does JB really think he can get an acquittal?

[JSR]

Being young and handsome didn't help Scott Peterson at all.

I'm very grateful for that ....

 

[ZsaZsa]

I remember way back in time, when this news first broke, that KC's cell phone had pings from cell towers near the Orlando airport for several calls to her parent's cell phone and couldn't get a hold of them.

I think LE determined this would have been very close to the time that something happened to CMA.

Since that time, I have not heard anything about those calls. Before CMA was found, LE wondered if CMA's body left near that airport area.

This is the only aspect of the case that makes me wonder if CMA did drown and those calls to parents were in panic and when she could not reach them -- the rest is history.


Just IMO only.

When this was brought up some time ago (flurry of phone calls to CA/GA) AZ Lawyer pointed out there was nothing unusual in ICA doing that, in fact it was quite typical of her call pattern to them. If she couldn't get through first time she never waited, she just kept on dialing,dialing, rather than wait a few.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I think he thinks he an get an acquittal to the major charges. I see DT as saying the death was accidental and all her behaviors where a result of her being scared of her family and staged everything to look like a kidnapper did it. They will attack the evidence of chloroform result. and TRY to say someone else made those chloroform searches. IMO this is the best defense they got because Zanny is a no go and to blame GA would be really dumb IMO.

Hoping this trial really starts Monday. But I dont want to get my hopes up

Trouble is, no one will believe those explanations.
The jurors who have been excused for cause have only heard a few details of the case but none believe her innocent, and they don't know the mass of evidence that we do.

 

[ZsaZsa]

We won't know until it unravels. However, at the end of the day, most of it seems totally circumstantial. If the jurors follow their orders and not their hearts she will get off.

Nothing actually ties her to the body.

Circumstantial evidence convicts people every day. Most murder cases consist of it,and there is a great deal present in this case..
Scott Peterson was convicted on way less forensic evidence than they have against ICA. He is on death row.
There is a great deal of evidence that connects ICA to the body. Caylee's decomposing body was in her mother's car. Start there.....

 

[Linda7NJ]

IMO It's a slam dunk case if they seat jurors with two brain cells to rub together. That being said.....I never underestimate the stupidity of some people...and I never presume to know what conclusion a jury will come to. I've ssee too many slam dunk cases lose because of stupid jurors.

 

[lonetraveler]

This may tell us whether or not JB actually believes he can get ICA acquitted or is simply trying to avoid the DP for her in this trial.

Juror 3016….teacher, mid 30’s…seeking masters in assisting the mentally challenged. Has the opinion that ICA is guilty, but could put that aside. But he is against the Death Penalty.

HHJP attempts to rehabilitate him on the DP:

Hhjp:” If those facts and circumstances indicated for you that death was the proper sentence…could you recommend that?”

ans: NO

HHJP: why not?

Ans: Well I know it’s the law, but ….I’ve never chosen a field where I’d be able to do something like that. Ahhh..its something that I’ve never felt it was my decision to do. It would be very difficult.

HHJP: understands how difficult it would be, but …” remember when I told you, you would never be required or compelled to recommend a sentence of death? What we’re trying to ascertain, sir, is could you consider it and if you felt it was necessary , DO IT?

Ans: Well I guess I could CONSIDER IT. Ummm..you know, being the one to actually have to make that decision it would be pretty tough for me.”

HHJP: Noone knows what they might do if put in that position. My question for you is whether or not you could consider it and not just automatically say no?

Ans: “Well, I guess I could consider it….” Yadda yadda yadda. It would be difficult to do.

But he never says he could DO IT.

Vinny says it sounds like a juror that might be very good for the dt.

But Casey Jordan says this: If Jose Baez feels he really cannot get ICA acquitted, he may accept this juror (and not back strike) because he knows the juror won’t vote for the DP.

So no back strike of 3016 might be a major tell on JB’s real goal in this trial. (Which seems absolutely feasible to me.)

And,btw, the judge didn’t really rehabilitate 3016. 3016 never said he could vote for the DP at all. so, in effect, the sa seemed to trade, "I believe she's guilty but can weigh the evidence and decide" for "but I'll never vote for the Death Penalty."

It may not matter if this juror holds out against the death penalty. Florida is the only state that does not require a unanimous jury decision for the death sentence. A majority of the jurors is what it takes to sentence someone to death.

http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/JNNews01.nsf/Articles/17D1D958BE8BFE56852570A60070FFF6

 

[AliVada]

I get worried about acquittal in the case as well ... and as much as there is circumstantial evidence that is very damning. You cannot forget that the items found with Caylee were from the very dysfunctional home of her very dysfunctional family.

Then add to that the fact the car was out of her posession while at amscot, then while at the tow yard and there is wiggle room there as to at what point there was the source of the fluids and smells.

So I do worry, if the dt (dang this computer my two year old pulled off a shift key and it makes my typing all wonky) but if the DT can deflect and deflect and baffle with bull and drag all the kooky anthonys into the fray .. there may be a very confused jury sitting at the end of the trial trying to figure what is what?

add a couple paid experts to confuse the jury with bug evidence and or to undermine other evidence we feel is solid and we could all be very shocked at what they do decide in the case.

I hate this, if her folks were any version of normal it would help so much. If they had just been supportive of Casey in her efforts to parent a baby while letting her be 19 it might have had a very different outcome .... just like ole Rusty Yates sometimes a family has a great deal to do with a crime even though they didnt do the deed.

You really wonder if they in retrospect take any responsibilty for what their daughter did? I would always feel horrible if either of my kids did anything to any other human as much as i am smart enough to know it is their decision, I would feel I failed in some way even if it were not getting a mental condition treated and at least some attention given to whatever was causing their kid no matter the age some care or turn em over to the police if committing crimes?

ah man ...and then we have to pray that none of the jurors is stealth and after the fact will cause the decision to be overturned because their husband/wife etc reads and posts here or on other sites regularly.

I hate the florida sunshine laws and that so many have seen the discovery. it could spell disaster in the long run.

kathy

 

[Tink]

Circumstantial evidence is not weak evidence. It is often the only kind of evidence that is available, and properly considered is often more reliable than eyewitness testimony. Eyewitnesses often make mistakes even when they are trying to give honest testimony: many studies have shown this. But circumstantial evidence is based on facts, and those facts can be added up and arranged to show the reality.

Look at the facts:

Not only was Caylee's disappearance not reported for 31 days, Casey actively tried to pretend all was well by telling people stories about where she was. Casey never did contact the police - it was only when Cindy found her and Lee pointed out that the police would insist on going to where Caylee was supposed to be that she told the story of Caylee being kidnapped.

The car smelled of decomposition, according not only to Cindy's initial phone call, but according to LE, and according to Casey who told Amy it was due to a dead squirrel.

Caylee's hair with a death band was found in the trunk of the car Casey used.

Duct tape of an unusual brand used by the Anthony's was wrapped around the baby's mouth, nose and head.

Police dogs detected decomposition in the Anthony's back yard.

Caylee's body was found very close to the Anthony's house.

Those are facts and frankly, those in themselves indicate Casey's guilt.

Add to that Casey's behaviour:

She seemed to be revelling in her new freedom in the month after Caylee disappeared - partying, cooking and "keeping house" for her boyfriend, not having to beg her parents to look after her daughter, getting a "good life" tattoo, etc. No signs of grief, sadness, loss as you might expect if a child had been lost in an accident (or at the hands of another, even). This is the behaviour of a coldblooded killer who has removed the obstacle to her "bella vita" and has "no regrets."

She lied constantly to LE and tried to misdirect them. This is clearly an attempt to cover up her guilt - otherwise, why continue to lie? Once she had already been charged with child neglect, surely it would have made sense to say it was an accident, if that's what it was?

In those early phone calls, she seemed to find the grief of her parents amusing and almost annoying. Again, if she had lost a child in an accident and had normal, loving feelings for that child, surely she would be more understanding of her parents' sadness.

So you have the combination of the factual, forensic evidence AND the evidence from Casey's behaviour, which is not at all that of a grieving parent. Put those together and it is clear that she is absolutely guilty of killing her daughter, heartbreaking as that is.

Tink

 

[ljs713]

Where is attentive deputy? She sure didn't get an outfit for court!@!

I finally got a chance to watch this video and am totatlly without words.
I can't believe this woman did not even bat an eye when she was told she was sentenced to death. It is just so hard to believe that a human being can be so cold and ruthless.

 

[strawberry]

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.

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!

 

[Disguiseduser0308]

okay, but how about the year before when she was talking to GA and CA about Zanny.

I don't believe a word GA and CA state about any nanny or Zanny the nanny. I think they're "misremembering" when they first heard the name Zanny the nanny. JMO though.

 

[iluvmua]

I think she will get the DP. I believe that JP will throw the book at her (and I hope he does).

He seems to have no problem sentencing people to death row.

I hope he does not make an exception to Casey.

 

[logicalgirl]

I get worried about acquittal in the case as well ... and as much as there is circumstantial evidence that is very damning. You cannot forget that the items found with Caylee were from the very dysfunctional home of her very dysfunctional family.

Then add to that the fact the car was out of her posession while at amscot, then while at the tow yard and there is wiggle room there as to at what point there was the source of the fluids and smells.

So I do worry, if the dt (dang this computer my two year old pulled off a shift key and it makes my typing all wonky) but if the DT can deflect and deflect and baffle with bull and drag all the kooky anthonys into the fray .. there may be a very confused jury sitting at the end of the trial trying to figure what is what?

add a couple paid experts to confuse the jury with bug evidence and or to undermine other evidence we feel is solid and we could all be very shocked at what they do decide in the case.

I hate this, if her folks were any version of normal it would help so much. If they had just been supportive of Casey in her efforts to parent a baby while letting her be 19 it might have had a very different outcome .... just like ole Rusty Yates sometimes a family has a great deal to do with a crime even though they didnt do the deed.

You really wonder if they in retrospect take any responsibilty for what their daughter did? I would always feel horrible if either of my kids did anything to any other human as much as i am smart enough to know it is their decision, I would feel I failed in some way even if it were not getting a mental condition treated and at least some attention given to whatever was causing their kid no matter the age some care or turn em over to the police if committing crimes?

ah man ...and then we have to pray that none of the jurors is stealth and after the fact will cause the decision to be overturned because their husband/wife etc reads and posts here or on other sites regularly.

I hate the florida sunshine laws and that so many have seen the discovery. it could spell disaster in the long run.

kathy

BBM

Respectively Allvada - you would feel better if you comforted yourself by continuing to read the evidence released and the depositions.

In paragraph one, the home ICA lived in will not be considered at during the guilt phase of the trial. ICA will be found guilty before anything in her background will be considered. Historically jurors do not care a fig for what your background is like when it comes to capitol murder.

In paragraph two, the SA have provided indisputable evidence that Caylee was missing and dead before the date ICA began complaining for a number of days about the smell in her car. The SA also has provided evidence to prove Caylee's body was in the trunk of ICA's car during the time ICA was still driving it. And the SA knows the day the car was dumped at Amscott.

Paragraph three - there are no surprise witnesses for the Defense. They have all been given depositions and if these witnesses change their testimony on the witness stand they will be committing perjury. We know what the Defense witnesses are going to say.

Paragraph four - ICA was an adult when she committed this murder. Having her parents caring for her and her child because she was a "young" adult, that will be considered a strong point for the SA. This was not a desperate, poor uneducated mother unable to care for her child.

Paragraph five: how her parents acted before this trial, and during it will have no bearing on ICA's guilt or innocence in the murder trial. It makes no difference whether they are there supporting ICA or Caylee or both, except to the levels of resentment in my fellow WS posters.

And finally - I love the Florida sunshine laws - because we know what the evidence is, my confidence in a guilty verdict has never wavered.

So again, take comfort in the evidence files whenever you are feeling really nervous! :therethere:

 

[Pink Panther]

I followed the Laci Peterson case in large part because I was so enraged at the obviousness of the "whodunnit" that I couldn't let it go until SP was found guilty. I have the same feeling here. How friggn obvious can it be?

Baez promised an answer that would satisfy in the first three minutes of his opening statement. I am waiting for that. Let's see what bullcarp he can deliver...

moo

ETA - I don't think that he's capable of making a dinner reservation over the phone in less than three minutes. (Again, this is my opinion only).

bleh

 

[Reality Orlando]

At least one juror I am betting has seen LKB say that was a lie. Even if they haven't admitted to it during voir dire. It may just be in the back of their memory somehow, however, it will come shooting forward if they hear the "Zanny the Nanny" story.

IMHO, the Zanny story would be folly.

IMO it all depends on how the defense is able to play this out. If they can label KC a habitual liar and thief early on and keep that as an ongoing theme throughout the trial there is no way the jury will believe KC when she cries abuse.
-31 days
-Universal Studios
-"It smells like there was a dead body in the car..."
-the duct tape
-the heart sticker
-the apartment she dropped Caylee off at...that was vacant
-the nanny that never existed
-the nanny's mother's residence that never existed
-the friend who recommended the nanny who never did
-the phone call from Caylee that never happened
-stealing from family
-stealing from friends

"Guilty as charged."

 

[gitana1]

I am surprised how few people have a strong opinion about the DP and how few of them have had a "serious discussion" about the issue with anyone...

Heartfelt. Circumstantial.

You have to prove it.

However, I do agree with you, she did it. Now who is going to prove it?

Circumstantial evidence convicts people every day. Most murder cases consist of it,and there is a great deal present in this case..
Scott Peterson was convicted on way less forensic evidence than they have against ICA. He is on death row.
There is a great deal of evidence that connects ICA to the body. Caylee's decomposing body was in her mother's car. Start there.....

It can be confusing for a generation raised on CSI, Law and Order, etc. Nowadays, people expect a smoking gun or they feel the case is "circumstantial" and thus that there is reasonable doubt.

I believe HHJP can adequately instruct the jury, however, so that they know circumstantial evidence is almost always all there is (because when there is direct evidence, like an actual witness to a crime, there is usually a plea) and that it is perfectly sufficient.

Someone pointed out once that witness testimony that they saw someone running from a crime scene with blood on the their shirt, is circumstantial evidence and that is true. Even ballistics analyses, DNA, fingerprints, that's all circumstantial evidence. So would be the "smoking gun" I referred to above. People don't always realize that and I forget it myself now and then. But I believe a jury can be made to understand, via jury instructions, that reasonable doubt is not present simply because a case is circumstantial.

 

[kaRN]

Heartfelt. Circumstantial.

You have to prove it.

However, I do agree with you, she did it. Now who is going to prove it?

KC will prove it to the jury herself by sitting there like ice and only reacting with a scintilla of emotion when the topic of discussion is her. She'll prove it to them by avoiding eye contact and remaining stoic during testimony that will have them nauseated.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Very Interesting Thread..JB believes in KC's innocence and that he can get her acquitted..hummmm only had to think for a nanno second..Me think that JB is working on saving KC's life at this point as he knows all the evidence and knows he was unsuccessful in keeping damming evidence OUT..so is going to work on creating doubt of premeditated..and skew more towards hiding, shame and denials by KC (emtional damages )..and attempt to get either 2nd degree of some manslaughter verdict....IMO

Acquittal...:floorlaugh: NOPE!!

 

[akashana]

I believe that she will definitely be convicted, but I will be surprised if she gets the DP. I think she is looking at Life Without. While I feel that the state has a strong case, they have no witnesses, no tangible link to KC and the remains of Caylee. And they will definitely play up the Roy Kronk thing, which admittedly was a bit odd, IMHO. I think if she had only not used the duct tape, she could be looking at conviction on a much lesser charge. But the duct tape is going to be hard to explain, to ignore. The duct tape spells out pre-meditation, and disallows an accident or incident of neglect. Everyone knows that duct tape over the mouth AND nose will surely kill. And this is a toddler who likely was drugged as well. KC is not a likeable defendant. She is emotionless for the most part, and what emotion is displayed is, rightly or wrongly, often perceived as inappropriate or contrived. The only way I think jurors could warm up to her is if she somehow managed to humanize herself on the witness stand, and what a gift that would be to the prosecution! They would slaughter her on cross. But I think that some jurors, particularly the male who objects to the DP, will look at her relative youth and possible other mitigating factores presented by her defense and just not be able to pronounce that final judgment on her. To be honest, I don't believe that I could either. I just couldn't do that to her parents, even though they have acted poorly. They still have lost all that they hold dear, and I couldn't be the one to add to their misery by sentencing their only daughter to death. Probably Baez & Co. are just hoping to spare her the DP and know an acquittal is out of the question.

 

[grandmaj]

You know I don't think there will be anywhere near an acquittal. I don't know if the jury will vote DP though. I think Baez would consider it a win if he was able to get less than First Degree Murder.

I'll never call anything a slam dunk though. So much depends on how good the witnesses are on the stand and whether or not DT are able to plug any reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury and how much doubt.

I'll never forget the Neil Entwistle case. Neil killed his wife and baby in the couple's bed. This case was in MA. Then he fled to the UK his homeland. The coroner who did the autopsy and report in that area at the time was just Awful. In fact so awful that they removed him from criminal autopsies long before the case came to trial. The defense really did a great job at discrediting him. I was having fits. He was convicted to Life in Prison with no parole. But that one witness could have thrown the case because he was so sloppy and he was also tripped up repeatedly by defense counsel while on the stand.

It is going to be a bumpy ride. But I think ultimately as long as everyone is on their mark, the Prosecution has a good case. They are very good lawyers.