does JB really think he can get an acquittal?

[katydid23]

1) Circumstantial, all based on shaky science that isnt accepted by the mainstream in the field. FBI even admits they cant prove the hair that was found indicates decomp or certain. Reasonable doubt can be shown.

2) Highly circumstantial. Doesnt prove Casey was the murderer, the things found could implicate anyone in the Anthony home or access to the home, again, reasonable doubt could be shown.

3) Circumstantial, mother Cindy also works with Chloroform and has done searches for such. Plenty of reasonable doubt here.

4) Doesnt look good for Casey but can easily be explained away by DT in any number of ways to seed reasonable doubt.

5) Lying to LEO isnt a good idea but it doesnt prove murder. It doesnt make her look very good and coupled with other evidence these types of lies may eventually be her undoing but a good defense attorney can seed reasonable doubt even here.

6) True but it doesnt mean she killed her and that is all that matters.

As far as I am concerned, just based on all the facts I know as of today (and I do not know them all so my opinion could change), but as of now, what I do know would not allow me, in good conscience, to vote for a conviction for first degree murder. Lesser charges possibly, but I would have to see the choices first.


Casey did a lot of VERY STUPID things and there is a chance that she did murder the child, but that doesnt matter in our system of justice, all that matter is, CAN THE STATE PROVE IT...I am not certain they can.

I have gotten a countless number of acquittals in cases where the state had far more evidence than this. The only reason a guilty verdict may happen is because of all the pre trial publicity, which, IMO, is a shameful way to get a convicition, like CA or not, under our system of jurisprudence she deserves a fair and impartial trial by jurors not tainted by the likes of Nancy Grace et al.

My prediction: Hung jury.

You make a lot of good points but here is why I disagree. The DT is forced to answer things piece meal.

Sure, you can make a reasonable doubt argument for point 1, then point 2, then point 3, and so on and so on. But eventually it becomes obvious that those 'reasonable doubt' excuses will not stand as a narrative on their own.
If it were only one or two pieces of circumstantial evidence that made her look bad, and you could cloud the facts, then fine. But there is a long laundry list of things which point to her guilt.

And what's more , the states narrative will stand there, brick by brick, and seem more logical.

1. The hair will be convincing enough for the jury imo. And so will the smell. Have you listened to the 911 call by Cindy where she pleads with the cops because of the smell of the dead body in the car? And the interview with George, where he was so upset about the smell that he excused himself to go puke? Damning evidence right there. NONE of that is junk science.

2. To use a reasonable doubt here you have to imply that either George, Cindy or Lee were the killers. Dead end move, imo.

3. No, Cindy testified that she NEVER worked with or had access to chloroform. And she said she once looked up chlorophyl. [ probably a lie]
But those searches on the computer were done while Cindy was proven to be a t work. So little room for reasonable doubt here. George was at work for 2 of the searches, but was not working during one. Again, that would mean they have to aim the speeding bus at him. Stupid move, and would fail, imo

4. the texting about the smells--HERE IS WHERE MY THEORY KICKS IN
If you try and say the hair is not really Caylee's, there really is no smell, everyone was wrong, she made no computer searches, AND THEN, you try and manufacture some clever reason that she texted about dead animal smells in her car, the jury at that point sees it for what it is, excuses and lies to cover the truth.

5. On the 911 call, she tells the dispatcher that she just talked to Caylee the day before and she is FINE. Ok, do me a favor, tell me how you convince the jury that she had a good reason to say that.

6. But this is the huge straw crushing the camel's back. IF she had seemed regretful and had been grieving during this time, she would be free right now. This behavior shows that she did not want anyone looking for the child AND she was okay with her being gone. Very big hurdle for the defense.

These things all together do show that she had something to do with the child's death. She was the last one seen with the baby, she lied when people asked where the baby was, and did not report her missing. And denied she was missing when help arrived. The day she went missing she deleted her child's pictures and then later on, got a tattoo that said how beautiful her new life was. The child was buried in an area she played in during childhood right near where she buried her dead pets. The child was buried with things from the Anthony home. The rest of the family have alibis during this time.
When cops did arrive there was a strong odor of death in the trunk.

Nothing in the above paragragh is 'junk science.' It may be circumstantial, but they are circumstances that point to guilt. NO PARENT IS EVER GOING TO ACCEPT THAT SHE DID NOT SEEK HELP FOR A MISSING CHILD. That and that alone may end her life.

 

[Bree0372]

I don't believe that Baez expects an acquittal nor do I expect him to receive one. Worse case: hung jury and it can be retried. She may be convicted of a lesser charge, but she'll still have to do time and in general population.

I think if he has something to say that will make us all understand why Casey did what she did, and continues to do, then he should have opened his mouth and said it 3 years ago. Todd M stood in court and stated they have evidence to prove her innocence and Judge Strickland ordered him to turn it over - still waiting. :waiting:

First suggestion for Casey would be to start showing some:tears:for someone other than herself. She has never once, not one single time, cried for Caylee. Maybe she's a spiteful b*tch (her words, not mine).

JB has been betting on prosecutorial misconduct, jmo.

If that doesn't happen...LKB was on HLN earlier today saying that sometimes children just die in someone's presence, without explanation. That along with ugly coping & fear of parents seems to be the way the defense is posturing. Again, jmo.

BBM

Oh yeah, that happens every day. I saw her on there but had to put her smiling face on mute. Maybe babies under a year die inexplicably and it's called sids, but not 3 year olds. And in that rare occasion, again, you would call 911!

I have 2 uncles that died of SIDS many years ago; my grandmother was later institutionalized because of the mental anguish that she went through because of their loss.

However, my cousin's goddaughter died when she was 5 years old - no cause of death known (autopsy returned nothing). She had been playing, ate lunch, watched some tv, took her daily nap and never woke up. :tears: And, 9-1-1 was certainly called. That's what any "normal" parent would do.

I guess we never know when it's our time to go.

 

[katydid23]

At this point in time, I do not even believe he is going to get a hung jury. Even the juror that makes the state nervous, because she does not like to judge, will see the preponderance of evidence against ICA. And it is simple, common sense evidence that will do Casey in. The people who worry that she might not be able to folow the forensics need not worry, because she will hear the 911 calls, and the initial interviews about the DEATH SMELL in the trunk. Then she will hear Casey lying, saying the baby is just fine when she first talks to the dispatcher. And she tries to justify that by sayijng she wanted to keep looking on her own. Once this very early evidence comes out, DAY ONE, the DT will be behind the 8-BALL. They will never recover because their opening statement will NOT put these problems to rest. imoo

Even if they try and say she was somehow in shock from it all, and was raised dysfunctionally, that will backfire. I bet most of these jurors had very difficult and dysfunctional childhoods as well, and will not buy that explanation. imoo Compared to most people, Casey had a pretty Kush life.

 

[PAXIMUS]

Acquittal--no way. Hung jury--probably. Other than that I take exception to your analysis (but in a very loving way).
#1) Decomp smell in car. You have former LE (GA), Nurse (CA), LE, & Vass (expert) all stating that they are familiar with the smell of decomp, the smell of decomp is unique and that is what they smelled in the car.
#3 Access to Chloroform/Computer searches. There is no evidence CA ever had access to chloroform. Cindy never testified she searched for chloroform--she testified she once --possibly-searched for chlorophyll. Evidence shows CA was a work at time of computer searches -of which there were two.
#4-if that can be easily explained away--have at it! I'd like to know just one reasonable explanation for that.
#5- The jury will be instructed that the lying to LE is evidence of a consciousness of guilt.
#2: During this 31 day period 3 out of the 4 people who had access to the Anthony house were all frantically concerned about Caylee and when found she was missing immediately reported it to the police. The 4th person never reported it--after it was reported tried to say it was just a matter of her mother being overly dramatic--and to date never showed any concern. Again, the jury will be instructed that only one person who had access to the Anthony house actions demonstrated a consciousness of guilt.
#6-KC stated she was panicked and searching for Caylee during these 31 days. Her partying shows she was not searching but she was having a heck of a time! Nor did she act as if she were in fear of her life or that of any family members.

I understand perfectly an appreciate your rebuttal, that said, nothing in the above proved she is a murderer, it is all circumstantial and can easily be explained away in any number of ways.


I dont have time to go in to detial on every point you made but lets look at the decomp as the most damning evidence in this case, a defense expert will easily explain that about 90+% of the air compounds in the air in the trunk can also be attributed to decomposing household waste/garbage, which there was a bag of in the trunk at the time it was recovered. Yes I understand human decomp has a very distinct smell but chemically speaking the compounds for both human and trash decomposition are almost identical which makes this piece of evidence highly circumstantial as well as it being based on a not very exact or well embraced science in both science and legal communities.


All I am suggesting is that it really doesnt matter if she killed Caylee or not, its simply irrelevant to this case, what matters, the only thing that matters, is can the state prove she murdered Caylee, acting stupid, lying etc, suggests she may have had something to hide for whatever reason but its a leap to go from there to her being a murderer and having spent most of my career on the defense side of criminal casework I can tell you that the state is going to have a harder time proving her guilt than most of you think, there is a lot of reasonable doubt everywhere and it only takes a little of it to hang a jury or get an acquittal, which I dont think will happen, but a hung jury I see as a for sure thing, BASED ON THE LIMITED knowledge I have of this case and without seeing every single piece of evidence that will be introduced by the State.

Again all that matters is can the state prove it, whether she did it or not doesnt matter, what matters is what the state can prove.

 

[PAXIMUS]

If JB does not think he can get a acquittal, than the next logical question for me is whether or not he has made his client fully aware of his professional opinion.
Of course, no attorney wants to tell their client that they could lose a case, but doesn't it seem unethical to not tell your client that they are facing an uphill battle with slim to no chance of acquittal? I would want my attorney to tell me the truth and tell me that he was going to fight his hardest to stop it, that I have a team of the best attorneys I can get-that money can buy with the likes of AndreaL and LKB having worked for her- Has he been that honest with her?

But :waitasec:...KC herself has to know what she is up against, ego or not. If JB explained the above to her, it should not come as a shock.

JB knows this case better than anyone and I can tell you from where I sit with a limited knowledge of what evidence will actually make it in to court that I can see a hung jury for certain and if I can see that I am sure JB does also and he may also even feel he can seed enough reasonable doubt to get an acquittal although I agree he shouldnt put too many eggs in that basket, as he also has a priority to save her life should she get convicted, so he has to be careful and walk a tightrope in this regard.

 

[katydid23]

I understand perfectly an appreciate your rebuttal, that said, nothing in the above proved she is a murderer, it is all circumstantial and can easily be explained away in any number of ways.


I dont have time to go in to detial on every point you made but lets look at the decomp as the most damning evidence in this case, a defense expert will easily explain that about 90+% of the air compounds in the air in the trunk can also be attributed to decomposing household waste/garbage, which there was a bag of in the trunk at the time it was recovered. Yes I understand human decomp has a very distinct smell but chemically speaking the compounds for both human and trash decomposition are almost identical which makes this piece of evidence highly circumstantial as well as it being based on a not very exact or well embraced science in both science and legal communities.


All I am suggesting is that it really doesnt matter if she killed Caylee or not, its simply irrelevant to this case, what matters, the only thing that matters, is can the state prove she murdered Caylee, acting stupid, lying etc, suggests she may have had something to hide for whatever reason but its a leap to go from there to her being a murderer and having spent most of my career on the defense side of criminal casework I can tell you that the state is going to have a harder time proving her guilt than most of you think, there is a lot of reasonable doubt everywhere and it only takes a little of it to hang a jury or get an acquittal, which I dont think will happen, but a hung jury I see as a for sure thing, BASED ON THE LIMITED knowledge I have of this case and without seeing every single piece of evidence that will be introduced by the State.

Again all that matters is can the state prove it, whether she did it or not doesnt matter, what matters is what the state can prove.

Respectfully, I think there is more evidence here than you think. They do not even NEED the decomposition to convince a jury imo. There is enough circumstantial evidence because she WAS THE MOTHER. She has no explanation for where her child went when she was missing. you cannot just ignore that you're toddler is gone. It is her responsibility to care for her and know where she is at all times. So there is a burden for the defense in this particular case because of that relationship to the victim.

 

[katydid23]

I do not see a hung jury because of the emotional response people will have to her total disregard for her child's welfare. She never reported her missing and partied instead/

HUGE HURDLE for Baez. I do not think any of the jurors will want to hang this trial because they will not have sympathy for her nor much doubt of her guilt. They might go for manslaughter, but will not hang, imo.

 

[PAXIMUS]

You make a lot of good points but here is why I disagree. The DT is forced to answer things piece meal.

Sure, you can make a reasonable doubt argument for point 1, then point 2, then point 3, and so on and so on. But eventually it becomes obvious that those 'reasonable doubt' excuses will not stand as a narrative on their own.
If it were only one or two pieces of circumstantial evidence that made her look bad, and you could cloud the facts, then fine. But there is a long laundry list of things which point to her guilt.

And what's more , the states narrative will stand there, brick by brick, and seem more logical.

1. The hair will be convincing enough for the jury imo. And so will the smell. Have you listened to the 911 call by Cindy where she pleads with the cops because of the smell of the dead body in the car? And the interview with George, where he was so upset about the smell that he excused himself to go puke? Damning evidence right there. NONE of that is junk science.

2. To use a reasonable doubt here you have to imply that either George, Cindy or Lee were the killers. Dead end move, imo.

3. No, Cindy testified that she NEVER worked with or had access to chloroform. And she said she once looked up chlorophyl. [ probably a lie]
But those searches on the computer were done while Cindy was proven to be a t work. So little room for reasonable doubt here. George was at work for 2 of the searches, but was not working during one. Again, that would mean they have to aim the speeding bus at him. Stupid move, and would fail, imo

4. the texting about the smells--HERE IS WHERE MY THEORY KICKS IN
If you try and say the hair is not really Caylee's, there really is no smell, everyone was wrong, she made no computer searches, AND THEN, you try and manufacture some clever reason that she texted about dead animal smells in her car, the jury at that point sees it for what it is, excuses and lies to cover the truth.

5. On the 911 call, she tells the dispatcher that she just talked to Caylee the day before and she is FINE. Ok, do me a favor, tell me how you convince the jury that she had a good reason to say that.

6. But this is the huge straw crushing the camel's back. IF she had seemed regretful and had been grieving during this time, she would be free right now. This behavior shows that she did not want anyone looking for the child AND she was okay with her being gone. Very big hurdle for the defense.

These things all together do show that she had something to do with the child's death. She was the last one seen with the baby, she lied when people asked where the baby was, and did not report her missing. And denied she was missing when help arrived. The day she went missing she deleted her child's pictures and then later on, got a tattoo that said how beautiful her new life was. The child was buried in an area she played in during childhood right near where she buried her dead pets. The child was buried with things from the Anthony home. The rest of the family have alibis during this time.
When cops did arrive there was a strong odor of death in the trunk.

Nothing in the above paragragh is 'junk science.' It may be circumstantial, but they are circumstances that point to guilt. NO PARENT IS EVER GOING TO ACCEPT THAT SHE DID NOT SEEK HELP FOR A MISSING CHILD. That and that alone may end her life.

Great writing here and thanks for that. All I can tell you from my own professional experience is that nothing that I have seen proves to me she murdered her daughter, She may have accidently died and Casey did some pretty dumb things to cover that up and if so she should be held accountable for that but that isnt 1st degree murder and I have seen nothing as it pertains to the evidence in this case that has convinced be BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that she murdered her daughter in cold blood and INTENDED (premeditation) to do so. I could not vote for that if I were on this jury, just from the facts I know now and I am aware I dont know all of it so my feelings could change but as we stand today I have not seen a single shred of evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed first degree murder. Like I said above even if it looks like a duck and talks like a duck, yes its usually a duck BUT IN OUR SYSTEM OF JURISPRUDENCE it IS NOT A DUCK even if it looks like one and sounds like one UNLESS THE STATE CAN PROVE IT and that is not always as easy as it may seem to be. Creating reasonable doubt, however, no matter how outrageous it may be, is the easiest job in the world.

Sticking with hung jury for now.

 

[PAXIMUS]

I do not see a hung jury because of the emotional response people will have to her total disregard for her child's welfare. She never reported her missing and partied instead/

HUGE HURDLE for Baez. I do not think any of the jurors will want to hang this trial because they will not have sympathy for her nor much doubt of her guilt. They might go for manslaughter, but will not hang, imo.

Jurors are supposed to follow the law not their emotions, although they too are human and this is something they will struggle with, there will be a voice of reason in that deliberation room that keeps them focused on the LAW and not their EMOTIONAL RESPONSES.

Casey is dumb, immature and pretty much a waste of air but I see nothing to prove to me that she is a murderer even though deep inside I feel she is somehow responsible for the childs death I could not in good conscience vote to convict FOR FIRST DEGREE MURDER based on the evidence I am aware of but I would easily vote her bonehead of the decade for her stupidity and lying.


Mr Simpson had A LOT more evidence against him and his behavior like CA's was that of someone who seeemed guilty, but it doesnt matter if he killed Nicole or not, all that matters of the state has to prove it and they did not. I can live with that, its our system and its the best system there is as far as I know.

 

[RR0004]

I understand perfectly an appreciate your rebuttal, that said, nothing in the above proved she is a murderer, it is all circumstantial and can easily be explained away in any number of ways.


I dont have time to go in to detial on every point you made but lets look at the decomp as the most damning evidence in this case, a defense expert will easily explain that about 90+% of the air compounds in the air in the trunk can also be attributed to decomposing household waste/garbage, which there was a bag of in the trunk at the time it was recovered. Yes I understand human decomp has a very distinct smell but chemically speaking the compounds for both human and trash decomposition are almost identical which makes this piece of evidence highly circumstantial as well as it being based on a not very exact or well embraced science in both science and legal communities.


All I am suggesting is that it really doesnt matter if she killed Caylee or not, its simply irrelevant to this case, what matters, the only thing that matters, is can the state prove she murdered Caylee, acting stupid, lying etc, suggests she may have had something to hide for whatever reason but its a leap to go from there to her being a murderer and having spent most of my career on the defense side of criminal casework I can tell you that the state is going to have a harder time proving her guilt than most of you think, there is a lot of reasonable doubt everywhere and it only takes a little of it to hang a jury or get an acquittal, which I dont think will happen, but a hung jury I see as a for sure thing, BASED ON THE LIMITED knowledge I have of this case and without seeing every single piece of evidence that will be introduced by the State.

Again all that matters is can the state prove it, whether she did it or not doesnt matter, what matters is what the state can prove.

BBM- Do you have a link that supports that? TIA

 

[PAXIMUS]

Respectfully, I think there is more evidence here than you think. They do not even NEED the decomposition to convince a jury imo. There is enough circumstantial evidence because she WAS THE MOTHER. She has no explanation for where her child went when she was missing. you cannot just ignore that you're toddler is gone. It is her responsibility to care for her and know where she is at all times. So there is a burden for the defense in this particular case because of that relationship to the victim.

I*ndeed but it doesnt prove she murdered the child, she may have been covering up for someone else. Do I believe that? NO! But IT IS POSSIBLE and that is reasonable doubt.

 

[ynotdivein]

This thread temporarily locked for review.

 

[Wise Old Owl]

First degree murder must have premeditation. That premeditation can be as little as a second or as long as months.

It will be proven that ICA did those searches on the computer. Proven by GA's and CA's work records. So, ICA searched "choloroform" "neck breaking" "household weapons" (goes to thought process of ICA - premeditation?)

I've said this over and over and over and over

ICA will be convicted of First Degree Murder on three little words:

THIRTY ONE DAYS

ICA admits to this, herself, on the 911 call. "My daughter has been missing for 31 days" Can't get much more proof than that.

No mother would let her 2 year old child go missing for 31 days without calling LE.

She's done. However, I don't think she'll get the dp. But I'll be happy with LWOP.