The SODDI Defense (Some Other Dude Did It)...If not KC, who?

[Spangle]

Sorry, but of course its LE's job to investigate other possible suspects. thats their job, and normal procedure.

Lets suppose she didnt contact LE because she was guilty of leaving caylee unattended while an SO abducted her, and she knew she would never hear the end of it from CA, who was already on her back about not being a good mum. And she figured that it would all sort itself out anyway. besides it gave her more time to hang with her man which was her priortity at that time.
Or maybe he offered to babysit and KC jumped at the opportunity.
Lets suppose that the SO entered the house, and that he got the trash bags, duct tape,and of course caylee.

Lets keep in mind that it has never been proven that a human was decomposing in the trunk of her car.its probable, but certainly not proven.

There is an SO that lives very close to the anthony home,and even closer to the site where caylees body was found. His home would give him easy access to the A's home, through the woods, without being seen by anyone.

This man has been convicted of multiple child *advertiser censored* possession charges, and was not incarcerated or even on probation at the time caylee went missing.(although I dont know if his preference was for young boys or girls)

If he was investigated, I havent seen it in any doc dumps. Why would the state not use investigation of people like this to bolster their case against KC?
"look we've ruled out all of the So's within a 5 mile radius. It wasnt them, which is why we are now focusing on the last person to see her alive and who has lied about pretty much everything. Her mother."
Her lies dont prove murder, since that was normal behaviour for her. She lied about everything to everyone. It didnt just start after caylees disappearance.

I think its entirely possible that KC killed Caylee, but i believe its just as possible that it was an SO. And unless LE investigated SO's, I cannot be certain that KC is responsible for Caylees death.
Maybe the SO I've been looking at was out of town at the time, which would rule him out, but since that hasnt been released (to my knowledge) how can we be certain it wasnt him?

Heres a map image of his location in relation to the A home, and body dump site.....

I started following the case one month after it all came out, so I missed the initial investigations.

If anyone can link me to investigations of SO's in the area, it would help me to believe in KC's guilt. (And if I have these doubts then its possible that a jury member would).
That is one thing that really holding me back from believing her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
At this point I believe she is 100% guilty of neglect,and hindering the investigation with lies and if that led to caylees death,either directly or indirectly, she needs to pay the price for it

All I want is for the perpetrator of this crime(whether it is KC, an SO or anyone else) to be held accountable and imprisoned so that they cannot reoffend and harm anyone else. Imagine if the focus on KC allowed an SO to walk free to commit further crimes against children.
On a seperate note...how on earth is a convicted SO allowed to live so close to a primary school? ARRRGGGHHH!!!

All parents who loose their kids for a split second feel guilty. Yet they look for them. If they can't quickly find them, they call the police. Even if they feel like it was their fault. That they some how made a mistake, etc. They still make the call. They over ride that, and are more concerned with finding their child quickly. Just so they know their child is safe.

So I can't buy your theory that she felt guilty for not watching closely, that a SO snatched her child, that she didn't call the police. The Nanny story is more plausible then that. I can see leaving your child with someone you know, who doesnt' bring your child back. And she waits it out, thinking the person will bring the child back later. At least she would think she knew where her child was and the child was safe. But just totally missing and doing nothing. Nada.

 

[USARDOG]

What I am saying is that I think CA would be perfectly fine with the defense insinuating SODDI and that SODDI was CA. The Defense doesn't have to prove that CA actually did it.

JB knows there isn't evidence to prove SODDI. Much less enough evidence to convict SOD. He just has to BS the jury enough to believe it.

Your post edited by me for previty.

do you believe the jury and the prosecution will let kc off the hook, without feeling quite sure sod did it? If ca were to be pushed under the bus, IMO, the bus would have to run over her for them to turn kc loose. IMO, ca would for sure be charged with the killing... Then why should kc step up to help her? She is out of the way... for good, kc gets big bucks for a book/movie deal... no need to help ca out at all.

 

[butwhatif?]

All parents who loose their kids for a split second feel guilty. Yet they look for them. If they can't quickly find them, they call the police. Even if they feel like it was their fault. That they some how made a mistake, etc. They still make the call. They over ride that, and are more concerned with finding their child quickly. Just so they know their child is safe.

So I can't buy your theory that she felt guilty for not watching closely, that a SO snatched her child, that she didn't call the police. The Nanny story is more plausible then that. I can see leaving your child with someone you know, who doesnt' bring your child back. And she waits it out, thinking the person will bring the child back later. At least she would think she knew where her child was and the child was safe. But just totally missing and doing nothing. Nada.

I dont think she felt guilty , so much as she feared how she would be percieved as gulity, and it would confirm CA's comments that she wasnt being the kind of mum she needed to be. I'm sure there were several "I told you so ' moments in that household.

Does killing your own child make more sense than another person killing him/her?
ETA: do you think that LE shouldnt look into local SO's when a child is missing, regardless of circumstances?

 

[MarleneM]

It is becoming clear that the avenue that Baez is going to pursue is that the police failed to investigate all suspects and focused on and arrested the wrong person. Unfortunately, polygraphs are NOT infallible and at best are only 70% to 87% accurate. In addition, polygraphs can be beaten by someone who knows how - and the information on how to do this is available on the internet for anyone to learn. If the DA gets the investigation done BEFORE the trial it will prevent Baez from using either of these people to create reasonable doubt. If it is not done, Baez and Co. will take every opportunity to destroy the prosecutions case on this level and will create reasonable doubt because there is absolutely no physical evidence that directly ties Casey to Caylee's murder - at least there is none that we know of yet - there is still hope that the prosecution may be holding something back. It is a very unfortunate situation. We all know that a clever and talented defense attorney can get a guilty person off - Casey has a dream team. Linda Baden will rip apart all of the forensics and Andrea Lyon will defend Casey with everything she's got and she is formidable. The stakes are too high for the prosecution to not be 110% prepared before this case goes to trial.

And, one final thought, it is also apparent that Baez is doing investigating on his own - hence the request for their phone records/texts, etc. So who would you prefer to have investigating you? Baez and Co. or the police? Let Baez have the info. AFTER the police are done with it and certain of their innocence.

How about saving the taxpayers money on interrogating the lives of AH and JG and instead have the SA call in a few dozen character witnesses at trial to testify on behalf of AH, JG and KC? Should suffice.

 

[Verité]

Sorry, but of course its LE's job to investigate other possible suspects. thats their job, and normal procedure. . . .

Lets suppose she didnt contact LE because she was guilty of leaving caylee unattended while an SO abducted her, and she knew she would never hear the end of it from CA, who was already on her back about not being a good mum. And she figured that it would all sort itself out anyway. besides it gave her more time to hang with her man which was her priortity at that time.
Or maybe he offered to babysit and KC jumped at the opportunity.
Lets suppose that the SO entered the house, and that he got the trash bags, duct tape,and of course caylee.

There is an SO that lives very close to the anthony home,and even closer to the site where caylees body was found. His home would give him easy access to the A's home, through the woods, without being seen by anyone.

This man has been convicted of multiple child *advertiser censored* possession charges, and was not incarcerated or even on probation at the time caylee went missing.(although I dont know if his preference was for young boys or girls)

If he was investigated, I havent seen it in any doc dumps. Why would the state not use investigation of people like this to bolster their case against KC?
"look we've ruled out all of the So's within a 5 mile radius. It wasnt them, which is why we are now focusing on the last person to see her alive and who has lied about pretty much everything. Her mother."
Her lies dont prove murder, since that was normal behaviour for her. She lied about everything to everyone. It didnt just start after caylees disappearance. . . .

Bolded mine.

Have you notified LE about the SO you cite (see bolded above)?

 

[Spangle]

Your post edited by me for previty.

do you believe the jury and the prosecution will let kc off the hook, without feeling quite sure sod did it? If ca were to be pushed under the bus, IMO, the bus would have to run over her for them to turn kc loose. IMO, ca would for sure be charged with the killing... Then why should kc step up to help her? She is out of the way... for good, kc gets big bucks for a book/movie deal... no need to help ca out at all.

They don't have to be "quite sure" SOD did it. All they have to believe is that it's possible that SOD did it. If you believe it's possible that SOD did it, then you can NOT be 100% positive that the defendant is guilty.

That possibility comes up many ways. JB is trying to find a possibility to use. He will work every angle until he can find one that will fit.

CA would not be 'for sure charged" just because of a possible theory that the Jury bought as possible. For the same reasons she hasn't be charged with it to date. There is no real evidence that points to her.

 

[Spangle]

I dont think she felt guilty , so much as she feared how she would be percieved as gulity, and it would confirm CA's comments that she wasnt being the kind of mum she needed to be. I'm sure there were several "I told you so ' moments in that household.

Does killing your own child make more sense than another person killing him/her?

ETA: do you think that LE shouldnt look into local SO's when a child is missing, regardless of circumstances?

It has been documented that parents have killed their own children.

It makes more sense then a Parent that ignores the fact that their child is lost and is in constant and unknown danger. As you said, such a child could be with a SO. We have all heard the horrable stories of what could happen to such a child. Ending in death or life as some sex slave.

Instead of being taken by some SO, the child might have been lost in the woods all that time. Until she starved to death or was attacked by a gator or snake. All because her Mother was to embarrased to report her missing.

I agree with your perception of the A's. I just don't think it would cover the 'why' she didn't report the baby missing. And for the reasons I just listed. KC would have to be really sick to have ignored a missing child. With murder, at least you know the child is no longer suffering. With a missing child, you don't know if your child is hurt, cold, wet, tired, sick, etc. I have a harder time seeing a Mother (or anyone) ignoring a child that might be in such danger. With death, it's over.

If SODDI, it would be someone whom KC thought the baby was safe with. If she thought she was with a SO, etc, then in my book ,she is worse then a murder and should get several DP's.

 

[Verité]

So I can't buy your theory that she felt guilty for not watching closely, that a SO snatched her child, that she didn't call the police. The Nanny story is more plausible then that.. ..

So much for the SODDI defense with the spotlight now claimed by the addition of Professor/Attorney Andrea Lyon, who educates lawyers against using this ploy, in her own words:

I also wrote that “t is not good to put on a ‘he didn’t do it’ defense and a ‘he is sorry he did it’ mitigation. This just does not work. The jury will give the death penalty to the client and, in essence, the attorney.” SeeLyon, “Defending the Death Penalty Case: What Makes Death Different?,” 42 Mercer L. Rev. 695, 708 (1991)), quoted in Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004). http://www.wisspd.org/html/training/...2006/DDEFE.pdf

Mods, might as well lock this thread and file it away in the Archives!

 

[Spangle]

So much for the SODDI defense with the spotlight now claimed by the addition of Professor/Attorney Andrea Lyon, who educates lawyers against using this ploy, in her own words:


Mods, might as well lock this thread and file it away in the Archives!

All possiblities should be sleuthed.

Also, she didn't say never use it. Only that they should realize what kind of situation they would be in if the Jury didn't believe them.

 

[Verité]

All possiblities should be sleuthed.

Maybe that applies to us (sleuthers), but I betcha AL won't use the SODDI, especially with Calif. Atty. TM there with his expertise in accidental death,
medication aberrations, etc. And, we know that JB has flat-out rejected a defense of NGBRofI.

Also, she didn't say never use it. Only that they should realize what kind of situation they would be in if the Jury didn't believe them.

But, as a law professor, she wouldn't teach one thing, then do another. Too much loss of face for one who prides herself on being a legal scholar. Her writings sure prove
that she is a first-rate, clear thinker; in fact, she writes the clearest legalese that I've ever been able to fully grasp!

Since I'm trying to second guess the lady, I betcha she'll acknowledge KC's involvement with LOTS of mitigating factors. . .and that's why CA & GA were so upset in Court today, because they'd much prefer a SODDI defense.

 

[SoSueMe]

What I am saying is that I think CA would be perfectly fine with the defense insinuating SODDI and that SODDI was CA. The Defense doesn't have to prove that CA actually did it.

LE would have to believe SODDI and that they have enough evidence to prove it, that they arrest the SODDI person and take them to trial. Not going to happen. So even if the defense team claimed that CA was SODDI, unless there is enough evidence to take her to trail, the LE wouldn't act on it. She wouldn't have to fall on the sword for KC. She wouldn't have to do anything but listen to the defense slander her in the court room. IF the jury bought it, then KC would walk free.

JB knows there isn't evidence to prove SODDI. Much less enough evidence to convict SOD. He just has to BS the jury enough to believe it.

There are procedures to follow in the courtroom and I don't think JB can just stand up and testify for his client and throw all sorts of scenarios out there. He would have to find some way to bring this defense in through other testimony to get it in front of the jury.

As to Cindy, no, I don't think she will go along with taking the blame. She is narcissistic enough to only want to be seen as the perfect mother. That's what started this whole mess.

As to a sex offender committing this crime, why would KC cover for him on 7/16 by saying she talked to Caylee on the phone that day and she was fine?

 

[USARDOG]

Interesting... Could sod turn into accidental death? I don't believe j can be framed. LE has looked at him quite closely and the glove does not fit, and I don't think it can be sold.

This is going to be quite interesting. I don't think the da would let ca off the hook, if they jury let kc go because ca had been sufficiently implicated.

 

[countzero]

Maybe that applies to us (sleuthers), but I betcha AL won't use the SODDI, especially with Calif. Atty. TM there with his expertise in accidental death,
medication aberrations, etc. And, we know that JB has flat-out rejected a defense of NGBRofI.



But, as a law professor, she wouldn't teach one thing, then do another. Too much loss of face for one who prides herself on being a legal scholar. Her writings sure prove
that she is a first-rate, clear thinker; in fact, she writes the clearest legalese that I've ever been able to fully grasp!

Since I'm trying to second guess the lady, I betcha she'll acknowledge KC's involvement with LOTS of mitigating factors. . .and that's why CA & GA were so upset in Court today, because they'd much prefer a SODDI defense.

You and I and no doubt others here are of the same mind with this one. JB is out digging for SODDI, while AL is acknowledging the "incident" slippage by JB yesterday. Heads are gonna butt at that office for sure and JB's will be rolling out his own door.

First clear evidence of this is yesterdays hearing. JB was into himself by grandstanding again. What he should have done was to give the courts AL's credentials PRIOR to the hearing so that AL could have been including in the hearing instead of having her babysit KC with passing notes to behave. bold by me.

 

[USARDOG]

I suppose there is a crack there between worlds where there is sufficient doubt about kc, when ca is framed, however not enough evidence for the da to persue after kc released. I think that crack is so small, only a wish might slip through.

 

[Spangle]

I suppose there is a crack there between worlds where there is sufficient doubt about kc, when ca is framed, however not enough evidence for the da to persue after kc released. I think that crack is so small, only a wish might slip through.

Oh, come on. It happens on TV all the time.

 

[Spangle]

Maybe that applies to us (sleuthers), but I betcha AL won't use the SODDI, especially with Calif. Atty. TM there with his expertise in accidental death,
medication aberrations, etc. And, we know that JB has flat-out rejected a defense of NGBRofI.



But, as a law professor, she wouldn't teach one thing, then do another. Too much loss of face for one who prides herself on being a legal scholar. Her writings sure prove
that she is a first-rate, clear thinker; in fact, she writes the clearest legalese that I've ever been able to fully grasp!

Since I'm trying to second guess the lady, I betcha she'll acknowledge KC's involvement with LOTS of mitigating factors. . .and that's why CA & GA were so upset in Court today, because they'd much prefer a SODDI defense.

I thought the way she wrote it up pointed out that only someone 'special' could pull it off. And pointed to how she would do it, if need be. All in the thinking ahead. I would think that she wouldn't see it as lossing face by doing it. But that she was extra talented.

But I agree with you, she will do something else. Something more logical, based upon the evidence at hand. There is no evidence that points to SODDI. And they would need such evidence, a little something, to go on. JB & crew might have been ignoring that. But an experienced DP would know that it will need some legs. Soemthing. BS will not work with the Jury. JB seems to think BS is the best evidence.

 

[Balthazar]

How about saving the taxpayers money on interrogating the lives of AH and JG and instead have the SA call in a few dozen character witnesses at trial to testify on behalf of AH, JG and KC? Should suffice.

Sadly, no, character witnesses would not suffice - for one thing JG and AH are not on trial, so character witnesses for them would not be allowed to be called in the first place. And more important than the court case are the downstream ramifications for AH and JG if they are not thoroughly investigated. Personally, in their position, I would not only welcome the investigation, I'd demand it. Baez has already named these two as people who were not investigated enough by police and even gone so far as to describe JG as a "suspect" in court and it is clear that Baez is conducting his own investigations on them. In fact, Baez mentioning this in court yesterday may have been a calculated move to force the state to spend the money to investigate these people. The DA's office has to go into this trial fully prepared and they know if Baez is going in this direction they have to be ready to prove this is the wrong direction.

 

[countzero]

JB is simply overthinking defense strategy.

He is more concerned with his ego and image than he is with KC attempting to point his SODDI theory(s) toward JG or AH.

I still believe he has the bus steered towards that curb that the A's are standing near, waiting for the last one to jump back and then run them down.

And I am still waiting for the hidden financial support to be disclosed. Twill be interesting to see if KC claims financial hardship to the courts now that AL has become a member of the team, if and when her credentials are accepted by the courts.

 

[Clock's Tickin]

Well, I have often played both sides of the argument throughout this ordeal. I always land on Casey acted alone. My fella, on the other hand (avid conspiracy theorist) believes she is being railroaded just as in the JonBenet case. So we go over the SODDI rather often in my house. We both concede that Casey is an obvious sociopath and a pathological liar. That fact makes it very difficult as she is the ONLY witness to Caylee's "disappearance". So we go back to the start and the activities following Father's Day.

All was well Sunday-possible fight with parents that night-Girls leave Monday morning and KC never comes home with Caylee again.

This means that A) KC knows what happened and is hiding out--so any SODDI would have to be identifiable by KC--she probably would have told SOMEONE---but with KC's "issues", maybe not??

or B) KC really did give her child away, be it for a day and the "sitter" did not come back--or be it for good and the perp got scared when it hit the media. This would also leave an identifiable suspect...unless KC left the child alone for the "sitter/adopter" to pick up. In either situation, there would have to be some kind of communication--face to face leaves a descriptive//phone or internet leaves a digital trail.

Either way, it still leaves KC as a contributing factor.

The only SODDI scenerio that works for me with all of the bologna is the "non stranger intruder" theory my fella has finally settled on. KC waited for Dad to leave for work and took Caylee back home. She then LEFT her there alone (perhaps to wait for someone to pick her up/perhaps a regular occurance/sleeping or not/???/) and left to go watch movies with new bf. Suspect enters the home as planned-with or without key-perhaps takes child and belongings-perhaps ends childs life at the home. Regardless of exact time or location-intruder has now left trace and taken items from the home. The problem with this theory is that at some point shortly thereafter, killer has access to KC's trunk. Here is where I lose faith. Fella thinks the car was part of the deal. He thinks suspect was known "sitter" (Zanny if you will) and that he/she was supposed to have the car when they had Caylee. He believes that had keys to house and vehicle. He believes KC drove around with Caylee in the trunk and didn't know it. He believes discovery of Caylees lifeless body drove her over the edge and led her to this "fantasy" version of events. He believes that KC's admission to giving out house and car keys like candy are what led Cindy to all of the finger pointing. This scenerio would mean that KC has some knowledge of the perp and may have even given a pseudo accurate description. It also would mean that some kind of communication had to take place between the two and, with KC being such a phone addict, would mean perp doesn't own a phone or is someone KC talked to THAT DAY but never texted. It would also mean that KC is involved in Caylee's disposal.

The best defense strategy for KC with a SODDI story is the "IDK". She'd have to stick with "I dropped Caylee off with mystery woman that I met at the bar. She said she was a nanny. We partied together. I trusted her. She told me to meet her _____ and I did. IDK what happened after that and I couldn't face the world and say I left my precious daughter with someone I didn't really know. I felt sure they would turn up. I never saw them again. IDK how decomp ended up in my trunk, but the car was not always in my sight."

 

[Clock's Tickin]

You and I and no doubt others here are of the same mind with this one. JB is out digging for SODDI, while AL is acknowledging the "incident" slippage by JB yesterday. Heads are gonna butt at that office for sure and JB's will be rolling out his own door.

First clear evidence of this is yesterdays hearing. JB was into himself by grandstanding again. What he should have done was to give the courts AL's credentials PRIOR to the hearing so that AL could have been including in the hearing instead of having her babysit KC with passing notes to behave. bold by me.

The problem here is that KC has the legal right to hire/fire her own defense. Will she really let anyone go into court on her behalf and even hint at the possibility of guilt--mitigating factors or not!