Casey's Defense Team. What Now? #2

[Rumpole]

I don't see what they have got to deal? So long as DP off the table.

It would be honourable to just cop for it, but perhaps a gamble on any of the nonsense being believed is all KC has?

 

[elfie]

I don't see what they have got to deal? So long as DP off the table.

It would be honourable to just cop for it, but perhaps a gamble on any of the nonsense being believed is all KC has?

True, isn't that too much of a gamble though? I think a full admission could be enticing.

 

[Chilly Willy]

I don't see what they have got to deal? So long as DP off the table.

It would be honourable to just cop for it, but perhaps a gamble on any of the nonsense being believed is all KC has?

The trial will be incredibly expensive for the state. I think they'd possibly being willing to accept a plea with a conviction on a lesser charge.

 

[Rumpole]

True, isn't that too much of a gamble though? I think a full admission could be enticing.

My point is that KC loses nothing if she gambles.

I envision LWOP even if she pleads guilty. I for one would be unhappy about anything less.
If she gambles and it doesn't work she still gets LWOP.

 

[Rumpole]

The trial will be incredibly expensive for the state. I think they'd possibly being willing to accept a plea with a conviction on a lesser charge.

I hope not, I am not US resident, but I get the feeling that Florida citizens do want a lesser sentence regardless of cost?

 

[elfie]

My point is that KC loses nothing if she gambles.

I envision LWOP even if she pleads guilty. I for one would be unhappy about anything less.
If she gambles and it doesn't work she still gets LWOP.

Oh, I see. I'm not sure. All things being equal the incentive would be for trial then, logically. You are so correct.

 

[elfie]

The trial will be incredibly expensive for the state. I think they'd possibly being willing to accept a plea with a conviction on a lesser charge.

This is what I was thinking but am not sure what the penalty would be for a lesser.

 

[ThoughtElf]

The trial will be incredibly expensive for the state. I think they'd possibly being willing to accept a plea with a conviction on a lesser charge.

I don't. I think they're going to go all or nothing on this one.

 

[Rumpole]

This is what I was thinking but am not sure what the penalty would be for a lesser.

We could try a poll, but the important group is Floridians. My bet would be they are prepared to pay what it takes to see KC penalised to the max. The rest of us would send donations if Florida Tax-payers asked?

 

[Searchfortruth]

No. Intent needs to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

One more question, if the jury finds that Caylee died as a result of drugging, wouldn't that equal Felony Murder instead of Premeditated ? Of course that is presuming the State adds that option to the charges.

 

[Rumpole]

I don't. I think they're going to go all or nothing on this one.

Can we get LWOP and a 6 monthly video clip of how miserable she is?

 

[Searchfortruth]

At this point, as far as Defense strategy goes, I think they will do whatever they can to raise the reasonable doubt. IMO, this is what the "fishing expedition" with TES, RM and JG is about...looking for that doubt. I guess there are some Defense Attorneys that would draw the line when it comes to implying in court that an innocent person, friend of the Defendant, actually committed the crime, but I don't see JB having a problem with going that route. When I read about his recent trial involving the deceased child and the Mother's boyfriend, I gave up any hope that the people involved in this case, RM, JG were in the clear.

 

[ecs5298]

My point is that KC loses nothing if she gambles.

I envision LWOP even if she pleads guilty. I for one would be unhappy about anything less.
If she gambles and it doesn't work she still gets LWOP.

ITA. And there's still a very slim (I mean so slim that Slim is on a train heading out of town) chance that she could get acquitted. So she has nothing to gain by accepting a plea unless the SA was prepared to offer lesser charges with a 10-15 year sentence. The chance of that is even slimmer than aquittal. Go big or go home!

Besides, there's always the check fraud charges. Wonder if the judge can give her 99 years for check fraud and theft?

 

[Rumpole]

ITA. And there's still a very slim (I mean so slim that Slim is on a train heading out of town) chance that she could get acquitted. So she has nothing to gain by accepting a plea unless the SA was prepared to offer lesser charges with a 10-15 year sentence. The chance of that is even slimmer than aquittal. Go big or go home!

Besides, there's always the check fraud charges. Wonder if the judge can give her 99 years for check fraud and theft?

Totally aquitted is not an option. As you say the theft etc, and quite simply a mother has to be guilty of some thing quite serious if she misplaces her child and it turns up dead in a bag. Frankly I think we are over working this. She is going to be found guilty of something like murder1.
I have said before I don't think anybody, especislly JB is preparing her for this. It might just change her attitude a tiny bit. Wipe the silly smile off her face at least.

 

[Kat]

I can see that LKB will possibly advise lead counsel to file motions to exclude any evidence that was obtained by newer techniques. Such as the gases from the trunk, even though they were conducted by a respected lab (someone may know offhand which facility did that test) it is still considered a newer application.

She may well argue against the hair that was identified by mtDNA that showed a decomp on one of the ends. This is definately a new science and it can be argued that it is inadmissable because it may/may not hold up the standard that the majority of the scientists in that field use to determine that validity of tests. (FL uses the Frye standard and I don't know if that standard is used to evaluate the reliability of the above mentioned tests)

If the Frye standard is used to evaluate newer tests then someone more knowledgable can elaborate on how, and when that would be done. I only know what I have read and I don't know law well or proceedings. What I'm trying to say is that I brought this scenario a long time ago and was informed by someone else on the KC boards that the judge would "of course, allow a test from the body farm" that it was "nothing to worry about". I am not so sure now that I have taken the time to read and read. I'm not sure the Judge in this case will be making the decision himself on what can and cannot be admitted for the jurors to see. It is quite possible the Frye standard will come into evaluating this evidence.

Motions, Motions, Motions. If the defense has no choice but to go forward with this trial because the defendant refuses to plea and insists on her innocence they will be very busy with endless motions.

 

[Rumpole]

I can see that LKB will possibly advise lead counsel to file motions to exclude any evidence that was obtained by newer techniques. Such as the gases from the trunk, even though they were conducted by a respected lab (someone may know offhand which facility did that test) it is still considered a newer application.

She may well argue against the hair that was identified by mtDNA that showed a decomp on one of the ends. This is definately a new science and it can be argued that it is inadmissable because it may/may not hold up the standard that the majority of the scientists in that field use to determine that validity of tests. (FL uses the Frye standard and I don't know if that standard is used to evaluate the reliability of the above mentioned tests)

If the Frye standard is used to evaluate newer tests then someone more knowledgable can elaborate on how, and when that would be done. I only know what I have read and I don't know law well or proceedings. What I'm trying to say is that I brought this scenario a long time ago and was informed by someone else on the KC boards that the judge would "of course, allow a test from the body farm" that it was "nothing to worry about". I am not so sure now that I have taken the time to read and read. I'm not sure the Judge in this case will be making the decision himself on what can and cannot be admitted for the jurors to see. It is quite possible the Frye standard will come into evaluating this evidence.

Motions, Motions, Motions. If the defense has no choice but to go forward with this trial because the defendant refuses to plea and insists on her innocence they will be very busy with endless motions.

I think Pre The Body Farm, evidence would comprise tesimony. I have lost count but lots of wittnesses smelled "death" Towing people, YM and other LE and KC's own parents! I think that will do in court. And at the moment we have Body Farm evidence as well.

 

[Kat]

I think Pre The Body Farm, evidence would comprise tesimony. I have lost count but lots of wittnesses smelled "death" Towing people, YM and other LE and KC's own parents! I think that will do in court. And at the moment we have Body Farm evidence as well.

Yes Hercule Poirot (I read your posts a lot BTW, very informative) they can use the testimony but we really don't have the body farm evidence. We have it in document dumps yes, it's compelling evidence to say the least. I seriously wonder if it will pass the standard to be admitted into court. Is it a standard test that the majority of the scientists in that field? I wonder has it been used in previous court cases? Is it an infallible test for human decomp?

I simply don't know. I am not at all educated in forensics. I do think that there is a good chance that it will be argued to be kept out of court. Then the jurors will hear about how those people smelled death.

I'm just saying what the defense might be able to do as trial approaches.

 

[Rumpole]

Yes Hercule Poirot (I read your posts a lot BTW, very informative) they can use the testimony but we really don't have the body farm evidence. We have it in document dumps yes, it's compelling evidence to say the least. I seriously wonder if it will pass the standard to be admitted into court. Is it a standard test that the majority of the scientists in that field? I wonder has it been used in previous court cases? Is it an infallible test for human decomp?

I simply don't know. I am not at all educated in forensics. I do think that there is a good chance that it will be argued to be kept out of court. Then the jurors will hear about how those people smelled death.

I'm just saying what the defense might be able to do as trial approaches.

I think because more and more brilliant science is now available, it is easy to forget we got by without it a few years ago. For instance, we all waited for DNA to confirm Caylee remains, but a few years ago the body would have been ID'ed with no DNA avilable. Heaven knows how in this case, but they would have done it. Probably based on some thin evidence, but an ID would have been declared. In the same way if the Body Farm evidence was not around, then I am sure that a wide range of wittnesses, including experienced homicide detectives, and LE scientists, all reporting independently of a smell they thought was a decomposing body, would be not only be sufficient, but compelling evidence.

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

I thought that Dr. HL confirmed that the car smelled like death in an interview after he examined it. However, he later made some comments about ham in the trunk and the odor that might have created. Does anyone know exactly what Dr. HL's position is on this topic ?

 

[logicalgirl]

Like most of us here, I am biding my time waiting for the next hearing, the next subjects to sleuth or comment on.

And I've been thinking about what on earth Baez et al is going to come up with for a defense for ICA, with the mounting evidence against her. And why is he still trying to block her visitor lists.

So, while I was poking around "out there" I came across a very interesting article about adult children who kill their parents. In the article, which is quite long but to me very interesting, Dr. Robert Hare, an international expert from the University of British Columbia, has developed an area of study called "Psychopathy" to describe a combination of personality disorders rather than mental illness. The case of Christopher Porco is discussed. A couple of paragraphs jumped out that I believe describes the Anthony household quite closely.

"Ironically, Christopher Porco perceived his parents’ position of being caring and loving as a weakness to be exploited (Hare, 1993). One can observe how Christopher’s destructive behavior accelerated over his life and well into adulthood with escalating family turmoil. Each move that the parents took to discipline Christopher was met with a counter-move by their son. Christopher did not view his parents’ disciplinary actions as gestures of parental love, but as attempts to curtail his self-gratifying, egocentric personality."

"Moreover, even after her son was found guilty of murder, the mother at the sentencing stated, “Please allow Christopher the opportunity to attain freedom in my lifetime. I believe him to be innocent with all my heart. Please give him a chance to use his talents to make a significant contribution to society” (Lyons, 2006a). Unfortunately the mother did not understand that her attempt to bond with her son did not mean that he would reciprocate the bonding, a common misconception parents of psychopathic children harbor."

This from a mother who witnessed her son killing his father and attempting to kill her.

The entire article can be found here:

www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/fall08/06/