The SODDI Defense (Some Other Dude Did It)...If not KC, who?

[yolorado]

When there is no evidence coming up against a "suspect" it is a waste police resources and of tax payers money to do all the hours of investigation required when there is evidence against a suspect turning up. Had their initial investigation turned up something they would have been all over JG like white on rice.

I see no problem in the way the investigation was run, and I see no "reasonable doubt all over the place." Guess time will tell.

Got to agree. The defense can come up with whatever theories they want, but they will always be stuck with KC, who she is, how she has presented herself from the beginning and what she said to the police THIRTY ONE DAYS AFTER her daughter went missing. When all is said and done, there won't be reasonable doubts anywhere, let alone all over the place.

 

[USARDOG]

No, the police interviewed them regarding Casey and gave JG a polygraph, however, they did not look at their cell phone records extensively, except where Casey was concerned, they did not determine their whereabouts, interview friends, work, family about them at the level of detail that they looked at Casey. They did not search their homes or vehicles. Because they arrested Casey so quickly, the police focused on Casey as the ONLY suspect. Unfortunately, this is going to allow the Defense to create reasonable doubt all over the place.

Princess, if there is no motive and no opportunity, how much more do you think the police should investigate? You assert that the police looked no further than kc is just plain not true. The fact is, they interview quite a few people but were quickly able to eliminate them. KC on the other hand, lied at every turn in the road. I remember her father practically begging her to talk to the police when she was in jail. Her response was she didn't trust them.

To search a home a warrant must be obtained. This was not possible because there was no evidence available for the police to go to a judge with. You can't just go charging into someone's home. KC was the prime suspect for a reason. Last person to see her alive, lied her butt off, of course she drew more police attention, this is as it should be.

 

[Harmony 2]

First of all, the State Attorney has the burden of proof....They MUST PROVE "beyond a reasonable doubt" that KC murdered Caylee.

The defense DOES NOT have the burden of proof. They ONLY need to show that the State has NOT met the burden of proof. They can say the pet dogs did it, and if they can get one juror to think that is reasonable, she will be found not guilty. I know this is extreme, but I use this example to make a point.

I started a thread a couple of days ago when Reyes was arrested for attempting to abduct a 4 year-old little girl whose mouth he covered with duct tape. I think the defense could try to connect this case to Caylee as SODDI. They will have to jump through many hoops to say why KC did what she did, didn't do what she should, why she lied etc, etc....but it really only matters that they can establish doubt in the mind of ONE juror.

They could say that KC left Caylee alone in the house asleep to run an errand (maybe she did that often), and she returned to find Caylee dead in the garage lying on a make-shift bed with duct tape over her mouth. KC doesn't know who did this or why. She only knows that the back sliding door was open, and someone had been in the house. She went into panic mode, knowing how CA would react and blame her for leaving Caylee alone.

She wrapped her up in blanket, placed a heart sticker on her mouth, and made a little bed for her in the clean laundry bag, placed her in her trunk and left the house to think of what to do next.

She had plans with Tony, and went ahead with those plans to try to "act normal." All the while she was trying to get ideas for what to do next. She rents the movies, which she either had already seen or knew of the plots with kidnapping of child, setting her plan of cover-up in motion. Meanwhile she blocked her mind by drinking, partying and sexing it up to convince herself that it wasn't real for moments at a time.

Not being a criminal-minded person, she carried the body in her trunk not knowing what to do, until the day that her father almost discovered the body in her trunk. She again went to panic mode and dumped the body. (Could just as easily say that she dumped the body when she ran out of gas looking for a burial site the day that TonE came to bring her gas.)

All of this would just be to create a reasonable doubt in the mind of ONR juror! I don't know if this would work, but I do think the duct tape on the mouth is a strange coincidence. I could make someone consider the defense theory if they can bring in enough experts to dispute to forensics put up by the State.

This is ONLY A THEORY.... I personally believe that KC is guilty based on what I know right now, but if the defense is able to dispute some of the critical evidence and offer another plausible explanation for why the State hasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt their case, I think someone on the jury could be swayed to believe SODDI, maybe! This is only a theory for others to think about. Remember, regardless of what any of us think of the A's and KC and all the lies and deception, the State still has the burden of proof, not the defense.

ETA: The defense does not have to put KC on the stand to use this defense. They just need to offer up the suggestion. They could do that by asking the detectives about other children who were abducted or attempted to be abducted by perp using duct tape. In closing statements they would be able to say what KC's part was in cover up does not make her guilty of murder. She isn't charged with accessory after the fact.

Taking this type of scenario could the defense use the following to explain Casey's behavior? This is just food for thought and an axis for discussion...

Could they say she had a brief psychotic episode?

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/A+psychotic+break Brief psychotic disorder

Trauma and stress can cause a short-term psychosis (less than a month's duration) known as brief psychotic disorder. Major life-changing events such as the death of a family member or a natural disaster have been known to stimulate brief psychotic disorder in patients with no prior history of mental illness.

http://www.medicinenet.com/brief_psychotic_disorder/article.htm

Unusual behavior and dress

and this psychotic break was compounded or accompanied by Acute Stress Disorder???

http://counsellingresource.com/distress/anxiety-disorders/acute-stress-symptoms.html

Look at the key words in that article.. numbing, detachment, or absence of emotional responsiveness, dissociative amnesia, dreams, flashbacks, motor restlessness, and...

marked avoidance of stimuli that arouse recollections of the trauma

The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning or impairs the individual's ability to pursue some necessary task, such as obtaining necessary assistance or mobilizing personal resources by telling family members about the traumatic experience.

I am new here so please be gentle...

 

[yolorado]

Taking this type of scenario could the defense use the following to explain Casey's behavior? This is just food for thought and an axis for discussion...


I am new here so please be gentle...

Snipped with respect.

Interesting theory and welcome! However, I still maintain that no matter what the defense comes up with as this point, it won't be enough to counter KC herself, her own actions, inactions, lies, obstruction, coupled with everything else. The standard which has to be met is not 'beyond ANY doubt,' but 'beyond a REASONABLE doubt.' It also seems fairly certain that the state is not going to give up on this case after a single hung jury, so the defense is going to need at least 2 jurrors in two different trials. In the unlikely event a second trial happens, the defense will have exposed itself in the first trial, so that the procesution will be able to more easily counter whatever worked the first time. IMO, in the end, this defense will be left with KC, what she said or did, or didn't say or do, for 31 days and since, to help find her allegedly missing, and/or kidnapped, and/or murdered child. It's going to take something really, really solid and verifiable to conjur reasonable doubt from her or that. JMHO.

 

[Balthazar]

Princess, if there is no motive and no opportunity, how much more do you think the police should investigate? You assert that the police looked no further than kc is just plain not true. The fact is, they interview quite a few people but were quickly able to eliminate them. KC on the other hand, lied at every turn in the road. I remember her father practically begging her to talk to the police when she was in jail. Her response was she didn't trust them.

To search a home a warrant must be obtained. This was not possible because there was no evidence available for the police to go to a judge with. You can't just go charging into someone's home. KC was the prime suspect for a reason. Last person to see her alive, lied her butt off, of course she drew more police attention, this is as it should be.

There were many people who had a motive to get back at Casey - maybe even some we don't even know about. Don't forget she is a thief and a liar. There were many people who had opportunity - I am sure that Casey would have been more than happy to allow just about anyone to babysit for free for her.

I'm not saying I believe Casey is innocent, but, I am saying it is conceivable because of the way this case was handled by police that the Defense will be able to convince the jury of reasonable doubt.

 

[Phumi]

You are mistaken. They interviewed various people about Casey, but not as potential suspects. This single-minded focus on Casey will open up all sorts of avenues for the defense to create reasonable doubt during the trial.

How could you possibly know who the police considered to be potential suspects?

 

[countzero]

There were many people who had a motive to get back at Casey - maybe even some we don't even know about. Don't forget she is a thief and a liar. There were many people who had opportunity - I am sure that Casey would have been more than happy to allow just about anyone to babysit for free for her.

I'm not saying I believe Casey is innocent, but, I am saying it is conceivable because of the way this case was handled by police that the Defense will be able to convince the jury of reasonable doubt.

KC's acquaintances to her, wouldn't participate in murder. These are kids, immature and out just having fun. They would drop her as they have. Think AD, Christine to name a few. They caught her in lies and just put distance between themselves and KC. No evil plot involved with those she hung around with.

 

[Phumi]

There were many people who had a motive to get back at Casey - maybe even some we don't even know about. Don't forget she is a thief and a liar. There were many people who had opportunity - I am sure that Casey would have been more than happy to allow just about anyone to babysit for free for her.

I'm not saying I believe Casey is innocent, but, I am saying it is conceivable because of the way this case was handled by police that the Defense will be able to convince the jury of reasonable doubt.

I disagree completely. It's not like this was a tough nut to crack. I think any jury will see that KC is guilty. The cry of "rush to judgement" is an old standby when there isn't any real defense.

 

[Virtual Truth]

Taking this type of scenario could the defense use the following to explain Casey's behavior? This is just food for thought and an axis for discussion...

Could they say she had a brief psychotic episode?

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/A+psychotic+break Brief psychotic disorder



http://www.medicinenet.com/brief_psychotic_disorder/article.htm


and this psychotic break was compounded or accompanied by Acute Stress Disorder???

http://counsellingresource.com/distress/anxiety-disorders/acute-stress-symptoms.html

Look at the key words in that article.. numbing, detachment, or absence of emotional responsiveness, dissociative amnesia, dreams, flashbacks, motor restlessness, and...







I am new here so please be gentle...

Hi Harmony2,
I think you have done a great job in laying out just how the defense could use my proposed theory to justify KC's behavior, in order to sway possibly more than one juror to reasonable doubt. LKB will pull out every emotional-medical condition known to man and throw it in the mix. Now, if they can find enough dots to connect the duct-tape perp's actions to what was found with Caylee's remains, even if their are no direct links or forensics, I think they just may be able to make this defense fly.
Good job!
VT

 

[Brini]

No, the police interviewed them regarding Casey and gave JG a polygraph, however, they did not look at their cell phone records extensively, except where Casey was concerned, they did not determine their whereabouts, interview friends, work, family about them at the level of detail that they looked at Casey. They did not search their homes or vehicles. Because they arrested Casey so quickly, the police focused on Casey as the ONLY suspect. Unfortunately, this is going to allow the Defense to create reasonable doubt all over the place.

Not really, Princess:
1) KC had the car.
2) KC had the child.
3) KC declined to report that her child was missing, thus endangering the child.
4) When caught KC identified a person for whom there is no evidence of existence, lied repeatedly, and then led LE on a couple of wild goose chases.
5) Caylee's decompositional chemicals are in the trunk.
6) KC drove around with the decompositional fluids in her trunk, for several days.

LE is obligated to investigate those to whom the evidence points. Period.

The evidence points straight to KC. All of it.

It's like the Scott Peterson case. No evidence pointed to anyone BUT Peterson, despite his lame attempts to implicate other (non-existent) people.

Or, the recent Coleman case. No one but the husband/father had method and opportunity. He is now claiming that people who resent his religion have been threatening him. But, all the evidence points to him. He had method, motive, and opportunity. He is claiming threats from sources that don't appear to exist.

One can't create reasonable doubt, unless there is a viable and believable alternate perp, with some evidentiary backing.

 

[Brini]

There were many people who had a motive to get back at Casey - maybe even some we don't even know about. Don't forget she is a thief and a liar. There were many people who had opportunity - I am sure that Casey would have been more than happy to allow just about anyone to babysit for free for her.

I'm not saying I believe Casey is innocent, but, I am saying it is conceivable because of the way this case was handled by police that the Defense will be able to convince the jury of reasonable doubt.

How would how the case was handled by OCSD AND the FBI convince a jury of reasonable doubt? Who is the viable alternate suspect, and what is the evidence?

 

[Brini]

Taking this type of scenario could the defense use the following to explain Casey's behavior? This is just food for thought and an axis for discussion...

Could they say she had a brief psychotic episode?

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/A+psychotic+break Brief psychotic disorder



http://www.medicinenet.com/brief_psychotic_disorder/article.htm


and this psychotic break was compounded or accompanied by Acute Stress Disorder???

http://counsellingresource.com/distress/anxiety-disorders/acute-stress-symptoms.html

Look at the key words in that article.. numbing, detachment, or absence of emotional responsiveness, dissociative amnesia, dreams, flashbacks, motor restlessness, and...







I am new here so please be gentle...

They can SAY she had a transient psychosis, honey. But, there is no evidence of same. KC has no psych history. No dissociative amnesia. "Numbing, detachment, and absence of emotional response" are also symptoms of sociopathic personality disorder (now, antisocial personality disorder). Said diagnosis would be bolstered by KC's history of chronic lying and theft. It's my guess that the prison shrinks have already dxed her with that. The "talking head shrinks" certainly have done.

She had one nightmare, which, she told TonE, was about their relationship. No flashbacks. No inappropriate motor restlessness.

With transient psychosis, there tends to be a psych history. One just can't "go crazy" when one wants to commit a crime.

Remember, 12 jurors are gonna have to believe that she just went crazy, and stayed that way for 31 days (the time she didn't report Caylee missing) w/o any psychotic s/s.

That being said, welcome to w/s! We're happy to have you here!

 

[Brini]

Hi Harmony2,
I think you have done a great job in laying out just how the defense could use my proposed theory to justify KC's behavior, in order to sway possibly more than one juror to reasonable doubt. LKB will pull out every emotional-medical condition known to man and throw it in the mix. Now, if they can find enough dots to connect the duct-tape perp's actions to what was found with Caylee's remains, even if their are no direct links or forensics, I think they just may be able to make this defense fly.
Good job!
VT

Honey, one doubting juror, or more, only results in a mistrial. Twelve jurors will have to be convinced, in order to render a verdict. :blowkiss:

 

[Brini]

IMHO there is only one reason she would not mind and it is connected to the foundation. don't ask me to explain what I mean but she is holding on to that foundation with all her teeth.
I have a feeling that foundation will sink, and she will be very sorry she did not go in the right direction.

I have a feeling you're dead right!

 

[Brini]

The theory was that some SO took her. And KC didn't report she was missing cause she felt guilty for failing to watch her properly and was afraid of what CA would say and/or do. So she did nothing.

Being lost in the woods is many of the unknowns that could happen to a child. If KC didn't report it because she was embarrassed or felt guilty, then she left her child in unknown danger without trying to 'save' and/or protect her.

I just don't see anyone, much less a Mother just walking away and ignoring that a child might be in danger. Make no real attempt to find that child "lost" in the woods. So the 'missing' theory, I don't buy either.

And as for the SO theory, she would have to be a real, real sick monster to know a SO had her and walk away from it.

In both of those situations, the baby would be in possible bodly harm. Where the child would need to be 'saved'. could be dealing with on going trauma. Again, she would have to be a real monster to walk away, knowing her child could be in some sort of danger.. and not even care. That would be worse then a split second choice of murder. Thought, action, done. No taking back. The other, she could have changed her mind and got help for her child. So it would be a continuing choice she would be making.

To me, the only way KC could walk away and forget about it, is if a known person had her and she thought the baby would be safe. Or she knew it was all over. So there was no reason to hurry. As you point out, she didn't get in that bag accidentally.

..in which case, she would have to know, and identify, who had the baby last. That's the only way she would feel safe enough not to report Caylee missing. So far, it's ZFG, whose existence is not supported by any evidence whatever.

Her big problem with any other scenario, like being "too embarrassed" to report is this. There are going to be parents on that, none of whom would let a second go by without screaming for LE, if their child went missing. That's also the problem with the, "I thought I could conduct my own investigation," b.s.

 

[songline]

I disagree completely. It's not like this was a tough nut to crack. I think any jury will see that KC is guilty. The cry of "rush to judgement" is an old standby when there isn't any real defense.

And I can not call that justice SORRY. I do call it a "rush to judgement"
I think it has to go to court - but with this new lawyer I will never believe a thing. if Casey gets off I will never know the truth.
If she left the baby in some bordello, or with some drug connected person while she worked and came back to a huge problem, (Her dad helped her out). If she did the deed and GA helped her out he belongs in jail too.
I think that is how that entire Foundation came about.
Someone did not want to be linked to Casey/drugs/sex, daddy helped clean up and got financial help in more ways then one, call it a foundation if you want (a foundation that will fail)
When it all begins to unravel in court and I think at the trial it just may, the truth will pop out.
But KC is very lucky to get his lawyer, she has credentials, but she is (lets a man rot in jail knowing he was innocent :bang

 

[Brini]

Oooh...I forgot about the yappie dogs. :bang: I agree; it's not sellable, nor have I heard any SODDI theories that would be without a stretch of the imagination. I do wonder, though, because of his proximity to the A home and the duct tape and the age of the girl he's been accused of attempting to kidnap, if this guy won't be brought up as a possible alternative to Casey at trial.

Well, I don't think we'll come up with a viable SODDI. On the other hand, we might see our musings on a segment of L&O. ;-)

 

[Brini]

There are procedures to follow in the courtroom and I don't think JB can just stand up and testify for his client and throw all sorts of scenarios out there. He would have to find some way to bring this defense in through other testimony to get it in front of the jury.

As to Cindy, no, I don't think she will go along with taking the blame. She is narcissistic enough to only want to be seen as the perfect mother. That's what started this whole mess.

As to a sex offender committing this crime, why would KC cover for him on 7/16 by saying she talked to Caylee on the phone that day and she was fine?

Exactly! JB can't just say, "Maybe somebody else did it. Maybe somebody had a grudge against KC." He has to come up with a scenario with evidenc to back it, plus an identifyable perp.

If he does the Scott Peterson thing-- "Maybe it was hippies, Satanists, the gypsies," the jury won't be amused.

 

[Brini]

I thought the way she wrote it up pointed out that only someone 'special' could pull it off. And pointed to how she would do it, if need be. All in the thinking ahead. I would think that she wouldn't see it as lossing face by doing it. But that she was extra talented.

But I agree with you, she will do something else. Something more logical, based upon the evidence at hand. There is no evidence that points to SODDI. And they would need such evidence, a little something, to go on. JB & crew might have been ignoring that. But an experienced DP would know that it will need some legs. Soemthing. BS will not work with the Jury. JB seems to think BS is the best evidence.

That seems to be JB's fatal flaw. Overestimating his own intelligence, and underestimating everyone else's.

My lawyer late father said that underestimating a jury is the stupidest thing a lawyer can do. AND, the most fatal to his/her career.

 

[cecybeans]

That seems to be JB's fatal flaw. Overestimating his own intelligence, and underestimating everyone else's.

My lawyer late father said that underestimating a jury is the stupidest thing a lawyer can do. AND, the most fatal to his/her career.

Your father was very wise. But after hearing about some of the other stupid things JB has already done before a jury is even picked, he might have expanded that to at least include twizzlers...