"G (Guilty)" vs "NG (Not Guilty)" Where do you stand?

[Just Jayla]

Remember, if she admitted to an accident at the beginning, she would have to lead LE to the body. Was this something she didn't want to do for some reason?

Great point! Sneakily and Premeditatively Guilty.

 

[Balthazar]

Fear?

This is the gal who yells at her parents and drops f-bombs on them incessantly.

This is the call who stole from them for years, and tot nop punishment.. just enabling.

No, she's not afraid of her parents. They've covered up for her, excused her, and paid off her thefts for quite awhile. When they get in her face, she screams right back at them. Or, she starts a screaming fight, herself.

No, she has never been afraid of her parents. Not physically afraid, anyway. Look at her ping maps. All she did was drive back and forth between her parents house, TonE's, and the clubs.

KC is not afriad of being harmed by her parents. If I yelled, "Here are your *advertiser censored**ing gas cans" at my Dad, I'd still be picking my teeth off the ground.

KC just wants it all- her parents gave her a car. She wants to stay with them WHEN she wants and HOW she wants. She wants money from the folks, now and then. And, she wants the perfect freedom to stay elsewhere whenever she likes, as well. She wants a couple of demand-free homes, without the responsibility of having to pay her own way.

The "I'm afraid Mom will call me a bad mother" thing isn't going to get much sympathy.

Then, there is the alleged fight at the house, on the 15th, that is likely to have been the catalyst for the whole crime. "Mom told me to get a job or get out, and to start taking care of my kid," isn't gong to get much sympathy, either.

KC was afraid. KC is spoiled rotten.

And, if we are tempted to make excuses for her, because she is young, cute, and female, there is also danger that we are enabling her, just as her parents have.

Again, SP did the same thing, and just as coldly. But, he doesn't get the excuses and the sympathy.

I've always thought that any bullying was done BY CA and KC, TO GA and LA. Both of the males act subordinate to both of the females. CA and KC are the two, matriarchial, cats in a bag. The males sort of follow after them.

It's important to remember that the jury most likely will not hear everything we have heard about Casey.

 

[Balthazar]

True. Chronic liars often make that mistake. They embellish WAY too much. They over-explain. They give a lot of detail, but often can't describe the basic outline of the situation.

Say you are calling in sick to work, when you want to go to the beach. Most people would just say, "I have the flu, so I'm not coming in."

The chronic liar would go into long descriptions of symptoms, what the doctor told them, what medicines they are taking, etc.

But, even if she had stuck to simplicity, she would have had to be very good at it.

That Quartz Hill woman who claimed that she was hit over the head, and her baby taken and killed, didn't get far with the story.

Of course, in court, were Casey to take the stand, ALL of her responses would be completely rehearsed ahead of time and limited and controlled so that there would be no embellishment. However, I seriously doubt that Andrea Lyon would put Casey on the stand.

 

[Gaia713]

True. Chronic liars often make that mistake. They embellish WAY too much. They over-explain. They give a lot of detail, but often can't describe the basic outline of the situation.

Say you are calling in sick to work, when you want to go to the beach. Most people would just say, "I have the flu, so I'm not coming in."

The chronic liar would go into long descriptions of symptoms, what the doctor told them, what medicines they are taking, etc.

But, even if she had stuck to simplicity, she would have had to be very good at it.

That Quartz Hill woman who claimed that she was hit over the head, and her baby taken and killed, didn't get far with the story.

(bolding is mine) This is so true. I had a roommate who called in sicck to work all the time. I remember her calling in once saying she'd sspraind her ankle (she had not) and went so far as to rent crutches to use when she returned to the office

 

[Marina2]

Princess Rose, I may be wrong but I don't think the jury could come back with a manslaughter verdict against KC. Caylee was under 18. Culpable negligence leading to the death of a child is aggravated manslaughter, a first degree felony. It's a much more serious charge than manslaughter. I think it can carry a life sentence.

 

[JBean]

I appreciate your thoughts, Princess Rose. However, as posted above, there is no such thing as "reasonable explanation." The legal issue is really about how to use circumstantial evidence. This is nothing new. It is an issue of sufficiency of the evidence. The standard is still "reasonable." One of the things that concerned me is that under the discussion of "reasonable explanation" (which has turned out to be an inaccurate description) there was an assumption that such an explanation would come from the defense. The defense doesn't have to offer anything at all. There is no burden of producing evidence or persuasion on the defense. The beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof applies to rebut the presumption of innocence and that burden is solely on the prosecution. Again, nothing new or unusual here. Clearly, there is no tasking the jury to assign percentage numbers or calibrate evidence. They only have to reach the threshhold of reasonableness.

But the variable here is what each juror considers to be reasonable. Each of us has their own standard for reasonable. the Michael jackson case is one perfect example. Read that thread and you will see how different people can interpret the same facts and/or evidence and find it reasonable or not and come up with completely different conclusions. IMO, Princess Rose was providing one interpretation.

we had a local case of a gang rape complete with a videotape of the attack. I reference it a lot because it was a very telling case to me regarding what a jury may find reasonable and the subsequent inability to predict how a jury may process information.
The girl was drugged and was a ragdoll throughout the tape. but the defense was able to plant the seed that she was faking being drugged, she wasn't passed out at all and was a willing participant.
So, a couple jurors saw what they perceived to be a small thrust of this girls hips during the tape. they took that to mean that it was reasonable to think she was conscious and that perhaps was a willing participant.
Never mind the fact that a pool cue was inserted in her backside and she didn't so much as flinch and that during the entire rest of the tape she was moved around and handled like a ragdoll. IOW, they disregarded very solid evidence that this girl was passed out and drugged because they saw one reasonable glimmer of a possibility that she wasn't.
Result was a hung jury, even with a video of the entire attack.

You just never know what a jury will find reasonable.

 

[Brini]

It's important to remember that the jury most likely will not hear everything we have heard about Casey.

They are going to hear a LOT through the presented evidence. The 31 days, the duct tape, the decomp, et al, will each tell a story to the jury.

They could also see vids of her lying and obstructing LE.

Also, vids like her trip to rent movies on the day her baby prolly died.

 

[JBean]

Sorry. Just saw this and your new thread.

shoot Themis, I am as guilty as the rest.

 

[Brini]

I don't disagree that the defense will in some way play up the contentious home situation, particularly the relationship with Cindy either during the trial or sentencing phase. However, in that case Casey really miscalculated her parent's support. They have been her greatest defenders since day o.. 31, even after the smell in the vehicle, the lies, the theft. She certainly felt safe enough to return home after being bailed out, so safe she even slept in bed with Cindy if I am not mistaken.

But, what will the defense say? Killers who have real, documented proof of having been brutalized by their families rarely get much mileage using the abuse excuse.

"My mother told me to get a job, or she was gonna throw me out of the house. So, I snapped and killed my baby?"

"I was afraid of my parents, because they yelled at me for robbing my granddad. I was SO afraid they'd yell at me, again?"

"I was afraid of my Mom, because she called me a bad mother. Which, of course, I WAS."

Or, "My parents threatened to take back the free car they gave me, so I was scared witless."


Won't fly.;-)

 

[Wudge]

Fear?

This is the gal who yells at her parents and drops f-bombs on them incessantly.

This is the call who stole from them for years, and tot nop punishment.. just enabling.

No, she's not afraid of her parents. They've covered up for her, excused her, and paid off her thefts for quite awhile. When they get in her face, she screams right back at them. Or, she starts a screaming fight, herself.

No, she has never been afraid of her parents. Not physically afraid, anyway. Look at her ping maps. All she did was drive back and forth between her parents house, TonE's, and the clubs.

KC is not afriad of being harmed by her parents. If I yelled, "Here are your *advertiser censored**ing gas cans" at my Dad, I'd still be picking my teeth off the ground.

SNIP

Fear comes in many shapes and sizes. Some people fear the disdain of certain people, perhaps their parents.

Many posters speak to Casey's behavior as being anything but favorable. The referenced post was put together so as to bring some reflection (consideration) on some of her behavior but from a defense perspective.

I think we all expect that defense counsel will not let prosecutors frame Casey's behavior without presenting another view. They will want their view to be considered and remembered -- as I commented on in my reply to Princess Rose -- so that when they refer to it in their closing argument, jurors will know what they are talking about because they well recall the argument. Even more important, defense attorneys would favor jurors who relate to it.

To that end, such an argument might well become a selection factor during voir dire. I have said elsewhere that I expect Casey's attorney to favor men over women and to favor highly educated over lesser educated. Of course, the defense would not expect to seat an all male, highly educated jury. So when it comes to a choice amongst which woman jurors to approve, expect them to try and identify women who did not have a great relationship with their parents.

 

[Brini]

As a distinction, the issue is not whether something is plausible or possible. The measurement is reasonableness.

Which is why SODDI would be a bad choice of defense.

 

[countzero]

Remember, if she admitted to an accident at the beginning, she would have to lead LE to the body. Was this something she didn't want to do for some reason?

Ummmmm, duct tape .... maybe :behindbar

 

[Jolynna]

Fear?

This is the gal who yells at her parents and drops f-bombs on them incessantly.

This is the call who stole from them for years, and tot nop punishment.. just enabling.

No, she's not afraid of her parents. They've covered up for her, excused her, and paid off her thefts for quite awhile. When they get in her face, she screams right back at them. Or, she starts a screaming fight, herself.

No, she has never been afraid of her parents. Not physically afraid, anyway. Look at her ping maps. All she did was drive back and forth between her parents house, TonE's, and the clubs.

KC is not afriad of being harmed by her parents. If I yelled, "Here are your *advertiser censored**ing gas cans" at my Dad, I'd still be picking my teeth off the ground.

KC just wants it all- her parents gave her a car. She wants to stay with them WHEN she wants and HOW she wants. She wants money from the folks, now and then. And, she wants the perfect freedom to stay elsewhere whenever she likes, as well. She wants a couple of demand-free homes, without the responsibility of having to pay her own way.

The "I'm afraid Mom will call me a bad mother" thing isn't going to get much sympathy.

Then, there is the alleged fight at the house, on the 15th, that is likely to have been the catalyst for the whole crime. "Mom told me to get a job or get out, and to start taking care of my kid," isn't gong to get much sympathy, either.

KC was afraid. KC is spoiled rotten.

And, if we are tempted to make excuses for her, because she is young, cute, and female, there is also danger that we are enabling her, just as her parents have.

Again, SP did the same thing, and just as coldly. But, he doesn't get the excuses and the sympathy.

I've always thought that any bullying was done BY CA and KC, TO GA and LA. Both of the males act subordinate to both of the females. CA and KC are the two, matriarchial, cats in a bag. The males sort of follow after them.

I love the part of your post that says if we make excuses for KC because she is young, cute and female we are also enabling.

I'm still furious about Deb LaFave's free pass.

When I say that KC was afraid of Cindy, I meant KC was afraid of Cindy knowing and calling LE. From the Bear and Noose cartoon, I don't think KC expected Cindy to take the "love you no matter what" route if she got caught.

I don't see KC as a frail fragile flower either. She just isn't big on accountablility.

IMO

 

[RR0004]

Evidence of hiding out of fear:
1. Moving to an unknown location and not sharing the address with any family member or longtime friend so her parents would be unable to find her.
2. Not letting her family know about her new group of friends so her parents would not be able to trace her through the new friends.
3. Only returning to the Anthony home when her parents were away from the home.
4. Texting and calling on a limited basis - keeping only enough contact to keep them satisfied and away from her.
5. When notified her brother was coming to the nightclub she was at, she fled.
6. Lying about her whereabouts (trip to Tampa for work) so that her parents would not search for her in Orlando.

Her demeanor in jail could demonstrate her resentment of her parents coming out once she feels she is safe from them.

She stayed at her parents home when on bail because she had no other option and there were outsiders in the home to protect her from her parents - Leonard Padilla's bodyguard.

When she got out on bail, George attacked Casey and demanded to know where Caylee was but the bodyguard was able to thwart the attack.

The defense could use these facts to explain Casey's behavior and make a believable story of her fear of her parents.

...and no...Casey didn't sleep in bed with Cindy, she slept on a mattress on the floor of her parents room with the bodyguard present and watching her at all times. The choice of room was most likely due to the protestors out front because Casey's bedroom had a front facing window and, if you recall, the protesters were making lots of noise through most of the night. In addition, the security people didn't know if someone was going to attempt to shoot Casey through the window or throw something through the window or what might happen. All good reasons to make Casey sleep in a back room, otherwise, there would be no way to be guarantee her safety.

Ok...but I sure hope they don't go that way...'cause if Casey was REALLY afraid she wouldn't have stuck around Orlando as long as she did. She also wouldn't have gone over to the house AT ALL.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

Ok...but I sure hope they don't go that way...'cause if Casey was REALLY afraid she wouldn't have stuck around Orlando as long as she did. She also wouldn't have gone over to the house AT ALL.

Spot on. She would have avoided the place like the plague.

 

[Wudge]

But the variable here is what each juror considers to be reasonable. Each of us has their own standard for reasonable. the Michael jackson case is one perfect example. Read that thread and you will see how different people can interpret the same facts and/or evidence and find it reasonable or not and come up with completely different conclusions. IMO, Princess Rose was providing one interpretation.

SNIP

because they saw one reasonable glimmer of a possibility that she wasn't. Result was a hung jury, even with a video of the entire attack.

[Wudge highlighted "reasonable" with bold print]

You just never know what a jury will find reasonable.

Good post JBean.

Tom Meseareau argued passionately and sometimes brilliantly throughout Jackson's trial. He was persuasive -- Jackson's celebrity staus likely helped though. Winning Jackson's case elevated Tom Mesereau to a "call him first" status.

Regarding your intriguing choice of words; i.e., "reasonable glimmer", I have to ask if you agree with the verdict in the rape case you referenced? I think you do, but I'm not sure.

 

[JBean]

Good post JBean.

Tom Meseareau argued passionately and sometimes brilliantly throughout Jackson's trial. He was persuasive -- Jackson's celebrity staus likely helped though. Winning Jackson's case elevated Tom Mesereau to a "call him first" status.

Regarding your intriguing choice of words; i.e., "reasonable glimmer", I have to ask if you agree with the verdict in the rape case you referenced? I think you do, but I'm not sure.

Thanks W.

Another factor came into play with the jurors that shouldn't have; I know this will frustrate you in particular Wudge. The jury was desperate to find any way to not send these 3 young men (18-19ish) to prison for 50 years. They were charged with so many serious felonies that the term would have most likely been about that. Parents don't like to send young people away that long. Anyway, this came out after interviews with the hung jury members and so the DA retried the men , but they reduced the number counts significantly and won a conviction easily. I do agree they were guilty and justice was ultimately served.
The case was full of interesting issues and that is why I am forever referencing it.


The reason I chose 'reasonable glimmer" was because imo, that is what the jurors clung to in order to not find these boys guilty. It was sliver, but it was reasonable to them and they hung on for dear life lol.

oh man I need a TO for being so far OT.

 

[Brini]

:whip2:

Thanks W.

Another factor came into play with the jurors that shouldn't have; I know this will frustrate you in particular Wudge. The jury was desperate to find any way to not send these 3 young men (18-19ish) to prison for 50 years. They were charged with so many serious felonies that the term would have most likely been about that. Parents don't like to send young people away that long. Anyway, this came out after interviews with the hung jury members and so the DA retried the men , but they reduced the number counts significantly and won a conviction easily. I do agree they were guilty and justice was ultimately served.
The case was full of interesting issues and that is why I am forever referencing it.


The reason I chose 'reasonable glimmer" was because imo, that is what the jurors clung to in order to not find these boys guilty. It was sliver, but it was reasonable to them and they hung on for dear life lol.

oh man I need a TO for being so far OT.

:whip2::whip2::whip2::whip2::whip2::blowkiss:

 

[Brini]

Fear comes in many shapes and sizes. Some people fear the disdain of certain people, perhaps their parents.

Many posters speak to Casey's behavior as being anything but favorable. The referenced post was put together so as to bring some reflection (consideration) on some of her behavior but from a defense perspective.

I think we all expect that defense counsel will not let prosecutors frame Casey's behavior without presenting another view. They will want their view to be considered and remembered -- as I commented on in my reply to Princess Rose -- so that when they refer to it in their closing argument, jurors will know what they are talking about because they well recall the argument. Even more important, defense attorneys would favor jurors who relate to it.

To that end, such an argument might well become a selection factor during voir dire. I have said elsewhere that I expect Casey's attorney to favor men over women and to favor highly educated over lesser educated. Of course, the defense would not expect to seat an all male, highly educated jury. So when it comes to a choice amongst which woman jurors to approve, expect them to try and identify women who did not have a great relationship with their parents.

Political liberals v. political conservatives? Secular v. religious.

 

[doogiesgirl]

(Just for fun)

Consider what might transpire if the defense's opening statement simply said: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the evidence will show that Caylee died from an accident." And for their entire case-in-chief, the defense calls but one witness to the stand, Casey. Who admits she lied on a number of things, but only did so because she was shocked senseless when she found Caylee dead and felt so unbelievably horrible. Casey then goes on to tell an entirely plausible story of accidental death that the prosecutors find jurors are nodding their heads up and down on.

Prosecutors savagely cross-examine Casey, but cannot shake her tour-de-force testimony. And the defense immediately rests its case.

Prosecutors assess their premediation charge to be, at the very least, troubled. Though they do have a manslaughter charge for the jury to consider as well as the premediated murder charge, felony murder is not a charge.

Tee Hee, thats a good one!