Anyone following the Casey Anthony trial

[Moon-Spinner]

I loved his music back in the 60's when he was a singer.

And a woman.

Yep, every time I read an item about this case, I can't get by his name without reading "Joan Baez", then I have to stop and re-read it again!

 

[Varanid]

Relea Bargain

I wouldn't expect that we would hear about the defense seeking a plea bargain. I imagine these things are often handled (at least initially) behind closed doors.

That is, if I am to believe anything Law and Order has taught me.

 

[lane99]

...Anthony's defense team has steadfastly denied that it ever did every time they have been asked, as has the prosecution, but we don't have any reason to believe any of them, do we?..Her lead attorney, Jose Baez, has taken every opportunity he has been able to to get his face in front of a camera. If he had made an effort to come to some sort of agreement with the state and been turned down it isn't very likely he would have kept mum about it...

Though apparently it exceeds your grasp that, particularly on a matter such as this, attorneys can't always be relied upon to be completely forthcoming, for the comical fatuity of your analysis, can't say your post is entirely without merit.

====================================================================================================




Originally Posted by quadraginta:
...She could have copped to that and to panicking afterward over two and a half years ago. If she had gotten any time at all she still would probably have been out by now...

Originally Posted by lane99:
I don't believe you. But stand to be corrected. If what you say is true, I'm sure the crack quadra-leaks team has managed to uncover some corroborating evidence, no? So show us the proof.

You want me to prove to you that something probably didn't happen? You understand the fundamental problem with that, I hope.
...

If you read my comment again, maybe you'll understand it this time.

Or not.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Okay, so the trial has finally started. I've been anxiously (sort of) awaiting to hear what Casey Anthony was going to use as a defense. Now that it's come out, I'm thinking "What? THAT'S Casey defense?! Oh she's done..."

She claims that Caylee drown in her parents swimming pool, but now they have to show evidence of it. I was trying to give her the benefit of the doubt, but I think her legal team's uphill battle just became a steeper climb!

At first I thought it was an awful defense but as I've been thinking about it, it may just be brilliant. Here's why: they do not have to prove she drowned, just that it might have happened and there's your reasonable doubt for first degree murder.

In addition, Jose predicated the defense upon Casey being a liar (because George made her that way) so every time the prosecution shows what a liar she is, they are simply proving the defense's position. There is something brilliant in this defense when you really think about it.

 

[pgwenthold]

No, there is no cause of death that they can prove. So, anything that the prosecution or defense puts forth, is speculation at best.

They cannot prove how she died, so most likely, she will not get the death penalty because in Florida,

If the prosecution can't prove how she died, then not only will she not get the death penalty, but she will get acquitted!

The prosecution MUST prove that she died as a result of murder, beyond a reasonable doubt, or she has to be acquitted.

 

[pgwenthold]

At first I thought it was an awful defense but as I've been thinking about it, it may just be brilliant. Here's why: they do not have to prove she drowned, just that it might have happened and there's your reasonable doubt for first degree murder.

Exactly. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove their alternate scenario. The defense is going to continually remind the jury that if there is any possibility at all that the drowning explanation holds water, then they must acquit.

I have no idea what the prosecution has to say, but it is always the case that the defense doesn't have to show that an alternate explanation is more reasonable than murder, only that an alternate explanation is a reasonable possibility. If it is reasonably possible, you must acquit.

The burden is on the prosecution to prove the case, which means in this case, disproving the defense's alternative.

 

[Moon-Spinner]

At first I thought it was an awful defense but as I've been thinking about it, it may just be brilliant. Here's why: they do not have to prove she drowned, just that it might have happened and there's your reasonable doubt for first degree murder.

In addition, Jose predicated the defense upon Casey being a liar (because George made her that way) so every time the prosecution shows what a liar she is, they are simply proving the defense's position. There is something brilliant in this defense when you really think about it.

Thanks to all that have been explaining how the system is suppose to work. If I was Casey though, I guess my biggest concern is that the JURY knows how it's suppose to work. The jury can have their own bias already in place, and don't care about the rules.

I have never served on a jury, so watching this case will be an education.

PDiGirolamo - If you (or anybody else) could explain the second paragraph, how showing Casey is a liar will help her case. Please help me understand that part. Thanks.

 

[wasapi]

If the prosecution can't prove how she died, then not only will she not get the death penalty, but she will get acquitted!

The prosecution MUST prove that she died as a result of murder, beyond a reasonable doubt, or she has to be acquitted.

However, as with the Scott Peterson death penalty case, circumstancial evidence can be strong enough on it's own to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The system works sometimes, sometimes not. In the OJ case they had a great deal of physical evidence, yet he still walked.

Just my opinion anyway.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Thanks to all that have been explaining how the system is suppose to work. If I was Casey though, I guess my biggest concern is that the JURY knows how it's suppose to work. The jury can have their own bias already in place, and don't care about the rules.

I have never served on a jury, so watching this case will be an education.

PDiGirolamo - If you (or anybody else) could explain the second paragraph, how showing Casey is a liar will help her case. Please help me understand that part. Thanks.

Jose Baez' opening statement asserted that Casey had been sexually abused by her father and her brother since she was 8 years old. This consistent abuse caused her to learn how to keep secrets, lie, and cover up. When Caylee drowned, George screamed at Casey "Look what you've done now. They're going to charge you for child negligence." The decision was made to cover up the death of the child and Casey went into cover-up mode, just as she had always done throughout her abused life.

So every time the prosecution shows she's a liar they prove she was abused (in a round about way.) But if you think about it Jose had a tough hand to play and, in my opinion, he came up with an interesting way to play it.

 

[Moon-Spinner]

Jose Baez' opening statement asserted that Casey had been sexually abused by her father and her brother since she was 8 years old. This consistent abuse caused her to learn how to keep secrets, lie, and cover up. When Caylee drowned, George screamed at Casey "Look what you've done now. They're going to charge you for child negligence." The decision was made to cover up the death of the child and Casey went into cover-up mode, just as she had always done throughout her abused life.

So every time the prosecution shows she's a liar they prove she was abused (in a round about way.) But if you think about it Jose had a tough hand to play and, in my opinion, he came up with an interesting way to play it.

Thanks, I understand this line of reasoning now. I'll keep it in mind as the drama unfolds.

 

[Dancing David]

Relea Bargain

I wouldn't expect that we would hear about the defense seeking a plea bargain. I imagine these things are often handled (at least initially) behind closed doors.

That is, if I am to believe anything Law and Order has taught me.

Most likely the time for copping a plea is long past... that boat sailed someyime last year. It usually happenes around teh pretrial hearings phase, the prosecution states its evidence and then you decide if it can stick. Around here ate any rate they won't make a plea after the trial starts

But once the trial starts it is less likely to happen....

 

[Moon-Spinner]

I've been watching some of this trial today. It does appear that the defense, in their cross examination of Casey's mother, is trying to show how much Casey lies, and trying to show how much Casey lives in a fantasy world, and her lying is pathological. With what PDiGirolamo explained to me earlier on this thread, I can see now where the Defense is going with this case.

 

[Dumb All Over]

At first I thought it was an awful defense but as I've been thinking about it, it may just be brilliant. Here's why: they do not have to prove she drowned, just that it might have happened and there's your reasonable doubt for first degree murder.

Doubt? Yes. Reasonable? That will be for the jury to decide. Given the testimony and evidence so far, it doesn't seem very reasonable to me that Caylee drowned in the pool.

 

[AdMan]

I haven't been following the trial too closely, but today I read a summary of the prosecution's case now that they have wrapped it up.

My feeling is the defense will have a hell of a job trying to counter all of that.

 

[quadraginta]

I haven't been following the trial too closely, but today I read a summary of the prosecution's case now that they have wrapped it up.

My feeling is the defense will have a hell of a job trying to counter all of that.

The defense is going to have a hell of a time dealing with their own opening statement, let alone rebutting the prosecution case.

Baez would have had his hands full just trying to convince a jury that Caylee had an "accident" and Casey shut up about it for a month, then lied about what happened, and then shut up again for two and a half years.

I don't think the "George is a monster, sex perv, child-molester, and that made Casey crazy so she's been in denial." claim is gonna help. For one thing the only two people who can testify to that are George and Casey, and George has already denied it.

Putting Casey on the stand isn't going to end well for the defense.

If Baez had just left it at "dizzy dame" he might have pulled it off. At least enough to beat a murder rap.

The other big blunder was bringing up Roy Kronk at all. Apparently the defense proposal is; A) Caylee had an accident. B)????????. C) Roy Kronk moved the body from ????, hid it for a while, and then pretended to discover it.

There's not a scintilla of evidence to support any of that.

What we do know is that the remains showed pretty compelling evidence that there was duct tape over the mouth and nose, and that they were found in what can easily be described as a "comfort area" for Casey, a short residential block from her house..

Accidental drowning victims don't come with duct-taped mouths.

Most child murderers dispose of the body in areas they are familiar with, frequently near where they live.

Nearly one out of every three murders of children under five in the U.S. is committed by the mother of the child.

That's just for starters.

 

[Policenaut]

I haven't been watching the case very closely but how does the defense explain the multiple google searches for chloroform and broken necks? That seems pretty clear that someone wanted to commit pre-meditated murder. Hmm...who could it be? The grieving grandparents or the pathological liar who partied for the month she claimed her daughter was missing?

 

[MikeSun5]

I haven't been watching the case very closely but how does the defense explain the multiple google searches for chloroform and broken necks?

The defense is claiming that since there's no way to prove the searches weren't hotlinks or "jokes" like RickRolls or something, there's no way to definitively say that the searches were made in the context of planning a murder.

Yes, really.

 

[m-n-m]

Throwing her parents (especially her dad) under the bus, after all the support they gave her, is particularly vile.

So, which hot young murderer would you rather spend time with, Casey Anthony or Foxy Knoxy?

Neither. You know, there are hotter murderesses,es, out there!

Jodi Arias, for example...you should not limit yourself.

 

[wasapi]

Oh . . . say it isn't so. i just heard that the defense is calling a psychic as a witness.

The defense team has certainly ill-advised the defendant. They had a chance to humanize her so she wouldn't be looked at as such a monster. Her mother no doubt has the juries sympathy. When she left the witness stand and mouthed, "I love you" to her daughter, Casey had the same cold persona she's shown for a great deal of the trial.

Legalities aside, I don't believe that the defendant's willingness to throw her entire family to be consumed by sharks in a feeding frenzy, and the cold disgust she shows towards them in court, will not be lost on the jury.

Yes, their decision is supposed to be made by the facts and evidence they have been shown when it comes time to deliberate, and set their emotions aside, but I've been on a jury and it isn't that easy.

 

[AdMan]

Oh . . . say it isn't so. i just heard that the defense is calling a psychic as a witness.

Oh boy... if true, I guess this shows how desperate the defense is.

However, if you have at least one juror who believes in psychics, this ploy just may work...