Will Casey Testify?

[Gma Kat]

I voted no ... but only because she will be stopped by her attorneys ...

I will however, vote yes for antics and outbursts from her at the defense table ... in a way, thru her actions and demeanor, she will be testifying to her own guilt without even standing up, let alone taking the stand ... JMO

You summed it up well for me denjet......also, but O/T

So nice to see more ws'rs posting now that trial is getting closer! I've gotten so familiar with us die-hards that have remained posting for the past few years, like good friends we seem now...............but it is really nice to see names again posting that I haven't seen in years! Fresh opinions! Very nice!:rocker:

 

[Bee Charmer]

If cheney and jose angel try to advance the accidental theory, she almost has to roll to the stand, imo.

I would love to see her up there, Jeff and Linda would absolutely decimate her.

imo.

 

[Solace]

If cheney and jose angel try to advance the accidental theory, she almost has to roll to the stand, imo.

I would love to see her up there, Jeff and Linda would absolutely decimate her.

imo.

I don't think she will testify; HOWEVER, if she did, being the sociopath that she is, I do not think she would falter in her stance that she had nothing to do with this. With Yuri and JA at Universal, she did not seem afraid at all and held to her story, as ludicrous as it was. Tracey (last name escapes me) who stayed with her per Padilla, said KC is not afraid, she is tough. I don't know that I would describe her as tough, but more a sociopath who doesn't really acknowledge fear, etc. She believes you didn't see me do it, so you can't say I did.

Also, she has been lying to her parents and friends for so many years and outrageous stealing from CA, that she believes she is smarter than everyone. Just think how stupid she thought Amy H. was when she convinced her that she sleepwalked and probably hid the money (that KC had stolen).

I think she would hold up on the stand "emotionally" if I can use that word with KC, but she would be proven a liar - just not in her eyes.

Of course, imo, most of the witnesses that were interviewed - who were friends, etc. of KC's, do not appear to be overly bright at all. I think it was Annie Downing who said she did not believe KC acted alone, if she did this, because she was not smart enough. I would like to know what Annie Downing thinks was so smart about this whole scenario involving KC. There was NOTHING smart about how she acted at all.

I realize that the friends are young and that should be taken into consideration, but not one of them with the exception of Ryan Paisley, comes off as being overly bright either.

 

[Snaz]

I don't think she will testify; HOWEVER, if she did, being the sociopath that she is, I do not think she would falter in her stance that she had nothing to do with this. With Yuri and JA at Universal, she did not seem afraid at all and held to her story, as ludicrous as it was. Tracey (last name escapes me) who stayed with her per Padilla, said KC is not afraid, she is tough. I don't know that I would describe her as tough, but more a sociopath who doesn't really acknowledge fear, etc. She believes you didn't see me do it, so you can't say I did.

Also, she has been lying to her parents and friends for so many years and outrageous stealing from CA, that she believes she is smarter than everyone. Just think how stupid she thought Amy H. was when she convinced her that she sleepwalked and probably hid the money (that KC had stolen).

I think she would hold up on the stand "emotionally" if I can use that word with KC, but she would be proven a liar - just not in her eyes.

Of course, imo, most of the witnesses that were interviewed - who were friends, etc. of KC's, do not appear to be overly bright at all. I think it was Annie Downing who said she did not believe KC acted alone, if she did this, because she was not smart enough. I would like to know what Annie Downing thinks was so smart about this whole scenario involving KC. There was NOTHING smart about how she acted at all.

I realize that the friends are young and that should be taken into consideration, but not one of them with the exception of Ryan Paisley, comes off as being overly bright either.

Respectfully BBM

idk, Solace.... LE and the State know so much more now about what actually happened and even about KC herself than they did back when Yuri and John interviewed her at Universal.

I think JA or LDB, either one, could have KC talking in circles and fluster her to the point of complete frushtration! And we have seen first hand how she reacts when she gets extremely frushtrated. :banghead:

JMHO

 

[Bee Charmer]

I'm sure if casey anthony took the stand, in her eyes she would believe she did great. She's tone deaf as to how she appears to others, imo, proven in the Universal interview. She actually thought she had explained the problem to the detectives and was enroute home, imo.

If she took the stand, she would be asked to explain every single piece of devastating piece of evidence against her, an impossible task, imo.

She would lose all credibility with the jury and once that's gone she's toast, imo.

 

[NavySubMom]

WELCOME TO WS NAVYSUBMOM AND ANNEGIRL! Great Posts! Glad you are here and keep the posts and great thoughts coming!

Oh, I have been here reading for a very very long time, I just never seem to have anything to say that hasn't already been said! Plus most here seem to know everything by heart, I am afraid I will get a fact wrong or something.....I also get nervous to post in public forums, not sure why. This case just has so many twists and turns and story changes and personalities involved, it has been going on for so long so many things are bound to happen. it is very interesting and I just love to see what turns up next! I also love checking each day for the new "Motions" thread now that we are so close to the trial! Thanks for the welcome!

 

[Solace]

I'm sure if casey anthony took the stand, in her eyes she would believe she did great. She's tone deaf as to how she appears to others, imo, proven in the Universal interview. She actually thought she had explained the problem to the detectives and was enroute home, imo.

If she took the stand, she would be asked to explain every single piece of devastating piece of evidence against her, an impossible task, imo.

She would lose all credibility with the jury and once that's gone she's toast, imo.

Exactly, she did feel as though she were going home and this was after an intense interview with three experienced detectives and SHE STILL lies about Valencia at the end.

I think she would be toast on the stand, but in her eyes, she would be okay, imo, because she she would admit that she has lied, but she is not a murderer.

All of this is moot however, because they will not put her up there.

 

[happynanny]

The only time you take the stand, is when you are 110% not Guilty. No one would put me behind bars for life for something I did not do. I don't care how much they questioned me. An Honest person always shows true colors. She will never Shine.

 

[Solace]

The only time you take the stand, is when you are 110% not Guilty. No one would put me behind bars for life for something I did not do. I don't care how much they questioned me. An Honest person always shows true colors. She will never Shine.

Agreed, although the woman who drugged her husband then set the house on fire did take the stand. It is ultimately up to the defendant. But I don't think she will go up there.

 

[logicalgirl]

I voted no - she won't testify. But reading your comments and thinking about it some more, I guess I can only see it happening under one circumstance.

For me, the evidence is all pretty straightforward and barely challengeable. So I do think Baez and Mason will be well aware they are getting absolutely (sorry HF!) creamed - and they will be listening to the media as the case progresses also.

The only set of circumstances I can see ICA may testify, is if she insists and makes a huge issue of it, and if Baez and Mason are at the point of just throwing in the towel, and think, what the heck, we give up, let's let her go ahead and put the final nail in her coffin, as the expression goes, if that is what she really wants, and since she believes she can do a better job of this than we have. Just IMO of course.

 

[ynotdivein]

Wow. I will admit, I'd not explored this thread until snow-day today woohoo because... well, because I read the title and thought "Only if the DT can't cobble together even half of a functioning brain cell among them..."

BUT--I am sooooo glad to finally have read through everyone's thoughtful responses!

So. My vote before reading the posts: No, she won't.

My vote now that I've got caught up: I hope she does! (And think she would be up for it but her lawyers will do everything in their power to prevent that.)

Couple of questions/thoughts/comments inspired by my fellow Sleuthers:

1. If KC at any time expresses to her lawyers a strong desire to get on the stand, how much leeway do they have to tell her firmly and unequivocally NO? If she says she wants to despite their protestations, do they HAVE to put her on the stand? Is there ground for mistrial if post-conviction she says, "I wanted to take the stand and my lawyers would not allow it?"

2. If through whatever machinations, KC makes it to the stand, how on earth will her team prepare her for cross?

3. Can defendants testify while they are under the influence of mood-altering substances, and if so, is that made known to the jury?

4. As remote as some of us feel the possibility of KC on the stand may be, I wager that both JA and LDB (bless their hearts) are preparing to cross-examine her. Agree with posters above who predict very different KC reactions to one or the other of them. I'd expect that with JA she might
sublimate her natural antipathy for him and perhaps aim for the flirtatious damsel in distress/I can get one over on you/how can you treat me this way route, and he would have to take the risk that aggressive questioning on his part might turn a juror or two off as to the prosecution's efforts. With LDB, she would have fewer routes to deal with. IMO, KC attempts to disdain or disarm females who have more power/intellect than she (Cindy, AL), attempts to seduce and thereby dominate those who she perceives are "on her level," (shot girls at Fusian), and attempts to bamboozle/control those whom she views as vulnerable (Amy, CA again). [ETA: IOW, KC's reactions to women are all based on fear and desire to control, and with LDB doing the questioning, KC will come across as fearful and angry at her own lack of control over situation.] Depending on how the evidence had developed and been presented to the jury at the time KC took the stand, I could see either JA or LDB being the prosecutor of choice, to elicit and expose to the jury one or the other side of her real self.

Yikes, longer than I'd planned to go on. Hope that all makes sense--I have more questions/thoughts but need to percolate a bit longer!

 

[logicalgirl]

Wow. I will admit, I'd not explored this thread until snow-day today woohoo because... well, because I read the title and thought "Only if the DT can't cobble together even half of a functioning brain cell among them..."

BUT--I am sooooo glad to finally have read through everyone's thoughtful responses!

So. My vote before reading the posts: No, she won't.

My vote now that I've got caught up: I hope she does! (And think she would be up for it but her lawyers will do everything in their power to prevent that.)

Couple of questions/thoughts/comments inspired by my fellow Sleuthers:

1. If KC at any time expresses to her lawyers a strong desire to get on the stand, how much leeway do they have to tell her firmly and unequivocally NO? If she says she wants to despite their protestations, do they HAVE to put her on the stand? Is there ground for mistrial if post-conviction she says, "I wanted to take the stand and my lawyers would not allow it?"

2. If through whatever machinations, KC makes it to the stand, how on earth will her team prepare her for cross?

3. Can defendants testify while they are under the influence of mood-altering substances, and if so, is that made known to the jury?

4. As remote as some of us feel the possibility of KC on the stand may be, I wager that both JA and LDB (bless their hearts) are preparing to cross-examine her. Agree with posters above who predict very different KC reactions to one or the other of them. I'd expect that with JA she might
sublimate her natural antipathy for him and perhaps aim for the flirtatious damsel in distress/I can get one over on you/how can you treat me this way route, and he would have to take the risk that aggressive questioning on his part might turn a juror or two off as to the prosecution's efforts. With LDB, she would have fewer routes to deal with. IMO, KC attempts to disdain or disarm females who have more power/intellect than she (Cindy, AL), attempts to seduce and thereby dominate those who she perceives are "on her level," (shot girls at Fusian), and attempts to bamboozle/control those whom she views as vulnerable (Amy, CA again). Depending on how the evidence had developed and been presented to the jury at the time KC took the stand, I could see either JA or LDB being the prosecutor of choice, to elicit and expose to the jury one or the other side of her real self.

Yikes, longer than I'd planned to go on. Hope that all makes sense--I have more questions/thoughts but need to percolate a bit longer!

Yeah, me too! Voted no and then read comments and went Hmmm..... ICA may very insist, and I don't suppose JB or CM could do much about it.

And IF she did testify, we may very well think JA and LDB would take her apart, but really, wouldn't it just take a couple of pretty soft questions, such as "Tell us in your own words, ICA, what did happen to Caylee?" And just let her rip! We know she will talk and talk and talk - it will all sound so completely off the wall and irrelevant to the actual evidence to completely seal her own fate.

I think this is why JB fears putting her on the stand - she is completely uncontrollable as far as believing those listening will believe whatever nonsense comes out of her mouth.

 

[joypath]

The only time you take the stand, is when you are 110% not Guilty. No one would put me behind bars for life for something I did not do. I don't care how much they questioned me. An Honest person always shows true colors. She will never Shine.

Yeah, me too! Voted no and then read comments and went Hmmm..... ICA may very insist, and I don't suppose JB or CM could do much about it.

And IF she did testify, we may very well think JA and LDB would take her apart, but really, wouldn't it just take a couple of pretty soft questions, such as "Tell us in your own words, ICA, what did happen to Caylee?" And just let her rip! We know she will talk and talk and talk - it will all sound so completely off the wall and irrelevant to the actual evidence to completely seal her own fate.

I think this is why JB fears putting her on the stand - she is completely uncontrollable as far as believing those listening will believe whatever nonsense comes out of her mouth.

:twocents: BB & underlined: HOW absolutely "ironic" that SHE could "seal" her own fate with her own type of a "soft kill" while on the stand!

It has been said that the victim quietly achieves justice :rocker: via the perpetrator's own actions & words, this case just might be the gold standard of ACTIONS speak louder than WORDS!

 

[fbinAR]

Dignity for Victims wrote:
Bottom line is that at no time during this trial, no matter who might question Casey, do I see Casey winning compassion from that Jury. Not one bit. Casey is undeserving of such.

The only possible minute amount of sympathy Casey may garner is during Penalty Phase, when the Jury realizes the wrath of life with Cindy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry I'm more of a lurker than commenter and don't have the skills for the quote thing.

I agree that Casey deserves no compassion from the jury. The idea that "Cindy made her do it" is a Casey mindset. I'm sure a lot of us had a less than perfect childhood . Some of us have shared stories about our childhood that makes Casey's look perfect. I hope this is not considered off topic but I have to say I hold Casey responsible for what happened to Caylee- not Cindy. Casey was an adult who faced putting up with Cindy's crap (and it was Cindy's house after all) - or get her lazy azz out and get a job, take care of her child and get away from Cindy . Yep she deserves no compassion at all .

 

[ynotdivein]

Sorry I'm more of a lurker than commenter and don't have the skills for the quote thing.

I agree that Casey deserves no compassion from the jury. The idea that "Cindy made her do it" is a Casey mindset. I'm sure a lot of us had a less than perfect childhood . Some of us have shared stories about our childhood that makes Casey's look perfect. I hope this is not considered off topic but I have to say I hold Casey responsible for what happened to Caylee- not Cindy. Casey was an adult who faced putting up with Cindy's crap (and it was Cindy's house after all) - or get her lazy azz out and get a job, take care of her child and get away from Cindy . Yep she deserves no compassion at all .

:welcome5:

fbinAR, here's hopin you quitcher lurkin once you feel acclimated and dive right on in. Well said!

 

[nssherlock]

Rest assured that she will NOT take the stand because she knows JA will rip her a new one.

BBM Amen to that........No way she'd face that humiliation short of a firing squad.:twocents:

 

[TimesPast]

I voted no - she won't testify. But reading your comments and thinking about it some more, I guess I can only see it happening under one circumstance.

For me, the evidence is all pretty straightforward and barely challengeable. So I do think Baez and Mason will be well aware they are getting absolutely (sorry HF!) creamed - and they will be listening to the media as the case progresses also.

The only set of circumstances I can see ICA may testify, is if she insists and makes a huge issue of it, and if Baez and Mason are at the point of just throwing in the towel, and think, what the heck, we give up, let's let her go ahead and put the final nail in her coffin, as the expression goes, if that is what she really wants, and since she believes she can do a better job of this than we have. Just IMO of course.

I agree, I think she probably wants to "tell her side of the story" and if it is obvious after the prosecution case that the defense has nothing to counter same, she may well do so.

I do wonder what on earth the story may be - to combine a couple of defense suggestions - perhaps it can be that the nanny drowned Caylee.

jmo

 

[CuriousTwo]

I hope she doesn't - it will be enough of a circus atmosphere with the three amigos - CA, GA and LA - testifying. Why waste anymore of the taxpayer's hard earned money? The sooner the jury can cut to the chase and reach their guilty verdict, the better.

 

[tankgirl]

Can't believe it.. just 2 months until there is finally some resolution to this case. I haven't posted anything in months.
I firmly believe that a law should be passed that severely limits the amount of time allowed until trial in murder cases, particularly where a minor is the victim. Waiting this long allows far too much time for a perpetrator to mask/recover from the initial sting of guilt.

 

[noonie]

I voted that she will NOT testify. She may act like all is good in KC land but I have a feeling she is soooooooooooooooooooooo scared and this is her first big bust after lying for ever. Got caught stealing too. I think she knows better. She is skeeeeered!!!!!!!! :loser: