How common is it for a DT to change it's strategy mid-trial? Do you see it happening in this trial? Now that the A's aren't testifying in favor of ICA, could the DT switch to a post-pardem depression story or some other strategy all together? Or, is going more-or-less how the DT thought it was going to go?
There is really no way they can change the story without the jury rejecting both stories.
I have no idea how the DT thought this was going to go--from their reactions (and Casey's) it almost seems like they thought GA and CA (or at least CA) would go along with this horrible, disgusting story. :waitasec:
Could the money thefts be brought in simply by a paper trail? There has to be some bank statements etc. from Casey's taking money from her Grandparents acct. Making cell phone payments etc. Credit card purchases. The jury must be wondering at this point how she had money for all these shopping trips etc.
Will the stolen money come into evidence when Shirley Plesea testifies, assuming she does?
I don't think the stealing from great-grandpa's account will come in, as that happened before Caylee went "missing." However, the later stealing MIGHT come in to rebut Casey's statement to LE that she was stealing and lying with the goal of finding Caylee--but strangely the things she was buying with the stolen money seem to be for Casey herself. On the other hand, now that Casey has ADMITTED that the stealing and lying were unrelated to finding Caylee, HHJP might decide not to allow that testimony.
<modsnipped>
I am wondering; To bring in the MySpace of Cindy A: (Showing it to (1)support CA's attempt to see the child and (2) See that her welfare is being cared for -- to me that is showing concern NOT so much emotion) ...
Couldn't an attempt be made for the 'foundation to be laid by showing or establishing that ICA as well as Caylee were residents of the As home', that the 'As had been responsible for providing everyday needs (especially the car of which she was returning to get (steal) gas for it, (wont go into the theft of food taken to TAs etc.).
And because Caylee was under the care of the grandparents, on a frequent basis, that it would be only natural for Cindy to be doing any and all of these things to make contact with the child/mother whether it was the constant TEXTING, PHONE MESSAGES and NOW by MEANS of MY SPACE which she has found out that is a way that young people Communicate today?
I don't think any of this is related to the problem with getting the MySpace page into evidence. I think there were objections raised in pretrial motions, which were overruled, and then there was an objection relating to the fact that Cindy did not create most of the page--Lee did. So maybe it will come in when Lee testifies.
I think I've been in stunned mode since the moment JB said that GA found Caylee in the pool during his opening statement. Prior to opening statements, I actually thought that DT had a chance (just a chance, mind you) of creating reasonable doubt with at least one juror by going with "it was an accident" and using sexual abuse as a reason to justify the 31 day delay in reporting the accident and the lies told to LE, etc. But in my mind, adding in that GA was there when Caylee died completely blew the possibility that anyone on the jury would believe the rest of the story.
So what I'm hoping you can help me understand is why create such an elaborate alternate theory in the first place? Since DT doesn't have to prove it, why not present it more ambiguous in the opening statement rather than give such detail that the jury might dismiss the whole theory?
Also, should we refer to it as a "theory" since JB presented it as "fact" or should we refer to it as the DT "version of events" - that is "legally" what would be the proper terminology?
(I've been puzzled by the DT since day one and have waivered between thinking DT is totally incompetent or intentionally setting up an appeal based on incompetent representation.)
There is no "legally" appropriate terminology, although some people call it the defense "theory of the case." I call it "JB's Tall Tale" in this case.
IMO JB went WAY WAY too far with: (1) the detail he provided, which only calls into question the detail he DIDN'T provide--e.g., how the heck slowly was Casey "running" that she didn't catch up with George while he was still at the pool? Was George soaking wet from having jumped in to retrieve Caylee from the bottom of the pool? Were the statements JB related the only things Casey and George said to each other? What a strangely short and stilted conversation under the circumstances :waitasec:, (2) the complexity he added--George being there, Kronk moving the body, the dogs and forensics being wrong, blah blah blah. The truth is generally simpler than that.