Someone who is so out-of-it, would likely be found not competant to stand trial, because they can't help with their own defense.
However, most people who are tried, are considered to be competant enough to help with their own defense, and therefore they get to decide how they'll plea. Someone else doesn't get to decide for them how they'll plea. Imagine the appeals that would happen if a defense atty decided on the plea (not guilty by reason of insanity) when the defendant wanted to plea not guilty (because he/she was not guilty).
So, yes, with a "not guilty by reason of insanity" or "temporary insanity" the person is admitting to doing the crime, but is claiming mitigating factors of diminished capacity.
The abuse story serves two purposes - to explain her weird behavior if the jury believes Kaylee died accidentally and to keep her off death row if they don't.
What I more mean is that in some mental illnesses, people completely detach themselves from the crime and truly believe they did not do it and cannot remember- what would someone do in those cases?
I am genuinely curious because for some reason I thought the defense could claim that the defendant was mentally ill even without their client's consent. It just seems like there are a lot of insane people who would never admit that they were insane. And I would agree, cartera, by those standards that it would seem almost impossible to meet :/.
You have to admit that you did it to prove that you're insane? That's interesting.
there would be no other reason to claim insanity. If your claim is that you didn't do it, then no need to claim being insane. The reason for the claim of insanity would be to offer mitigating reasons why the defendent committed the crime - hence the admittance. The point is to say that the defendent was insane, so s/he's "really not guilty" because s/he didn't know what s/he was doing.
If Casey is found guilty, then it's going to be interesting what the defense says during the penalty phase. During the penalty phase of the Scott Peterson trial, the defense just put on numerous friends and family members who talked about how "wonderful" Scott was. The defense isn't going to be able to find people like that. Even if they put the parents up there, all they would be able to do is plead for their D's life since they had already lost their GD...and they had suffered too much already.
Often the insanity defense is used when guilt is obvious...the person has been caught red-handed, the person has been caught on video, the person has confessed, etc...so there is often no other choice if a guilty plea is to be avoided.
-- Edited by ItalianMomma on Sunday 5th of June 2011 04:49:26 PM
-- Edited by ItalianMomma on Sunday 5th of June 2011 04:51:46 PM
In order for the insanity defense to work in Florida, the defense would have to prove not only that she has a mental illness but that either she didn't know what she was doing or, if she knew, didn't know it was wrong. That is an almost impossible burden to meet, even if someone is mentally ill.
You have to admit that you did it to prove that you're insane? That's interesting. Do a lot of people who are clinically insane admit that they've done it?
I don't know why the defense isn't going for an insanity defense.
One reason...Casey would have to admit that she killed Caylee and provide all details. She's not willing to do that. She's not willing to go on the record and admit that she killed Caylee because she knows that her parents will drop her like a hot potato.
Another reason might depend on what Florida's laws are. Florida's laws may require that someone who's insane, still won't go free - that person might have to spend time in a mental hospital. Casey's goal is freedom.
Also - we don't know if Casey has ever admitted to her defense that she killed Caylee. If she's insisted that she didn't, then the defense can't claim that she did. The defense isn't putting forth a "theory"...they are claiming to be putting forth facts. This isn't like the Scott Peterson/Laci Peterson trial where the defense was claiming that their client had no idea how/why his wife died - so the defense could only offer theories of what may have happened to her.
The defense is not supposed to just make up "facts" and present a story. If Casey's defense is being ethical, then Casey has told them this drowning story and they're presenting it. If Casey has told them that she did kill Caylee, then they aren't supposed to say, "Caylee accidentally drowned in the family pool."
I was down in Orlando last week and you could not escape the trial. It was on every freaking news station and the headline in most papers.
I don't know why the defense isn't going for an insanity defense. The chick is definitely a sociopath or has strong sociopathic tendencies. You don't kill your daughter and then go about your life if you're sane. You just don't.
The only problem is, she will be convicted on the fact that she's crazy. There is no physical evidence (at least that I know of) linking her to the crime, or really any way of showing that a crime did happen. It's all circumstantial and if it weren't for her own actions after Caylee's death, accidental drowing could have been a very plausible explanation. She is guilty, but she will be convicted because of her character rather than the crime which is a dangerous way to convict someone :/.
I keep wondering what her parents must be thinking right now.
From the beginning, they believed her story that "Zanny the nanny" kidnapped her child, and that Casey couldn't "tell" because Zanny threatened to hurt Caylee or the family if Casey reported the kidnapping to the police. The parents also believed that Casey knew a lot more than she was saying, but that she was "staying silent" to protect Caylee.
The parents had a hard time accepting that Casey had been lying about working all this time. In truth, Casey hadn't been working in 2 years.
The parents went on all these searches and went all over the country looking for Caylee. They spent countless hours, stopped working their jobs, etc.
Then, when Caylee's body was found, there was no more "fear" that Caylee would be hurt, the parents had no answer as to why Casey still wasn't coming forward with more info.
Now that the defense has come out with this "story" that Caylee was never missing, that she drowned on June 16th - and that the father and brother sexually abused Casey - the parents must be in a complete state of shock since they've been very supportive of her during this time.
I wonder what they believe now. Do they believe that Caylee was kidnapped, but the defense has to use this "story" as their only hope to save Casey's life? Or do they believe that they were taken in by another Casey lie which has added to their turmoil of the last 3 years.
Of course, even if Caylee had drowned, the grandparents would still have grieved and would still be grieving the loss - but to add on all of this insanity - Ugh!
Also - does the defense think people are stupid enough to think that Casey would have spent 3 years in jail (during the best years of her life - young 20s) if Caylee's death had been an accidental drowning?
What little I have heard about this case just baffles me. How - and why - would people be so cruel? Or stupid?
Casey's defense and excuses remind me of an old ex-friend who was a pathological liar. Lying was as normal as breathing to this friend. The things he would say were so unbelievable that it got funny...then pathetic. As obnoxious as they were, he never killed anyone. That I know of, anyway.
Murder was likely the day after Father's Day on June 16, 2008.
Defense is claiming that Caylee drowned in the family pool. And, that Casey and her dad hid the body and came up with a plan to say that she had been kidnapped by the babysitter after Casey dropped Caylee off at the babysitter's apartment. (This is very unlikely because her dad is a former detective and would have known not to use household goods from the Anthony home when disposing of Caylee's body. )
Prosecution is claiming that Casey killed Caylee with Chloroform in the trunk of her car, so that she'd have her freedom.
Some of those involved...
Caylee Anthony - female child, nearly 3 years old, likely killed by her mother, Casey. Caylee's bio dad is unknown. Casey has never revealed the bio dad's name.
Casey Anthony - on trial for the murder of her young D, Caylee Anthony. Casey and Caylee lived at her parents home. She let her parents frequently babysit Caylee. She faked that she had a job at Universal Studios and faked that she had a nanny "Zanny". she's told an unbelievable number of lies...made up people's names, made up jobs, stealing from parents, stealing from Grandma, etc. Instead she'd often go partying, even after death/disappearance of her D. Casey didn't say that Caylee was "missing" until after nearly a month. Instead, she moves in with her boyfriend, but tells her parents that she's on various business trips out of town and that Caylee is at the "nanny." During that time, Casey forged checks from her friend's checking account. Casey has a felony record because of those forgeries. Casey was about 19/20 years old when she gave birth to Caylee.
George Anthony - her dad - former police officer - who defense has accused of molesting Casey as a child. He often baby sat for Caylee
Cindy Anthony - her mom - a nurse - who paid for all of Caylee's expenses. She often babysat for Caylee.
Lee Anthony - her older brother. Defense has claimed that Lee attemped to molest Casey.
Tony Lazzaro - her boyfriend at the time of Caylee's murder. He is innocent and was unaware that Casey had killed her D. After Casey killed Caylee, she moved in with Tony. Casey told him that Caylee was at the "nanny's home".
Jose Baez - her Defense Atty. He is a rather inexperienced murder defense atty. Because this is a death penalty trial, another attorney who is "death qualified" may technically be "first chair" defense attorney (unless Baez managed to get himself "death qualified" since the murder occurred.)
Amy Huizenga - Casey's friend who Casey stole money by forging checks from her acct.
And a whole host of ex-boyfriends of Casey.
there are big holes in the defense's story.
The defense repeatedly has said that Casey was a perfect mom and always made sure that Caylee was safe. If Casey was sexually abused repeatedly by her dad, why would she regularly let him babysit Caylee?
The defense claims that Casey was able to happily party after her D drowned and didn't show emotion during the weeks after Caylee died because she's learned not to show emotion from all the times that she was abused. However, Casey has been shown crying in the courtroom on a daily basis, and she has been shown getting angry in videotapes.
And, the claim that George helped hide the body doesn't fit because he's an ex-detective and wouldn't have allowed all these clues to be with the body once it was found.
Caylee's body was found in Dec 2008 in a field near her home. It wasn't found earlier because that whole area had been flooded for awhile. Because Caylee had been dead for months, only the skeleton and hair remained.
If anyone is following or "semi-following" or just has a passing interest, feel free to post your thoughts, questions, opinions... :)
