KC defense team.What now?

[Indigo]

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.

How did Casey determine that Caylee was dead? She's not qualified to make this determination. She sought no help for Caylee as would be reasonably expected--no 911 call-- no help for Caylee whatsoever. I believe failure to seek proper medical attention for a child is considered a crime and in some cases it has been used as a basis for premeditation.

In addition, this would mean that Casey risked receiving the death penalty or LWOP rather than admit to a common household accident. There is no indication that this was an accident. JMO, of course.

 

[angelmom]

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.

I have asked this same question. And even if they don't go with the "Imagi-Nanny Did It" defense, I still don't know how they are going to put on ANY defense without putting Casey on the stand. How are they going to get Caylee from her custody to someone else's without her testimony or a witness (who hasn't managed to be found in the last 6 months of worldwide media coverage)?

Scott had a better option b/c it is possible for an adult woman to leave of her own accord. Laci could have walked the dog that day if she had been alive still and wanted to. Casey's problem is that a 2yo doesn't drive or take a cab or go out places without supervision, and by all accounts Casey was the last person to have her. She has some 'splainin' to do, and it's not going to be pretty if she actually testifies.

 

[SCSam]

I agree with you. Right now, I'm not feeling very optimistic about the pros chances of winning this case.

I think it's going to be a long up-hill battle. I heard one Attorney say the pros chances would have been higher had the body not been found. I'm really surprised and disappointed the ME was unable to determine the cause of death.

I'm going to distance myself from this case for awhile cause I have a feeling that long up-hill battle will be painful to watch. I fear a conclusion similar to The State of Cal. vs. OJ Simpson. That thought makes me sick to my stomach.

If the "experts" that Baez has called in remain with this case, especially Mrs. B, it's worthwhile to look at her track record and how she works. Opening statements will be a revelation in some ways but at trial she is noted for smoke and mirrors and attempting to "confuse" the jury pool - after all, she only has to get to ONE, JMHO. Go back and revisit the Phil Specter case. This trial will be a circus and inflame people. I really pray that he judge trying this case will maintain a tight hold on the courtroom and NOT let another OJ courtroom experience occur.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

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.

It really depends on the circumstances and has to be evaluated on a case by case basis. There is no set answer to cover all accidents which result in death.

In some, your heart breaks for the parents and in some, you feel antipathy toward them.
The law will make distinctions based on the individual circumstances...:blowkiss:

jmho

 

[manatee]

As stated brilliantly by Mark Geragos on LKL on Friday....the biggest hurdle that Team KC has to overcome is that KC had Caylee last and if she didn't who did? They must provide an explanation for this for the jury...:woohoo:

 

[Wudge]

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...

An accident is not a crime.

 

[TURBOTHINK]

An accident is not a crime.

It is if not reported. This was no accident, but cold blooded murder in my opinion.

 

[TURBOTHINK]

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".

The fact the body was not found in August is of no consequence in this action. It will be obvious from testimony from people like Tim with TES that the area was underwater and could not be found at that time. That is smoke and mirrors.

The ME or LE does not have to rule out accident. That is not their job. Their job is to gather the evidence and present it to a jury. That is also smoke and mirrors.

There is no defense in this case because of the time lapse of 31 days. The jury will first and foremost take that in to account. I am expecting KC's attorney to throw someone in the family into the mix about them having last access to Caylee. I am not sure yet who it will be, but it will be one of them.

That is they only defense which will seem plausible to a jury pool.

 

[21merc7]

There is no proof of accident or intention at this time.

ETA: Other than intention of disposal/hiding.

 

[21merc7]

Turbo, throwing a family member under the bus is a possibility. But, they will have to come up with something fairly outstanding as all 3 could fit. CA last to see Caylee; GA knew about decomp and cleaned car; LA talking in code to find things. All 3 destroying potential evidence. Could go any way, but would have to be good.

 

[Alpha Leader]

I am past worrying about appropriate justice for the accused. The defendant is charged with several economic crimes on top of everything else. She will see the inside of a prison cell ... that is fairly certain. No hocus pocus from the defense team avoids that. But, she could literally walk on murder or even manslaughter. Remember though that she is also charged with obstruction.

 

[NJ Lawyer]

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...

It won't really be an admission of "guilt" for a few reasons, one being that the "admission" won't fit the actual charges with which she's been charges. Also, counsel for the defense could poke holes into the Murder One theory, suggesting it might have been an accident and wouldn't be required to stand up and say "This is our position: Accidental Death", etc.

There were really 3 angles defense could have taken before Caylee was found:

1. Caylee is still alive. Defense would have probably tried to make it seem LE didn't follow up on legitimate sightings, might have even put on a witness that said Casey mentioned giving up Caylee for a private adoption and not telling Cindy, etc. In my mind, this would have been a tricky road to go down but a "winner take all" one. If Casey made a private adoption plan and suggested it was b/c she didn't feel equipped to be a good Mom and didn't think George and Cindy were the best parents (especially if Casey could insinuate problems there), jurors would have been very sympathetic to that (to the extent they believed it). Even if the private adoption didn't follow proper channels/laws. As to the adoptive parents...why wouldn't they simply come forward to at least say "Caylee's alive"? Odd, but jurors might buy the idea that they were protecting Caylee's location and identity no matter what. Key: this defense/position/suggestion is the only one that could explain Casey's carefree behavior, Bella Vida tattoo and total lack of concern (she knew Caylee was safe). I do think one juror (all that's needed) could have questioned the one hair in the car with the "death band", explained away the smells and air samples, and believed Caylee was still alive. Now that Caylee has been found, the sole defense that could have let Casey walk free is gone.

2. Accidental death. With the nightlife and lifestyle of this defendant, I'm sure nobody would have a problem believing Casey dosed her kid with anything at any time. The problem is.....none of her actions afterwards are consistent at all with an accidental death. They are in fact completely inconsistent with an accidental death. Even if your kid died accidentally....do you go and put on makeup, text your friend that you need a vacation, and go out dancing, laughing, smiling and having a blast? And the tattoo. And LE will put on a billion other things she did after the "accident" that will EASILY convince jurors beyond a doubt that when you see such behavior, then the death that preceded it was not "accidental." Even if a young mother was afraid she'd be thrown in jail b/c of the accidental death and therefore, hid the death....in this instance Casey shows no fear but rather, relief and jumps right back into the party life. Notice I didn't even add the tossing of the body in a garbage bag, passing the smell off casually as "squirrels", etc.

3. Someone Else Killed Her. This has the least chance of success. She's already sunk herself with the "Babysitter kidnapped Caylee" story. Not just b/c the babysitter never existed but because of her actions after the alleged kidnapping (see number 2 above) -- no matter who kidnapped her (babysitter, some alternate person such as a drug dealer she might try to pin it on, whatever).

I don't know why talking heads are saying defense will focus on forensics. All the forensics need to show is that Caylee is dead and they certainly do. If Caylee's poor withered body can't show what happened to her bones anymore, well then that's not prosecutor's fault but rather, the fault of Casey who hid the body in the woods. I still can't believe that Caylee has been found. I am so happy for so many reasons, including that it means Casey stays in prison for the rest of her life.

 

[21merc7]

So, NJLawyer, what do you think the possibility of Alford Plea? (Even though we don't know how much evidence directly links.) Or did the entrance of Ms. Baden forever put that option to rest?

 

[tiredofthis]

How did Casey determine that Caylee was dead? She's not qualified to make this determination. She sought no help for Caylee as would be reasonably expected--no 911 call-- no help for Caylee whatsoever. I believe failure to seek proper medical attention for a child is considered a crime and in some cases it has been used as a basis for premeditation.

In addition, this would mean that Casey risked receiving the death penalty or LWOP rather than admit to a common household accident. There is no indication that this was an accident. JMO, of course.

I agree with you. If something happened to one of our children, I believe all of us would be making a mad dash for the phone to dial 911.

This was not an accident! You don't cover up an accident and then go out and party.

 

[Pink Panther]

NJ Lawyer - Interesting post! Regarding the "Accidental death" possibility, I think Ms. G's "homicide" pronouncement will play a huge role in discrediting this possibility. It's my understanding that in general, accidental death victims are treated in a certain manner by those who may have had a hand in the accident. Generally, these victims are treated with care and love after the fact. I'm not sure that wrapping a three-year old's head with duct tape fits into that category of behavior.

Just my two cents.

MOO

 

[SCSam]

Accidental homicide was not ruled out so that question would not get very far at all. That is what the undetermined part meant. Homicide means the killing of a human by a human. There are many types of homicide (Accidental, negligent, premeditated, vehicular, reckless to name a few). She didn't include or exclude any of them, including the ones that would be considered first degree or felony murder. It is up to the prosecutor to show that through other means. Totality of the evidence and all that.

There is no such thing as accidental homicide. Homicide in one of three types of violent death; the other two being accidental death and suicide. In medic-legal language... http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/0/1/9/8/p201984_index.html

Also, something helpful to review is the difference in CAUSE and MANNER of death. JMO, as always, on the last sentence.

 

[yolorado]

An accident is not a crime.

No, but according to KC, this wasn't an accident, it ABSOLUTLEY was not. Yuri and Allen gave her the accident opening. She quite definitely did not take it and insisted upon a kidnapping...on tape, with specific facts. Now, she stuck. If the defense wants accident at trial, they're going to have to invent one...or explain exactly what happened and make the jury believe it truly was an accident. That may be difficult at this point because of all the defendents lies, her stubborn obstruction and her persistent insistence on the imaginary nanny, all available to the prosecution in glorious detail on tape in KC's own words for the jury to see, transcribed if they'd rather read and supported by her own actions and inactions. The point the prosecution should make, almost certainly will make and CAN make over and over is that people who murder their children act the way this defendant acted. Innocent people, people whose children had accidents, don't act that way. KC would have to prove otherwise, and good luck with that after all that's gone down.

Again, I actually think the prosecution might still make a deal if she would 'confess' to an accident and cover-up in glorious detail. I think they've always wanted to, but KC wouldn't. Now that LE has found KC's daughter double-bagged and discarded, apparently with some tie-in to 'Casa Ant,' I think the price tag to KC just got higher. The MR's find probably cost KC another 15-20 years. She's probably soooo mad. Still, she'd be crazy not to take it...if the proseuction is still willing to give it. She's not the brightest bulb in the box though, so well just have to wait and see.

 

[Wudge]

It won't really be an admission of "guilt" for a few reasons, one being that the "admission" won't fit the actual charges with which she's been charges. Also, counsel for the defense could poke holes into the Murder One theory, suggesting it might have been an accident and wouldn't be required to stand up and say "This is our position: Accidental Death", etc.

There were really 3 angles defense could have taken before Caylee was found:

1. Caylee is still alive. Defense would have probably tried to make it seem LE didn't follow up on legitimate sightings, might have even put on a witness that said Casey mentioned giving up Caylee for a private adoption and not telling Cindy, etc. In my mind, this would have been a tricky road to go down but a "winner take all" one. If Casey made a private adoption plan and suggested it was b/c she didn't feel equipped to be a good Mom and didn't think George and Cindy were the best parents (especially if Casey could insinuate problems there), jurors would have been very sympathetic to that (to the extent they believed it). Even if the private adoption didn't follow proper channels/laws. As to the adoptive parents...why wouldn't they simply come forward to at least say "Caylee's alive"? Odd, but jurors might buy the idea that they were protecting Caylee's location and identity no matter what. Key: this defense/position/suggestion is the only one that could explain Casey's carefree behavior, Bella Vida tattoo and total lack of concern (she knew Caylee was safe). I do think one juror (all that's needed) could have questioned the one hair in the car with the "death band", explained away the smells and air samples, and believed Caylee was still alive. Now that Caylee has been found, the sole defense that could have let Casey walk free is gone.

2. Accidental death. With the nightlife and lifestyle of this defendant, I'm sure nobody would have a problem believing Casey dosed her kid with anything at any time. The problem is.....none of her actions afterwards are consistent at all with an accidental death. They are in fact completely inconsistent with an accidental death. Even if your kid died accidentally....do you go and put on makeup, text your friend that you need a vacation, and go out dancing, laughing, smiling and having a blast? And the tattoo. And LE will put on a billion other things she did after the "accident" that will EASILY convince jurors beyond a doubt that when you see such behavior, then the death that preceded it was not "accidental." Even if a young mother was afraid she'd be thrown in jail b/c of the accidental death and therefore, hid the death....in this instance Casey shows no fear but rather, relief and jumps right back into the party life. Notice I didn't even add the tossing of the body in a garbage bag, passing the smell off casually as "squirrels", etc.

3. Someone Else Killed Her. This has the least chance of success. She's already sunk herself with the "Babysitter kidnapped Caylee" story. Not just b/c the babysitter never existed but because of her actions after the alleged kidnapping (see number 2 above) -- no matter who kidnapped her (babysitter, some alternate person such as a drug dealer she might try to pin it on, whatever).

I don't know why talking heads are saying defense will focus on forensics. All the forensics need to show is that Caylee is dead and they certainly do. If Caylee's poor withered body can't show what happened to her bones anymore, well then that's not prosecutor's fault but rather, the fault of Casey who hid the body in the woods. I still can't believe that Caylee has been found. I am so happy for so many reasons, including that it means Casey stays in prison for the rest of her life.

Forensics are important, because prosecutors need clear and unyielding evidence that proves their charge of Caylee dying from a planned and deliberated murder. They can't do that with post-act behavior and nothing else that has been reported is dispositive of premeditation.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

The point the prosecution should make, almost certainly will make and CAN make over and over is that people who murder their children act the way this defendant acted.

SNIP

Such evidence does not exist. Prosecutors can't state or argue that.

 

[NJ Lawyer]

So, NJLawyer, what do you think the possibility of Alford Plea? (Even though we don't know how much evidence directly links.) Or did the entrance of Ms. Baden forever put that option to rest?

Well I don't think we have a clear answer on what specifically Baden is doing in this case. She has said she'll be advising Baez and Casey Anthony on forensic issues but seems to suggest the advice will be to assist regarding the analysis of the forensic results of tests relating to botany, anthropology, toxicology, etc. She admits to not even meeting Casey Anthony and vaguely points to the "media circus" as the reason she didn't go to the jail to meet her. (Huh?) As for an Alford Plea, it's still a guilty plea and I'm not sure how that would really benefit Casey. Would it help much with sentencing? I'm not in Florida...don't know.