What Is the Defense Strategy?

[chefmom]

Obviously the deposition of Kronk's son did not go well or we would have had "A breaking new's press conference" from defense. So where do they go from here? Everything seems to come back pointing at KC. What will be there defense if every road leads back to Mom? My guess is KC is holding out for one tiny piece of evidence they can dispute irregardless of the mountain of circumstancial evidence that clearly stands in her way and may lead to the DP. She just does not get it. jmo

I believe you are right! I would imagine that after this latest doc dump and the revelation that DC was trying to make Kronk's son the fall guy, that BS may have had a hallelujah moment and decided that getting back at his dad wasn't such a good idea after all. I will admit to some questions about Kronk, but no more than I have about LP or even JB himself. RK isn't the only player in this sordid circus whose appearance and motives can be deemed questionable.

 

[kaRN]

How old is ICA now,or how old will she be when the case gets to trial? Is she 24 going on 25? People keep referring to her as a young person - but really - she isn't, is she?

We've looked at the Finnell case on youtube, but that person was young - a legal child at 15. So I think ICA's case will be handled completely different, because she is clearly an adult.

She'll be 25 this March. She wasn't a minor when she got pregnant, gave birth, lost her child, started stealing as a living. IMO the media refers to her as young to offer up some rational explanation for her actions and reactions. Emotionally she's 12 although I don't know any 12 yo's who wouldn't call for help if their 2yo sister, or child they were sitting went missing. Chronologically she's eligible for the DP.

 

[kaRN]

Here is Cheney Mason opining, for fourteen minutes. So this gives us clues about his strategy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFQBKZdmj0U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQPPIqpR7GE Mason opines here he would not want young people on the jury. Also he would not want single mother either.
35 year old educated, engineer type , married with kids... that Cheney would like.

Mason says he relies on his instincts, and experience to pick jury members.

Seriously? He wants people with educations in science, who think critically and can weight probablities and have toddlers of their own at home on the jury?? This is what his experience tells him is best?? :woohoo:

Maybe I have MC all wrong. He's on Caylees team after all!!

 

[logicalgirl]

Up thread a poster talks about JB perhaps looking at CM for a more experienced hand at some of what is going on.:croc:

"Something" is absolutely going on behind the scenes. Can Baez finally be running out of steam? Is he scheming about another type of defense he can pull out of his ...um..er....hat?:waitasec:

There hasn't been a lot of actual news in the last couple of months, but each time he's walked out of a hearing or a deposition, Baez has "no comment".
No comment? From Baez? Who couldn't get enough face time? Who every chance he got had his face in front of a camera, smirking and telling us to wait and we will see why ICA is innocent? Huh?:waitasec:

So who has had the "come to Jesus" conversation not with ICA but with Baez? Is it HHJP's influence? I doubt it, but it might be one of the factors. The only thing I can think of is - since the trial is getting closer, and Baez's debts seem to be mounting with no relief in sight until at least after the trial, maybe he's actually sat himself down and read some of the evidence he's going to be facing.

Maybe doing depositions with some of the key players in this case has sobered him up. Maybe instead of seeing himself as some shooting star, he's realized he's earthbound, and actually sitting trapped at the bottom of a deep hole he might not be able to get out of. Or is it just as simple as getting up one morning, looking at himself in the mirror, and thought holy c**p, WTH have I done and how do I get out of this mess? :loser: And nobody answered.

All of this is IMO of course.:innocent:

 

[watergirl]

:furious:
I'm really beginning to think :jester: MD :loser: has thrown in with the defense, in that he is yet another :clown: clown :clown: working this 3-ring circus, creating drama and diversion and wreaking havoc and mayhem in an otherwise relatively sane world. I think he forgot that its all about CAYLEE!

:furious:

What a waste. A HUGE waste. Not linking! :snooty:


*packs up big-girl panties for shipment to MD*

:twocents::twocents::twocents::twocents::twocents::twocents::twocents:

 

[logicalgirl]

I agree something or someone is certainly running amok - and I hadn't noticed until recently. But then that would be because when anyone starts talking "conspiracies", the only thing I know for sure is there is a lull in evidence or movement in a case.:waitasec: And I skip to another post or another thread.

But whenever there is a "conspiracy", I know someone for sure is shoveling something. :furious:

 

[sassy_texasbelle2]

Everyone on that side has been much, much to quiet lately. They are afraid of something no doubt about it. Even the precious one was not her lively self last time we saw her. She seemed a little cranky with her boys. For anyone in the family to be this quiet they know their tiny self serving little world is day by day coming closer to blowing up in their faces.

 

[Chiquita71]

The defense claims, months earlier, some of those volunteers searched the exact area where Caylee's remains were discovered but found nothing. It's trying to show that someone else could have hidden the body there after Casey was in jail on no bond.

Wednesday, volunteer Laura Buchanan, who is under investigation for falsifying records to help Casey, will be deposed by prosecutors

From Today's Current News Thread

I think they are trying to show that someone else could have hidden the body there after Casey was in jail on no bond. :angel: I think I am starting to get this now, it shows my lack of intelligence when the defense team has to repeat something that many times for me to get it, ya know? :blushing:

:cow:

 

[TinaD]

:furious:
I'm really beginning to think :jester: MD :loser: has thrown in with the defense, in that he is yet another :clown: clown :clown: working this 3-ring circus, creating drama and diversion and wreaking havoc and mayhem in an otherwise relatively sane world. I think he forgot that its all about CAYLEE!

:furious:

What a waste. A HUGE waste. Not linking! :snooty:


*packs up big-girl panties for shipment to MD*

:twocents::twocents::twocents::twocents::twocents::twocents::twocents:

Ok I'm confused - which isn't difficult. Who is MD please?

 

[logicalgirl]

Ok I'm confused - which isn't difficult. Who is MD please?

Are we "allowed" to mention that name? The blogger who was involved in having the first judge in the case recuse himself - Judge Strickland - our rainbow man.
Just put the two together and you'll figure it out.

Bit of a ruckus over at the hinky meter. Not something I want to put my big toe into.

 

[TinaD]

Are we "allowed" to mention that name? The blogger who was involved in having the first judge in the case recuse himself - Judge Strickland - our rainbow man.
Just put the two together and you'll figure it out.

Bit of a ruckus over at the hinky meter. Not something I want to put my big toe into.

Ah ok, of course. Keep forgetting about him. Thanks!!!

 

[logicalgirl]

Ah ok, of course. Keep forgetting about him. Thanks!!!

Really? Are you saying he is forgettable? LOL :woohoo:

 

[faefrost]

The defense claims, months earlier, some of those volunteers searched the exact area where Caylee's remains were discovered but found nothing. It's trying to show that someone else could have hidden the body there after Casey was in jail on no bond.

Wednesday, volunteer Laura Buchanan, who is under investigation for falsifying records to help Casey, will be deposed by prosecutors

From Today's Current News Thread

I think they are trying to show that someone else could have hidden the body there after Casey was in jail on no bond. :angel: I think I am starting to get this now, it shows my lack of intelligence when the defense team has to repeat something that many times for me to get it, ya know? :blushing:

:cow:

Yes that is what the defense has long seemed to be chasing. But as I have pointed out elsewhere, it doesn't make a lick of sense. It may actually be the single most questionable, incompetent or outright idiotic act by the defense. There is no way for them to win on that argument.

Lets just say for a moment that somehow the defense manages to put on a compelling argument, that "oh no, these searchers where there in September or October and saw no water and no body. So therefore it must have been placed there by some third party after our client was arrested". Well at this point the SA whips out the bleeding video of one of those mysterious third parties poking around in the vicinity of the remains site around the dates in question... and it's a direct employee of the defendant. DC! All possible arguments in this line of defense still lead back to KC.

 

[Chiquita71]

Yes that is what the defense has long seemed to be chasing. But as I have pointed out elsewhere, it doesn't make a lick of sense. It may actually be the single most questionable, incompetent or outright idiotic act by the defense. There is no way for them to win on that argument.

Lets just say for a moment that somehow the defense manages to put on a compelling argument, that "oh no, these searchers where there in September or October and saw no water and no body. So therefore it must have been placed there by some third party after our client was arrested". Well at this point the SA whips out the bleeding video of one of those mysterious third parties poking around in the vicinity of the remains site around the dates in question... and it's a direct employee of the defendant. DC! All possible arguments in this line of defense still lead back to KC.

Respectfully Quoted faefrost

ITA. I know Websleuthers had burned up many a thread illustrating how this defense would not work. This is my first case, and I have no personal understanding or theory as to what Jose could be up to with this: all of my understanding has come from this case. I had very different ideas about what it meant to defend someone(in the legal sense) before this case.

I couldn't possibly understand what is involved in being a defense lawyer, but there are people on WS and elsewhere that do understand what is involved: and they seem to be of the consensus that Jose is (to put it mildly) making mistakes and makes little sense.

Reasonable doubt. Is that what Jose is after? Of all the explanations I have read that is the one I remember the most. Convince one juror that it is possible that someone else put Caylee, deceased in the woods. That Casey was in jail with no bond and couldn't have put her there. So, they have to have someone testify that there was no water in the area of the remains during the search and so therefore they could tell/they know Caylee was not there. Caylee was found there, they will agree, but they know she was put there later and again they know this because they were at the exact spot before Casey was arrested and there was no Caylee remains.(Sorry Caylee Angel)

The one woman who was claiming this (out loud)as far as I know, was supposed to be interviewed, deposed today or yesterday, sorry I am not clear on those facts. I haven't read everything today so I don't know if that happened or not-I haven't even been to todays news thread.

Anyway, I totally agree with you in there are so many complications to this defense if this is what they are after. Aren't or isn't someone being looked at for witness tampering because of the guy who taped a convo he had where he was being led to say he searched somewhere other than where he did?

I didn't mean to get into all of this-I think it has all been discussed, I have left a few really long posts in the last day or so and I feel like I am babbling all over the place...I just want this to go to trial. I want to know, to see Jose's big plan in action. I want to know if Casey will take the stand in her defense. What innocent person wouldn't? There are probably legal reasons a innocent person would not take the stand, but I just mean to say I want anything the defense has to say to be said already-and said in front of a judge and jury.

There have only been a handful of days that I have not read here about this case: still I have tons of questions and I feel I understand so little about this process. It's not the case itself, I am so confused about, it is this legal process that has me mystified.

I agree with what you are saying, everything does lead back to ICA-that is why I am of the opinion she is guilty and I don't see how a jury could see it any other way. So, maybe Jose realizes he can't possibly win, some have suggested this about his defense. Maybe he doesn't care about being a lawyer after this? Maybe he figures he will do a reality show?

:twocents:

 

[Bullwinkle]

I just posted this to the Media Links thread, and am adding it here so we can talk about it.

Bugs, Smell Of Death Key To Casey Anthony Prosecutors

Forensic Entomologist To Testify At Anthony Murder Trial Next Year

"...In a 30-page report that's key to the state's claims, (Neal Haskell) noted that microscopic scuttle flies, or "coffin flies" as he refers to them, were feeding on decompositional fluids in the trunk of Anthony's car as well as paper towels that may have been used to clean the vehicle.

"They're not there accidentally," Haskell said during a recent visit from WESH 2's Bob Kealing. "They're coming there for that specific smell."

Orlando criminal defense attorney Richard Hornsby, who is not affiliated with the Anthony case, says the flies identified by Haskell provide a scientific basis for prosecutors to argue that Anthony was driving around with her daughter's corpse in the car.

"There's little doubt this is going to be compelling evidence for the jury," he believes. "This is reliable because it's worked in hundreds if not thousands of cases."

Complete article

 

[Wysteria]

From the very beginning of this case regarding the outcome of the trial and defense strategy; I was smug. I was certain, beyond a shadow of any doubt that the defense had no sensible or believable defense.

I'm thinking all the while that the defense is going to do the best they can to create reasonable doubt in the mind of just one single solitary jurer. All along this thread; member's have mentioned possible methods that the defense could/will use. So, my smugness continued.

But, then I remembered something.
I felt the very same certainty during the OJ trial. To this day; I feel sorrow for the obvious reasons but also because of the verdict. To this day I feel anger towards the DA for allowing that jury to decide that case.

So, I went back to the very beginning of the Anthony case. I read documents for the third or fourth time. I watched videos with the audio and without the audio. I went back and read some of my writings in my many notebooks.

Here's the deal. I'm worried. I watched the 911 hearing for the 5th? time.
The 911 hearing has more meaning to me now; because the trial is getting closer and I was able to view a very slight glimpse into the manner in which the trial may be handled by the defense and the SA. I know that the trial is going to be different in many aspects than this 'lil hearing.

I've sort of figured out the source of my worry. I did not expect the 911 hearing to go as well as it did. Sure the defense "lost" and the 911 tapes will be introduced as evidence, thank goodness. Some of my concerns are ICA's spontaneous reaction to Lee's declaration of love for her. I feel that CA did better than I expected. CA generally followed the script as rehearsed. It was not the disaster I expected.

I am no longer smug. I have learned the lesson I should have in the first darn place.

So, to sum it all up my answer is... I pray with all of my heart that whatever the defense strategy will be, it won't be good enough.

A guilty verdict won't be good enough for me, LWOP won't be good enough for me, the DP won't be good enough for me and it's not good enough for Caylee Marie Anthony either.

 

[kaRN]

OJ had real fame working on his side Wysteria, and that worked against the truth coming out. ICA isn't famous, just infamous. Up there with SP only there's more evidence proving her guilt. Have no fear IMO.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

I just posted this to the Media Links thread, and am adding it here so we can talk about it.

Bugs, Smell Of Death Key To Casey Anthony Prosecutors

Forensic Entomologist To Testify At Anthony Murder Trial Next Year

"...In a 30-page report that's key to the state's claims, (Neal Haskell) noted that microscopic scuttle flies, or "coffin flies" as he refers to them, were feeding on decompositional fluids in the trunk of Anthony's car as well as paper towels that may have been used to clean the vehicle.

"They're not there accidentally," Haskell said during a recent visit from WESH 2's Bob Kealing. "They're coming there for that specific smell."

Orlando criminal defense attorney Richard Hornsby, who is not affiliated with the Anthony case, says the flies identified by Haskell provide a scientific basis for prosecutors to argue that Anthony was driving around with her daughter's corpse in the car.

"There's little doubt this is going to be compelling evidence for the jury," he believes. "This is reliable because it's worked in hundreds if not thousands of cases."

Complete article

TY, BullWinkle...I was just coming to post this...

I truly feel Baez should forcefully inform ICA she is on the loosing end and to think about pleading guilty...When Dr. Haskell takes the stand he will destroy whatever defense the strategy is for even now, I'm betting the car still stinks with the smell of death...JMHO

In his report, he noted that a "strong decompositional odor was still present" in the trunk.

Haskell says he's smelled decomposition thousands of times and he wouldn't mistake the familiar odor for anything else.

Orlando criminal defense attorney Richard Hornsby, who is not affiliated with the Anthony case, says the flies identified by Haskell provide a scientific basis for prosecutors to argue that Anthony was driving around with her daughter's corpse in the car.

"There's little doubt this is going to be compelling evidence for the jury," he believes.

Theory Says Time Isn't On Casey's Side
Using the same formula that he teaches forensic entomology students at Saint Joseph's College in Rensselaer, Haskell was able to use insects that were found at the Suburban Drive crime scene and compare them with Florida temperatures that summer to come up with an estimate of when Caylee Anthony's remains were dumped there.

"This is reliable because it's worked in hundreds if not thousands of cases," Haskell says.

According to the his estimates, Caylee Anthony's remains were placed in the area off of Suburban Drive in late June to early July, while Casey Anthony was still free.

Haskell's scientific opinion could blow up any attempts by the defense team to create reasonable doubt by suggesting that the remains were placed in the woods in October, after Anthony was locked up in the Orange County Jail.

Justice for Caylee

 

[logicalgirl]

OJ had real fame working on his side Wysteria, and that worked against the truth coming out. ICA isn't famous, just infamous. Up there with SP only there's more evidence proving her guilt. Have no fear IMO.

IMO - more than OJ's fame, he had very sloppy Prosecutors on his side only - think back - whose faces did you see on camera after the trial each day - the defense or the prosecutors. They seem to be focused on their own fame rather than getting a conviction. Clearly OJ was guilty, but the prosecutors did not make their case - a terrible tragedy.

When have we seen the SA on camera in ICA's case?

 

[Wysteria]

OJ had real fame working on his side Wysteria, and that worked against the truth coming out. ICA isn't famous, just infamous. Up there with SP only there's more evidence proving her guilt. Have no fear IMO.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

True, true.

Thank you for the reminder on both of your points. I hadn't thought of either when I was composing my post. I followed the SP case as well; but did not post very much during that case.

ICA is infamous, OJ famous, and I understand the difference.
There is more evidence in this case. Wysteria listen to KaRN!:smile:
The points you make settle me down a bit.

Nice to read you again btw, I'll presume that you are the KaRN. You and I discussed/debated both of the trials mentioned in your post and also the MJ trial. I didn't post often, so you may not remember me.

IIRC the SA is treating this case like all of the other cases in that they are not going to hire a jury consultant. Some say no biggie; I say I'd feel less uneasy if the SA hired one. I just have this THING stuck in my head about how important a jury is. For sure the jury is important; but sometimes it's my only focus, irrational...I know.

I think that the closer we get to trial the more anxiety I'm going to feel.