What Kind Of Defense for Casey in a trial?

[Sleuth5]

There is a problem. You would still have to explain Casey's entirely indifferent attitude after her death. While you might try the "psychotic break" bit, her behavior isn't consistent with that kind of event. I think an attorney would have difficulty gathering the kind of expert testimony necessary to make that convincing to a jury. It's going to be hard to get anyone to believe that Casey is particualrly moved by fear in any respect.

What would be essential would be proof of a fundamental break in her previous behavioral patterns, consistent with a genuine psychotic break -- and that's just not there. There's another thread discussing her behavioral change or lack therof elsewhere that addresses that issue. Ultimately, it just seems to me that she's just been too solidly unpleasant for too long to argue for some radical psychological trauma.

Now, I don't deny that they may very well try something relative to your molestation defense, but only if they decide to even admit to the death of Caylee at all. This particular young woman has demonstrated a willingness to lie in the face of incontrovertible fact, so it might not be too far beyond belief to suggest that she will never admit that the child is dead. The defense in that event will probably be entirely preoccupied with discrediting any evidence suggesting that Caylee is in fact dead. Under that scenario, all they will have to do is create a reasonable doubt -- italicized here, because sadly, many jurors ignore the jury charge instructing them as to what constitutes "reasonability" in a defense, and cling to pretty much anything, including the sort of "fanciful explanations" explicitly prohibited in said charge.

If I was her attorney, I would see the second possibility as a decidedly easier task. The first is fraught with all sorts of peril, not the least of which is running the risk of so antagonizing cheerleader #1 (CA) that she comes out swinging with whatever information she has deliberately withheld to this point.

 

[Brini]

There is a problem. You would still have to explain Casey's entirely indifferent attitude after her death. While you might try the "psychotic break" bit, her behavior isn't consistent with that kind of event. I think an attorney would have difficulty gathering the kind of expert testimony necessary to make that convincing to a jury. It's going to be hard to get anyone to believe that Casey is particualrly moved by fear in any respect.

What would be essential would be proof of a fundamental break in her previous behavioral patterns, consistent with a genuine psychotic break -- and that's just not there. There's another thread discussing her behavioral change or lack therof elsewhere that addresses that issue. Ultimately, it just seems to me that she's just been too solidly unpleasant for too long to argue for some radical psychological trauma.

Now, I don't deny that they may very well try something relative to your molestation defense, but only if they decide to even admit to the death of Caylee at all. This particular young woman has demonstrated a willingness to lie in the face of incontrovertible fact, so it might not be too far beyond belief to suggest that she will never admit that the child is dead. The defense in that event will probably be entirely preoccupied with discrediting any evidence suggesting that Caylee is in fact dead. Under that scenario, all they will have to do is create a reasonable doubt -- italicized here, because sadly, many jurors ignore the jury charge instructing them as to what constitutes "reasonability" in a defense, and cling to pretty much anything, including the sort of "fanciful explanations" explicitly prohibited in said charge.

If I was her attorney, I would see the second possibility as a decidedly easier task. The first is fraught with all sorts of peril, not the least of which is running the risk of so antagonizing cheerleader #1 (CA) that she comes out swinging with whatever information she has deliberately withheld to this point.

Well, she's not psychotic-- she's sociopathic, and that's not a defense. Sociopaths know what they are doing, they just don't care.

Molestation won't work. The As wouldn't admit it, if it was true. And, the overwhelming majority of women who have been molested as children or adults do not kill their kids. Also, there is no evidence that KC molested Caylee.

I think the ONLY defense they can try is to attack the evidence. Since the FBI did most of that, and they have the best labs, that will be tough.

 

[miimaa]

DEFENSE:

Casey had been kicked out of her parents home and was spending her days at Blanchard Park. Her and Caylee met a woman (Zanny) there one sunny afternoon and got to talking while the kids played about how they both knew people that worked at Universal and how much fun Fusian was. Thinking she could trust her new friend Casey asked her to watch Caylee while she ran to Target for some new bras and teddy's that were on sale. When she got back to Blanchard Park no one was there. Casey returned to the park every day searching for Caylee and went to Fusian at night since her new friend liked that place. She also remembered her new friend talking about now nice Sawgrass Apts were so Casey checked there too. Then she remembered she had told her new friend about Target's great prices so she kept checking there too.

She couldn't tell the truth because she knew her mother wouldn't like it. Casey knew her mother would blame her again for being irresponsible. Casey didn't want her mother to find out she'd messed up yet again. So she continued as normally as possible and looked for her new friend everywhere she went. The new friend had said she'd lived in New York for awhile after coming to the US from Puerto Rico so those places should be check too.

The pizza was bought for her new friend and the kids but of course they weren't at the park so... the pizza never got eaten. That is how the squirrels got into the car as well... while sitting in the park every day waiting for their return. Casey could not possible look for a job while she was sitting in the park so she took money from others BUT she fully intended to pay them back as soon as she found Caylee and was working full-time at Fusian as a hostess.

In conclusion - Casey has been telling the truth. She does not know where Caylee is. Caylee is still alive with Casey's new friend that she trusted and was betrayed by. The new friend was quite well off so she knows Caylee is safe and has lots of clothes and toys and that is the explanation for her behavior. In order to protect her family she couldn't tell the truth because then her mom would not only be angry, she'd feel bad about kicking Casey out of the house. See what a hero she is?

 

[Sleuth5]

:clap:

 

[amethyst221]

Even in the last motions hearing, JB was still going with the ZG idea, or so it seemed. It gets very confusing if you listen to the list of alternative kidnappers and coercers that Cindy throws into the mix. They may be theories being tested by the defense through her. Then again, they may be the ideas of how to handle things effectively by a very controlling person who knows more, in her view, than everybody. Who knows? So later, it isn't impossible that through some contortion JB could try to blame JG, AH, TL, etc. (They do want to know about how LE has investigated them, how they did on lie detector tests, etc. to size them up as blame candidates.) But how credible would the switch of wrongdoers be?

Whoever is blamed, I don't think we'll get a defense based on any admission that Caylee is deceased or that Casey did it because of (insert reason), certainly as long as no body is found. I think they will stick with the idea that Caylee is alive, while they pursue various alleged sightings. The idea is to keep reasonable doubt alive. They will stick with the elusive, phantom Nanny. LE could show Casey a current, perfect photo of every ZG in the world, and she wouldn't pick one out as the friend of 4 years, nanny for several, that she has described. It wouldn't be because she has any moral objection to blaming an innocent person, but because the person she chose might have an alibi or something that could easily show CA is lying. Look at the trouble she got herself into with the Sawgrass story, the legend of the phone calls, etc.

Things could change, her whole story could change, if a body is found without any help from Casey. But there is a real downside to this. It would mean that she and her defense team have told repeated lies to the police and the public. You can't just shed one story you swore was the truth and adopt another with no consequences to your case and your credibility, as strained as it already is. But this is this case, so I guess nothing normal or usual can be counted on.

 

[Sleuth5]

Even in the last motions hearing, JB was still going with the ZG idea, or so it seemed. It gets very confusing if you listen to the list of alternative kidnappers and coercers that Cindy throws into the mix. They may be theories being tested by the defense through her. Then again, they may be the ideas of how to handle things effectively by a very controlling person who knows more, in her view, than everybody. Who knows? So later, it isn't impossible that through some contortion JB could try to blame JG, AH, TL, etc. (They do want to know about how LE has investigated them, how they did on lie detector tests, etc. to size them up as blame candidates.) But how credible would the switch of wrongdoers be?

Whoever is blamed, I don't think we'll get a defense based on any admission that Caylee is deceased or that Casey did it because of (insert reason), certainly as long as no body is found. I think they will stick with the idea that Caylee is alive, while they pursue various alleged sightings. The idea is to keep reasonable doubt alive. They will stick with the elusive, phantom Nanny. LE could show Casey a current, perfect photo of every ZG in the world, and she wouldn't pick one out as the friend of 4 years, nanny for several, that she has described. It wouldn't be because she has any moral objection to blaming an innocent person, but because the person she chose might have an alibi or something that could easily show CA is lying. Look at the trouble she got herself into with the Sawgrass story, the legend of the phone calls, etc.

Things could change, her whole story could change, if a body is found without any help from Casey. But there is a real downside to this. It would mean that she and her defense team have told repeated lies to the police and the public. You can't just shed one story you swore was the truth and adopt another with no consequences to your case and your credibility, as strained as it already is. But this is this case, so I guess nothing normal or usual can be counted on.

I completely agree. The biggest liability to the defense is the fact that they're already wedded to a nonsensical story, and if they change course drastically (which would seem the only reasonable possibility), they will destroy what little credibility they are ever going to have with a jury. The jury will hear all about every lie and version of the "disappearance" of Caylee Casey has already offered, so any attempt to claim that this is the "real story" is going to be ignored, IMO.

 

[miimaa]

Casey is being a hero for Zanny too because Zanny told her she was here on a secret diplomatic mission. Casey trusted Zanny because Zanny was a Bud Light girl like her so they shared that bond as well. Casey couldn't tell Cindy she'd made friends with a wonderul Puerto Rican woman because Cindy hates all Puerto Ricans since the cross-dressing gardner they had when they first moved to Florida stole all of Cindy's clothing except for shorts and tank tops. He took Casey's bras and teddys and that is why she needed new ones. The Bud Light was to go with the pizza so they could have a good time when Zanny returned.

 

[amethyst221]

I can just hear those usual words in my head! So Ms. Witness, were you lying then or are you lying now? Lawyer cold chills. Ew.

 

[cfromcanada]

I believe they are going to stick with the kidnapping theory by a mysterious nanny until the bitter end. In the meantime, they just hope like h...that the body is never found and they will have all of these "sightings" of Caylee...reasonable doubt. That in a nutshell will be the defense. I would almost bet on it

 

[miimaa]

The car accident can be explained too. Since Zanny was here on a secret diplomatic mission she paid the hospital bill in cash and gave them hush money to keep her name out of all files. Casey was driving around looking for Zanny the day she saw her car and saw the accident. Casey felt so sorry for Zanny that she agreed to let her keep Caylee longer for the trip to Busch Gardens that Zanny wanted to take.

 

[amethyst221]

The car accident can be explained too. Since Zanny was here on a secret diplomatic mission she paid the hospital bill in cash and gave them hush money to keep her name out of all files. Casey was driving around looking for Zanny the day she saw her car and saw the accident. Casey felt so sorry for Zanny that she agreed to let her keep Caylee longer for the trip to Busch Gardens that Zanny wanted to take.

Okay, this is good, too, but could you get to the part that involves squirrel pictures, please?

 

[miimaa]

Okay, this is good, too, but could you get to the part that involves squirrel pictures, please?

The squirrels got into the car during the many hours Casey sat in Blanchard Park waiting for Zanny to come back.

 

[hmlykins]

Hi everyone. This is my first post here. I have been reading here since July.

Do you guys think that the defense will try an insanity plea? I keep hearing that she is a sociopath, which obviously there is something wrong with her, whether it be that she is just a person that doesn't care about anyone but herself or she has something kind of mental disorder.

I would like to know what you all think. Sorry if this question sounds *insane* but just curious.

 

[zadari]

im sure they are gonna try everything in the book .. i wouldnt be suprised at all if they try something on that order

 

[kathyn2]

An insanity plea would not work in this case. In order to claim insanity you have to have not known right from wrong. By her actions of hiding the body would prove she knew it was wrong. An insane person would have just killed the person and left them where they were and given LE some hinky story about how God made them do it or something.

Also, sociopathy is not a mental disorder. It is a personality disorder.

 

[TURBOTHINK]

Hi everyone. This is my first post here. I have been reading here since July.

Do you guys think that the defense will try an insanity plea? I keep hearing that she is a sociopath, which obviously there is something wrong with her, whether it be that she is just a person that doesn't care about anyone but herself or she has something kind of mental disorder.

I would like to know what you all think. Sorry if this question sounds *insane* but just curious.

That would be a very foolish mistake on the part of the defense. A sociopath, even a psychopath does not qualify under the letter of the law as insane. Insanity only comes into play when a person does not know right from wrong.

She knew right from wrong, she had enough foresight to research her methods. That is one defense which will never work.

I also believe the kidnapping defense is going to be a mistake. I would have gone for an accident early on and taken a plea bargain. That is where I believe Baez was wrong. I doubt that can be used at this point, but with his poor representation who knows?

 

[Broderick]

Hi everyone. This is my first post here. I have been reading here since July.

Do you guys think that the defense will try an insanity plea? I keep hearing that she is a sociopath, which obviously there is something wrong with her, whether it be that she is just a person that doesn't care about anyone but herself or she has something kind of mental disorder.

I would like to know what you all think. Sorry if this question sounds *insane* but just curious.

When she used the phone (twice) and found the numbers 9 and 1 on it the night her parents were having issues with protesters out front - that kind of says she isn't insane. That is why Baez was so furious with her the next day. Of course, she refused to see him the next day and he rushed over to the house to find out why "his girl" was cutting him off from contact. jmo

 

[kathyn2]

I agree with this. The defense made a huge mistake in not pleading it was an accident and taking a plea bargain to show where the body was. However, if there was evidence of murder and not accident LE may not have wanted to do that. Remember they had evidence of a search for chloroform and other things (in fact I believe they have tons we have heard nothing about).

I also believe the kidnapping defense is going to be a mistake. I would have gone for an accident early on and taken a plea bargain. That is where I believe Baez was wrong. I doubt that can be used at this point, but with his poor representation who knows?

 

[Nana46]

When she used the phone (twice) and found the numbers 9 and 1 on it the night her parents were having issues with protesters out front - that kind of says she isn't insane. That is why Baez was so furious with her the next day. Of course, she refused to see him the next day and he rushed over to the house to find out why "his girl" was cutting him off from contact. jmo

Gosh I missed this info...Baez got upset with her? for using the phone?

 

[Janis396]

When she used the phone (twice) and found the numbers 9 and 1 on it the night her parents were having issues with protesters out front - that kind of says she isn't insane. That is why Baez was so furious with her the next day. Of course, she refused to see him the next day and he rushed over to the house to find out why "his girl" was cutting him off from contact. jmo

Wow, really?? Can you give some more details about this?