Interesting,
A. if someone not seeing something is not evidence, then would it not be true that KC not seeing Caylee for 31 days is not evidence? Because Caylee was her 2 year old daughter.
B. What facts do we have that tie KC to the premeditated murder?The decomposition evidence found in her trunk including the odor. KC can be connected to HER car on specific dates. She left the care at the check cashing place until it was impounded. When Tony picked her up at the place SHE left the car KC left her purse. She never mentions to Tony, oops, darn we have to go back I left my purse in the car. BUT, the most important piece of evidence is that when Tony picked KC up Caylee wasn't with her. The 31 days is not evidence.It is when there's a two year old who hasn't been seen by anyone including the grandparents who provided 90% of the care for Caylee. When ever KC is asked where HER daughter is KC lies as to Caylee's whereabouts. She lied about many things, but lying does not mean someone committed murder.I disagree, she lied about the location of her daughter. Knowing how narcissistic KC is she would have milked Caylee's disappearance for everything she could get. Instead KC enjoyed a month of partying, not having to deal with her parents and living the good life. According to the FBI report the Henkel Duct tape found on Caylees remains was dissimilar to the tape found on the gas can, and no fingerprints were found on the duct tape, so the Duct tape cant be used to tie KC to the crime.What we do know is that KC admitted to breaking into George's shed that had gas and duct tape stored. And when George was shown photos of the duct tape that had been replaced on HIS gas cans he denied, very strongly as a matter of fact that, of placing such sloppy duct tape on those cans. There is forensic evidence of decomposition in KC's car, Caylee's body was found with duct tape. Why would Caylee put the duct tape on herself? The FBI could not confirm that the hair found in the trunk had a death band.That isn't what I recall, but ok. Cadaver dogs,Death wax, lab results from Oak Ridge and the oldest test of all SMELL point to death in that car. The forensic reports about the trunk are all questionable. There was no blood found in the trunk. The air sample technology has never been used in court before. So was DNA when it was first used as a legal tool. Isn't that insulting to the experts who possess such advanced qualifications and knowledge in science? We're expected to label their work as questionable b/c it's beyond what we can understand?
C. Deductions regarding the topic of discussion can be drawn from related facts and information. They infer other facts which usually and reasonably follow from the available evidence.ITA, the disagreement is what's considered fact. Some determine a fact based on common sense, 1+1=2 How can one make deductions regarding the topic of discussion if there is no available evidence? If the only evidence you have is circumstantial, how can you make circumstantial deductions? Again, not everyone believes all the evidence is circumstantial. There's plenty of facts connected to this crime that doesn't require a rocket science IQ to determine. Using the example when KC came in her umbrella was soaking wet circumstantially rain, so now you can infer that her shoes are wet because she was walking in the rain so it is a fact. You can infer that her pants had water spots on them because it was raining hard, so it is a fact. So you are now ready with 3 pieces of evidence that KC was walking in the rain, two facts and one piece of circumstantial evidence? Is this correct? Because, the truth was KC walked by a fountain on her way, dropped the umbrella in the fountain which splashed on her shoes and pants and made the umbrella soaking wet, the facts and the circumstantial evidence was wrong. That would imply that LE and SA's office based this entire case on the explaination KC gave regarding her daughter. Honestly I am confused about all this circumstantial stuff. If the available evidence is circumstantial, which to my understanding it is, So everyone else should accept this assumption b/c someone else doesn't believe or acknowledge another's opinion? what facts are available to make deductions from?Start back at page #1 Is the prosecution or the defense for that matter allowed to make deductions from circumstantial evidence, and this allows them to infer other facts which usually and reasonably follow from the available evidence?Unless KC is willing to tell the court the truth. Otherwise the SA has to rely on the forensic evidence, KC's behavior, actions and statements and all the other witness's I dont understand how something inferred from a circumstance can be considered a fact.What some would imply is circumstantial others recognize as fact. I do think you can infer a circumstance from something that is a fact.
D. What is the prosecutions hypothesis as to when, where, how, and why KC committed the premeditated murder of Caylee?Go back to page #1. Standing alone, the evidence the state has that we know of is not sufficient to draw any definite conclusions.That's one's opinion.
E. Need more data from the prosecution to convict KC, IMO, but not saying they cannot come up with something good.There's more than enough, IMO.
Using what some will probably consider illogical logic, from the above points, it seems to me that the circumstantial evidence against KC is equally as strong as the circumstantial evidence against RKSeriously??, forget it.. I think this because it seems like there are precious few actual facts in either scenario, and almost everything is circumstantial from both sides. The judge may very well dismiss this motion, but if he does, I will be very interested in his explanation as to why he dismissed it.Does that mean Judge Strickland lacks the ability to recognize what is fact and that which is circumstantial??
I have to agree with those who believe the defense is trying to raise doubt, since that is their job, also that AL has used spaghetti throwing as a tactic. RKs inconsistent statements and his past makes him a good candidate for the defense to use.But, what if it were you that the Defense was using as a scapegoat? The media has insinuated that many others have been thrown under the bus, but I think that is all just media hype.I'm sure that comforts the innocent people whose personal life has been attacked by the Anthony's and Baez. As far as I know, this motion is the first time the defense has shown anything that involves a SODDI defense.and they can't even do that within the rules and laws set forth by our constitution. As always my entire post is moo
ther_beatingA_Dead before they accept the horse isn't going to jump back up???
