Casey Anthony Legal Defense Strategies #2

[lin]

Well, the defense strategies is the topic of "this" thread, so here goes....
THIS might be how Casey could respond to that.....

I didn't know what caused the stink in my car, my dad told me that he hit a squirrel while he was using my car there for a few days. I didn't have any idea what my parents had done with Caylee, they just told me they would take care of it, and honestly, I was kinda relieved of the burden of caring for Caylee, so "in a backwards kinda way", I was celebrating my freedom. Caylee died the day my mom took her to Mr. Dora to see my grandpa on father's day. They told me that night when I came home. My mom even played the audio of the last recording of Caylee's voice to me over the phone the day she called 911 to remind me about how happy Caylee was her last day alive, so that I wouldn't tell the cops the truth. My mom was petrified that she would lose her nursing license over what happened to Caylee while she was with my mom. I trusted that my parents could handle the situation, and when they told me to "get out" of the house, it was because they needed me to be gone so they could explain why Caylee was not in the home any longer. I kept messing up by staying in Orlando, and this made my mom very nervous, and when the towyard found out about the car, my mom panicked "on a whim", and called 911.

Thanks for trying but it doesn't work exactly that way. She won't be allowed to stray or give a story as an answer most of the time.

I understand this is the defense theory thread but imo those theories should be tested otherwise, we can't know how valid they are or how likely to succeed. Remember JBean's cookie story and also remember that a theory must not be able to be excluded by other evidence. KC's lack of grief and wild partying for 31 days is unlikely to be seen by a jury as grief and coverup, nor is her tatoo, etc. etc. etc.

 

[lin]

Well, the defense strategies is the topic of "this" thread, so here goes....
THIS might be how Casey could respond to that.....

I didn't know what caused the stink in my car, my dad told me that he hit a squirrel while he was using my car there for a few days. I didn't have any idea what my parents had done with Caylee, they just told me they would take care of it, and honestly, I was kinda relieved of the burden of caring for Caylee, so "in a backwards kinda way", I was celebrating my freedom. Caylee died the day my mom took her to Mr. Dora to see my grandpa on father's day. They told me that night when I came home. My mom even played the audio of the last recording of Caylee's voice to me over the phone the day she called 911 to remind me about how happy Caylee was her last day alive, so that I wouldn't tell the cops the truth. My mom was petrified that she would lose her nursing license over what happened to Caylee while she was with my mom. I trusted that my parents could handle the situation, and when they told me to "get out" of the house, it was because they needed me to be gone so they could explain why Caylee was not in the home any longer. I kept messing up by staying in Orlando, and this made my mom very nervous, and when the towyard found out about the car, my mom panicked "on a whim", and called 911.

PS: If you listen to the video with Schaeffer, he goes through a lot of things including his opinion that KC won't testify and why.

I disagree with Schaeffer on one point: He opines that the defense should not point to any specific person but instead should be focus on a vague someone as in the OJ trial. The difference is Nicole and Ron were adults out on a public street at night so this was possible. Caylee was 2 years old and it is impossible that anyone would have access to her but through her mother. If her mother doesn't name someone, I don't see any juror buying a vague someone.

ETA: I agree with him that she can't point to anyone specific; that won't work either. I think her goose is cooked and she blew any possible defense by allowing any evidence of an accident (on the remote chance there was one) to deteriorate in the swamp and by her ridiculous lies with which the defense is now stuck.

 

[tweety933]

PS: If you listen to the video with Schaeffer, he goes through a lot of things including his opinion that KC won't testify and why.

I disagree with Schaeffer on one point: He opines that the defense should not point to any specific person but instead should be focus on a vague someone as in the OJ trial. The difference is Nicole and Ron were adults out on a public street at night so this was possible. Caylee was 2 years old and it is impossible that anyone would have access to her but through her mother. If her mother doesn't name someone, I don't see any juror buying a vague someone.

ETA: I agree with him that she can't point to anyone specific; that won't work either. I think her goose is cooked and she blew any possible defense by allowing any evidence of an accident (on the remote chance there was one) to deteriorate in the swamp and by her ridiculous lies with which the defense is now stuck.

The only other person she could point to is CA, in my prior hypothetical, other than that, I can't see her naming anyone.

 

[tweety933]

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/20226973/detail.html

If I were the defense, I would use page 1 of these documents to show that Kevin H. (or John Allen) wrote on October 12, 2008 that on Suburban Dr. East of Hope Spring Drive was where Caylee's body would ultimately be found, therefore, this guy either knew where Caylee was on Oct. 12, 2008, or he was the one who placed her there sometime afterward.

How will the prosecution explain that statement?

 

[lin]

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/20226973/detail.html

If I were the defense, I would use page 1 of these documents to show that Kevin H. (or John Allen) wrote on October 12, 2008 that on Suburban Dr. East of Hope Spring Drive was where Caylee's body would ultimately be found, therefore, this guy either knew where Caylee was on Oct. 12, 2008, or he was the one who placed her there sometime afterward.

How will the prosecution explain that statement?

Is that the correct link or am I missing something on the page? I saw on page 1 a statement by Kevin dated 10/12/08 and describing finding a dress. I'm not sure where in the statement or if it's another statement that shows him or another Kevin suggesting the exact placement of Caylee's body.

But even so, others have tried to search that area such as KeithW(?) and Equusearch but were unable to access the exact area only areas in the general vicinity. I think Tim Miller's testimony in this regard will be more than credible and can be backed up by numerous searchers, if the state feels it necessary.

What will be really, really hard to explain, imo, is KC's PI out with a stick and hand shovel in that same area. The others were guessing a general area and looking in a general area. DC was looking in a very specific way, probing the ground with the long stick; digging near pavers similar to those at the actual dump site, etc.

 

[tweety933]

Is that the correct link or am I missing something on the page? I saw on page 1 a statement by Kevin dated 10/12/08 and describing finding a dress. I'm not sure where in the statement or if it's another statement that shows him or another Kevin suggesting the exact placement of Caylee's body.

But even so, others have tried to search that area such as KeithW(?) and Equusearch but were unable to access the exact area only areas in the general vicinity. I think Tim Miller's testimony in this regard will be more than credible and can be backed up by numerous searchers, if the state feels it necessary.

What will be really, really hard to explain, imo, is KC's PI out with a stick and hand shovel in that same area. The others were guessing a general area and looking in a general area. DC was looking in a very specific way, probing the ground with the long stick; digging near pavers similar to those at the actual dump site, etc.

At the top of the statement it lists the location of the offense as being Suburban Dr. E. of Hopespring Dr.................yet it is signed on October 12th?

 

[lin]

At the top of the statement it lists the location of the offense as being Suburban Dr. E. of Hopespring Dr.................yet it is signed on October 12th?

Ok, gotcha' That's a pretty large area; others were in the general area too but the remains were not in an accessible part of the general area. This is the clown that found (planted for publicity) a child's dress. He was thoroughly discredited later. I think it's pretty clear if this guy had a clue Caylee's body was nearby, he'd have put on a scuba mask and looked in every puddle. He was desperate for publicity and got reprimanded for attempting to leak his "find" to the press, iirc.

ETA: He didn't write in his statement that Caylee's body would be there but you're suggesting he was in the vicinity of the body, right?

 

[lin]

You may be thinking of Keith W. who was in that area and believed she would be found in that area. I don't have a link to his statements but hopefully someone else will post them soon. I think his statements better fit the point you're trying to make, if I understand it.

 

[impatientredhead]

Thanks for trying but it doesn't work exactly that way. She won't be allowed to stray or give a story as an answer most of the time.

I understand this is the defense theory thread but imo those theories should be tested otherwise, we can't know how valid they are or how likely to succeed. Remember JBean's cookie story and also remember that a theory must not be able to be excluded by other evidence. KC's lack of grief and wild partying for 31 days is unlikely to be seen by a jury as grief and coverup, nor is her tatoo, etc. etc. etc.

You are also making a major assumption that everything we have seen will be seen by the jury. As everyone is well aware many battles about what is admissable and what will be excluded will be fought long before a jury is seated.

 

[Marina2]

At the top of the statement it lists the location of the offense as being Suburban Dr. E. of Hopespring Dr.................yet it is signed on October 12th?

I see what you're saying about this. How could they have filled in the section that refers to the location of the offense (where Caylee was found) when she wasn't found there until two months later? On Oct 12th, there was no "location of offense" other than 4937 Hopespring Drive. The only answer I can come up with is that this section of the report was filled in after Dec. 11th. :waitasec:

 

[lin]

You are also making a major assumption that everything we have seen will be seen by the jury. As everyone is well aware many battles about what is admissable and what will be excluded will be fought long before a jury is seated.

I agree with you that not everything we've seen will be admitted into evidence either by design or through argument. I'm not sure why you think I'm assuming it will be but if I've given that impression, it was unintended.

Truth be told, none of us can know until the arguments are made and both sides present their cases. I think we're all just doing the best we can with what's available now, not necessarily meaning it's a solid fact that this will be admitted and used at trial. There will also be opportunity for rebuttal testimony and evidence and the possibility of accidentally opening a door that will cause previously excluded evidence to be admitted.

With the utmost sincerity and respect for everyone on this thread: For our purposes here, I personally have no problem with others testing my arguments with whatever is available now, knowing it may possibly be admitted in either side's CIC or as rebuttal even if initially excluded. If others would prefer to set another standard, I'll do my best to keep up. If, on the other hand, folks on this thread would prefer to solely develop defense theories without challenge, then I can spend my two cents on other threads without taking any offense at all.

 

[lin]

I see what you're saying about this. How could they have filled in the section that refers to the location of the offense (where Caylee was found) when she wasn't found there until two months later? On Oct 12th, there was no "location of offense" other than 4937 Hopespring Drive. The only answer I can come up with is that this section of the report was filled in after Dec. 11th. :waitasec:

:doh: I totally didn't get that. Thanks for explaining in little words even I can understand. :clap:

Without going through the other statements, isn't that area filled out with the area where the person was, such as Keith W's statement would list a similar area? Is that the same area the person described in their statement and the same vicinity as where the dress was found? I am drawing a total blank on how close it was to where she was found. Otherwise, then I'd have to guess you are correct, that it was filled in or changed to reflect the area at some later date after her remains were found. I think if the person giving the statement was saying that she would be found in this area it would be included in the statement itself, not just leaving it to the reader to draw an inference. jmo

 

[impatientredhead]

I agree with you that not everything we've seen will be admitted into evidence either by design or through argument. I'm not sure why you think I'm assuming it will be but if I've given that impression, it was unintended.

Truth be told, none of us can know until the arguments are made and both sides present their cases. I think we're all just doing the best we can with what's available now, not necessarily meaning it's a solid fact that this will be admitted and used at trial. There will also be opportunity for rebuttal testimony and evidence and the possibility of accidentally opening a door that will cause previously excluded evidence to be admitted.

With the utmost sincerity and respect for everyone on this thread: For our purposes here, I personally have no problem with others testing my arguments with whatever is available now, knowing it may possibly be admitted in either side's CIC or as rebuttal even if initially excluded. If others would prefer to set another standard, I'll do my best to keep up. If, on the other hand, folks on this thread would prefer to solely develop defense theories without challenge, then I can spend my two cents on other threads without taking any offense at all.

No, no.. I am not suggesting any change in the tone of the thread. Just pointing out that if JB gets a couple of items excluded it changes a lot, and semi taking the position of it is naive to think that there is zero defense options in this case.

 

[lin]

No, no.. I am not suggesting any change in the tone of the thread. Just pointing out that if JB gets a couple of items excluded it changes a lot, and semi taking the position of it is naive to think that there is zero defense options in this case.

Thanks for clarifying; much appreciated. It may be naive but I just haven't been able to find anything the defense may raise to get around some of what I see as insurmountable evidence the state has that can't be excluded. For just one example, KC being Caylee's mother and all the inferences that can/will be drawn therefrom, including that a 'some vague unknown' had access to Caylee without her mother's knowledge/consent or conversely, her report to the authorities.

ETA: If JB can get some things excluded it could change a lot, I agree. Just working with what we have now, including considering the opinions of seasoned criminal attorneys that practice in that area.

 

[impatientredhead]

Thanks for clarifying; much appreciated. It may be naive but I just haven't been able to find anything the defense may raise to get around some of what I see as insurmountable evidence the state has that can't be excluded. For just one example, KC being Caylee's mother and all the inferences that can/will be drawn therefrom, including that a 'some vague unknown' had access to Caylee without her mother's knowledge/consent or conversely, her report to the authorities.

ETA: If JB can get some things excluded it could change a lot, I agree. Just working with what we have now, including considering the opinions of seasoned criminal attorneys that practice in that area.

I think the state will win their case and that the jury will recommend the death penalty, but in the end you never know with a jury. Depending on what if anything gets excluded, what the forensic hired guns are able to poke holes in etc.... but I think that is very very unlikely given her defense attorney. I have seen nothing from him that makes me think he is going to be effective in swaying that jury. A really good defense attorney I think has some room to work with the evidence we have been able to see thus far.

Of course a really good defense attorney would have told her to take a plea deal before the body was found and then she would be facing execution.

 

[MissJames]

No, no.. I am not suggesting any change in the tone of the thread. Just pointing out that if JB gets a couple of items excluded it changes a lot, and semi taking the position of it is naive to think that there is zero defense options in this case.

Hi Red,
I know JB will try to get it all thrown out! but can you give us an idea of what might not be admissable? I realize that could be a long list,but what evidence that we have found so incriminating do you think will stay out?
Thanks

 

[impatientredhead]

Hi Red,
I know JB will try to get it all thrown out! but can you give us an idea of what might not be admissable? I realize that could be a long list,but what evidence that we have found so incriminating do you think will stay out?
Thanks

I don't think he will be successful necessarily but I think JB will focus first and foremost on her statement to the police (given before she had counsel). And then he will try to keep the Fusian pictures out.

The more (if any) "character" painting pieces he can keep out and make the jury focus on the forensics which he will have counter arguements for (or make so boring and tedious that the jury zones out) the better for him.

Of course this is JB so we may very well see the Zanny the Nanny defense.

 

[Brini]

I think the state will win their case and that the jury will recommend the death penalty, but in the end you never know with a jury. Depending on what if anything gets excluded, what the forensic hired guns are able to poke holes in etc.... but I think that is very very unlikely given her defense attorney. I have seen nothing from him that makes me think he is going to be effective in swaying that jury. A really good defense attorney I think has some room to work with the evidence we have been able to see thus far.

Of course a really good defense attorney would have told her to take a plea deal before the body was found and then she would be facing execution.

Maybe if he left the big red nose and the clown shoes at home, he'd do better

If I was JB, I'd have pled accident before Caylee's body was found.

 

[Marina2]

I don't think he will be successful necessarily but I think JB will focus first and foremost on her statement to the police (given before she had counsel). And then he will try to keep the Fusian pictures out.

The more (if any) "character" painting pieces he can keep out and make the jury focus on the forensics which he will have counter arguements for (or make so boring and tedious that the jury zones out) the better for him.

Of course this is JB so we may very well see the Zanny the Nanny defense.

Is there a valid argument JB can put forth regarding KC's statement made to LE without counsel? She was there willingly to help the investigators find her missing daughter and she knew she was free to leave at any time. I'm thinking that it would be something regarding the nature of the questioning, i.e. how it changed when they realized she wasn't giving truthful information. They were interrogating her as if she were a suspect. Were they required to take her into custody and read her rights to her prior to this type of questioning?

Because of the date of the Fusian pics and the fact that KC said she looked in bars and places Zanny might go, I think Baez will have zero luck in getting these thrown out. He will try but I can't imagine an argument he could give that will allow that. Her night at Fusian will be testified to by state's witnesses but I can see why he'd rather the jury not have a visual. He'll be more successful getting evidence of her conduct prior to Caylee being missing thrown out. I think anything she did while her daughter was missing and not reported to LE should be admitted.

Destroying the credibility of the forensic evidence is probably JB's best shot at defending KC. If the jury zones out during the experts' testimony I think they'll rely on closing arguments to decide on it's reliability. It'll come down to whose summation is more believable. Can more than one defense attorney give closing arguments? I can't imagine JB not giving a closing argument but LKB will have to be the one to address the forensics at the end. This can't be trusted to JB.

 

[essies]

The testimony from the entimology experts will be very important for the SA in proving that Caylee was there all along. This video shows how the area has grown back in just over 6 months! LKB will have her work cut out for herself! IMO

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO2dF8C5p04"]YouTube - Where Caylee Anthony Rested[/ame]