Will Casey Testify?

[Beatrice]

Deletion copy post.

 

[Baznme]

Beatrice, looks like you have a double post this morning.

I believe she has to testify now that she's made these allegations towards her father, brother and mother. I don't think they have a choice now that she's pointing the finger at everyone but herself. As far as GA not noting the awful stench, I think if you go back and read the transcripts of GA speaking to LE, you'll find his story in order and does speak of the stench as the smell of death. Give credit where credit is due. At least he was willing to put it on paper and on tape.

 

[PGWodehouse]

Even after the nonsense that Baez put forth yesterday, I still say Casey will not testify. Although I have no doubt that the prosecution is salivating at the chance to get at her in cross.

My bet is that Baez will attempt to back up his really unsupportable claims through pathetic machinations like he tried with GA yesterday and then ignore the rest, hoping that the jury will remember some of what he said, but not all. If he has even one scintilla of sense (and I'm seriously beginning to doubt that he does) he will simply ask questions that hint at the dysfunction and alleged sexual abuse but not address it head-on. Try to create reasonable doubt through the back door. If he puts Casey on the stand...well...I'll get banned if I say what I think of that strategy.

 

[Baznme]

Even after the nonsense that Baez put forth yesterday, I still say Casey will not testify. Although I have no doubt that the prosecution is salivating at the chance to get at her in cross.

My bet is that Baez will attempt to back up his really unsupportable claims through pathetic machinations like he tried with GA yesterday and then ignore the rest, hoping that the jury will remember some of what he said, but not all. If he has even one scintilla of sense (and I'm seriously beginning to doubt that he does) he will simply ask questions that hint at the dysfunction and alleged sexual abuse but not address it head-on. Try to create reasonable doubt through the back door. If he puts Casey on the stand...well...I'll get banned if I say what I think of that strategy.

I think he has to put her on to back up his allegations. From what I understand, he can't just throw this out there without something to back it up. Since the story of Caylee's demise involves GA and ICA, there's only one left out of the two I haven't seen on the stand yet. I would LOVE to see her up there. JA will have a "fri$$in field day", excuse the pun.

 

[PGWodehouse]

Well, legally, he can throw something up in opening and then not back it up, since opening statements are not evidence. In fact, he can throw something up and never mention it again, which is what I suspect is going to happen. Obviously, the problem is that the jury, which presumably is not suffering from a sudden mass outbreak of Alzheimers, is going to expect some explanation of the outlandish allegations he made. So logically, of course, he can't just thorow out wild accusations, not back them up and hope the jury forgets what he said on opening. But logic doesn't seem to be one of Baez's strong points.

Speaking as a Floridian, I have to say I'm a little appalled that someone like Baez passed our bar.

 

[Beatrice]

Doesn't she have to since they are saying it is an accident?

But, isn't the cover up that is the crime.......,$$$$ to tax payers?

 

[ScubaTwinn]

After two days of this, I cannot see how the DT can prove their case based on their opening statements without her testifying. I never thought it would happen, but now I think she might. I'm aware they don't have to bring anything up again they said yesterday. But the questions today confirmed it for me. I voted yes, she will.
I get scared every time I think it takes just one juror. But then JB starts talking and I'm calm again.

 

[roseofsharon]

Male caller to JVM just made such a good point -- (paraphrasing)

He says JB saying due to all the sexual abuse, KC cannot show emotion, but then caller says -- she has no trouble showing emotion sitting in the courtroom with all the tears!!!

Very good point!!

 

[Jo in Calif]

My question is this, if anyone can answer.
Was this the original story that Casey told her attorneys, the day that JB was retained by her, has this been the defense that he was always going by?
Or in the beginning, when she had all those other attorneys, that have been on her case, were they going with the Nanny kidnapping story?
Did she change to this story mid stream, on her own?
Or did she and her attorney's concoct this up together?

 

[ebedeeb]

It will depend on how the rest of this trial goes but I think she has too. I also think her "bombshell" lie is going to be that GA abused Caylee. IMO it is the only plausible (and I use that word lightly) theory as to why GA would help her cover up an accidental drowning of Caylee. An autopsy would reveal molestation, and GA couldnt have that.

I dont believe any of this to be true, but as we have seen ICA and the DT and the truth are strangers.

 

[lyrasong]

After the defense dropped that bomb of an opening statement yesterday (about the sexual abuse) and George didn't bite, I think that Casey has to take the stand. They have nothing to back it up. They aren't using any psychiatric expert testimony, IIRC, so it's the word of a known pathological liar against George and most likely Lee. I don't see him falling on a sword for her, either.

I don't think she will fair very well on the stand and if she does testify I can't wait to see what she has to say. At this point, she really has no choice. She has nothing to lose.

 

[countzero]

My question is this, if anyone can answer.
Was this the original story that Casey told her attorneys, the day that JB was retained by her, has this been the defense that he was always going by?
Or in the beginning, when she had all those other attorneys, that have been on her case, were they going with the Nanny kidnapping story?
Did she change to this story mid stream, on her own?
Or did she and her attorney's concoct this up together?

My :twocents: after listening to Littman yesterday is it was concocted this year after all the SAOs evidence was released to them and reviewed. JBs poor attempt to get the two Drs assessment of ICAs mental state in on the sly then clearly knocked out of the game, they went with their opening summary. The pocket square that shrank into JBs pocket was out of embarrassment.

JBs only truth as he told it, was Caylee died on June 16, 2008. The manner in which she died, he lied about. But he knows.

 

[shgrbkr]

I know the judge will instruct the jury to not give whether or not KC testifies any weight, but how can one NOT do so, when JB has described this as a "tragic accident." If KC is claiming NO culpability, then what has she got to lose? She is the only person who could give the sex abuse claim any insight.

 

[Nore]

I can easily see Cindy saying she didn't know about it but it could be true. Because JB never mentioned CAs role in the abuse dynamic.

Was my mind playing tricks with me or did Jose try to insinuate that George was Caylee's father?

-------------
Fluffy Puppy I heard something to that effect also. I remember thinking you B.....
(meaning Baez) well~ you arent paying attention at all! George did the DNA same time as Lee. :banghead:

 

[Nikki 01]

My question is this, if anyone can answer.
Was this the original story that Casey told her attorneys, the day that JB was retained by her, has this been the defense that he was always going by?
Or in the beginning, when she had all those other attorneys, that have been on her case, were they going with the Nanny kidnapping story?
Did she change to this story mid stream, on her own?
Or did she and her attorney's concoct this up together?

She was sticking to the nanny story early on and it seemed like they were going to go with that which was crazy to me. Baez was also going to use 'ugly coping' as an explanation Casey's actions during the 31 days.

The drowning and molestation are more recent concoctions.

 

[crucibelle]

She's going to have to testify, IMO. I don't see any way the defense could get around that.

 

[mikeysmommom]

ICA will take the stand because she thinks she can manipulate the jurors and they will believe her. I hope she does because the SA will shred her to pieces.

 

[butwhatif?]

I answered no before the trial, but now that I've heard the <very interesting> defense I can't see how she could not take the stand.

Since she's been shaking her head 'no' at so many things, I think the jury is going to want to hear her explanation of all the things she's denying with each 'no'.
Even though they've been instructed that lack of testimony by the defendant should not sway their opinion, I think it will. And if ICA doesn't plan on taking the stand, she needs to stop the 'testimony by body language'.

JMO

 

[Sabrina2011]

OH my god if she does I will not even shower that day, I will close up the house, turn off the phones..

I want to hear every word of how she will get out of this hot mess

 

[Justin Tyme]

Since ICA lies so much, if she does take the stand it will sound pretty much like this: "Who here remembers Charlie Brown when an adult was talking?" It was like: whaa ...whaa...whaa....whaa...whaa! It won't be believe by anyone.