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

[MidAtlanticNative]

As evidenced by the A's first insisting that ZFG exists. When that didn't play, they tried to deride the evidence. That didn't work, either, so they tried to go after JG.

They know KC diddit, and are flailing in an effort to deflect culpability, or at least distract.

As was said, if there was a REAL SODDI, the A's or someone else would be shouting from the rooftops, yelling from the TV screens, or taking out adds in the papers.

(bold mine)
Amen! The Anthonys would be one angry, out of control mob. The silence speaks volumes.

 

[Brini]

The police interview tapes will hurt a sod defense also. It will be hard to sell she was afraid of sod, trying to protect Caylee or her parents when she is so cool and calm with the police. She never shed a single tear, not a trace of fear or emotion in her voice. Ho hum... just another day in the park... this attitude will make it hard to sell a sod defense.

Yeah, let alone try to convince a jury that driving for days with a dead body in the trunk is a "poor choice." Or, is anything but the action of the killer.

 

[butwhatif?]

KC herself has made it more difficult to suspect other people. She from day 31 said exactly who did it. Unfortunatly, they don't exist... That is a bit of a problem for a police officer trying to conduct an investigation... and sure points to the last person to see Caylee alive, her mother.

Now to their credit, they did consider other people, but when an alibi and with the full disclosure of any thing the police wanted to look at... what more could they do? It is unreasonable to think that when all evidence points to one person, no evidence points to anyone else... it is unreasonable to expect the police to investigate everyone in orange county.

The evidence LE collected could point to anyone who lived in, or had access to that house.
Its caseys lies and behaviour that made her the number 1 suspect for LE and most posters here....so lets not keep pretending that its direct evidence that points to her and only her. (aside from the possible human decomp in her trunk, which could be thrown out at trial because it is untested science that still in the experimental stages and is inconclusive anyway...)

And its a big leap from investigating people known to KC or the anthony family, along with all registered SO's in the areas, and investigating everyone in OC....LOL.

 

[Brini]

The evidence LE collected could point to anyone who lived in, or had access to that house.
Its caseys lies and behaviour that made her the number 1 suspect for LE and most posters here....so lets not keep pretending that its direct evidence that points to her and only her. (aside from the possible human decomp in her trunk, which could be thrown out at trial because it is untested science that still in the experimental stages and is inconclusive anyway...)

And its a big leap from investigating people known to KC or the anthony family, along with all registered SO's in the areas, and investigating everyone in OC....LOL.

Then, who's your choice of SODDI? For whom would KC lie or keep silent, thus sacrificing her liberty, or even her life?

She knows to whom she "gave the baby." There is no reason to "protect" Caylee now? Why did she drive with the baby's body in the trunk, lying about the source of the smell?

If it was somebody else, why is she keeping silent?

 

[OneLostGrl]

Exactly! As further evidenced by KC has not displayed any drug withdrawal sx, since she's been in jail.

Pretty sure she lit up, now and then. Maybe dropped a pill, or two, at a party, to be "cool." But that's pretty much it.

And even if she was an addict (which I do not think is the case) it makes no difference! Drugs don't make people murder.

 

[songline]

Anything's possible, honey. But, possibilities w/o specifics are not compelling to juries who will have been shown masses of evidence against KC.

JB will have to offer a workable, believable scenario, with a real identity behind it.

If a vague statement that "maybe a another bad guy did it" would work, nobody would ever be convicted.

You have a point that I can not argue with at all. But unfortunately the jurors have to have one little strand that tie KC to it. The family cleaned all that up.
And she does not have to be an addict to sell drugs, she just has to need money. I had known pot sellers in my youth that never smoked, not ever. But it made them plenty of money just selling pot.
But I can see that scenario that I spelled out.....more clearly then Casey killing Caylee....And I would want KC to open her mouth or sit in jail. I hope something will scare her. Because the way it is set up right now is for nobody to take the wrap for killing Caylee. The clean up is set up to have no direct ties to Casey and with this type of a lawyer if there is a SODDI he gets to walk. In my book that is wrong and Casey should either open her mouth or sit there till she is expired.

 

[Brini]

The problem JB would have, if he tried to nail a SOD is.. The State is gonna ask the same questions that we ask. Who? How? Why? As evidenced by what?

 

[Brini]

You have a point that I can not argue with at all.
But I can see that scenario.....more clearly then Casey killing Caylee....And I would want KC to open her mouth or sit in jail. Because the way it is set up right now is for nobody to take the wrap for killing Caylee. The clean up is set up to have no direct ties to Casey and with this type of a lawyer if there is a SODDI he gets to walk. In my book that is wrong and Casey should either open her mouth or sit there till she is expired.

That's exactly what is gonna happen, SL. KC will keep her mouth shut, and she will go down.

 

[Gaia713]

I read dobbiedoo52's post as the forensic evidence being reasonable doubt. That being LKB's expertise and I suspect she will attack it as she has in her past cases.

In regards to your reply to Doobiedoo52, I respectfully disagree and I do understand completely because if this happened 20 or even 10 years ago, JB could have gotten away with a blanket, nameless SODDI. The defense might be able to provide a feasible (I don't think so, but .....) SODDI theory, but in this case, the murder of a child, the birthing vessel of this murdered child has been charged with committing that murder.

The jury will want to know who this SODDI person(s) is, not a theory that can not be proven with some type of evidence other than "she is innocent, take my word for it, I will tell you why" speech. They will want to have evidence that is solid, not speculative that supports this SODDI theory. The citizens of Florida are not as stupid, ignorant or uneducated as JB thinks or wishes they were. History of trials in both Florida and my state have proven this point.

I am more than open minded to view and investigate ANY AND ALL defense information released, concrete whatever, as long as it isn't some pulled out of the hat explanation that totals smacks against the evidence so far released or future evidence that will be released to the public.

To claim an "invisible" SODDI is NOT reasonable. They have to provide REASONABLE doubt.

 

[Gaia713]

Then, who's your choice of SODDI? For whom would KC lie or keep silent, thus sacrificing her liberty, or even her life?

She knows to whom she "gave the baby." There is no reason to "protect" Caylee now? Why did she drive with the baby's body in the trunk, lying about the source of the smell?

If it was somebody else, why is she keeping silent?

The people who believe the most in KC's innocence are incapable of telling the truth. If caught in a lie on the stand, that person's testimony can be considered all untrue. There are no "misrruths" in court. Cindy will not be given the opportunity to spin on the stand. She will be asked questionss that require very short answers - and she will scream and cry to the press that they wouldn't let her answer. I can see it now.

Did you ever talk to the nanny?
"The nanny had a dog and I have the picture of the dog and Caylee told me she had a dog."

Move to strike as unresponsive. Cindy with argue with the atty and say it's not a yes or no question. The Judge with admonish her to answer yes and no. She will stand up on the stnad, point that dreaded finger at the prosecutor and proceed to yell at him. The objection will be sustained and her tirade erased from the record. Again, she will be told to answer the question.sAnswer the question YES OR NO. And she will refuse and risk a contempt charge. jmo

I predict that this will not impress the jury either.

*I don't think they allow gum in court either."

 

[Balthazar]

bold by me: This is the one sentence that I agree on as probably most readers/posters.

Are you really saying the defense can completely obliterate forensic evidence? Gee, what happens when they fail to do this or manage to only obliterate portions that are "superficial" yet part of the forensic evidence? Do you really have such little faith in forensic evidence, the FBI, LE and the SA? Do you not believe the history of pings, phone records and text message records? I am trying to really understand where you are coming from reading your posts and I don't understand.

Where I'm coming from is someone who has followed true crime cases for over 30 years and observed many, many criminal trials.

I'm saying that the defense definitely can obliterate the forensics - if they come up with the right strategy - it has been done in many, many trials by many, many defense teams. Will they accomplish it in this case? I don't know. Some defense teams have managed to accomplish this, others have failed. Some have done it on a scientic basis, others have done it using logic. Who can ever forget the closing arguements of the OJ case when Johnnie Cochran said "If the glove don't fit, you must aquit." With that one moment (and OJ having tried on the glove and it didn't fit), Cochran destroyed the prosecution. It didn't matter to that jury what LE, the forensic labs or the FBI put together for that case. The prosecution and every bit of their very credible forensic evidence was completely and totally obliterated in that jury's mind. Might a moment like that occur in Casey Anthony's case? It is very possible.

Anyway, the way that the defense handles the forensics will make the trial very, very interesting. The thing about forensic evidence is that it is surprisingly open to interpretation. Two forensic scientists looking at the same piece of evidence may reach two completely different conclusions. If the defense can show enough disparity between the interpretation of the data by the FBI/LE vs. their expert witnesses, or the jury finds the defense witnesses more credible or even more likeable, the defense will bring about reasonable doubt. But, as we have seen with the OJ trial forensics can be demolished by other means than science by a talented defense team. And between Linda Baden and Andrea Lyon, Casey now has a very formidable defense team.

To me, Casey's guilt or innocence doesn't really enter into a discussion of the defense's case. Defense attorneys could care less if their clients are guilty or innocent. The goal is to demolish the prosecutions case in any way that they can.

If you want to know my personal opinion, having read all the documents released by defense and listened to all the interviews and seen all the videos of Casey with her family, in my opinion, it looks like Casey is guilty. But as an American citizen, legally, I have to say that Casey is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Therefore, I cannot go around saying that Casey is guilty until she has been tried and convicted no matter what the prosecution evidence shows. And juries have surprised me before and voted not guilty for defendants that I had thought it would be impossible NOT to convict having sat through the whole trial. One very striking case is that of Candace Montgomery a pretty amazing case where the defendant was not only provably guilty with direct evidence against her, but admittedly so and she also admitted to taking action to cover up her part in the murder, yet the defense demolished the prosecutor's case and the jury returned a stunning Not Guilty verdict - it's a great read:
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/classics/betty_gore/1_index.html

 

[Gaia713]

Where I'm coming from is someone who has followed true crime cases for over 30 years and observed many, many criminal trials.

I'm saying that the defense definitely can obliterate the forensics - if they come up with the right strategy - it has been done in many, many trials by many, many defense teams. Will they accomplish it in this case? I don't know. Some defense teams have managed to accomplish this, others have failed. Some have done it on a scientic basis, others have done it using logic. Who can ever forget the closing arguements of the OJ case when Johnnie Cochran said "If the glove don't fit, you must aquit." With that one moment (and OJ having tried on the glove and it didn't fit), Cochran destroyed the prosecution. It didn't matter to that jury what LE, the forensic labs or the FBI put together for that case. The prosecution and every bit of their very credible forensic evidence was completely and totally obliterated in that jury's mind. Might a moment like that occur in Casey Anthony's case? It is very possible.

Anyway, the way that the defense handles the forensics will make the trial very, very interesting. The thing about forensic evidence is that it is surprisingly open to interpretation. Two forensic scientists looking at the same piece of evidence may reach two completely different conclusions. If the defense can show enough disparity between the interpretation of the data by the FBI/LE vs. their expert witnesses, or the jury finds the defense witnesses more credible or even more likeable, the defense will bring about reasonable doubt. But, as we have seen with the OJ trial forensics can be demolished by other means than science by a talented defense team. And between Linda Baden and Andrea Lyon, Casey now has a very formidable defense team.

To me, Casey's guilt or innocence doesn't really enter into a discussion of the defense's case. Defense attorneys could care less if their clients are guilty or innocent. The goal is to demolish the prosecutions case in any way that they can.

If you want to know my personal opinion, having read all the documents released by defense and listened to all the interviews and seen all the videos of Casey with her family, in my opinion, it looks like Casey is guilty. But as an American citizen, legally, I have to say that Casey is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Therefore, I cannot go around saying that Casey is guilty until she has been tried and convicted no matter what the prosecution evidence shows. And juries have surprised me before and voted not guilty for defendants that I had thought it would be impossible NOT to convict having sat through the whole trial. One very striking case is that of Candace Montgomery a pretty amazing case where the defendant was not only provably guilty with direct evidence against her, but admittedly so and she also admitted to taking action to cover up her part in the murder, yet the defense demolished the prosecutor's case and the jury returned a stunning Not Guilty verdict - it's a great read:
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/classics/betty_gore/1_index.html

We are not in a court of law so we can say whatever we please. She is only considered innocent IN A COURT OF LAW until she is proven guilty. There is no DIRECT evidence against Casey. There is onlyi circumstantial which is usually much stronger than witness accounts.

 

[nephers]

You'd still have to climb the high tow yard fence with the body in yours arms, then climb out, without being seen. And, you'd have to explain why she drove around with the corpse in the car, and tried to lie away the smell.

I mentioned this in a post earlier that seems to have gone overlooked...

The decomp evidence said a body was in the car 2.6 days, the car was at Amscott for an estimated 3 days.

It's a stretch but possible that someone could have broken into the car dropped the body and then removed it two-three days later.

Do I believe that? No, but it's possible.

 

[Gaia713]

I mentioned this in a post earlier that seems to have gone overlooked...

The decomp evidence said a body was in the car 2.6 days, the car was at Amscott for an estimated 3 days.

It's a stretch but possible that someone could have broken into the car dropped the body and then removed it two-three days later.

Do I believe that? No, but it's possible.

IF someone ELSE put the body in the trunk, there would be some evidence of a breakin to the trunk. All the tow yards I have seen are manned 24/7 or at least have guard dogs when no human is there. After all, they are RESPONSIBLE for the vehicles in their possession.

 

[MissJames]

YES Casey will have to tell a story that can finally be authenticated and not run LE around. YES Casey is going to help herself. No there can not be fingerprints and other evidence found when her family cleaned that car, gas tanks, and shed
I still have one hold out...That foundation that is linked to really questionable people. I still think there is a reason they suddenly got wrapped up in that....Why doesn't Hailey comings father get a foundation? WHY? think about it. Is it possible that there are shady people linked to Casey and they do not want to be? is it possible that Casey sold drugs for some guy and owed him lots of money, because she skimmed and promised to pay later? is it possible that he said I am cutting you off bring the money by tomorrow I am not kidding? Is it possible that she said I will have the money here hold my car with Caylee and I will go sell this and have the money later...is it possible that she came up short again and the guy just put caylee in the trunk and told KC she is in deep chit? And is it possible that this guy is hooked up with some nasty people who have too much to lose, do not want to get looped into this mess, and met up with GA and cooked up a way that they believe will have no one go to jail. With a great clean up and a BS story there is no body to link to the deed. IS IT POSSIBLE?
That still makes KC guilty of putting Caylee in a dangerous position.
But now that they got this lawyer...I do not care because I do not expect any justice...IMHO we owe the dead the truth, we owe them justice. Not going to happen.
And KC did put Caylee in danger.

I personally don't think KC or the A's had any connection to the foundation people prior to the disappearance.I think they were opportunists who saw a local case going national and their "foundations" and supporting companies could get more exposure,free publicity,more money. It's crossed my mind the foundations may be part of some money laundering scheme,but again,I think they saw the disappearance of a local child,making big headlines,as an opportunity . Everyone connected with the "foundations" told the A's what they wanted to hear and "supported" them to keep the relationship .
If the defense uses the scenario you just wrote they will have to show some kind of proof: phone records,witnesses,something that would tangibly link KC or the A's to some shady people.There would be evidence on the phones that were suppoenaed or the computers.Even if there were phones we don't know about KC would have to help JB find SOME evidence to make a connection.Otherwise it's just a fairy tale.
KC owes the dead the truth and if it doesn't happen it's on her!

 

[nephers]

IF someone ELSE put the body in the trunk, there would be some evidence of a breakin to the trunk. All the tow yards I have seen are manned 24/7 or at least have guard dogs when no human is there. After all, they are RESPONSIBLE for the vehicles in their possession.

In response to the bolded part, I'm talking about the Amscott lot (check cashing place the car was towed from) not the actual tow yard. The car was there for roughly 3 days.

Once again, I'm just throwing it out there as a possible way JB could explain how SODDI. :crazy:

 

[MissJames]

I mentioned this in a post earlier that seems to have gone overlooked...

The decomp evidence said a body was in the car 2.6 days, the car was at Amscott for an estimated 3 days.

It's a stretch but possible that someone could have broken into the car dropped the body and then removed it two-three days later.

Do I believe that? No, but it's possible.

The decomp science didn't say the body was IN the car 2.5 days.The air samples showed that at the time the body was in the car it was at approx 2.5 days decomposed.It could have been else where for the first day or so.I don't believe the body was in the car at all when it was dumped at Amscott.

 

[Balthazar]

I also have a question. Two people here disputed my reasoning that it is not unreasonable to think that someone else had a key to Casey's car and said that no one else has a key to their car. So from that I have to assume that these two people are storing their car keys in some unusual way to make sure nobody else has access to them.

In thinking of Casey, she lived with her parents and her mom owned the car, so it's not unreasonable to think her mom might keep the spare set of keys to the car that she owned. However it's also possible that Casey kept them somewhere else. People will put their spare car keys in any number of places from a drawer at home to some kind of hide-a-key. In addition, there is any number of people who could have gotten access to Casey's keys since she was spending the night at various people's homes - some of which had multiple residents.

In thinking of my own car key situation, I would say the following people could easily get access to my car keys if they wanted to as I usually keep them either in my purse or on the kitchen counter with the second set in a drawer or with my husband:

my husband
my housekeepers
repairmen who work in my house
all my friends
all my husband's friends
my house sitter
people at parties at my friend's houses
clients
business vendors
all of my husband's co-workers
all of my employees

So, my question to the people who say no one else could possibly get access to your car keys, is this: Where are you keeping them that you are so certain of this? Perhaps you could share some good advice as to how to protect car keys. I've never had my car keys stolen, but I must admit, we did lose the extra key for one of our vehicles and never did find it.

 

[Gaia713]

I also have a question. Two people here disputed my reasoning that it is not unreasonable to think that someone else had a key to Casey's car and said that no one else has a key to their car. So from that I have to assume that these two people are storing their car keys in some unusual way to make sure nobody else has access to them.

In thinking of Casey, she lived with her parents and her mom owned the car, so it's not unreasonable to think her mom might keep the spare set of keys to the car that she owned. However it's also possible that Casey kept them somewhere else. People will put their spare car keys in any number of places from a drawer at home to some kind of hide-a-key. In addition, there is any number of people who could have gotten access to Casey's keys since she was spending the night at various people's homes - some of which had multiple residents.

In thinking of my own car key situation, I would say the following people could easily get access to my car keys if they wanted to as I usually keep them either in my purse or on the kitchen counter with the second set in a drawer or with my husband:

my husband
my housekeepers
repairmen who work in my house
all my friends
all my husband's friends
my house sitter
people at parties at my friend's houses
clients
business vendors
all of my husband's co-workers
all of my employees

So, my question to the people who say no one else could possibly get access to your car keys, is this: Where are you keeping them that you are so certain of this? Perhaps you could share some good advice as to how to protect car keys. I've never had my car keys stolen, but I must admit, we did lose the extra key for one of our vehicles and never did find it.

Coindy and George have a key to the vehicle. I don't know about Lee. One thing for sure.....the killer would have to know that the vehicle was atAmscott which means Casey would have had to tell someone.

Cindy has tried to claim that Jesse Grund had a key to the car. I don't believe that at all. Just more Cindy-accuse.

 

[Brini]

I also have a question. Two people here disputed my reasoning that it is not unreasonable to think that someone else had a key to Casey's car and said that no one else has a key to their car. So from that I have to assume that these two people are storing their car keys in some unusual way to make sure nobody else has access to them.

In thinking of Casey, she lived with her parents and her mom owned the car, so it's not unreasonable to think her mom might keep the spare set of keys to the car that she owned. However it's also possible that Casey kept them somewhere else. People will put their spare car keys in any number of places from a drawer at home to some kind of hide-a-key. In addition, there is any number of people who could have gotten access to Casey's keys since she was spending the night at various people's homes - some of which had multiple residents.

In thinking of my own car key situation, I would say the following people could easily get access to my car keys if they wanted to as I usually keep them either in my purse or on the kitchen counter with the second set in a drawer or with my husband:

my husband
my housekeepers
repairmen who work in my house
all my friends
all my husband's friends
my house sitter
people at parties at my friend's houses
clients
business vendors
all of my husband's co-workers
all of my employees

So, my question to the people who say no one else could possibly get access to your car keys, is this: Where are you keeping them that you are so certain of this? Perhaps you could share some good advice as to how to protect car keys. I've never had my car keys stolen, but I must admit, we did lose the extra key for one of our vehicles and never did find it.

But, if you were researching the case for JB, whom would you choose for SOD, and based on what?