KC defense team.What now?

[believe09]

Spin, Spin, Spin, Spin, plea deal. JMO.

 

[Wudge]

If the jury selected is intelligent enough to understand the meaning what Wudge just said, Casey will be convicted.

Physical evidence ties Caylee's body to the Anthony home. Testimony and science puts Caylee's body in the trunk of Casey's car before it was towed.

Text messages will show Casey was covering up Caylee's absense from her family which will clear them from the actual murder.

We don't know yet all computer forensics will show. We also don't know why they took portions of drywall from the Anthony home.

I am sure there will also be convincing testimony about the duct tuct being wrapped around Caylee's head and mouth while she was alive.

IMO, Casey's only hope is a touchy-feely juror that thinks any mother that would kill her child must be insane. Casey better be dabbing her eyes a lot during the trial...

JMO

???

The mechanics of Caylee's death are unknown. So what is the clear and unyielding evidence of intent, planning, deliberation and malice aforethought -- speculation is not evidence and jurors are forbidden to speculate.

 

[Kat]

Very interesting video created by Richard Levenstein and Judge Roby and other members of the Martin County Bar Association.

From the website:

It is designed to be a refresher course in civics for individuals about to enter the jury selection process, thereby becoming part of the judicial branch of the government just highlighted in the video

Although an overview and a very broad of govenment power and the courts job, if the Jury that is selected for this case sees this video...as it is planned that all jurors will see this video in FL, I just don't know if it's statewide yet, it might be "neat" to see what this video is about.

I thought it would be interesting to have a looksee at what FL shows it's jurors.

http://www.martincountybar.org/project.html

 

[trac]

Trying to be logical about this case won't work - it just won't - sure there will be forensics, there will be science - it will just tie into all the circumstancial evidence AND Casey's own actions and words - it will convict her whether or not this case states anything about the hard facts.

Just get used to the fact that Casey will convict Casey - it will tug on the heart strings and the people on the jury will do what most other normal people will do - convict

We can argue all day over specifics, whether or not anyone thinks the DA should have put up the death penalty or not - whether anyone thinks the case is weak on the DA side - it won't and doesnt matter in the least bit

Casey will convict herself and this entire case will go through the appeals process for years while Casey sits in jail ordering from the jail commisary

It is what it is

 

[Jolynna]

Trying to be logical about this case won't work - it just won't - sure there will be forensics, there will be science - it will just tie into all the circumstancial evidence AND Casey's own actions and words - it will convict her whether or not this case states anything about the hard facts.

Just get used to the fact that Casey will convict Casey - it will tug on the heart strings and the people on the jury will do what most other normal people will do - convict

We can argue all day over specifics, whether or not anyone thinks the DA should have put up the death penalty or not - whether anyone thinks the case is weak on the DA side - it won't and doesnt matter in the least bit

Casey will convict herself and this entire case will go through the appeals process for years while Casey sits in jail ordering from the jail commisary

It is what it is

I agree.

Although, I think the state has more hard facts that have yet to be disclosed.

 

[trac]

I agree.

Although, I think the state has more hard facts that have yet to be disclosed.

I agree with you - it's just that all these 'professionals' that come on the site and spout off all this stuff and state certain things and they don't know exactly what the DA has

I think the trial will be very interesting, not only will we hear things we didn't know that LE have - it will be at that time that we will pose our questions and get our answers

There will be a lot of us saying 'WHAT?????' when witnesses start to testify and we see the completed timeline

Everyone will also be riveted on the A's and Casey's reactions during the trial - Beth Karras will be interesting to listen to as she will be in that courtroom everyday, all day

 

[Black Magic Woman]

I agree with you - it's just that all these 'professionals' that come on the site and spout off all this stuff and state certain things and they don't know exactly what the DA has

I think the trial will be very interesting, not only will we hear things we didn't know that LE have - it will be at that time that we will pose our questions and get our answers

There will be a lot of us saying 'WHAT?????' when witnesses start to testify and we see the completed timeline

Everyone will also be riveted on the A's and Casey's reactions during the trial - Beth Karras will be interesting to listen to as she will be in that courtroom everyday, all day

who's Beth Karras?

 

[Sdavidson11]

Beth Karris is a lawyer and reporter for court TV or Tru TV is what I think it is now.

 

[Wudge]

Trying to be logical about this case won't work - it just won't - sure there will be forensics, there will be science - it will just tie into all the circumstancial evidence AND Casey's own actions and words - it will convict her whether or not this case states anything about the hard facts.

Just get used to the fact that Casey will convict Casey - it will tug on the heart strings and the people on the jury will do what most other normal people will do - convict

We can argue all day over specifics, whether or not anyone thinks the DA should have put up the death penalty or not - whether anyone thinks the case is weak on the DA side - it won't and doesnt matter in the least bit

Casey will convict herself and this entire case will go through the appeals process for years while Casey sits in jail ordering from the jail commisary

It is what it is

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is what prosecutors need to produce.

Proof is based on evidence. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the application of logic to the evidence.

If logic will not work in this case, then the jury should not convict Casey and the prosecutors should not even bring this case to a courtroom.

HTH

 

[trac]

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is what prosecutors need to produce.

Proof is based on evidence. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the application of logic to the evidence.

If logic will not work in this case, then the jury should not convict Casey and the prosecutors should not even bring this case to a courtroom.

HTH

Trying to be logical about this case won't work - it just won't - sure there will be forensics, there will be science - it will just tie into all the circumstancial evidence AND Casey's own actions and words - it will convict her whether or not this case states anything about the hard facts.

Just get used to the fact that Casey will convict Casey - it will tug on the heart strings and the people on the jury will do what most other normal people will do - convict

We can argue all day over specifics, whether or not anyone thinks the DA should have put up the death penalty or not - whether anyone thinks the case is weak on the DA side - it won't and doesnt matter in the least bit

Casey will convict herself and this entire case will go through the appeals process for years while Casey sits in jail ordering from the jail commisary

It is what it is

 

[debs]

So now we're quoting people who quoted us and use the original quote to respond? Interesting technique!

If logic is unnecessary, we should just let her out of jail now.

 

[trac]

So now we're quoting people who quoted us and use the original quote to respond? Interesting technique!

If logic is unnecessary, we should just let her out of jail now.

It's what everyones doing now! LOL you don't see it??? Gosh I was told it was to get a point across - exact words from someone on the boards

This whole case seems absent of logic - until we can see an exact timeline and what DA has we are only speculating what will happen

We have a puzzle, we've only been given some pieces not all - we are still missing a lot of pieces in which when we see them THEN and only then can we say guilty or not guilty

 

[Wudge]

Trying to be logical about this case won't work - it just won't - sure there will be forensics, there will be science - it will just tie into all the circumstancial evidence AND Casey's own actions and words - it will convict her whether or not this case states anything about the hard facts.

What you're saying is to expect twelve vigilante jurors.

 

[trac]

What you're saying is to expect twelve vigilante jurors.

No that is NOT what I'm saying - whatever I say you will twist anyways - so it is what it is

 

[nomoresorrow]

Very interesting video created by Richard Levenstein and Judge Roby and other members of the Martin County Bar Association.

From the website:


Although an overview and a very broad of govenment power and the courts job, if the Jury that is selected for this case sees this video...as it is planned that all jurors will see this video in FL, I just don't know if it's statewide yet, it might be "neat" to see what this video is about.

I thought it would be interesting to have a looksee at what FL shows it's jurors.

http://www.martincountybar.org/project.html

Thanks Kat, we're on roll today!

 

[TxLady2]

One of the most damning things about this case is Casey not reporting Caylee missing for 31 days, and the pictures of her partying during that time. That does not say loving mother. No one is going to be convinced that it was some accident and that she panicked and tried to cover up.
I know I tried to believe that for a long time... it is inconceivable to me that a mother would deliberately kill her child unless she is insane. Casey might have some kind of mental disorder but she is not insane, in the legal sense.

 

[nomoresorrow]

What you're saying is to expect twelve vigilante jurors.

That's a stretch-----------

Many items of evidence that may be relevant in a broad sense are kept from the jury.The judge can decide that the risk of prejudice to the defendant outweighs the likely value of the evidence in showing that the defendant committed the crime in question. Example; evidence offered by the prosecution in a murder trial showing past arrests of the defendant for assault will not be admitted, evidence of the defendant's reputation as a violent person will not be admitted as part of the prosecution's direct case. Sometimes explicit (gruesome) pictures of the body of the murder victim showing the wounds are not admitted for a jury to see if the judge feels that the pictures may inflame, distract or prejudice the jury.When a judge makes evidentiary rulings, he/she takes into account all of the other evidence in a case along with disputed facts and legal issues. The juror's never hear any of this.

 

[Wudge]

That's a stretch-----------

Many items of evidence that may be relevant in a broad sense are kept from the jury.The judge can decide that the risk of prejudice to the defendant outweighs the likely value of the evidence in showing that the defendant committed the crime in question. Example; evidence offered by the prosecution in a murder trial showing past arrests of the defendant for assault will not be admitted, evidence of the defendant's reputation as a violent person will not be admitted as part of the prosecution's direct case. Sometimes explicit (gruesome) pictures of the body of the murder victim showing the wounds are not admitted for a jury to see if the judge feels that the pictures may inflame, distract or prejudice the jury.When a judge makes evidentiary rulings, he/she takes into account all of the other evidence in a case along with disputed facts and legal issues. The juror's never hear any of this.

The poster said that logic won't work in this case. However, to uphold the oath jurors take, juries are required to use logic to assess reasonable doubt. Thus, if logic won't work, jurors would have to rely on elements other than logic. Those options are speculation and emotion, both of which jurors are forbidden to use.

Thus, if a jury found a defendant guilty absent logic, that would necessarily be an infirmed verdict. If a jury were to knowingly convict on a non-logical basis, that would represent a vigilante jury (taking law into their own hands).

If a jury were to unknowingly convict on a nonlogical basis, that would be saying they didn't have a clue as to their responsibilities, which is fundamentally and reasonably impossible.

Hence, the only real option would be a vigilante jury.

HTH

 

[Kat]

Is it possible for the defense to continue forward with a ZG strategy? ( disclaimer: I don't believe there was a Nanny named Zanni, I'm just asking if this defense strategy is possible, and if so, how will the defense use it or go about presenting it?)

Here is why I am wondering. They have investigated the one ZG that now has brought a civil suit against KC and proven it could not be her.

Now if you click this link, you will find that there are 27-33 listings for this name that are for land lines.

http://names.whitepages.org/Florida/Zenaida/Gonzalez

If we search for that name within the Orlando area 2 come up but with non-published numbers (land lines, no telling who has a cell phone).

Now let's go to http://www.myorangeclerk.com/myclerk/ and search for that ZG, then you come up with a ZG that was born 1/11/1986. (this one had traffic violations)

What I'm trying to ask is if the Defense does use this strategy and the Prosecution is going to attempt to discount this defense then wouldn't they have to investigate more than one ZG?

 

[ibyoungr]

To me all murder cases are not logical. No murderer is logical to me. If they were, then they would think.. "if I do this crime... then logically I could go to jail."

We have to seperate while nothing about Casey is logical and the trail of clues she left behind. The evidence at this point in time, points to her to be the most logical choice of suspects.

1. she did not report her child missing for 31 days.
2. she was the last to see her child.
3. she was partying and dancing and showing no outward signs of distress.
4. she dumped her car
5. decompostion found in her car
6. body found close to her home
7. lied to the cops
8. lied to family and friends
9. motive

To much of a coincidence for me. This with any other scientific evidence that comes forth that points towards Casey would lead me to a conviction based upon beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT. Unless there is some other outstanding evidence that puts Caylee in the hands of another person then logically all signs AT THIS POINT to Casey.