Defense document - KC swears she didn't report.......

[yeknomaras]

yeknomaras, it was certainly not my intention to offend anyone or to imply my observations and or opinions were fact. I am only trying to see the case as JB the diabolical might present his case. I can only say that KC as I have seen in the media acts like a spoiled irresponsible child rather than an adult. Personally I know of teenage girls who have babies and continue to finish school and work part time to take care of their children even though they have the full financial and emotional support of their own parents. It is for this reason I believe some, including members of the jury will see KC as imature, not insane in her thinking therefore viewing the evidence through her eyes rather than the eyes of reality and reason. My apologies for any offense I have caused.

I see what you're saying, and I can totally see JB "the diabolical" (lol!!) trying to portray her that way. Like you said, poor poor KC. Such a victim. JB will run that into the ground and we just have to hope th jury doesn't fall for it.

The thing is, a jury will be put together from people that supposedly do not know the case or KC. So, they won't know what a conniving little girl she is until hopefully the evidence shows just that. We need to pray that a jury will see right through JB's antics and sees her for what she really is.

 

[ThoughtElf]

Of the 33 members currently viewing this thread, I recognize at least 11 who I have read since August 2008 who had Casey's number from the get-go. Long before we know what we know now.

That's encouraging. I think the odds of seating a reasonable jury who will question the facts are pretty well represented. I do think we've benefited by the sleuthing; I also believe that just based on the bare facts many of us would still have reached the same reasonable conclusion.

 

[LambChop]

Not exactly lin. Just a 'girl' with the responsibility of raising a child when she is but a child herself. It will go more to issues of maturity than insanity. Poor KC (*gag) caught between living at home with her parents and living as a partying, free teenager and the world of responsibility which she apparently is not ready for. JB will present her as 'trusting' and caring 'girl' whose trust (in 'Zanny') was misplaced. I can see many ways to get the jury to look at her as a horrible mom and yet understand her inability to act or react as a mature adult. I am also considering the fact a jury would not have benefit of much of the info presented here as WS and in the media. Just my opinion.

JB would have to consider while picking jurors what age they were when they had a child. You can bet there may be quite a few in Florida who would not have one bit of sympathy for KC. I certainly never killed my first born.

 

[JSR]

She may have only sworn that she told LE that -- it may not be worded to indicate that the act really happened.

ETA: Remember, the undisputed facts of the case show...

This exactly. This is what I first thought when I read the article. It all depends on HOW her declaration was worded.

 

[Brini]

I see what you're saying, and I can totally see JB "the diabolical" (lol!!) trying to portray her that way. Like you said, poor poor KC. Such a victim. JB will run that into the ground and we just have to hope th jury doesn't fall for it.

The thing is, a jury will be put together from people that supposedly do not know the case or KC. So, they won't know what a conniving little girl she is until hopefully the evidence shows just that. We need to pray that a jury will see right through JB's antics and sees her for what she really is.

Lemme see.. professional thief (even robbed her disabled grandfather), compulsive liar, refused to report her child "missing." Decomposed remains of said child in the trunk of KC's car. Partied hearty starting the date of death established for Caylee. Tried to throw other people under the bus for HER crime.

And, the state has solid evidence of all of all of this, and more

I think it's gonna be hard for a reasonable jury to feel sorry for KC.

 

[Brini]

JB would have to consider while picking jurors what age they were when they had a child. You can bet there may be quite a few in Florida who would not have one bit of sympathy for KC. I certainly never killed my first born.

I imagine that neither a parent nor a grandparent will find any sympathy for KC.

Particularly since CA offered to take custody of Caylee.

 

[JSR]

I see what you're saying, and I can totally see JB "the diabolical" (lol!!) trying to portray her that way. Like you said, poor poor KC. Such a victim. JB will run that into the ground and we just have to hope th jury doesn't fall for it.

The thing is, a jury will be put together from people that supposedly do not know the case or KC. So, they won't know what a conniving little girl she is until hopefully the evidence shows just that. We need to pray that a jury will see right through JB's antics and sees her for what she really is.

And they will. It all depends on what evidence the SA will be allowed to get in front of the jury. Even if they're not supposed to, jurors CAN and DO read between the lines.

 

[yeknomaras]

Lemme see.. professional thief (even robbed her disabled grandfather), compulsive liar, refused to report her child "missing." Decomposed remains of said child in the trunk of KC's car. Partied hearty starting the date of death established for Caylee. Tried to throw other people under the bus for HER crime.

And, the state has solid evidence of fall of all of this, and more

I think it's gonna be hard for a reasonable jury to feel sorry for KC.

yea, maybe the first 5 minutes of trial they will feel sorry for her, legs shackled and all. Then once Linda and Jeff get started it's all over for her. The evidence is powerful enough to show, at the VERY LEAST, that she didn't care one bit for her daughter.

 

[Mensch]

No. He also has to prove that said nanny ever existed. There is too much proof that she doesn't. Both the OCSD and the FBI agree to that.

If she wants to do SODDI, she has to NAME said SOD, and give the who, where, when, and why. She can't.

Respectfully I disagree with this statement. I think he only has to create doubt. There was that small element of doubt in the OJ case. There was no name or motive or proof that another person did not exist as the murderer. Just trying to be prepared for more bizarre antics at the trial. Which brings me to the fact none of us like to face and that is trials have little to do with evidence and hinges more on which side gives the best 'persormance'. That is the sad state of our legal system that is in need of a complete overhaul.
*** You will see a lot of editing from me. I have chocolate syrup in my keyboard!
MOO

 

[LambChop]

Who did we hear this story from regardign the car accident? Was it from KC herself during her interview or in a written statement? It came from a third party - which means it could just be a lie and not even brought up in court - it is heresay.

I found the transcript:

But I can't link it here but here is what she said during the interview transcribed by me that JB may use at trial to show KC thought Caylee was fine and this is why she did not report her missing:

Q: Is there any underlining cause to why Z would take Caylee?
A: Only how much she loves Caylee and what a great kid she is.

Then she gives this answer as to why she didn't call police:

A: I think part of me was naive enough to think that I could handle this myself, which obviously I couldn't. And I was scared something would happen to her if I did notify authorities or got the media involved. or my parents which I know would have done the same thing. Just the fear of the unknown. Fear of the potential Caylee getting hurt, of not seeing my daughter again.

But this is what I am talking about her saying regarding her call with Caylee and her being fine:

Q: So, She seemed happy and..
A: a thousand times. She's fine.
Q: She's fine? She's happy?
A. She seemed perfectly fine.

later she says:
A: She wasn't the least bit upset when I spoke to her.

He then tells her if it were him he would have called police and she says:
A: I didn't know what to do. At that point I'm thinking, okay they haven't been gone that long. Maybe I can find them. Maybe I can track them down.

So we all know the phone call is a lie since the time of death is way before this, but what if JB says ZG could have been fooling her with Caylee's voice on the phone and that KC had her old phone that she lost when she got this call and therefore it could not be tracked.

BIG, BIG HOLE IN HER STORY. She returns to ZG's apartment, like any normal day and they are gone. She tries to call ZFG on her cell phone and it has been disconnected. So what would a normal mother do in this situation. Go to the police station and check to see if ZFG had been in an accident with her child and that is the reason for the delay. But, KC was really saving the accident story for another day when she told her mother she was in Tampa.

I believe it can come in during the trial because KC told her mother this while her daughter was missing.

 

[ThoughtElf]

In order for me to have sympathy &/or doubt as a potential juror, based on Casey's sworn affidavit I'd need to know:

• A reason WHY she did not report Casey missing. If the response was fear for her life, Caylee's life or her families' lives, then I would need some concrete evidence as to who she was fearful of before I could consider it a reasonable doubt.
• I would need concrete evidence that a nanny existed. Lacking a name, photo or address, at very least I would need some sort of forensic evidence that this person existed and was in proximity to Caylee +/- say 1 month on either side of her disappearance. A fingerprint, a text message, a phone record, somethin - anything that would allow me to entertain the idea that Casey indeed dropped Caylee off with another human being.

So, if we are to go on today's latest news about the sworn statement alone, I still can't conjure up anything that is pointing towards the defense having a smidgen of doubt to lay on the table. Not yet.

Not convinced and still not worried.

 

[Mendara]

Not gonna happen, honey.

Even if "Zanny" managed to get the remains into KC's car, and somehow forced her to drive it around with he decomposed remains...... how did "Zanny" manage to contact KC, without using a phone voice call, text message, or email, and without ever having a real address? (KC said she and/or Caylee often stayed with Zanny).

After the "accident" in Jacksonville, IIRC, KC said she went to Zanny's place to retrieve Zanny's insurance verification. To what address did she go?

The lost blackjack the fact that KC states the ZG has had many phones and addresses - KC made sure she had a cover for NOT being able to proove her lies. They may be ridiculous excuses but they are excuses in her mind. The entire accident story could just be a lie she told to get out of doing something and she will never have to prove this story is true. Not in court anyway. IMO

 

[LambChop]

Respectfully I disagree with this statement. I think he only has to create doubt. There was that small element of doubt in the OJ case. There was no name or motive or proof that another person did not exist as the murderer. Just trying to be prepared for more bizarre antics at the trial. Which brings me to the fact none of us like to face and that is trials have little to do with evidence and hinges more on which side gives the best 'persormance'. That is the sad state of our legal system that is in need of a complete overhaul.
*** You will see a lot of editing from me. I have chocolate syrup in my keyboard!
MOO

As a former juror I totally disagree. It does have to do with evidence and reactions from the defendant when evidence is presented. In most trials it is not a contest to see who is the most popular attorney and in most cases it's usually the judge. So that holds little water. And compared to other countries, I'll take our system of justice. The truth usually proves itself.

 

[Brini]

Respectfully I disagree with this statement. I think he only has to create doubt. There was that small element of doubt in the OJ case. There was no name or motive or proof that another person did not exist as the murderer. Just trying to be prepared for more bizarre antics at the trial. Which brings me to the fact none of us like to face and that is trials have little to do with evidence and hinges more on which side gives the best 'persormance'. That is the sad state of our legal system that is in need of a complete overhaul.
*** You will see a lot of editing from me. I have chocolate syrup in my keyboard!
MOO

You'll also get beer on your screen when you read some of the wise-arse remarks we make to entertain ourselves. ;-)


KC is no OJ. Orlando is no LA. Even LA is no longer LA, AEB the Spector conviction. There is no Mark Fuhrman, in this case.

Above all, Stan Strickland is no Judge Ito. Ito became intoxicated by the cameras, and threw away control of his court.


Pointing to a person whom the state can PROVE doesn't exist will not establish reasonable doubt. The defense might as well say Donald Duck did it.

Also, unlike OJ, KC was in possession of Caylee, at the point when she disappeared. She either did it, or she knows who did. That is utterly inescapable.

BTW-- Many of us, here, are former jurors. I was Foreperson, last time. ;-)

 

[Mendara]

The story of the accident came from KC to CA.

Right but not from KC mouth to LE. To me it is hearsay - CA heard it from KC or so she says. Also the script - did KC tell LE about the script herself? Nope.

The only thing she has sworn to is that she left Caylee at the steps of the sawgrass apartments where she believed ZG lived - she even says that ZG has only lived there for 3 months. During her interview she goes back and forth between leaving her physically in ZG's hands and JUST leaving her on the steps. So I can see JB saying KC left Caylee on the steps of an apartment she believed belonged to ZG.

I think we have to weed out the other stories we heard about what KC is saying to other people and what she has actually said in writing, on camera in recordings.

 

[magic-cat]

I think the reason for the added info to the motion to dismiss charges I & II is that the SA responded to the original motion that it was legally flawed and should not even be considered for that reason.

In this clip http://www.clickorlando.com/video/21210525/index.html, it says the motion to dismiss can only be considered in very limited circumstances and it fails to include sworn statements by the defendant which is required. "Must swear to any or all material facts" that would prove her innocence and the state would have to agree to those facts. As to circumstantial evidence, the state says they have to wait until it is presented to a jury to decide to dismiss, as reported by clickorlando.
I think the added sworn statements by kc to the motion is an attempt to satisfy the requirements to dismiss as outlined in the clip.

These sworn statements do not meet the burden of law implied by the statement: Must swear to any material facts that would prove her innocence. Saying she did not report her daughter missing and that she dropped her off with a babysitter does not imply innocence-to me anyhow, it implies GROSS negligence and that she had something to hide...I do not believe these particular statements are going to meet the requirements of this law whatsoever. Jose has lost it! If he ever had it to lose that is...

I agree with you but iirc, that wasn't the point of the affidavit or their motion. They're alleging that all of the undisputed facts, even when taken in the light most favorable to the prosecution, do not add up to even a prima facie case. Not reporting her daughter missing would be grounds for neglect, but not felony abuse; saying she dropped the baby off with a sitter does not prove she murdered her; etc.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...sey-anthony-grand-jury-100609,0,7743670.story
snipped
" But Casey Anthony did sign a document, swearing to two statements:

"I did not report my daughter missing until my mother called on July 15, 2008."

"I did tell law enforcement that I had dropped off my child with a person named Zenaida Fernandez Gonzalez when questioned by law enforcement.""

I am wondering if or how Casey's sworn statement confirming she dropped off her child with a person named ZFG affect the Civil Suit? Anyone?


IMO, These sworn statements do not add anything new, they only support the SA's motion that the Defense's motion to dismiss lacked sworn statements

But the sworn statements have to indicate she is either innocent or guilty of a lesser crime to meet the burden of this law. These statements fall short in my opinion, and the motion will be stricken...The state did not just want any old sworn statements, they required statements that would allude to her innocence and these do not whatsoever accomplish that. I mean, she may has well have sworn to the fact that she told police she had a job at Universal...which was a lie the same as the statements she did swear to here, and in no way implies she is innocent...I predict the motion will be stricken and will have to be completely redone.

 

[Mensch]

As a former juror I totally disagree. It does have to do with evidence and reactions from the defendant when evidence is presented. In most trials it is not a contest to see who is the most popular attorney and in most cases it's usually the judge. So that holds little water. And compared to other countries, I'll take our system of justice. The truth usually proves itself.

While I agree in general with your post I am sure we all can recall a case where performance won over substance. I am not speaking of popularity but of the ability to play with the smoke and mirrors and create confusion. When that does not work, there is usually a plan B in the working and it is not search for the truth (defense) but search for a loop-hole, a technicality that will free the guilty on a mistrial at the least.

 

[LambChop]

Hello WS

I understand the process of playing "devil's advocate", it helps me to clear my head to what I really understand. Take this post in that spirit.

(just a theory that can surly be picked apart. Please do!

Casey's "script" was the same as the Ramsey's "Do what we say and we won't harm your child. Don't do what we say..."

And both did the same thing: acted like the "kidnappers" must not have liked that they did not "follow the script" and so the child was killed. In the case of the Ramsey's they kept/took JonBenet's body and put it in the Ramsey's basement...

Is Casey/JB going to say that Caylee might have been returned alive if not for the phone call? And my other personality says: that does not matter, no matter what they come up with as an excuse...no one is going to buy it when they hear the rest of the story...

And Zanny put Caylee near the Anthony's home. I had this idea in my notes and when I saw a poster say their theory that maybe Casey is going to say the "one more day" was what she needed to complete her "31" days...and because she was forced to contact LE: Zanny killed Caylee.

Now. I also remember Casey saying "50" days at one point...maybe even 51 days...Casey saying that Zanny wanted to "teach her a lesson." I definitely agree that the tone of the "kidnapping" went from "oh, don't worry...I'll be getting her back when Zanny is done punishing me" to "I am afraid of what will happen to Caylee."

When Casey says she spoke to Caylee on the 15th July she claims that Caylee was "happy and talking about her shoes/book."

I also agree that we are sleuthers and that is what we are doing...but when a jury hears one bit of this story...Casey has no chance. I just wonder if the jury will be screaming for Cindy's "blood"...like I feel. If I were on that jury...after we convicted Casey I'd say: "now it's Cindy's turn."



:cow:

Problem with the theory the nanny killed the baby after call reporting to 911, then nanny dumped body to frame KC. That neighborhood was swarming with police from day 31 on, then searchers and bounty hunter, etc. Not a good theory to go with. JMO

 

[Brini]

The lost blackjack the fact that KC states the ZG has had many phones and addresses - KC made sure she had a cover for NOT being able to proove her lies. They may be ridiculous excuses but they are excuses in her mind. The entire accident story could just be a lie she told to get out of doing something and she will never have to prove this story is true. Not in court anyway. IMO

She told her mother that lie to account for her absence and Caylee's.

LE proved by the cell tower pings that she had never left town.

 

[Brini]

While I agree in general with your post I am sure we all can recall a case where performance won over substance. I am not speaking of popularity but of the ability to play with the smoke and mirrors and create confusion. When that does not work, there is usually a plan B in the working and it is not search for the truth (defense) but search for a loop-hole, a technicality that will free the guilty on a mistrial at the least.

We can prolly point to MORE smoke-and-mirrors trials that resulted in convictions.

SP's trial comes to mind.

In THIS case the FBI is also involved. They have record for not remaining involved, unless conviction is very, very likely.