Your comment sparked a thought, even if KC sticks with the ZG/nanny kidnapping story, wouldn't she still have to take the stand and tell the story to a jury in her own words if there is to be ANY hope of her being believed? Say for instance that KC had called 911 on July 16th screaming that her baby wasn't breathing, claiming that she had only turned her back for a moment and Caylee climbed the ladder into the pool.
She claimed that she never saw her in the pool because of the height of the pool sides obstructed her view and she never heard anything because she had her boom box playing. It wasn't until she walked over to the area of the yard where she thought Caylee was playing when she realized that she was gone and in a panic she ran to the pool... fast forward...
LE/investigator's are suspicious of her because they feel that she is acting peculiar, something just doesn't sit right. They ask her to walk them thru it, including having her turn the volume on the boom box up to the level that it had been when the incident occurred. She shows them the area in the yard where she had last seen Caylee playing as well as where she herself was at the time...fast forward...
LE talks to the neighbor's on each side of the residence. One neighbor isn't home at the time that the incident occurred but one neighbor is and she claims to have been sitting out in her sunroom where she watches her afternoon soaps religously. Although the sunroom offers protection from the outside elements, it isn't effective in reducing outside noise or acting as a sound barrier. She claims that she never heard any music playing the afternoon that the incident occurred and certainly not loud music coming out of a boom box.
Further suspicion is raised when two individuals come forward and disclose statements that KC had made previously to them such as, "Yeah, I could have alot more fun if I didn't have a child", "You want a kid, go ahead, take her, you'll bring her back in a week, trust me".
LE gets a search warrant, including KC's laptop. Computer forensic's reveal previous pc searches for "drowning", "life insurance" and "grief". KC explains that her search for "drowning" was actually to educate herself in drowning prevention, (LE doesn't buy it for what they view as "obvious" and suspects/hopes that a jury won't either) she tells LE that she did in fact purchase a life insurance policy for herself and her child claiming that a fellow co-worker & a parent herself, had tragically and unexpectedly lost a child several years ago and at least was able to provide a decent burial for her child without the added financial stress on top of what she was already dealing with. She claimed that her search for "grief" was not grief in relation to a death but grief in relation to a loss of a significant intimate relationship, a boyfriend. Fast forward...
She is arrested and charged with murder 1. Premeditated murder. The defense: The defendent became a parent at a young age and the statement "I could have alot more fun if I didn't have a kid" was made simply to discourage this individual, who indeed was young, from having a child before they were actually mature enough to handle raising a child. The defense attorney is able to extract from this witness on the stand that the statement made by KC was made after she herself made the statement, "I can't wait to have a baby of my own"
The next witness claiming that KC told her to "go ahead, take her, you'll bring her back in a week, trust me" admitted that they were with a group of friend's the day that the statement was made, matter of fact every person in the group was a parent and had their own children or child with them, including the witness. The witness's child was only 5 months old at the time and like most 5 month old's, essentially they sleep and eat, much unlike a 2 or 3 year old child. It's natural for a first-time mother with a newborn or young infant to look at a toddler who is talking & interactive, singing & jumping and has developed their own personality to feel excited and anxious for the day that their baby will do all of those things too and the witness expressed that repeatedly. The defense claims that the statement made by the defendent was made in "good fun" and certainly wasn't made as a serious proposal. The witness states when asked by the defense attorney if any plans were ever discussed or were any arrangements made between her and KC to actually have Caylee go and stay at her home, "No".
The co-worker who KC claimed had lost a child previously and had actually been the one that had influenced her decision to purchase a life insurance policy on Caylee and herself, recalled their conversation very well and was noticably upset that KC, as she stated, was not only grieving the loss of her child but was being falsely accused of causing her child's death simply because she had taken a life insurance policy out on Caylee and with tears running down her face, she looked to the jury and said "Is that what people whispered about me when my child died? Oh my God".
Lastly, the next door neighbor who sat out in her sunroom every afternoon to watch her soaps, who claims that had there been music playing, she would have heard it. The defense asks her what soaps she likes to watch, although he already knows the answer and has even watched the actual episodes that aired that particular day including his own detailed minute by minute notes. But before he engages her, he asks her how long she has worn a hearing aide. She tells him that actually she just recently got "them", and she adds, "what a difference, I can hear everything now". The defense attorney then says, "must be alot better now watching your soaps, don't miss a word?" The witness lights up like a Christmas tree and says, "oh it's wonderful, I don't have to sit right in front of the television set anymore, I can lay on my lounger and hear every word". The defense attorney then asks the witness a question pertaining to the scene that would have been playing at the time of Caylee's drowning. But the witness doesn't recall the scene, the defense provides even more detail in an effort to help jar her memory but she "cannot for the life of me recall seeing that part, maybe I dozed off a little, sometimes I do that you know".
My point: If it were a case like this, it seems to me KC's testimony isn't needed. Although nobody else was present to witness the incident, the testimony of others can/can't, does/doesn't support the likelihood of it having occurred.
She didn't claim that an enormous spaceship hovered over them and then with lights flashing and rocket engines burning, landed, a hatch door opened, an alien by the name of "Zanny" (sorry, had to get it in there) put Caylee into the pool and drowned her. She's the only one that saw it even though, by her own description, it must have been as wide & long as a football field. Who can testify to this except for her? Who can tell this story, the story that SHE HAS TOLD, except for her? NOBODY! Because nobody else met Zan..I mean saw the freakin spaceship. Just to be fair here, yes, her mother can testify on her behalf. She can take the stand and under oath BE HONEST and when asked, "CA, did you ever actually see the spaceship that your daughter has spoken of"? "Well you know just because.." "Mrs. A, may I remind you that you are under oath and may I also remind you that it's a yes or no answer". "OK, well than yes, in a backwards sort of way I did and what I mean by that is I saw something and KC saw something, KC saw it as a spaceship and I saw it as jess..I mean JG, so yes I saw it." Seriously though, who does the defense have who can support KC's story? Who does the defense have that could even present the possibility of the existance of "Zanny the Nanny"? No one, there is not one single soul who was with her when she dropped Caylee off outside of an apartment or a house, was with her when she stopped off at a house or an apartment, ran in and came out with Caylee, saw her write a check to pay a nanny, heard her talking on the phone to a nanny, saw a note, a scribbling of a note to a nanny, anything on a calender anywhere mentioning nanny - Not one single person could add anything on the defense's behalf that could stimulate a juror's imagination enough to entertain the mere possibility of a Nanny. So if the defense/KC insist upon going to trial claiming that Zanny the Nanny did it, KC has to tell the story, doesn't she? I'm not a legal expert (obviously) but I was a juror once and I can't see one juror buying this...unless it's someone who was prone to delusions beforehand. Any legal expert-genious's out there?
