cecybeans
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2008
- Messages
- 2,319
- Reaction score
- 3
Maybe Dr. G is making the assumption of homicide based solely on the fact that since toddlers do not naturally die with duct tape on their nose and mouth (and based on Huck ruling, et al.) , and would be unable to perform that act on themselves, it would therefore be logical to assume that, duct tape found on a body would indicate at least deliberate (premeditated) attempt to cover up, if not the actual COD.
An elaborate cover-up, in the absence of any other information is, even though after the fact, an indication of proclivity toward premeditated behavior - it is a calculated attempt to obfuscate the truth by deception. It might be reasonable to transfer the post-mortem act of "premeditated" cover-up to the actual crime itself if there exists no other indicator as to state of mind. I'm just trying to reason how the SA can build a case for premeditation and perhaps if all of the defendant's behavior surrounding the incident creates a pattern that points to it as a probability, then it would be logical to assume it is true in the absence of any conflicting information. Sort of a psychological law of motion.
An elaborate cover-up, in the absence of any other information is, even though after the fact, an indication of proclivity toward premeditated behavior - it is a calculated attempt to obfuscate the truth by deception. It might be reasonable to transfer the post-mortem act of "premeditated" cover-up to the actual crime itself if there exists no other indicator as to state of mind. I'm just trying to reason how the SA can build a case for premeditation and perhaps if all of the defendant's behavior surrounding the incident creates a pattern that points to it as a probability, then it would be logical to assume it is true in the absence of any conflicting information. Sort of a psychological law of motion.