When Baez paid the bank back wasn't that tantamount to pleading guilty?

[cyberborg]

In the name of Justice??

This is a check fraud case. It would not be worth it for Amy. If Casey died, Amy could feel guilt later in her life that she may have played a part in all of this. It is easy to say sitting on the outside. If I were her parent, I would say stay as far away from this as you can. You do not need that holding over your head. Justice was not meant to mess up a victims life. If Casey is guilty of Murder one in the first degree, it will stand up on its own, it does not need a silly check fraud case to drive it home. Imo

BBM.

If this is just a silly check fraud case then it makes absolute sense to get it out of the way now so that KC and her Defense can focus fully on the Murder trial with no distractions. Right?

 

[chefmom]

by not going after her for the check charges

IS exactly what her parents did year after year after year

they let her slide with stealing, telling lies, cheating and etc etc etc.


at some point, it catches up with them and in this case, the parents making excuses for her all the time for her whole life HELPED in creating the monster
who kills her own daughter...

take it to the bank.... no pun intended :croc:

Totally agree with you, Dog! As a matter of fact, if I were Amy, I would be more than happy, why, I might even feel a moral obligation, to go forward with the check fraud case just to give the SA that little extra something to add if KC gets to the sentencing phase of the murder trial. I don't believe the SA added the DP back on just to mess with JB and KC. They felt compelled because of something.

 

[cyberborg]

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this point. I don't believe the state stands a chance in this check fraud case without Amy. Casey will have the right to cross examine Amy. If Casey says Amy is involved with these checks somehow, then they will have to bring Amy in. So, I understand what your saying, but I think Amy will be involved either way.

That being said, the defense may opt to just plea on this since it probably will make no difference whatsoever to a jury. A jury can certainly tell the difference between a murderer and a thief.

I just feel bad for Amy and I think she should steer away from this whole thing. It could effect her emotionally for the rest of her life.

BBM

I agree, but I mean in a positive good way.

Amy was victimized and faced an overdrawn bank account until it was resolved. She was also exposed to the media and to scrutiny. The damage is done.

Amy must feel good that the State is taking this forward and holding KC to account, no one else would. There are many victims of Identity Theft and it is good to know that a repeat offender such as KC is going to get the help that she needs to stop this criminal activity.

Amy must feel good about that -- that this is going to get resolved correctly for once.

 

[cecybeans]

If I was to lend someone my car, I would assume that means the car the spare tire in the trunk, the tire iron and yes the checkbook in the glove box. So, I would not leave my checkbook in the glove box. I think the state will need Amy's help in pursueing this. Otherwise , Casey could just say, yes, she lent me her car with the checkbook in it.

If I were Amy (since I did not suffer a loss here), I would stay away from this whole thing. I would not want to feel responsible for Casey's death.

I don't think AH should feel responsible for KC's death either; she has no reason to be - all she is doing is truthfully testifying to the fact that KC betrayed her and stole her money. Her deception has undoubtedly caused AH much pain and suffering - time, attorney's fees, etc. The fact that KC forged checks and is guilty of grand theft is certainly not AH's fault. She trusted her and did not realize she would be ripped off multiple times. A criminal betrayal by a supposed friend is not easy to get over psychologically either. If KC was a guy who cleaned out his girlfriends's checkbook, I doubt anybody would be sympathetic at all, and if it made a jury for another crime he committed think he was already a criminal, then that is simply facing what is true and not sugar-coating it.

Also, blaming somebody for trusting the safety of their checkbook to a friend and getting ripped off is blaming the victim. You can say a victim might be careless or negligent in certain cases but, imo, you have to stop short of saying they are responsible for the crime itself. And the same goes for KC's parents - do you think it's fair many people completely blame them for how KC turned out? After a person is a legal adult, there's just a limit to how many excuses they can make involving other people for their own conduct.

I cannot put all the blame on KC's parents for how she turned out - I know too many good parents whose kids have turned out badly for one reason or another. But I will say that they did not prepare her for being responsible for her actions and taught her that she could lie and steal with no real consequences. It's apparent she felt entitled to have them clean up after her like a child forever including, it appears, making excuses for her responsibility for the death of her child and her negligent behavior before and afterwards.

Everyone on death row is someone's child and many of them have committed a string of other crimes so I assume you are against the death penalty, but would you have the state excuse the other crimes simply because it might influence a jury? The fact that KC is also being tried for murder has absolutely no bearing on the fact she stole hundreds of dollars from her supposed friend. The fact it makes her a prior felon in her current case is behavior she and she alone is responsible for. I have a feeling if AH was your own daughter and she was betrayed like this you would not have a problem seeking justice after you saw the pain and suffering she went through regardless of what else the person who treated her this way had to answer for.

 

[BeanE]

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this point. I don't believe the state stands a chance in this check fraud case without Amy. Casey will have the right to cross examine Amy. If Casey says Amy is involved with these checks somehow, then they will have to bring Amy in. So, I understand what your saying, but I think Amy will be involved either way.

That being said, the defense may opt to just plea on this since it probably will make no difference whatsoever to a jury. A jury can certainly tell the difference between a murderer and a thief.

I just feel bad for Amy and I think she should steer away from this whole thing. It could effect her emotionally for the rest of her life.

Sounds more like a recognition that perhaps without Amy, KC would be acquitted, and a related desire - perhaps even pressure - that Amy not show up to effect that.

 

[cyberborg]

Sounds more like a recognition that perhaps without Amy, KC would be acquitted, and a related desire - perhaps even pressure - that Amy not show up to effect that.

Part of the plea deal dynamics I wonder, lay a guilt trip on Amy and hope that she will pull out due to renewed pressure in the media/blogs as the trial closes in?

 

[chefmom]

BBM

I agree, but I mean in a positive good way.

Amy was victimized and faced an overdrawn bank account until it was resolved. She was also exposed to the media and to scrutiny. The damage is done.

Amy must feel good that the State is taking this forward and holding KC to account, no one else would. There are many victims of Identity Theft and it is good to know that a repeat offender such as KC is going to get the help that she needs to stop this criminal activity.

Amy must feel good about that -- that this is going to get resolved correctly for once.

BBM

Not to mention the fact that CA stated to LE that she thought Zanny was either AH or JG. How awful would it be to hear the grandmother of an alledged kidnapped child telling the police that they think you might be the kidnapper? Reprehensible!

 

[TorisMom003]

Amy did not know that Casey was going to clean out her banking account. Amy loaned her car to someone she thought was her friend. If I recall correctly Amy had even forgotten the checkbook was in the glove box of her car. Amy has no bearing on what Casey did. Amy simply trusted the wrong person, as many others have as well. Amy should not feel any guilt if Casey gets death because of bad prior acts on Casey's part (conviction in check fraud case). Amy owes nothing to Casey. Amy is well within her rights (like Baez is in claiming Kronk should be a person of interest and examined closer) to want justice served by Casey being punished for what she did. If this puts Casey in a more negative light (not sure that is possible at this point) there is no one to blame but Casey herself.

 

[BeanE]

Part of the plea deal dynamics I wonder, lay a guilt trip on Amy and hope that she will pull out due to renewed pressure in the media/blogs as the trial closes in?

Yes and no lol. Yes to laying a guilt trip and hope she will pull out. Not in relation to a plea deal though. If I understand what Richard Hornsby and others have explained about this, the defense, in essence, can't plea - their only hope is a trial in which KC is not found guilty of any felonies. That leaves several options: poison the jury pool (not going well), stealth juror (not easy/likely), take out the witnesses (The attempt to take out BOA via payment didn't work. That leaves Amy.)

I'd love to be wrong.

 

[notthatsmart]

If Amy ends up on the stand under cross examination, her entire personal life will be brought out. Is she not also in those party pics with Casey? There is no way this could possibly be good for Amy. I can not believe the SA is going to do this. This should wait until after the murder trial. If the defense has no choice but to fight here, it is going to get very ugly. I can not even imagine that the state would allow Amy to go through this. Thats right, if you accuse someone of something in this country, that person has the right to face you in a court of law. IMO

 

[mitzi]

If I was to lend someone my car, I would assume that means the car the spare tire in the trunk, the tire iron and yes the checkbook in the glove box. So, I would not leave my checkbook in the glove box. I think the state will need Amy's help in pursueing this. Otherwise , Casey could just say, yes, she lent me her car with the checkbook in it.

If I were Amy (since I did not suffer a loss here), I would stay away from this whole thing. I would not want to feel responsible for Casey's death.

You gotta be kidding me, right? :waitasec:

 

[autumnlover]

In the name of Justice??

This is a check fraud case. It would not be worth it for Amy. If Casey died, Amy could feel guilt later in her life that she may have played a part in all of this. It is easy to say sitting on the outside. If I were her parent, I would say stay as far away from this as you can. You do not need that holding over your head. Justice was not meant to mess up a victims life. If Casey is guilty of Murder one in the first degree, it will stand up on its own, it does not need a silly check fraud case to drive it home. Imo

IMO, justice means that the victim, in this case AH, gets reparation and the opportunity to see her supposed "friend" face the music for having the audacity to steal her checks and forge her signature. I have had this done to me and believe me, the violation I felt was tremendous. People that do this need to be punished and when my case comes to trial, I have every intention of testifying. I don't feel that it is a "silly check fraud case." It is against the law.

 

[cyberborg]

If Amy ends up on the stand under cross examination, her entire personal life will be brought out. Is she not also in those party pics with Casey? There is no way this could possibly be good for Amy. I can not believe the SA is going to do this. This should wait until after the murder trial. If the defense has no choice but to fight here, it is going to get very ugly. I can not even imagine that the state would allow Amy to go through this. Thats right, if you accuse someone of something in this country, that person has the right to face you in a court of law. IMO

And this makes any difference -- how?

Are you saying that the Defense are not going to play dirty (or as dirty) after the murder trial?

Nope! The Defense are going to do everything within their power and/or rights either way to defend KC at any and all times -- that's their job!!! So lets just postpone this forever because Amy may get dragged through some mud along the way after having been slimed? --- justice delayed or denied?

Let me tell you, I testified as a victim against a gang and no matter ..... the Defense gloves come off and the victim gets slimed as best they can regardless.

Trials are just that, a trial. Be careful what you wish for though because if KC's Defense overplay their hand in the check fraud trial .......... ooooops!

 

[chefmom]

If Amy ends up on the stand under cross examination, her entire personal life will be brought out. Is she not also in those party pics with Casey? There is no way this could possibly be good for Amy. I can not believe the SA is going to do this. This should wait until after the murder trial. If the defense has no choice but to fight here, it is going to get very ugly. I can not even imagine that the state would allow Amy to go through this. Thats right, if you accuse someone of something in this country, that person has the right to face you in a court of law. IMO

First, why would Amy's entire personal life need to be brought out because KC stole from her? That doesn't make any sense to me, and to borrow a phrase from CA, "I just don't see the relevance!" I see no circumstances under which JB would be allowed to malign AH simply because KC doesn't want to face up to yet another misdeed. As to AH being in the pics, yes, she was in a few of them, smiling, hoisting a cold one, and having fun as she is allowed to do. I don't see that as making her look bad. KC, however, was supposed to be fraught with fear over her kidnapped child and the danger that she and the rest of the A family were in, yet she is bumping and grinding with women, swinging from a pole, throwing hand gestures and beaming like the belle of the ball, living "bella vida". All of this while her baby lay wrapped in garbage bags in the woods. AH living it up has nothing to do with KC living it up and stealing from her. And, as to being able to face someone in court when they have accused you of something, well, I'd love to see AH face CA in court for accusing her of being the kidnapping nanny.

 

[rhornsby]

If Amy ends up on the stand under cross examination, her entire personal life will be brought out. Is she not also in those party pics with Casey? There is no way this could possibly be good for Amy. I can not believe the SA is going to do this. This should wait until after the murder trial. If the defense has no choice but to fight here, it is going to get very ugly. I can not even imagine that the state would allow Amy to go through this. Thats right, if you accuse someone of something in this country, that person has the right to face you in a court of law. IMO

I would disagree, if Baez wants to ask personal questions like you insinuate, the judge would likely make him proffer his "good faith belief" for asking invasive questions.

And absent Casey Anthony testifying that she was given permission to write the checks because Amy had to cover up something incriminating, Baez is not free to go on a fishing trip in his questioning.

 

[rhornsby]

BBM.

If this is just a silly check fraud case then it makes absolute sense to get it out of the way now so that KC and her Defense can focus fully on the Murder trial with no distractions. Right?

Actually, Baez should have moved to consolidate the check fraud case with the murder case. I will discuss why on my blog tomorrow.

But basically, the check fraud facts will come out in the murder case and most of the primary witnesses will testify anyway. So why do it twice.

 

[noonie]

Why put it on anybody but your nasty daughter, Casey????????????I am sick of the LIES!!!!!!!Can't wait for the trials!

 

[jandkmom]

First, why would Amy's entire personal life need to be brought out because KC stole from her? That doesn't make any sense to me, and to borrow a phrase from CA, "I just don't see the relevance!" I see no circumstances under which JB would be allowed to malign AH simply because KC doesn't want to face up to yet another misdeed. As to AH being in the pics, yes, she was in a few of them, smiling, hoisting a cold one, and having fun as she is allowed to do. I don't see that as making her look bad. KC, however, was supposed to be fraught with fear over her kidnapped child and the danger that she and the rest of the A family were in, yet she is bumping and grinding with women, swinging from a pole, throwing hand gestures and beaming like the belle of the ball, living "bella vida". All of this while her baby lay wrapped in garbage bags in the woods. AH living it up has nothing to do with KC living it up and stealing from her. And, as to being able to face someone in court when they have accused you of something, well, I'd love to see AH face CA in court for accusing her of being the kidnapping nanny.

I think there will be questions about the trip and who paid for what. I also think that he will question about when they went to the bars, who paid. I also think that he will get Amy to admit that she gave permission for KC to use her car and admit that she had loaned money to KC before and could KC have thought that Amy wouldn't mind if she "borrowed" the money and paid it back later.

 

[cyberborg]

Actually, Baez should have moved to consolidate the check fraud case with the murder case. I will discuss why on my blog tomorrow.

But basically, the check fraud facts will come out in the murder case and most of the primary witnesses will testify anyway. So why do it twice.

Didn't know you could do that! Wasn't that the way to go? Can it still be done? Too late?

Doesn't it effectively roll the check fraud charges under the carpet since they are comingled and the focus would be the murder related charges?

Doh!!! Rather than gamble on deferring the check fraud until afterwards now it goes before and presents KC as a dishonest felon.

 

[chefmom]

I think there will be questions about the trip and who paid for what. I also think that he will question about when they went to the bars, who paid. I also think that he will get Amy to admit that she gave permission for KC to use her car and admit that she had loaned money to KC before and could KC have thought that Amy wouldn't mind if she "borrowed" the money and paid it back later.

Oh, I think JB will TRY to ask a lot of things! I just think that the SA will object and ask for relevance, and the judge will deny unless there is some direct connection to the check fraud. Not sure how much JB can bring up KC assuming it would be okay to "borrow" from Amy without KC testifying. And, I don't see that happening! All in all, I see nothing for AH to fear from testifying against the thief who stole her money. Besides, if JB wants to play hard and loose with AH, I'm sure the SA will have no problem calling KC's grandmother to the stand to testify about the times that KC stole from her. Or to play the interviews of GA where he talks about KC stealing from him and CA and even taking the money from the baby's piggybank. I think it is JB who should be thinking about the ramifications of this going to trial, not AH. JMO, of course.