Casey Anthony's Defense: "Calyee Drowned"

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Simgar988, May 24, 2011.

  1. Simgar988 macrumors 65816

    Simgar988

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Location:
    UYBAATC
    #1
    The trial is underway and it is going to be a crazy one.

    Link
     
  2. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #2
    I think this is a great defense. It fits the facts and provides the jury with an alternative, arguably reasonable explanation for the evidence the state has. How can the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was murder when they don't have evidence regarding the cause of death? If the defendant provides a reasonable explanation for the body disposal, and the state can't prove murder, she should be found not guilty.
     
  3. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #3
    I really don't think there is a reasonable reason why they dumped the body into a wooded area if it was an accidental death and it took 30 days to report the child missing....
     
  4. panoz7 macrumors 6502a

    panoz7

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    #4
  5. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #5
    Exactly. Luckily I'm not on that Jury, because as a mother, I can't imagine any reasonable explanation. If it truly was an accident, any non-murdering mother would have gotten medical attention ASAP, and done everything imaginable to save their child's life. There just isn't any reason to take that child's body and hide it.
     
  6. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #6
    Ahhh, but that's why it makes sense... the explanation has to be unreasonable... No reasonable mother would do what she did, but she isn't a reasonable mother. She was broken, abused and mentally ill, but not a murderer.

    The kicker being the state has to prove otherwise!
     
  7. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #7
    I live in Orlando and have had to put up with this crap for 3 years. Welcome to the party, rest of the world!

    Baez, defense counsel, is completely out of his league. The swimming pool assertion is new, and while an alternative theory, it does not fit the evidence. Subsequent actions and a pattern of lies by Casey Anthony will be her undoing. Unfortunately she may have grounds for appeal on the basis of incompetent/ineffectual counsel.
     
  8. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #8
    Well it is a defense. Though, her actions while her daughter was "missing" certainly didn't seem like the actions of a broken person. Of course, we don't know what will come up during the trial, but I believe, when all is said and done, she'll end up in that special place in hell that is reserved for people that kill their children.
     
  9. MacVixen macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Location:
    Santa Cruz, CA
    #9
    What kills me the most about this defense is she is laying the blame on her parents. Her parents! The people who seem to have completely supported her through this mess. Aren't they paying for lawyer even? I've seen interviews with the parents where they have attempted to justify just about everything related to Caylee's disappearance, and know their daughter is trying to pin the blame on them. Wow, that's gratitude for you!
     
  10. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #10
    I don't think her parents mind. Like someone posted above, her parents joined in on the whole trying to excuse how Caylee died. I wouldn't be surprised if they were some how involved in their daughters plot.
     
  11. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #11
    I think it is important to remember that Casey does NOT have to prove she is innocent. As we sit here right now, she is innocent. The state has to prove she committed the crime they accuse her of committing. The evidence they have are remains, some duct tape, some forensic evidence that the body may have been in the trunk, and her behavior after Caylee went missing. If they can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee was murdered vs. accidental death, she is innocent.

    By admitting that Casey did all the things after Caylee died and providing an alternative explanation for how Caylee died and why she behaved the way she did, the defense puts the state on the spot.

    How do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt it was murder and NOT an accidental death?

    For all the people who say she acted like it was murder, I have one question for you. Is your suspicion and assumptions enough to convict someone of murder?

    I have had to defend a lot of cases where there really was no plausible defense; it is common for public defenders to celebrate the idea of any defense. (I once did over 1/2 of a closing argument with my back to the jury - it was the only argument I had. My friend got a reputation for arguing about missing evidence {where is the hammer? where is the car}). I have been following the case; I'm not only surprised by the defense, I'm truly impressed with it. It addresses almost all the strenghs of the state's case. Even if she is found guilty, it isn't a walk in the park for the state anymore.

    To the person who said Baez was out of his league, I respectfully disagree. From what I have seen, he doing a very good job.
     
  12. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #12
    Between the last three years of pre-trial manuevers, his in-town reputation/previous perfoemance, and his ineffective cross of George Anthony, I stand by my statement.
     
  13. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #13
    What did he do pre-trial that you think was a mistake? Did you really expect him to get George Anthony to admit to committing any number of crimes including obstruction of justice, perjury and possibly far worse?
     
  14. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #14
    Given what I have heard about the case so far, yes it is enough for me to say guilty. Dumping the body in the woods and waiting 30 days to report her missing is enough for me to say guilty because there isn't a reasonable explanation of why she would do all this if it was accidental. Now she could claim insanity, psychological problems, etc, but they would have played that by now if it stood any chance.
     
  15. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #15
    I'm local. I am not going to document the past 3 years of Baez's maneuvering. Unless you've been here, we've had local coverage of this thing since the child's disappearance.
     
  16. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #16
    But psychological problems are not an insanity defense, and to assert that beforehand would have tipped their hand.

    The body in the woods... how can you trust that when the guy who found it had possession of the body for months, lied about it, and the police covered it all up?

    Like I said, you don't have to choose between one story and another, you just have to answer one question. Did the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony murdered Calee? The defense has asserted it was an accident, and the state can not prove otherwise. The defense has poked a massive hole in the finding of the remains. Furthermore, you may not understand it or like it, but they have provided an explanation for her behavior. If the ONLY thing the state has is her behavior, then how can anyone say they proved murder beyond a reasonable doubt?

    (edit) I'm not local, but I have been watching this case enough to know that Baez seems to have preserved most issues for appeal by arguing just about every possible pretrial argument. Ask any defense attorney... you don't expect to win every motion, but you have to argue venue, jury issues, evidence issues, etc... The state wins most of those fights; that doesn't mean he was ineffective. In fact, the opposite.
     
  17. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #17
    My question is what was the result of the autopsy? Did it show water in the lungs? Was there signs that it could be drowning in a pool? I think that is the biggest question right now if the defense story can hold up.
     
  18. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #18
    There were no lungs, and it is NOT Casey's story that has to hold up, but the State's. The State has to prove she was murdered! She does NOT have to prove it was a drowning
     
  19. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #19
    I know it's the states job to prove she was murdered/disprove the accidental drowning defense.

    How convenient though that there were no lungs. Were they removed or did they just decay?
     
  20. MacVixen macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Location:
    Santa Cruz, CA
    #20
    So curious about defense strategy - how does one formulate a defense? Do the lawyers just go over the autopsy and say "Aha! No way to prove it if was drowning, so that's what we will say happened!" Even if they dont believe the defense to be true?

    Also, isn't it a little risky that the jury may not find her guilty of first degree murder (assuming the drowning defense is believed), but may still find her guilty of manslaughter or some such thing?

    I have a hard time imagining her walking away from this, but juries can always surprise you.
     
  21. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #21
    When I was in law school, I focused on corporate and tax law. I had no idea that I would ever become a criminal defense attorney. I did not take the types of courses that might have somehow answered those questions.

    That being said, the best answer I have to your question is that a defense usually consists of several simultaneous arguments.

    The State has a case they must present to win, and the defendant's counsel knows everything that is coming. There aren't any substantive surprises, or at least there shouldn't be. That is important because prong one of any defense is to challenge the evidence presented by the state. That can include inconsistencies, strange evidence, bad police work, challenges to credibility, etc... This first prong is basically the foundation of any defense, especially in cases where the defendant "may" have actually done the crime.

    The second prong is to examine the evidence the state has to see if there are alternative explanations. This does NOT happen in every case, and is not necessary in any case. However, if your client is charged with an intent crime, an alternative explanation can help negate a necessary element of the charge. This is also very useful when much of the evidence is circumstantial. I have had cases result in not-guilty findings where there were alternative, plausible explanations for the evidence presented.

    Alternative explanations can be achieved with nothing more than challenges to the state's evidence and a good imagination/argument. However, another prong can be actually presenting "the" defense. You can actually present evidence that something else happened entirely. You can build a case for this different explanation. You can even have the defendant testify. This whole process is dangerous, not just the defendant testifying (which is rare).

    Anecdote: I had a case where we rested without putting on some key evidence we had. The State's case was weak; the state's witness was thoroughly discredited. My client initially wanted to explain his version of what actually happened, but chose not to because any weakness in his defense could somehow lend credence to the state's case. In other words, even if the state's case was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendnat did the crime, if the defendant's case was also not believable or had holes, a jury could easily convict him for failure to prove his defense. Too risky in that particular case and in those circumstances.

    As an aside, you ask a very interesting question.
    Short answer is yes, sort of.

    There is a big difference between believing a possible theory and knowing it to be false. If I know for a fact that it was not a drowning, I am ethically not allowed to present evidence that it was a drowning. On the other hand, if I don't have confirmation that it was not a drowning, then yes, you can argue that alternative.

    One thing you learn is to muzzle your client. You really only want the answers to the questions you ask. A client who insists on "explaining" everything, or telling their story, is limiting what you can and can not do to defend them.
     
  22. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #22
    I'd like to see a link to one of those interviews mentioned above. As I recall, the father was far from justifying/excusing the disappearance/death. As I recall, he was hospitalized for attempted suicide.
     
  23. squeeks macrumors 68040

    squeeks

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Florida
    #23
    Thing is they found Google searches on the family computer on how to make Chloroform. That coupled with her out partying for 30 days before reporting her missing, fabricating lie after lie about what happened to her. There’s no way the family knew about what happened like the defense attorney says. If her parents were going to help her cover it up why did the mother call the police and report that there had been a dead body in the car?

    Those of you who don’t live in central Florida don’t have the same perspective we do. We've been hearing about this case every day for the past 3 years and I think the state will have no problem proving her guilty.
     
  24. codymac macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    #24
    mcrain - I get what you're saying and agree with the spirit of it, but surely you know things look bad for her and it would be a real fight for the defense given the publicity and stacked charges?

    You don't think it would be a cakewalk, do you?
     
  25. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #25
    No, we have a better perspective than you do. That being said, I sympathize with being palm-tree stupid. I would be too if I lived there.

    Can you prove any of your allegations? Any of them?

    I thought she was guilty and had a terrible case of sympathy for her attorneys... now, I'm totally on her side.
     

Share This Page