What Is the Defense Strategy?

[LiveLaughLuv]

Conspiracy, it's all a conspiracy, right? WRONG....:maddening:

I believe, it was ICA who built this case around herself. Not one credible piece of information out of the mouth of a mother who's child is allegedly not returned by a nanny who babysat her for almost 2 years. The same nanny who ICA claims she's known for 4 years...how can that be?

I believe ICA giving LE incredible information is what brought on the evidence. While LE was trying desperately to find Caylee without the help of her parent, sprouted up all the other evidence from the trunk of her car. Not to mention the alleged apartment she claims ZFG babysat Caylee was empty for 142 days...

There was a parallel investigation going on, still trying to find out WHAT happened to Caylee and where was she? Caylee was no where to be seen, ICA was the only one who knew...

It's beyond my comprehension how ICA thought she could just feed LE some BS and they would just take her word....she did this to herself, not LE....I take great insult to how this case is spinning when the alleged guilty party sits right there...in the end, she will not walk...in the end, after her appeals process, she will still be doing a life sentence w/o the possibility of parole...either way, her ship done sunk....JMHO

Justice for Caylee

 

[Whome?]

I need clarification on something; When the DT presents their case is there going to be "ONE" person who can testify that they actually met and/or saw Zanni the nanny? 'ONE" person that Casey actually told that Caylee was missing? "ONE" person that noticed a change in her behavior,that she was upset,not eating,crying etc? If the DT does not have this witness, I suggest they fold up their circus tent and just go home because if I was on the SA team, I would stress this in addition to the 30 days JMO

 

[LambChop]

Plus the 9 to 1 in her statement. Who does not know the approximate time you last saw your daughter, or what time you dropped her off to the Nanny. Nanny has nothing better than to wait for KC to decide when she's going out. There is no defense strategy for this admission.

 

[ZsaZsa]

:banghead:

I need clarification on something; When the DT presents their case is there going to be "ONE" person who can testify that they actually met and/or saw Zanni the nanny? 'ONE" person that Casey actually told that Caylee was missing? "ONE" person that noticed a change in her behavior,that she was upset,not eating,crying etc? If the DT does not have this witness, I suggest they fold up their circus tent and just go home because if I was on the SA team, I would stress this in addition to the 30 days JMO

If this were any one of the 'anonymous' cases that are going on every day, they would have been begging for a plea. It's only because of the celebrity style notoriety that JB is keeping this going. I don't think it has anything to do with ICA anymore. He seems oblivious to the fact that he is making a spectacle of himself....
IMO he is waiting to get on some realityTV show - The Real Lawyers of Orange County - I can see it now... :banghead:

 

[mobius99]

:banghead:

If this were any one of the 'anonymous' cases that are going on every day, they would have been begging for a plea. It's only because of the celebrity style notoriety that JB is keeping this going. I don't think it has anything to do with ICA anymore. He seems oblivious to the fact that he is making a spectacle of himself....
IMO he is waiting to get on some realityTV show - The Real Lawyers of Orange County - I can see it now... :banghead:

BBM
:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[UESwifey]

What is not going to work is this "poor little Casey Anthony was afraid f the big bad cops!" Are they for real trying to make it seem like ICA was the least bit intimidated by the detectives who were trying to find her daughter?? All you have to do is hear the tapes at her home and at Universal to hear how unphased she was by this entire experience.

Another thing that will not work is CM's Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer act... "I-I'm sorry, your Honor. I was listening to the magic voices coming out of this strange modern invention! I'm just an unfrozen caveman lawyer, your world frightens and confuses me!" FAIL!!

 

[Turnadot]

What is not going to work is this "poor little Casey Anthony was afraid f the big bad cops!" Are they for real trying to make it seem like ICA was the least bit intimidated by the detectives who were trying to find her daughter?? All you have to do is hear the tapes at her home and at Universal to hear how unphased she was by this entire experience.

Another thing that will not work is CM's Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer act... "I-I'm sorry, your Honor. I was listening to the magic voices coming out of this strange modern invention! I'm just an unfrozen caveman lawyer, your world frightens and confuses me!" FAIL!!

When CM said that crap, I think I busted a rib laughing. I think he might try and use that tactic at trial, which is, imo, why the defence wants the Universal Q&A tossed out.

I mean, c'mon...

Here's what gets me :furious:

*Q: Nobody's forced you to talk to us, right?

A: No.

Q: You, you want us, you want us to...you're here because you called, you want us to help find your daughter, right?

A: Uh-huh. (Affirmative)

So what we have is a situation of the defendant's design, where she was in control. A situation where the defendant wasted time and resources, claims that she WANTS LE there to help, and she wants to help too, etc and that no one is forcing her to talk to them.

The defendant was manipulating the situation; she was pulling the strings; she directed where they went that day; they followed her down the hallway. Even while in the room at Universal she continued her smooth manipulation BS and claiming not everything was a lie.

There's not a hint of fear in her voice, or that she was intimidated at all. She had all the power; LE had all the frustration.

I'm a reasonable person and I can't fathom feeling *in custody* during that Q&A, though I did at the start, but taking in the totality of what she did, and that she had her cellphone on her. On the contrary, I would feel a sense of relief that I wasn't being arrested and that I'd outsmarted them, because if they had any evidence, they'd stfu with the questions and just arrest me.


* http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6036055...ice-Interview-at-Universal-Studios-1320-Hours

 

[pip]

What is not going to work is this "poor little Casey Anthony was afraid f the big bad cops!" Are they for real trying to make it seem like ICA was the least bit intimidated by the detectives who were trying to find her daughter?? All you have to do is hear the tapes at her home and at Universal to hear how unphased she was by this entire experience.

Another thing that will not work is CM's Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer act... "I-I'm sorry, your Honor. I was listening to the magic voices coming out of this strange modern invention! I'm just an unfrozen caveman lawyer, your world frightens and confuses me!" FAIL!!

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[LancelotLink]

When CM said that crap, I think I busted a rib laughing. I think he might try and use that tactic at trial, which is, imo, why the defence wants the Universal Q&A tossed out.

I mean, c'mon...

Here's what gets me :furious:

*Q: Nobody's forced you to talk to us, right?

A: No.

Q: You, you want us, you want us to...you're here because you called, you want us to help find your daughter, right?

A: Uh-huh. (Affirmative)

So what we have is a situation of the defendant's design, where she was in control. A situation where the defendant wasted time and resources, claims that she WANTS LE there to help, and she wants to help too, etc and that no one is forcing her to talk to them.

The defendant was manipulating the situation; she was pulling the strings; she directed where they went that day; they followed her down the hallway. Even while in the room at Universal she continued her smooth manipulation BS and claiming not everything was a lie.

There's not a hint of fear in her voice, or that she was intimidated at all. She had all the power; LE had all the frustration.

I'm a reasonable person and I can't fathom feeling *in custody* during that Q&A, though I did at the start, but taking in the totality of what she did, and that she had her cellphone on her. On the contrary, I would feel a sense of relief that I wasn't being arrested and that I'd outsmarted them, because if they had any evidence, they'd stfu with the questions and just arrest me.


* http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6036055...ice-Interview-at-Universal-Studios-1320-Hours

I noticed during his argument, CM said there were two big men in front of her and two behind.

 

[LancelotLink]

:banghead:

If this were any one of the 'anonymous' cases that are going on every day, they would have been begging for a plea. It's only because of the celebrity style notoriety that JB is keeping this going. I don't think it has anything to do with ICA anymore. He seems oblivious to the fact that he is making a spectacle of himself....
IMO he is waiting to get on some realityTV show - The Real Lawyers of Orange County - I can see it now... :banghead:

ITA! I believe there are several media and entertainment deals in the works here, for Casey, her lawyers, the parents, etc. And when I see their over the top reactions, I believe they are playing to the cameras.

 

[Turnadot]

I noticed during his argument, CM said there were two big men in front of her and two behind.

I swallowed that with a bucket full of salt.

 

[LancelotLink]

I swallowed that with a bucket full of salt.

LOL!!! And chased it with a glass of chilled piffle!

His entire argument was nothing but lies.

 

[MsRyber]

Can you imagine if Casey testified? LMAO!
Gosh, I would take my vacation time and grab a bowl of buttery popcorn and sit on the couch watching it like a soap opera.
Her incredulous lying would honestly be entertainment to me, if there wasn't a deceased little precious angel involved.

 

[Turnadot]

LOL!!! And chased it with a glass of chilled piffle!

His entire argument was nothing but lies.

You got that right!

 

[Solace]

It is obviously B.S. I am just saying that the defense needs to point the finger of blame somewhere else and george is the perfect patsy for them.

And the defense does not have to prove someone else did it, just that someone else could have done it. He 'could have' killed Caylee himself on the 16th. All of the things that we say Casey did, they can say George did them.
George could have hid her in the yard at first, then the trunk of the car, to frame Casey. Cindy wouldn't know, she tought the baby was with Casey.

Once Casey figured out that her Dad killed the baby she was so scared she hid from him. And she has stayed in jail to keep safely away from him, until her attorneys finally share the truth. [ really far fetched I know, but they are desperate imo.]

The only part of this scenario that the defense will use, IMO, is sexual abuse and they will use it in the sentencing phase. This is of course just my opinion. Someone wrote that in order to use it in the sentencing phase, it must be brought up at trial - THEN, another poster said that is not true. I don't know what is and what isn't as far as that goes, but I do believe the defense will bring up sexual abuse in order to save her from the death penalty, which I don't believe she will get.

I also do not believe there was every any sexual abuse.

 

[logicalgirl]

The only part of this scenario that the defense will use, IMO, is sexual abuse and they will use it in the sentencing phase. This is of course just my opinion. Someone wrote that in order to use it in the sentencing phase, it must be brought up at trial - THEN, another poster said that is not true. I don't know what is and what isn't as far as that goes, but I do believe the defense will bring up sexual abuse in order to save her from the death penalty, which I don't believe she will get.

I also do not believe there was every any sexual abuse.

I haven't seen anything in my "mitigation" binder that says you can only introduce evidence from the guilt phase into the penalty phase. After all, all the stuff the mitigation lawyer - Finnell - is looking for back in Ohio probably won't be introduced in the guilt phase either.

However, in the event the defense does bring up the possibility of GA and sexual abuse, I think the defense will need more than ICA's written testimony. The jury will have already heard ICA seems incapable of telling the truth throughout the guilt phase.

IMO, it will take more than ICA's version of "I Had A Dream". I think it will be more apparent the animosity between ICA and GA had more to do with one grifter calling out another grifter, particularly during her teenage years, than it was the based on sexual abuse.

 

[Solace]

I haven't seen anything in my "mitigation" binder that says you can only introduce evidence from the guilt phase into the penalty phase. After all, all the stuff the mitigation lawyer - Finnell - is looking for back in Ohio probably won't be introduced in the guilt phase either.

However, in the event the defense does bring up the possibility of GA and sexual abuse, I think the defense will need more than ICA's written testimony. The jury will have already heard ICA seems incapable of telling the truth throughout the guilt phase.

IMO, it will take more than ICA's version of "I Had A Dream". I think it will be more apparent the animosity between ICA and GA had more to do with one grifter calling out another grifter, particularly during her teenage years, than it was the based on sexual abuse.

Thank you Logical. I agree with you, but I think the defense has pretty much zero in their arsenal and I think they would use this if they have to and I think they have to. I really do. It is 31 days and a girl partying, going to blockbuster, stealing money, getting a tatoo. It is bad. Sexual abuse will look very good to the defense at the end of this.

 

[strach304]

I need clarification on something; When the DT presents their case is there going to be "ONE" person who can testify that they actually met and/or saw Zanni the nanny? 'ONE" person that Casey actually told that Caylee was missing? "ONE" person that noticed a change in her behavior,that she was upset,not eating,crying etc? If the DT does not have this witness, I suggest they fold up their circus tent and just go home because if I was on the SA team, I would stress this in addition to the 30 days JMO

The nanny story is too incredible. A ghost. I think the defense wants to use something else is why they are trying to have her statements tossed. Possibly an accidental drowning and ugly coping. She'll have a better chance with a jury if they don't know about the many stories and faces of ICA like we do. If the jury knows Casey went from the nanny story to accident they will think it's just one more lie from her because all the others were unsuccessful. The prosecutions claims are consistent and not the revolving door we see from the defense.

 

[Solace]

The nanny story is too incredible. A ghost. I think the defense wants to use something else is why they are trying to have her statements tossed. Possibly an accidental drowning and ugly coping. She'll have a better chance with a jury if they don't know about the many stories and faces of ICA like we do. If the jury knows Casey went from the nanny story to accident they will think it's just one more lie from her because all the others were unsuccessful. The prosecutions claims are consistent and not the revolving door we see from the defense.

They are going to have raise Clarence Darrow from the dead and even that won't save her. The 31 days and the June 20th picture of her dancing will do it.

 

[LambChop]

Another thing the defense needs to stay away from in KC's statement, which I believe is her first written statement, "I would lie, steal, do whatever it takes to find my daughter." That being stated in her very own handwriting, signed by her and if she said this because it was true, whatever would she do to save her own life? Other than the lying and stealing she really did not do a good job attempting to find her child but you might be more likely to compare it to promoting her new lifestyle.

One expert argument over a root measurement or whether someone reported correctly about the amount of choloform within the car is not going to change the glaring facts that will be presented. Not enough for reasonable doubt.

When CM and JB did their questioning they did a pretty good job with what they had, misspoken at times because we know better (but a jury may not) but LDB was brillant in her soft-spoken presentation of what the state considers facts and slammed a lot of doors shut for the defense. It will be like that the whole trial. So much so that it would not surprise me to see a juror stand up and yell at KC, "For, goodness sakes girl, throw yourself on the mercy of the court."

I think it is overwhelming and it's out there. It will just take SA to herd everything back to the barn to shut the door. Not sure defense has a defense. jmo