Is there any possibility of a Plea Deal on the Murder Charges?

[gibby207]

:floorlaugh:

I'm so happy this trial is finally here.:woohoo:

I have the song "I'm So Excited" by the Pointer Sisters running through my head. Bring on the trial...it has been a loooong 2+ years!

I knowwwww!!!! Us old farts like you and I are coming back to the threads and lurkin. LOL

LOVE IT.

On the other hand... surprised it's been almost 3 years.

 

[Aedrys]

I wonder if she's wishing after today that she would have plead this morning. I don't get her. No, she doesn't want it, but then cries for herself and doesn't seem to have much fun during the jury selection. Does she really think there's one last miracle left for her or something?

 

[MissJames]

OK. I have no expectation that this contribution will put out any speculative wildfires, but here goes.

It is my understanding that the defendant was asked this morning if she was going to enter a plea.

It is my understanding that ICA said no, she was not going to enter a plea.

It is my understanding that this series of questions is not unusual before jury selection in trials.

It is my understanding that ICA was not OFFERED a plea today. She was asked if she wished to enter a plea and she said no. Nope, nohow, no way. ICA wants this to go to trial.

I just hope that you, and all our fabulous mods, have fireproof boots on.

I am more appreciative than words can express.
This is day one and it has been :crazy:

So Thank YOU and hang in there ! Please

 

[logicalgirl]

Sociopaths actually do well in prison in many cases. Look at Scott Peterson for example. Casey even said it's the first time she's been "independent".

:crazy::banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[suepitzl]

When will we get clarification regarding the supposed plea deal?

 

[Mamabear1963]

OK. I have no expectation that this contribution will put out any speculative wildfires, but here goes.

It is my understanding that the defendant was asked this morning if she was going to enter a plea.

It is my understanding that ICA said no, she was not going to enter a plea.

It is my understanding that this series of questions is not unusual before jury selection in trials.

It is my understanding that ICA was not OFFERED a plea today. She was asked if she wished to enter a plea and she said no. Nope, nohow, no way. ICA wants this to go to trial.

My understanding is the same as yours. I also believe it is a standard formality before jury selection in the event the defendant does want to enter a guilty plea, for example, which would negate the need for a trial and therefore a jury. There's a vast difference between a "plea deal" and entering a plea. MOO

Bumping both of these! Just for a reminder.

 

[cloud9]

Kathi Belich is reporting that ICA was given the chance before the jury selection started today and she said no. She would have had to admit to everything.

So it is on.

Thank you!
Good! No plea! She needs to sit through a trial and face this!

 

[lowens1975]

I'm glad she refused. How could they ever expect to believe what she said? I just don't get this Plea dealing! :banghead:

I think if we hear anything that resembles the truth it's going to come from the State Attorney's office side of the courtroom. Simply put, I don't trust Baez or Mason. They've had almost three years to sit around and help her make something up.

She's not 'innocent'. She trying to pull the same game with the State of Florida that has worked with her parents for so long. It's sad, but it's just putting off what's eventually going to happen anyway and it's cost the Florida taxpayers millions.

 

[Crabcake23]

I think if we hear anything that resembles the truth it's going to come from the State Attorney's office side of the courtroom. Simply put, I don't trust Baez or Mason. They've had almost three years to sit around and help her make something up.

She's not 'innocent'. She trying to pull the same game with the State of Florida that has worked with her parents for so long. It's sad, but it's just putting off what's eventually going to happen anyway and it's cost the Florida taxpayers millions.

Well said and right on the money.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Kathi Belich is reporting that ICA was given the chance before the jury selection started today and she said no. She would have had to admit to everything.

So it is on.

It wasn't a 'plea' deal...His Honor asked if she wanted to enter a plea...he gave her an opportunity to plead guilty to forego the jury selections...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Originally Posted by ynotdivein
OK. I have no expectation that this contribution will put out any speculative wildfires, but here goes.

It is my understanding that the defendant was asked this morning if she was going to enter a plea.

It is my understanding that ICA said no, she was not going to enter a plea.

It is my understanding that this series of questions is not unusual before jury selection in trials.

It is my understanding that ICA was not OFFERED a plea today. She was asked if she wished to enter a plea and she said no. Nope, nohow, no way. ICA wants this to go to trial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by panthera
My understanding is the same as yours. I also believe it is a standard formality before jury selection in the event the defendant does want to enter a guilty plea, for example, which would negate the need for a trial and therefore a jury. There's a vast difference between a "plea deal" and entering a plea. MOO

Thank you both...I posted before I saw your posts...It's formality to ask defendant if they want to enter a plea...this is not to be seen as a 'plea deal'...different animal...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

 

[krimekat]

I am sceptical as to why the state left it so long to offer a plea?

Obviously part of the rationale behind the plea has to be cost and/or a weakness in their case.

They would only leave it so late to offer a plea if a weakness in their case suddenly developed or they became aware of (I doubt anything happened that material altered their prospects of success). Obviously cost is something that has been foreseeable for sometime.

So do we think that a plea deal would have been offered earlier?

She was offered a deal earlier (like 2 yrs ago) & did not take it . . .

 

[uklaw]

If this case (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/lafler-v-cooper/) before the SCOTUS goes in the prosecution's favour. It would not matter if JB advised ICA not to accept the plea.

 

[rcvela001]

I feel compelled to post my thoughts, on how selfish ICA is, to expect total strangers to give up 6 to 8 weeks of thier lives away from family and work.
all because she wants to "take it as far as she has to" to prove her innocence, when all she has to do is open her mouth and tell the truth.
if it were an accident, say so......but when I hear the potential jurors talk of hardships and some even rise to the call for duty. but you know it is burden on these people. IMO - ICA is insanely selfish.:twocents:

 

[uklaw]

when all she has to do is open her mouth and tell the truth.

Snipped

Is that really correct though?

If she is guilty of FDM and she does that she is looking at the DP or LWOP depending upon how she reveals it the the State. I doubt this would be an acceptable outcome for ICA.

Frankly, if I was in her position I would feel the same. I appreciate those that say if they murdered their child (something - I might add - that she has not yet been found guilty of) that they would count themselves lucky with LWOP. I doubt I would though and am unsure that it is something you could properly predict without actually being in that situation. Also, "sociopaths" and/or people who do murder their kids for reasons other than due to temporary mental weakness after birth (post-partum depression, etc) may have a totally different outlook than "normal" people.

On the other hand, if she is guilty of killing Caylee by way of neglect or if it was an accident the consensus here is that the prosecution won't accept a plea on that basis. So it seems unlikely that "telling the truth" would be much assistance to her in this scenario.

In short, whatever is the "truth" I am unsure if it is in ICA's interests to tell it prior to a plea deal. As I understand it rarely does one any good to speak to the police/state at all in the USA.

Now, if the state have offered something like 2nd Degree Murder with a stipulation of no life or aggravated manslaughter or something that would give her a reasonable and realistic prospect of release I could certainly see why she should accept such a plea.

 

[MissJames]

Snipped

Is that really correct though?

If she is guilty of FDM and she does that she is looking at the DP or LWOP depending upon how she reveals it the the State. I doubt this would be an acceptable outcome for ICA.

Frankly, if I was in her position I would feel the same. I appreciate those that say if they murdered their child (something - I might add - that she has not yet been found guilty of) that they would count themselves lucky with LWOP. I doubt I would though and am unsure that it is something you could properly predict without actually being in that situation. Also, "sociopaths" and/or people who do murder their kids for reasons other than due to temporary mental weakness after birth (post-partum depression, etc) may have a totally different outlook than "normal" people.

On the other hand, if she is guilty of killing Caylee by way of neglect or if it was an accident the consensus here is that the prosecution won't accept a plea on that basis. So it seems unlikely that "telling the truth" would be much assistance to her in this scenario.

In short, whatever is the "truth" I am unsure if it is in ICA's interests to tell it prior to a plea deal. As I understand it rarely does one any good to speak to the police/state at all in the USA.

Now, if the state have offered something like 2nd Degree Murder with a stipulation of no life or aggravated manslaughter or something that would give her a reasonable and realistic prospect of release I could certainly see why she should accept such a plea.

I can safely predict I would not kill my child.

I can also form an opinion as to her guilt because I have seen the evidence. Presumed innocence refers to our court system ,not personal opinion.

Since WS is a VICTIMS ADVOCATE forum ,I don't feel the need to advocate for what would be good for ICA.
I'm looking for JUSTICE FOR CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY

 

[whiteangora]

I can safely predict I would not kill my child.

I can also form an opinion as to her guilt because I have seen the evidence. Presumed innocence refers to our court system ,not personal opinion.

Since WS is a VICTIMS ADVOCATE forum ,I don't feel the need to advocate for what would be good for ICA.
I'm looking for JUSTICE FOR CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY

bbm
Definitely worth repeating!:tyou:

 

[angeldust]

not an accident, not neglect, just plain old murder and she deserves to rot in jail with other horrible people, imagine she got off and had another baby.....

 

[Anais]

not an accident, not neglect, just plain old murder and she deserves to rot in jail with other horrible people, imagine she got off and had another baby.....

ITA! I am very happy she did not accept a plea deal. In my mind I have never once believed that she would. In fact I am certain that she believes whole heartedly that she will be able to sell what ever baloney the DT has and be believed and acquitted.

 

[faefrost]

My understanding is the same as yours. I also believe it is a standard formality before jury selection in the event the defendant does want to enter a guilty plea, for example, which would negate the need for a trial and therefore a jury. There's a vast difference between a "plea deal" and entering a plea. MOO

I am sure the SA has had a rather basic and firm plea offer on the table pretty much since the beginning. "Tell us everything. Tell us the full truth on how and why you murdered that little girl and we will take the DP off the table and agree to LWOP". It would be stupidity and madness for the state not to offer that. It marks the difference between using the DP for justice or public revenge. This trial is a huge amount of taxpayer dollars. The SA would gladly walk away from that expense for a LWOP and full allocution.

BUT

It is unlikely that the state is backing down any in this deal. They obviously are not going for any "accidental death" claims or manslaughter or negligent homicide pleas. It strikes me that the deal on the table is Murder 1, LWOP.

Chances are the state may have simply asked the defense if they have reconsidered this offer given all of the recent rulings, and now that the trial is about to start. They would have been negligent to the taxpayers not to ask. But I don't think that they are truly seeking to "make a deal". certainly not because of any perceived weakness in their case.