokesperson? AND, shouldn't TM check the laws of the state he's in BEFORE he starts talking about what he can and cannot do?
I'm impressed by his CIVIL record...but, as we saw from the OJ civil trial, the required "evidence", per se, is far less to get a judgement. The questions that can be asked/answered are of a different "caliber", so to speak. Seems many of the questions asked in a civil trial are more lax, in terms of being objected to by a prosecution, IMO. Hope this makes sense.

 

[mibright]

I'm just so confused as to why all these brilliant, high-profile attorneys are taking on this case? Do they honestly believe she is innocent? They can't be THAT oblivious. I can get why OJ's defense team joined the case--he was paying them a lot of money and was a celebrity. KC was a nobody with absolutely no money. Just doesn't make sense to me..

Attorneys are taught in law school that it is not an issue whether someone is innocent or guilty. It's a matter of defending the person, no matter what. Kind of like a game of chess. You choose a side (like whether or not to accept a case) and that is your position until the end.

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

I wasn't referring to the murder. I was referring to them painting her as bi-polar to explain the partying after Caylee "disappeared".

Please don't take this at all personally...and I'm not contradicting you....so please don't get mad, OK??

IIRC, from the first weeks in this case, when Casey had her first psych analysis in the jail, the results were reported as somewhat inconclusive and no one wanted or could quite figure out exactly what that inferred. BUT....and I need to go back to the transcripts, there was an attorney speaking for Casey on NG, not Baez, who said that she WAS NOT mentally ill. I remember that, because I said to myself that this was gonna come back and haunt them in the end. That they shouldn't have said that so early on in the case.
Now, I know it's been said a bizillion times that people act/react differently to different situations. But...goin out dancing while your child is missing, IMO, is NOT one of those things. I'm diagnosed as bi-polar. Basically you're spinning in circles ...although her pole act could be considered close to that...:crazy: Usually you get so overwhelmed by it all you just can't DO anything....and you feel like there's something you NEED to do but can't get rid of the feeling. Again, "everyone reacts differently"....but according to most of the descriptions of bi-polar, almost everyone on this earth could use the bi-polar defense. I find it really hard to believe the defense could even get a psych to say that her actions after her child went missing were bi-polar. Although, I think they have a great defense for "mono-polar"....behaving "manic" for years.....
Again, IMO....and I'm not a MD.

 

[SuziQ]

I can't remember if it was on Nancy Grace or one of the other shows but it was brought up...what if Casey gave Caylee something that caused her death. One of the attorneys said that it still would be considered murder because she was given something by her mother that ended her life. I hope that is correct.

On Nancy Grace the other night it was said that some think the defense is going to try and blame a lover of Caseys. Not Tony but another one. The one who had chlorform on his website. Baez wants all of the info from the guys computer, etc. I wonder if this might be true or they are looking for someone to blame besides the Nanny.

That and in Florida it's murder to kill your child while commiting physical child abuse. Any type of physical child abuse has the ability to cause death, so Florida doesn't allow that to be considered an accident. I would think dosing a child to get them to sleep would be considered child abuse.

I am very interested to see what the defense has up their sleeve. However, when Geragos represented Scott Peterson, he claimed to have alot up his sleeve also. In the end he had nothing and could only attack the prosecution evidence.

Lol, I remember during the trail the talking heads shaking their heads and asking "Where's all that stuff he promised us that would free his client?!!"

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

That and in Florida it's murder to kill your child while commiting physical child abuse. Any type of physical child abuse has the ability to cause death, so Florida doesn't allow that to be considered an accident. I would think dosing a child to get them to sleep would be considered child abuse.

I am very interested to see what the defense has up their sleeve. However, when Geragos represented Scott Peterson, he claimed to have alot up his sleeve also. In the end he had nothing and could only attack the prosecution evidence.

Lol, I remember during the trail the talking heads shaking their heads and asking "Where's all that stuff he promised us that would free his client?!!"

IIRC, wasn't there supposedly a van full of "hippies" driving around "looking suspicious"....:crazy: You must admit, he DID give it the ol' college try with that one...LOL

 

[MiraclesHappen]

If they are able to convince a jury that it was an accident, would KC get off completely free?

Not to worry.
I don't see what the commotion this new guy is trying to incite, as truly warranted.

Fine, let him prove it was an accident.

Florida law has it covered. It is still a first degree felony unless the toddler is shown to be responsible for her own cause of death. Not gonna happen.

I don't see a big gain for the defense, if it is shown to be an accident.


And then there are all the fraud charges, on the back burner....

Whether it's manslaughter or murder, I really don't think she see the light of day again.

Florida Statute 782.07:






(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.




My Humble Opinion is above.

:smiliescale: and :wolf:

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

Not to worry.
I don't see what the commotion this new guy is trying to incite, as truly warranted.

Fine, let him prove it was an accident.

Florida law has it covered. It is still a first degree felony unless the toddler is shown to be responsible for her own cause of death. Not gonna happen.

I don't see a big gain for the defense, if it is shown to be an accident.


And then there are all the fraud charges, on the back burner....

Whether it's manslaughter or murder, I really don't think she see the light of day again.

Florida Statute 782.07:






(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.




My Humble Opinion is above.

:smiliescale: and :wolf:

Gonna ask for your humble opinion/knowledge OR anyone who can help....I don't believe TM is licensed to practice law in Fla...so he can't really question the witnesses during the trial, the same for LKB...or am I mistaken?
TIA

 

[RevCrim]

Even if they try to claim Caylee drank a chemical accidentaly- KC did not call 911 or try to save her- no rushing her to a hospital, no running to a nearby house, no screaming for help, only calling her parents and friends--why?
because she had something to hide........not reaching anyone, decided to just keep it to herself. Make up stories all along where the child was, until she could get out of town and never have contact with her family or friends again- start her "Beautiful Life" Alone !
If the child accidently took pills or drank a chemical, where was she and where was KC, when it happened? On the phone, on the PC, or having sex? She surely would have been guilty of neglect, and allowing the child to die, instead of trying to help her. Bottom line is the tape over the mouth and the heart sticker, were no accident-Nor was getting rid of her belongings- This was more like - Maybe, KC taped her mouth and choked her, just like CA allegedly did her. The tape to keep her quiet during it and the heart sticker as a good ridance "snothead."
The belongings were more of a get out of my life and take your crap with you.
Truth is- the last physical person seen with Caylee was KC.

She also blew the Zanny the Nanny theory- she told her friends sometimes the Nanny had Caylee and sometimes her parents had Caylee---Why change back and forth if it was the Nanny? Because her friends questioned her. She knew some people were smarter than her family. So she used the story that worked for the occasion. Why, because she had something to hide.
One who kidnaps does not stop to take a ton of belongings as well. They want only the child.
KC was stunned that LE questioned her so long and dumbfounded when they took her on the tour of University and Sawgrass Apts. Her story was made up of whatever popped into her head. KC really thought LE would take her back home and she would be able to run. When LE told KC she was not on the video at Sawgrass Apts. she changed her story to JBP. Anything to keep them away from where the child actually died, and was thrown away like trash.
None of her stories make a lick of sense. They reek of guilt and selfishness, and cold blooded murder.
And last, but certainly not least- How can any grandparent even think of making money off their dead murdered granchild- this was apparently being planned before the child was actually found. CA was talking about writing a book- about what? How I found my grandchild on my own alive. Doesn't sound like a best seller. A movie deal- the A's going from Target to McDonald's, and malls for 2 hours. Who would pay to watch that?

These people knew a lot more than what they claim. Fragile? I think Cunning is more like it.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

Gonna ask for your humble opinion/knowledge OR anyone who can help....I don't believe TM is licensed to practice law in Fla...so he can't really question the witnesses during the trial, the same for LKB...or am I mistaken?
TIA

Hi Tinkie, It won't matter. :blowkiss:
When lawyers get involved in matters which are away from their "home court" they do so via a "Motion Pro Hoc (or Hac) Vice" which allows them to practice away from the state where they are licensed.

It's done on a case by case basis and the lawyer who travels needs to be "sponsored" so to speak, by a lawyer in good standing with the Bar of the state where the motion is brought, Florida being that state of course in this case.

Once the motion is allowed, it is as if the lawyer who is visiting has a "temporary" bar admission which expires when the case is finished.

That is as always, my humble opinion. I have added a link to a sample motion from Florida. It's how these lawyers from other lands get to be involved in trials.

:smiliescale: & :wolf: (salute to Winston)








http://election2000.stanford.edu/00-2376motionprohacviceChester.pdf

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

Hi Tinkie, It won't matter. :blowkiss:
When lawyers get involved in matters which are away from their "home court" they do so via a "Motion Pro Hoc (or Hac) Vice" which allows them to practice away from the state where they are licensed.

It's done on a case by case basis and the lawyer who travels needs to be "sponsored" so to speak, by a lawyer in good standing with the Bar of the state where the motion is brought, Florida being that state of course in this case.

Once the motion is allowed, it is as if the lawyer who is visiting has a "temporary" bar admission which expires when the case is finished.

That is as always, my humble opinion. I have added a link to a sample motion from Florida. It's how these lawyers from other lands get to be involved in trials.

:smiliescale: & :wolf: (salute to Winston)








http://election2000.stanford.edu/00-2376motionprohacviceChester.pdf

Thank You so much!! :blowkiss: Didn't really want to have to hear LKB question witnesses....there's just something about her....but, oh well. Maybe Judge Stan will have her put a sock in it...

Winnie says "back at ya"!! LOL

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Probably a dumb question, but do we know who is paying for this wonderful new lawyer so eager and duty bound to help Casey with a fair trial? For any lawyers on WS - are there any ethical violations for the absolutely disgusting practice of attorneys traveling from near and far to attach themselves to a case for fame? I am so disgusted with our legal system. This is just wrong.:furious:

 

[JoAnn_W]

But, how do they explain the tape over Caylee's mouth?

If they are going to say this was an accident, then they can explain that away as her being naive enough to think she could make it look like she was kidnapped because she feared her mother's wrath.

JoAnn_W

 

[SuziQ]

IIRC, wasn't there supposedly a van full of "hippies" driving around "looking suspicious"....:crazy: You must admit, he DID give it the ol' college try with that one...LOL

Funny how they weren't mentioned again after opening arguments! IMO, Unless the defense has a real person under the bus, and claim they are Zanny, we won't hear about her after the opening statements either.