Quote:
Originally Posted by jebartle
...Still do not understand HOW the defense is going to prove drowning theory without Casey taking the stand....We shall see!
|
Casey will most definitely have to testify; both as to the drowning and as to the sexual abuse. Unless there are witnesses who saw these things happen, who will testify to their having occurred, which I highly doubt, there is no other way she can prove these two things. Having claimed these two facts in his opening, there will have to be evidence of them; and Casey will presumably be the only person (since George denied them both) who will have knowledge of them.
Here are some other thoughts I have; and I seem to have many about this case, which I think is very interesting, in large part because it is so tragic. I've seen only excerpted testimony because we are traveling, but this is my take so far.
George testified that he smelled the unmistakeable smell of a corpse in the trunk of Casey's car when he went to the tow lot to pick up the car, and that at the time he feared that it could mean that either Casey or Caylee were in the trunk (since both of them, he claims, were, in his mind, 'missing' at that time). Then, he and the tow lot manager (who also testified as to having smelled the odor of a human corpse in the trunk), opened the trunk, and only a bag of trash was in there; nevertheless, the human corpse smell was, he says, was present and unmistakeable.
Still, since George believed (as an experienced police detective who, he testified, had smelled that odor before) that the smell in the trunk was that of a human corpse, why, if he had no culpability, as he claims, in the coverup of Caylee's death, and if he were truly concerned about the smell possibly being related to his (he claims) then-'missing' daughter and granddaughter, wouldn't he want to have the police inspect the trunk and document the presence of the smell BEFORE taking the car to his home from the tow lot?
In other words, (1) not only is it odd that he wasn't shocked enough by the smell of what he himself believed was from a human corpse having been in the trunk (at a time when his daughter and granddaughter were both supposedly 'missing') to have immediately called the police to investigate it; but also (2) by taking the car to his home, he left open the possibility that it could later be claimed that the smell of a human corpse in the trunk had occurred from a body being placed in the car AFTER he had retaken possession of the car - and, thus, potentially somehow implicating himself (in other words, I wouldn't want to risk even a slight possibility of having to explain how the smell of a human corpse got into a car that is in my possession - would you?)
This suggests to me that George took the car home with the intention of trying to somehow get rid of the smell because he realized it was from Caylee's body having been in the trunk, and he didn't want that to be detected - (and that can only mean that he was involved in, and, in denying it, lied about, a coverup -which further means nothing else that he testified to can be believed; and as mentioned in a post above, I too find much of George's demeanor not credible). However, Cindy detected the odor and called 911 and reported the smell coming from the trunk before he could do that. I think that at that point, George knew his number was up, and that he then was forced to reinvent his conduct to place the blame for what had been made (though falsely; by his and Casey's conduct) to look like a murder solely on Casey in order to hide his own involvement. I think that it was he, also, who did the computer searches (what I don't know is whether it was possible for the police to determine when the computer searches were done - and, if so, what dates they were found to have been done - the evidence on this will be very interesting), during this time frame, to frame Casey with this evidence, to make it appear that she had researched methods of causing death; again, in a desperate attempt to avoid any fingers being pointed to him, since he realized that the coverup was unraveling, and that the police investigation which he knew would ensue would likely conclude that Caylee had been murdered by someone - since that is what he and Casey had, through their conduct, including, among many other things (such as having applied the duct tape to the remains), Casey's having for some period of time, kept Caylee's remains in Casey's car trunk, made it appear had occurred (even though, ironically, the death had, in fact, actually been an accidental drowning).
All of Casey's numerous lies to her friends and mother could be evidence of covering up her having murdered Caylee, as the prosecution claims, but are equally totally consistent with Casey's defense that they (Casey and her father) were (though poorly conceived, and extremely ineptly and stupidly carried out) trying to cover up fact that Caylee had drowned (in order to, crazy as it may sound, avoid blame and prosecution of Casey for criminal neglect, which Casey will say her father had convinced her would occur) by building a scenario of Caylee being with a (now known to be nonexistent) nanny who (they hoped) would eventually be believed to have abducted (and perhaps murdered) Caylee.
Preposterous? Maybe; but some of George's conduct just doesn't fly, as questioned above; and it just may cause the needed reasonable doubt in at least one juror. These are just some thoughts based on the trial to date; it all remains to be seen.
Some comments I have heard in the media, etc., have referred to the drowning and sexual abuse theories having been 'thought up' by Attorney Baez. However, the facts that an attorney advances in a case must come from the client. The attorney, just as he cannot testify, also cannot concoct fictional favorable factual scenarios and then school the client to testify thereto; I do not believe that any attorney would risk losing their bar license, plus prosecution, by doing this. It is his job to help his client prove what
she claims occurred that can provide a defense to the charges against her.