Don't know much about criminal law so am just guessing here --- How can defense suggest an accident without putting KC on the stand? They'd have to have some foundation and the atty's can't testify for her. The experts can't determine an accidental COD. Sure, JB can ask, 'is it possible this was an accident' but then the SA would jump right in to object to that line of questioning, likely sustained. Even if he got away with it, the state would be able to cross the witness and destroy that line. So, I have no worries about that, based on the little knowledge I have.
I have read a lot of your posts and I think you are a caring, very compassionate person. Perhaps part of you just wants it to be an accident rather than face the horror of what, imo, really happened. Frankly, I do too but sadly, don't believe that's what happened; at least not what I'd consider an accident.
I think you are absolutely correct on the trial issue. To claim accident and have the slightest chance, they would have to put KC on the stand and have her tell her story. , The jury would feel "entitled" to that. And Nobody else was there. It depends what evidence the state has as to whether they could disprove that claim. But they would certainly, gleefully attack her credibility , very easily, by referring back to her ZG statement and all her lies, forcing her to admit she lied about this and she lied about that, and asking the old "How do we know you're not lying now?" question.
With her outrageous lying and impeding the investigation she will have a very hard time getting a jury to believe a word she says.
But considering the alternative of the ZG story , I would not be surprised if JB has been badgering KC to say it's an accident but she won't budge from her ridiculous scapenannygoat.
Actually, if I just look at what evidence I've seen
so far, I don't feel it is enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was premeditated. That doesn't mean I absolutely think it was an accident -- and
if it was unintended I think it was likely still homicide, in the course of some kind of abuse or neglect that would have looked so bad she was willing to try to cover the whole thing up -- like she was drugging Caylee and she OD'd.
I'm thinking they likely have more evidence that will prove the charges they've brought--but we have not yet seen it. Internet searches may indicate she had been fantasizing about killing someone (though that is pretty nebulous), but don't prove a full scale plan. Everything related to the disposal of the body and the lying afterward could be following an unintended death. Duct tape could just as plausibly be placed postmortem to stop leakage. However if there are teeth marks that look like poor Caylee was chewing on on the duct tape struggling trying to remove it, then I'd say that
would prove premeditated murder.
I know i'm affected by wishing Caylee not to have experiienced such terrifying brutality from her mother in her last moments. It almost made me literally sick to even write that last sentence in the preceding paragraph. But I don't think that stops me from rationally considering the evidence and how the defense will challege it and argue. and won't stop me from being glad if they do have enough to prove premeditated homicide.
