Defense doesn't want GA & CA in the courtroom....why?

[strawberry]

IIRC it was during the very first jail visit.

Yes it was the very first thing out of her mouth after a cheerful bounce, giggle and "Good Morning!":crazy::waitasec:

 

[A_News_Junkie]

So much for all the kindness between CA and Baez lately. Is it terrible for me to hope that CA brings ICA the most hideous clothes she can find for jury selection.:innocent:

:great:Count on it --- I said the same thing in the other thread! Also, I don't think mommy dearest will be giving ICA a Mother's day card either. This request was ICA's card to CA though.

Judge Stan --- again, YES ----> The irony is rich indeed. That sentence sums up this case over and over again!

 

[faefrost]

I think we are overthinking the root reason. The defense has to impeach the A's on the stand and completely undermine their credibility. To much of the timeline comes from them. They don't have to throw them under the bus and blame the crime on them. They are going for "if you can prove the witness is a liar on the stand the jury can opt to disregard anything that the witness says". In that way they throw out or call into question almost the entire early timeline of events. They don't actually have to accuse the A's of killing Caylee. They just have to hit them hard enough on the stand to make them seem to be as big a bunch of pathological liars as their client.

They want them out of the courtroom because this only works if they can gang up on them individually. If the others witness the hostile cross and impeachment of testimony it would be too easy for those other witnesses to counter.

 

[Pattymarie]

Yes it was the very first thing out of her mouth after a cheerful bounce, giggle and "Good Morning!":crazy::waitasec:

Wasn't that gross? Really, what else does the state need to convict her but this?

 

[A_News_Junkie]

I think we are overthinking the root reason. The defense has to impeach the A's on the stand and completely undermine their credibility. To much of the timeline comes from them. They don't have to throw them under the bus and blame the crime on them. They are going for "if you can prove the witness is a liar on the stand the jury can opt to disregard anything that the witness says". In that way they throw out or call into question almost the entire early timeline of events. They don't actually have to accuse the A's of killing Caylee. They just have to hit them hard enough on the stand to make them seem to be as big a bunch of pathological liars as their client.

They want them out of the courtroom because this only works if they can gang up on them individually. If the others witness the hostile cross and impeachment of testimony it would be too easy for those other witnesses to counter.

DING! DING! DING! Yes, Faefrost that is the bell. They already tried the 'agents of the state' bell and failed, so it is critical to impeach their credibility.

 

[Quiche]

I think there may be a benefit to the DT if the jury doesn't really get to "know" CA and GA-- if they were sitting in the gallery the jurors would most certainly be more apt to sympathize with them. jmo

I love the end result of CA potentially goofing up KC's wardrobe even more that it already has been, tug, tug, shift, shimmy.

 

[sassy_texasbelle2]

Karma can be a wonderful thing!

 

[JSR]

http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/27792617/detail.html

Quoted from a similar WESH article:



I would appreciate a legal-type here at WS who could "dumb this down" for me.

Edit: To define my need for clarification, I want to know if "impeachment" would refer to their conduct (for example, a public official could be impeached for bad conduct), or would it refer to accusations.

Impeachment in a legal setting such as this means that prior testimony given under oath can be used to "impeach" them and show that they are giving inconsistent accounts to what a witness is currently testifying to. In the case of the Anthonys they have lied so many times under oath there is literally a litany of statements they have made that are not at all consistent with each other. Basically for both Anthonys most if not all of their testimony will be worthless to the jury. The only thing they won't be able to weasel out of is what was said on taped interviews, and taped phone calls. They are pretty well boxed in.

 

[katydid23]

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6257490&postcount=1373"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - What Is the Defense Strategy?[/ame]

Here is an old post from 3/26/11, where I speculated that the DT was going to go after George. I think people thought I was NUTZ for even thinking of such a silly defense strategy. And here we are, a couple of days before the trial is scheduled to begin, and it seems to be the only thing they have on the table so far. LOL


FROM 3/26/11
I wonder if George knows the bus is coming at him fast.

I think they are going to say that he abused Casey as a child, and that she suffered from PTSD when she caught him abusing Caylee.
They might even accuse him of being the one responsible for the baby's death. And he ordered his fragile daughter to go on ewith her life and pretend as if the baby was with the babysitter. So that would explain her 'ugly coping.'

And all of the lies were because she was in a dissasociative state because of the total shock.
And then Casey was even more shocked to find that her abusive father had framed her for the murder.So she stayed in jail but told her defense team what happened. The end.
__________________-26-2011, 10:17 PM


George is the PERFECT patsy for SODDI.

--He is ex-LE so he would know how to set someone up.
--He has a bad temper.
--He had that weird suicide 'attempt.'
--He had keys to the car that Casey used.
--He was the last one besides Casey to see the baby.
--He has been accused in writing of possible sexual abuse, but did deny it.
--He had access to the materials in the dump site.
--He knew about the place Casey used to dump her dead pets.
--He was recently 'set up ' by Baez and discredited.
--He made weird statements about 'smelling' his little granddaughter.
--He was the one telling LE about the car smell and had the first access

 

[strach304]

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - What Is the Defense Strategy?

Here is an old post from 3/26/11, where I speculated that the DT was going to go after George. I think people thought I was NUTZ for even thinking of such a silly defense strategy. And here we are, a couple of days before the trial is scheduled to begin, and it seems to be the only thing they have on the table so far. LOL


FROM 3/26/11
I wonder if George knows the bus is coming at him fast.

I think they are going to say that he abused Casey as a child, and that she suffered from PTSD when she caught him abusing Caylee.
They might even accuse him of being the one responsible for the baby's death. And he ordered his fragile daughter to go on ewith her life and pretend as if the baby was with the babysitter. So that would explain her 'ugly coping.'

And all of the lies were because she was in a dissasociative state because of the total shock.
And then Casey was even more shocked to find that her abusive father had framed her for the murder.So she stayed in jail but told her defense team what happened. The end.
__________________-26-2011, 10:17 PM


George is the PERFECT patsy for SODDI.

--He is ex-LE so he would know how to set someone up.
--He has a bad temper.
--He had that weird suicide 'attempt.'
--He had keys to the car that Casey used.
--He was the last one besides Casey to see the baby.
--He has been accused in writing of possible sexual abuse, but did deny it.
--He had access to the materials in the dump site.
--He knew about the place Casey used to dump her dead pets.
--He was recently 'set up ' by Baez and discredited.
--He made weird statements about 'smelling' his little granddaughter.
--He was the one telling LE about the car smell and had the first access

Ok, now can you do a Cindy list? There's a bunch for her too.

 

[strach304]

I think we are overthinking the root reason. The defense has to impeach the A's on the stand and completely undermine their credibility. To much of the timeline comes from them. They don't have to throw them under the bus and blame the crime on them. They are going for "if you can prove the witness is a liar on the stand the jury can opt to disregard anything that the witness says". In that way they throw out or call into question almost the entire early timeline of events. They don't actually have to accuse the A's of killing Caylee. They just have to hit them hard enough on the stand to make them seem to be as big a bunch of pathological liars as their client.

They want them out of the courtroom because this only works if they can gang up on them individually. If the others witness the hostile cross and impeachment of testimony it would be too easy for those other witnesses to counter.

I can't remember if it was Bill Schaeffer or Richard Hornsby that said the same thing. I think it was after JB had GA say on the stand he'd do anything if it helped Casey.

 

[katydid23]

Ok, now can you do a Cindy list? There's a bunch for her too.

Yes, but I think Cindy has done a lot of things that seem to mitigate any suspicions about her guilt as the killer. She was the one who spearheaded the search by LE with the 911 calls. She was the one who posted about the child being missing on her Myspace account. She discussed the missing child with her co-workers. She called 911 and told them about the smell of DEATH in the Damn Car.

Sure, her behavior after the fact has been ultra-hinky. [ cleaning the trunk and the clothes, giving the wrong hairbrush, lying about the dryer sheets, etc]But I think that is because once she realized the child was gone she went into SAVE CASEY mode.
imoo.

I do not think they can convince a jury that Cindy harmed Caylee. But George can be a suspect because of the sexual abuse aspect. That is a motive that can be exploited, where as Cindy would have no motive, imo.

 

[Carrington]

GA and CA must know exactly what is going down.
I'm sure they read everything about the case as time will allow.
I believe it's their nature, especially Cindy, who would inform George, in case he missed it.
This is going to be very interesting and IMO will fail to get the desired results.
Making fools of the Defense Team in the process.
They really should can this idea from the get go.

IMO

 

[tasylshari]

I think we are overthinking the root reason. The defense has to impeach the A's on the stand and completely undermine their credibility. To much of the timeline comes from them. They don't have to throw them under the bus and blame the crime on them. They are going for "if you can prove the witness is a liar on the stand the jury can opt to disregard anything that the witness says". In that way they throw out or call into question almost the entire early timeline of events. They don't actually have to accuse the A's of killing Caylee. They just have to hit them hard enough on the stand to make them seem to be as big a bunch of pathological liars as their client.

They want them out of the courtroom because this only works if they can gang up on them individually. If the others witness the hostile cross and impeachment of testimony it would be too easy for those other witnesses to counter.

Thus my question: why does the DT want George and Cindy out of the courtoom - - - knowing FULL WELL that they will be watching all proceedings on a television somewhere? ICA can't face them, me thinks. Well, my hinky meter tells me this at any rate. GA and CA will be able to see it ALL outside of the courtroom, so what's up about this motion??????? Hmmmmm.......:rollercoaster:

 

[tlcya]

in addition to the divide, and discredit pro and the possibly throw them under the bus option = it is also beneficial to the defense if they can get the A s out of there because, lets face it, the A s will leave a bad taste in the jurors mouths.

Their bizarre behavior, their facial expressions during testimony, the ball of dysfunction that is their family and that JB has already stated he intends to cover during the trial. Disassociating his very unpopular but attractive client from the rest of the A s who are irritating and unlikable as well can only help the defense.

 

[strach304]

Then how would she explain that she is seen on the Walmart cameras with Caylee?

Are you sure about that?

 

[katydid23]

GA and CA must know exactly what is going down.
I'm sure they read everything about the case as time will allow.
I believe it's their nature, especially Cindy, who would inform George, in case he missed it.
This is going to be very interesting and IMO will fail to get the desired results.
Making fools of the Defense Team in the process.
They really should can this idea from the get go.

IMO

It is kind of ironic when you think of it. As far as I can see, George and Cindy are the ONLY people, besides the DT, who have stood by Casey. Everyone else has bailed on her. And by standing behind her, in support, they have left themselves open to being run down by the speeding bus. ddsmiley:

 

[DaughterAlice]

Impeachment in a legal setting such as this means that prior testimony given under oath can be used to "impeach" them and show that they are giving inconsistent accounts to what a witness is currently testifying to. In the case of the Anthonys they have lied so many times under oath there is literally a litany of statements they have made that are not at all consistent with each other. Basically for both Anthonys most if not all of their testimony will be worthless to the jury. The only thing they won't be able to weasel out of is what was said on taped interviews, and taped phone calls. They are pretty well boxed in.

The thanks button just isn't enough!! You rock!! :rocker:

Thank you! I can't say that you "dumbed it down" for me (waaay too well-written on your part), but you certainly defined it well.

 

[tasylshari]

I think there may be a benefit to the DT if the jury doesn't really get to "know" CA and GA-- if they were sitting in the gallery the jurors would most certainly be more apt to sympathize with them. jmo

respectfully snipped

I both agree and disagree. I think that their presence MIGHT humanize them (that's my agree part, short and all that) BUT
I also think that they should get GA and CA the he?? outta there with all of the gum chewing, shaking, head nodding, flying off the handle theatrics....MOST of the behaviour that we've witnessed thus far is NOT going to help them LOOK LIKE VICTIMS in the murder of their precious granddaughter!!! It's going to continue to make them look like TEAM CASEY SANS MORALS.

I hate to sound like I'm reading too much into it but I strongly feel that ICA is behind this. Like cremation vs burial IYKWIM.

 

[denjet]

I personally think it is Casey telling her parents that they are NOT Caylee's "next of kin." That SHE is Caylee's "next of kin" and there is nothing they can do about it!

Casey is the CEO and she is in charge! I think that Casey takes great offense that Cindy and George filed this motion to be in that courtroom for the "snothead." They are supposed to be there for HER! SHE is the victim!

This is just Casey sticking the knife in their chests a little further... wait until the trial when she continues to repeatedly stab them without mercy! She is hellbent on torturing them. One look at Casey's face when George was testifying and broke down tells you all you need to know about one Miss Casey Anthony.

ITA ... and also add that CA's and GA's testimony, IMO, have NOT helped the defense of KC ... they come across as parents who would do anything to try to get their daughter acquitted and would conceal/destroy evidence and lie like a rug to do it ... JMO but that's the way I see them and have from the very start ... parents covering up for their daughter, period ... I'm hoping the jury feels the same way ... LE and the prosecutors will make sure to diffuse any SODDI scenarios the DT comes up with ...