KC defense team.What now?

[yolorado]

Most parents whose children have accidents call the paramedics, talk to the authorities, sit by hospital beds, get opinions from doctors and nurses, call their families and friends and let them know what happened. If children die from accidents or natural causes, the funeral home is called, a memorial arraged, family and friends notified, a burial takes place or ashes are scattered, an obituary is often published, church is attended or a wake is had or loved ones gather for support. It's very uncommon for children who aren't murdered or at least profoundly neglected to end up double-bagged in garbage sacks, tossed into swamps like refuse and left there to rot and become skeletonized so they can be scattered and defiled by animals and perhaps someday discovered by strangers. That's very, very rare...at least on my planet.

 

[Valrico Analyzer]

Well Well Well.
I like the developments today.
The defense has returned the favor of the gaff LEO alledgedly made over not allowing the defense to view or observe the active crime scene which several "talking heads" deemed a "major mistake".

Not so fast.

Here ye comes the almighty defense, after an (unsuccessful) emergency petition to the judge to allow them to "observe" the crime scene investigation......after arrogantly marching down to the crime scene with their legal team in tow taking pictures and publicly complaining again; blatantly bellyaching to the press about "excavations", comprimised forensics, not having any evidence left to perform tests on, etc....basically boo-hooing and stamping their feet in temper tantrum unison because they CANT get to it SOON enough...

Finally getting the scene released to them...with LE giving courtesy advance notice...per Judge Stricklands orders..

and THEY DON'T EVEN SHOW UP??

Thats great for the LE.

WHY?

Because when they try to pull that off in court about any critisizm regarding the crime scene, all LE has to ask is, how many hours after we released it did you guys finally mosey over there? The judge said we had to NOTIFY you. Not stand vigil until you showed up. So don't about the evidence, or lack thereof, the condition of the crime scene, etc.

YOU elected not to come. You elected not to try to get any further evidence from there in a timely manner. So either accept what we have to share, or acknowledge any deficiencies in evidence cannot be determined by whether it was the general public comprimising it by plodding thru there because of YOUR lack of due diligence...or becaause the LE harvested and destroyed it.

We'll take that mulligan, thanks Jose!

 

[Valrico Analyzer]

Here's a role play of how that may go down in court:

JB: your honor, we want ALL evidence from the crime scene dismissed.
JS: really? why?
JB: We werent able to watch them. we have no idea what went on. We weren't able to extract anything ourselves. We don't know just how bad its been comprimised.
JS: hmmmm
JS: let me ask you this, Mr. Baez. Did they give you adequate notice it was ready?
JB: yes
JS: Did you enter it immediately upon them vacating it?
JB: No, we waited a while.
JS: So you mean the general public may have had access to it in the meanwhile?
JB: I dunno. We weren't there.
JS: so I have this straight--you're critisising the condition of a crime scene you voluntarily left unattended despite proper notice?
JB: well, we were mad cuz we couldn't watch them. They may have made mistakes.
JS: so the best way to handle that was to let it remain unattended instead of going in there immediately AND BE ABLE TO SAY FIRSTHAND that you know for a FACT they did?
JS: How do youknow what they destroyed versus what the general public did since you weren't there?
JB: Im sure they did, because my expert witnesses said they probably did.

 

[kellync]

Here's a role play of how that may go down in court:

JB: your honor, we want ALL evidence from the crime scene dismissed.
JS: really? why?
JB: We werent able to watch them. we have no idea what went on. We weren't able to extract anything ourselves. We don't know just how bad its been comprimised.
JS: hmmmm
JS: let me ask you this, Mr. Baez. Did they give you adequate notice it was ready?
JB: yes
JS: Did you enter it immediately upon them vacating it?
JB: No, we waited a while.
JS: So you mean the general public may have had access to it in the meanwhile?
JB: I dunno. We weren't there.
JS: so I have this straight--you're critisising the condition of a crime scene you voluntarily left unattended despite proper notice?
JB: well, we were mad cuz we couldn't watch them. They may have made mistakes.
JS: so the best way to handle that was to let it remain unattended instead of going in there immediately AND BE ABLE TO SAY FIRSTHAND that you know for a FACT they did?
JS: How do youknow what they destroyed versus what the general public did since you weren't there?
JB: Im sure they did, because my expert witnesses said they probably did.

Valrico, I love to read your posts. With that being said, is it possible the property owner will not allow anyone on the property? I know I probably wouldnt. If the public has been there already, I didn't know, and if so, sorry for the post..........

 

[JWG]

First, please understand that in most localities LE and the M.E. are joined at the hip. Next, focus on the fact that either LE screwed up in a massive way when they did not find the bag in August or the meter man has more to him that just being lucky.

To get to the M.E's position of undetermined homicide, let's set aside any possibility that the meter man was somehow involved in a sinister way.

This leaves a skull with duct tape (allegedly) wrapped around it and a double bagged body and, allegedly, also some clothing. The integrity of the bags have been compromised and bones have been scattered across a wide area. Flesh and tissue seem not to be availaible -- but there might be some. An entomologist (bug guy) has been brought in to assess what the bugs around the area might be able to speak to. This is likely the bulk of site evidence available to the M.E.

However, outside of the site, LE is taking massive howitzer fire for not discovering the body in August.

Now, the M.E. comes up with homicide from an undetermined cause. Unless the M.E. was able to totally cancel out death by accident or death from misfortune, they cannot logically move to homicide without some evidence to support that finding (except as a guess). However, from what the M.E. has said, there does not seem to be any such evidence and toxicology reports seem not to yet be available.

My suspicion is that the M.E. simply tried to lay down some cover fire for LE's screw-up by issuing a finding of "undetermined homicide". My further suspicion is that on the witness stand, the M.E. will reveal that they used reduction (it was likely not this, it was likley not that) or fuzzy logic to back into their "undetermined homicide" position.

As regards what evidence at the scene might support the M.E's position, is it possible that they found a chloroform bottle in the area? Yes. Is it possible that the clothing was blood stained? Yes. Is it possible that there was a rope found around the neck? Yes. Is it possible that there was a blood stained knife in the area? Yes.

It's possible the M.E, has more evidence to support their position than they are revealing. However, if they had any such evidence, the best way to protect LE would be to reveal it. But that did not happen.

During cross-examination, my expectation is that the M.E. will watch a defense attorney slowly pick their bones clean. It's a price an expert pays for "guessing".

OK, so it is possible the ME is laying covering fire for LE.

Let's assume that the death was accidental. Caylee climbed into the pool while mother was distracted on the computer, and drowned.

What is the crime that has been committed?

Next, mother panics - she's narcissistic and grandmother is about to not only confirm Casey is a terrible mother but also did not have a job or nanny after all - so she decides to hide the accident.

Assume enough evidence points to her putting the body in the bag and dumping it. Is that a crime?

LE investigates and Casey lies about what happened. I assume that is a crime.

Not asking rhetorically - I don't know

1) if your child dies of an accident while you are distracted if that is a crime.

2) if you decide to dispose of human remains on your own rather than through a licensed funeral home, is that a crime.

I do believe that lying to law enforcement is a crime.

 

[maeby]

I don't know if this was discussed before... but if the defense team goes with accidental death, won't there have to be admission of guilt?

I don't think KC will ever do that...

 

[impatientredhead]

OK, so it is possible the ME is laying covering fire for LE.

Let's assume that the death was accidental. Caylee climbed into the pool while mother was distracted on the computer, and drowned.

What is the crime that has been committed?

Next, mother panics - she's narcissistic and grandmother is about to not only confirm Casey is a terrible mother but also did not have a job or nanny after all - so she decides to hide the accident.

Assume enough evidence points to her putting the body in the bag and dumping it. Is that a crime?

LE investigates and Casey lies about what happened. I assume that is a crime.

Not asking rhetorically - I don't know

1) if your child dies of an accident while you are distracted if that is a crime.

2) if you decide to dispose of human remains on your own rather than through a licensed funeral home, is that a crime.

I do believe that lying to law enforcement is a crime.

Generally being charged following an accident depends on two things, what you were doing while the accident happened and how you respond afterwards. I was just reading about a grandmother that was charged following her grandchild drowning in the tub, her first call was not to 911, it was to her daughter, much time was wasted before help was sought, she was charged, she committed suicide so I can't tell you if the charges would have stuck. There have been other cases were the child gets hurt while mom is high or busy with her boyfriend.

 

[Pedrosmom]

Ok, I am fighting a losing battle here, I know, but I keep charging in. What you seem to be saying is any time there is no clear definitive cause of death - such as a knife sticking out of someone's back or a visible gunshot wound, than an ME is only 'guessing' as to the cause of death? Does this also count for any Doctor who makes a diagnosis based on his observations when there is no HUGE tumor present in an x-ray? I am strugging to understand what you are trying to get at.

What would you have needed to be found at the scene to convince you that this was, indeed, a homicide? Would you EVER say this was a homicide, given these same exact circumstances, but having something be found at the scene - perhaps some rope that was in the bag, which still had tissue on it - which might have been wrapped around the victim's throat. THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE - I have no idea what was found at the crime scene. You are stating your opinion with no knowledge of what was found at the crime scene. I am stating my own opinion also with no knowledge of what was found at the crime scene.

Have you looked up Dr. Garavaglia, by the way. I am not talking about her TV show. I am talking about all the cases she has done and all the testimony she has given in hundreds of cases over the years. Would you say this about any Medical Examiner who was in this situation or are you doubting Dr. Garavaglia's expertise in particular. Just curious

Caylee didn't wrap herself in duct tape, slip inside a garbage bag and walk down the street to the nearest forest preserve to hide out because she was ticked off at her mother.

Accidental death usually results in a caregiver calling 911, calling ANYONE, at the time of the accident, looking/screaming for help. Accidental death doesn't involve a made up nanny kidnapping story with occasional modifications with a script to boot. Accidental death doesn't involve hiding of a body, duct tape, garbage bags, chloroform, abandoned cars infested with decomp. Homicide, with forethought and concealment. No tears, no panic, no calls, nothing.

 

[Pedrosmom]

Might I add that the cause of death of Laci P. was never determined, her remains almost nil, yet SP sits on death row in San Quentin. Dream team and all. His "walking the dog" theory was a lot more reasonable than Zanny the ghost nanny.

 

[Valrico Analyzer]

Valrico, I love to read your posts. With that being said, is it possible the property owner will not allow anyone on the property? I know I probably wouldnt. If the public has been there already, I didn't know, and if so, sorry for the post..........

I'd imagine a court order would override the property owners right to forbid access if it were an active crime scene....

 

[Valrico Analyzer]

Might I add that the cause of death of Laci P. was never determined, her remains almost nil, yet SP sits on death row in San Quentin. Dream team and all. His "walking the dog" theory was a lot more reasonable than Zanny the ghost nanny.

True that.

 

[Valrico Analyzer]

Wudge..love the military aspect to your theory!
What about if ME left LE exposed to draw fire, and planned a flank by drawing the defense in on the overconfidence that there was nothing there, and ambush them with overwhelming firepower in the name of evidence? lol

What would you then suggest, aerial bombardment in the form of propaganda pamphlets from the defense spouting "reasonable doubt"?(smile)

 

[kellync]

I'd imagine a court order would override the property owners right to forbid access if it were an active crime scene....

ok, let me see if I am following here. The court order would allow the defense team access to the property? It is no longer an active crime scene, is it?
I am just thinking out loud here, I secretly hope that there is a way that the owner of the property wont let JB and Co. on is property. Thanks in advance for clarifying................

 

[cyberborg]

OK, I will say something else. When a mother 'loses' her child and doesn't cry out for help or report it, when she actively obstructs efforts to find a place to start looking for the child and the search itself and, later, the baby can't be found or is found dead-duct-taped and double-bagged, THAT is all anyone should have to prove to send Mom up the river forever.

If KC wants to claim this is an accident, which she never has, even though Allen and Yuri asked her as much...on tape, then she'll have to get on the stand and explain that to the jury...because that's never been her position before. If she tries it, we'll see how that goes. Babe should take a plea, beg for it. Or let her testify and change her story on the stand and hope the jury hasn't already heard enough.

:clap::clap: Well said!! :clap::clap:

 

[impatientredhead]

ok, let me see if I am following here. The court order would allow the defense team access to the property? It is no longer an active crime scene, is it?
I am just thinking out loud here, I secretly hope that there is a way that the owner of the property wont let JB and Co. on is property. Thanks in advance for clarifying................

LE released it, if they had reason to come back they could, but I cannot imagine the scenario where a privately employed attorney could force his way on to my property with whatever group of "experts" he wants to bring, and just do whatever they need and take anything that is deemed to help their case. Not to mention Baez passed on going to the site today before release.

 

[kellync]

Thats what I thought. Thanks.

 

[cyberborg]

[snip]That is just me though, and I would have already fired him when he was jumping up and down insisting he had a right to be there when the ID hadn't come in yet. Only the murderer would know the identity of that body prior to DNA testing coming back, so if I am innocent why would my defense attorney being in court demanding access?

Exactly!! While it could be surmised that this was Caylee it was a BAD move for the Defense to go into bully mode and seek access to the crime scene.

The Defense should have played it cool and focused on the Caylee is Alive search to send a signal of serious doubt that this was Caylee and then show shock when she was officially ID'ed.

JB's statement on KC's reaction when the remains were found together with the big power play by the Defense spoke volumes that KC is guilty.

JB . . . you are so fired! IMHO.

 

[Pedrosmom]

Usually in homicide charges, the body is found, identified, forensics team go over the scene, determine it was homicide, arrest is made and the defense can argue/or not argue the evidence at trial. This is an unusual circumstance where they had the murderer in custody charged with murder when they happened on the crime scene. Defendants don't go screaming they weren't invited to the crime scene to do their own investigation. They can rely on or dispute what was/wasn't found at the time of the trial. The burden is on the prosecution ALONE. The defense doesn't have to call a single witness much less engage in CSI in an active crime scene. Give me a break. Talk about tainting the evidence. Who has the better motive?

 

[kahluacream]

My question is that since she is the only one who can testify to it, how does the defense get Casey's ridiculous kidnapping story into evidence without her taking the witness stand and being subject to cross-examination?

Do they stand back and wait for the prosecution to play the tape of her spinning her tale for law enforcement and let that serve as her testimony? Can the prosecution withhold some of that evidence to force them into having Casey testify?

I just don't see how Baez can go down the Zenaida-kidnapping route without Casey taking the stand, which would be disastrous.

 

[21merc7]

I have a feeling the nanny did it story is probably not going to happen in trial. Remeber JB and team have not seen all the eivdence yet, but will well before trial. My question, is Baden reigning JB in? After all those "emergency Motions" he is not going to inspect teh crime scene nor send experts? (Good grief!)