What Kind Of Defense for Casey in a trial?

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
TotallyObsessed said:
I think they are going to claim some kind of "medical" issue with KC. Brain tumor or something connected to her previous siezure. I was reading another blog this morning (from a link on another thread here on WS) and there was a post by someone with a similar name who posts here and who is suspected to be CA - her is what she said...

"Maybe someone had led her to believe that was the correct apartment, or maybe she can’t remember, or maybe she’s afraid to tell the whole truth. Casey was taken to the hospital by a friend months ago because she had had a seizure, she could have medical issues that are causing her to be so confused. Who knows? "

I think the A team is going to weave a defense around KC having seizure "blackouts" and not being able to remember things. (How convenient). Hence, the statements early on by LA that "to the best of her ability" KC is telling the truth.
Click to expand...

If the hospital diagnosis was that she was faking for attention, or that she was passed out on drink, or drugs, that defense would tank, badly, though.
 
tiredofthis said:
Was it ever proven that KC even had a seizure? There are types of seizures that cause you to blackout and in some cases you can do strange things. Usually confusion from seizures doesn't last very long.
Click to expand...

And, if she had a real seizure. where are the driving restriction? A lot of people get their licenses pulled, for a period of time, after a siezure.
 
A seizure may cause a black out, but it doesn't cause a person to see imaginary nannies.
 
calgary said:
I hope it's toast. You must never assume anything. That OJ trial taught me that. The burden will be on the prosecution. I feel confident they will win this, but I will never think, oh this is easy...in to the slammer she goes.

Lets hope the prosecution delivers.
Click to expand...

OJ had better lawyers. AND, the trial was in Los Angeles. My guess is that had the trial been in Santa Monica, the outcome might have been much different.
 
Self defense. Hahah...ooops...Oh, MY! For some reason, I could see Baez trying it. Hmmm....
 
Nore said:
I honestly think they will continue with the kidnapping ploy. I dont think it will hold up even through the whole trial but they will try.This could also be the reason C. and G. stick to their story.If Caylee were mine I'd want her home and a proper burial,wouldn't care how KC faired.As we all know it is one thing to be there no matter what for your child and another thing to downright lie for her.IMO
Click to expand...

There is something very wrong with grandparents who don't care if their granddaughter has a proper burial or not. (unless they already gave her one)
 
Brini said:
And, if she had a real seizure. where are the driving restriction? A lot of people get their licenses pulled, for a period of time, after a siezure.
Click to expand...
Do you remember when she supposedly had this seizure? It was Jesse that took her to the hospital?
 
No. They sure did not. Then again, lying isn't illegal according to CA...so why not take a LDT?! LOL
 
Lexington said:
I think they will pursue the kidnapping defense also. I don't see them having any other choice. This is what KC said in her initial interviews with LE and maintained that all along. Even now, 4 months later, CA and GA are still spouting that Caylee is alive, she is being moved often, they are close to finding her, etc. It won't work, but this is the story they will go with.
Click to expand...

A question for the legal eagles here. Is there any way for them to use the kidnapping defense, without actually putting KC on the stand? I mean the defense cannot simply produce a work of pure fiction in order to achieve reasonable doubt. They have to have some chain of circumstances and evidence. Something that works against the prosecution. They can spew stories all they want, but until they put some person on the stand as a witness, or offer some pieceof concrete evidence (such as cancelled checks to the nanny for babysitting, an apartment lease and adress, a travel itenerary etc) I don't think the judge would allow them to mount such a defense. Without any witnesses of evidence it is pretty much the same as the "She was abducted by aliens" defense. And the only first hand witness they have that can clain kidnapping is KC. Everybody else is hearsay testimony from KC. What else besides her can they put before the court that offers any indication of a kidnapping?

granted if they actually put KC on the stand, well then they have proven that their long term defense strategy is to win on appeal on the basis of incompetant council.
 
faefrost said:
A question for the legal eagles here. Is there any way for them to use the kidnapping defense, without actually putting KC on the stand? I mean the defense cannot simply produce a work of pure fiction in order to achieve reasonable doubt. They have to have some chain of circumstances and evidence. Something that works against the prosecution. They can spew stories all they want, but until they put some person on the stand as a witness, or offer some pieceof concrete evidence (such as cancelled checks to the nanny for babysitting, an apartment lease and adress, a travel itenerary etc) I don't think the judge would allow them to mount such a defense. Without any witnesses of evidence it is pretty much the same as the "She was abducted by aliens" defense. And the only first hand witness they have that can clain kidnapping is KC. Everybody else is hearsay testimony from KC. What else besides her can they put before the court that offers any indication of a kidnapping?

granted if they actually put KC on the stand, well then they have proven that their long term defense strategy is to win on appeal on the basis of incompetant council.
Click to expand...

That is a great point. NO ONE can attest to the nanny but KC, so that defense is useless.
 
faefrost said:
A question for the legal eagles here. Is there any way for them to use the kidnapping defense, without actually putting KC on the stand? I mean the defense cannot simply produce a work of pure fiction in order to achieve reasonable doubt. They have to have some chain of circumstances and evidence. Something that works against the prosecution. They can spew stories all they want, but until they put some person on the stand as a witness, or offer some pieceof concrete evidence (such as cancelled checks to the nanny for babysitting, an apartment lease and adress, a travel itenerary etc) I don't think the judge would allow them to mount such a defense. Without any witnesses of evidence it is pretty much the same as the "She was abducted by aliens" defense. And the only first hand witness they have that can clain kidnapping is KC. Everybody else is hearsay testimony from KC. What else besides her can they put before the court that offers any indication of a kidnapping?

granted if they actually put KC on the stand, well then they have proven that their long term defense strategy is to win on appeal on the basis of incompetant council.
Click to expand...

I expect that the prosecution will introduce the kidnapping story, to show that Casey's only explanation for what happened to Caylee is a total fabrication.
 
Pink Panther said:
Do you remember when she supposedly had this seizure? It was Jesse that took her to the hospital?
Click to expand...

No, I'm sorry. I don't think I ever knew the date. But, I THINK JG took her to he hospital.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 208 more.
Total: 1,803 (members: 209, guests: 1,594)

Online statistics

Members online
209
Guests online
1,594
Total visitors
1,803
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,556
Messages
18,096,577
Members
230,878
Latest member
LVTRUCRIME
Back
Top