2010.05.13 Prosecution lists Aggravating Factors

[Muzikman]

Also, from Huck's attempt to appeal, and say the duct tape did not prove anything - the FL Supreme Court had this to say:

"More importantly, the assertion that Mr. Huck taped the victim's eyes and mouth shut after she died is not particularly reasonable. The only logical reason to tape her eyes and mouth shut would have been to prevent her from seeing, talking, screaming for help, or breathing while she was alive. There is no logical or reasonable purpose for taping a person's eyes and mouth shut after she is dead.


Wanna bet that the State will bring this case up?

 

[logicalgirl]

I doubley (is that a word?) appreciate you pulling up this case TWA, because in my darker moments, after reading some of the pundits comments in the media, I worry about whether there really is enough evidence to convict ICA.

Then I read the trial summation and the appeal process of the Huck case - and think - what am I worried about! No way will ICA be sunning herself on the beach in my lifetime.

It was very comforting in spite of it being such a gruesome case.

 

[logicalgirl]

Also, from Huck's attempt to appeal, and say the duct tape did not prove anything - the FL Supreme Court had this to say:

"More importantly, the assertion that Mr. Huck taped the victim's eyes and mouth shut after she died is not particularly reasonable. The only logical reason to tape her eyes and mouth shut would have been to prevent her from seeing, talking, screaming for help, or breathing while she was alive. There is no logical or reasonable purpose for taping a person's eyes and mouth shut after she is dead.


Wanna bet that the State will bring this case up?

Thank you Muzikman!!! THAT'S the other quote I think is so important. It should end or at least calm our discussions of pre or post death.

 

[italianangel2411]

I would also like to add that in my opinion 3 pieces of tape would mean that she was alive when it was placed. Otherwise, one piece of tape would be all needed to make a pretend kidnaping scene.

Possibly because Caylee wouldn't stop saying she wanted her grandma Cindy and it just made Casey more irate!

 

[logicalgirl]

Muzikman and TheWorldAccording! My headache is gone.

You guys are the BEST!:balloons:

:bow:

 

[logicalgirl]

So with the above information re the Huck case, that should just about do it for cruel and heinous.....don't you think?

 

[logicalgirl]

When I put my daughter in time-out and she gets mad at me, she likes to play the I-don't-like-you-card and she often says "I'm going to get my Nana! I don't like you anymore! You make me mad, Mommy!" usually from within the confines of "the naughty chair." (I have to look the other way and stifle laughter because even though she's being bad, it's kind of cute..lol)

With the big fight they most likely had, I can see Caylee doing this to the extreme. And for Casey, it could have been just the wrong time for her to hear those things. "I DONT LIKE YOU MOMMY! I WANT MY NANA AND JOJO! I DONT WANT TO GO WITH YOU, YOU'RE NOT MY FAVORITE!"

JMO and just speculating, but I can see it.

LOL you reminded me of my daughters. One of my girls used to say to me - "You're not the boss of the whole world, y'know!" when she was tiny enough to suspect maybe I was.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

So, the only new aggravating factor is #2 cruel crime. The SA dropped the DP when it felt the other 4 were not enough.

From a layman’s opinion, which is based on the evidence we know of, (which certainly does not include some of the evidence that JA and JB knows of), I think that aggravating factors 4 and 5 are simply undisputable facts. Those 2 are enough, by law, for the state to ask for the DP, however, although the state had those two and felt they also had 1 and 3, they still dropped the DP. Does JA feel he needs 5 aggravating factors? From the evidence I have seen in via the Sunshine law, I do not see evidence that KC committed a premeditated murder, and I do not see any evidence that places KC at the site of the remains, so I just don’t see how aggravating factors 1, 2 and 3 will hold up. They may hold up at the upcoming hearing, because neither side is going to try this case at the hearing, so we will only be listening to arguments. JA will probably win these arguments. HHJP will allow the DP to stand, because aggravating factors 4 or 5 is all that is required to ask for the DP.
IF this case goes to trial, the prosecution will have a tough time proving premeditated murder beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence we have seen via the Sunshine law, and although I know we have not seen all the evidence, I still think the prosecution has their work cut out for them at trial.
Based on the Notice of Aggravating Factors I say, IF this case goes to trial, because I think there is a good possibility that the prosecution is still going to offer a plea deal before the trial starts. If KC pleaded out, that would be considered a win for the prosecution, and I think they would be happy to take a plea deal versus going to court with what they have and run a risk of a possible hung jury or even possibly losing the case. Even if KC were innocent, it may be in her best interest to plead out if the state offered a good enough deal, because there is the possibility that she may lose the case and be executed. Innocent people have been convicted before, and murderers have walked free, a plea may be the best case scenario for both sides. As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

The State never really "dropped" the DP.

It was never "on", and then back "off" again.

The State had just never classified/charged it prior to the one and only time that they did, - after Caylee's bones were found.

 

[RR0004]

:dance:

OT - Not entirely true, those with no brain had to go before the court to beg the State to list these factors for them. Those with half a brain already figured it out - even without a fancy law degree or fancy lawyer's paycheck.

That's why I'm thinking there has to be more to it.

 

[The World According]

LOL you reminded me of my daughters. One of my girls used to say to me - "You're not the boss of the whole world, y'know!" when she was tiny enough to suspect maybe I was.

O/T for all of you mothers.. a little funny buddy

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8aprCNnecU[/ame]

 

[seekingjustice**]

O/T for all of you mothers.. a little funny buddy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8aprCNnecU

Oh Lord, what a cutie.. thanks TWA

 

[Marina2]

The Huck case may be comforting in that the Fla. Supreme Court agrees that duct tape over one's face has only one reasonable purpose but, the jury will never hear this. The defense can still offer up any unreasonable theory on why it was used and hope a juror will buy it.

Maybe the most important use for the Huck case is that it will allow the ME to give her opinion that "within a reasonable degree of probability" Caylee died from asphyxia because of the tape on her nose and mouth.

 

[zoey]

Jeeze every where you turn in this case, Baez is an idiot. Well, I guess not too much of an idiot because he's making more money than most of us (I'm of course assuming) with very LITTLE effort.

I've said it before but I'll say it again - I wouldn't have him represent me regarding a traffic ticket!!!!

I've always thought the SA did him a HUGE favor of going for the death penalty so that he would have to bring in others to assist in the defense....but I also go back to thinking this made him mad since he can't be in the limelight all on his own...he needs to now acknowledge his "team" and "quite frankly" doesn't like it.....jmo

 

[logicalgirl]

The Huck case may be comforting in that the Fla. Supreme Court agrees that duct tape over one's face has only one reasonable purpose but, the jury will never hear this. The defense can still offer up any unreasonable theory on why it was used and hope a juror will buy it.

Maybe the most important use for the Huck case is that it will allow the ME to give her opinion that "within a reasonable degree of probability" Caylee died from asphyxia because of the tape on her nose and mouth.

When we listen to hearings, we hear both the judge and the SA referring to past cases as precedents, so I believe since this is a Supreme Court appeal case, the SA will quote this trial and decision during their presentation of the evidence facts.

 

[strach304]

The Huck case may be comforting in that the Fla. Supreme Court agrees that duct tape over one's face has only one reasonable purpose but, the jury will never hear this. The defense can still offer up any unreasonable theory on why it was used and hope a juror will buy it.

Maybe the most important use for the Huck case is that it will allow the ME to give her opinion that "within a reasonable degree of probability" Caylee died from asphyxia because of the tape on her nose and mouth.

When we listen to hearings, we hear both the judge and the SA referring to past cases as precedents, so I believe since this is a Supreme Court appeal case, the SA will quote this trial and decision during their presentation of the evidence facts.

I think the defense would be better off not touching on the why at all. Any reference to Casey using it says guilt. Bare minimum abuse. A SODDI needs no explanation by the defense.

 

[Intermezzo]

Neither article states where they got the information that there was a deal offered.

Knowing JB's MO, wonder if it's possible that he brought it up to the LE, LE insinuated that it might be 'possible'.. which means just that. JB didn't come back to get the ball rolling.. so no deal was worked up. No offer on the table. Just a speculation of wither or not it's possible.

Then he floats it to the media... Which checks to see if it's possibly true.. which it's possible.. but that doesn't mean a 'hard copy' deal was written up and offered. The media doesn't think to ask if it was a 'hard copy'.. Just assumed JB & company wouldn't spread rumors on a 'specualtion'.. or "feelers"...

Hence, no real offer was made. Just the LE admiting they would be open to such an idea (nothing on paper yet). Since the ball was in JB's court.. it would be considered factual he did turn offer down.. since he could have worked it and made it happen, if LE was open to the idea. And LE can honestly say no offer was made.. they never got that far.

Don't know if I explained this very well.. LOL!

BBM

There were emails between LDB and Baez about this that became public. I have them, somewhere....

Baez, through LE, indicated he wanted to talk about a deal. When the olive branch was extended by LDB to talk about it, he ignored it. Likely because Casey did not want to admit to anything.

The offer to talk ended after Labor Day weekend 2008.

Muzikman is correct.

For those that have not read the emails, below is the link to the emails from State Attorney LDB to Baez about the Limited Immunity Deal

http://www.wftv.com/download/2008/0829/17335521.pdf


Article
http://cayleeanthony.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/new-information-regarding-immunity-deal/
New information regarding immunity deal

 

[watcher9]

When I put my daughter in time-out and she gets mad at me, she likes to play the I-don't-like-you-card and she often says "I'm going to get my Nana! I don't like you anymore! You make me mad, Mommy!" usually from within the confines of "the naughty chair." (I have to look the other way and stifle laughter because even though she's being bad, it's kind of cute..lol)

With the big fight they most likely had, I can see Caylee doing this to the extreme. And for Casey, it could have been just the wrong time for her to hear those things. "I DONT LIKE YOU MOMMY! I WANT MY NANA AND JOJO! I DONT WANT TO GO WITH YOU, YOU'RE NOT MY FAVORITE!"

JMO and just speculating, but I can see it.

This is why I don't believe KC and Casey snuggled up in the bed for the night after the fight. I think they either left in a huff after the fight or KC killed Caylee in the bedroom that night.

Do we know what time the fight was? After visiting Grandpa and after swimming, right? But, before dark?

I can't figure though when the tape came in. Was it already in the trunk or on her bedside table?

 

[Marina2]

When we listen to hearings, we hear both the judge and the SA referring to past cases as precedents, so I believe since this is a Supreme Court appeal case, the SA will quote this trial and decision during their presentation of the evidence facts.

I may be wrong but I don't think the state will be able to quote this trial and the SC's opinion on the duct tape when presenting evidence to the jury. They won't hear it unless one of the jurors already knows about it and educates the rest of them during deliberations.

Huck will be useful if she is convicted and appeals on the same grounds Huck did. Or, in allowing the ME to give her opinion that "within a reasonable degree of probability" Caylee died from asphyxia because of the tape on her nose and mouth. That is, if she can reasonably say that. The victim in the Huck case still had tissue and organs for the ME to examine and rule out disease, trauma, or other causes of death.

 

[debbie0604]

The State never really "dropped" the DP.

It was never "on", and then back "off" again.

The State had just never classified/charged it prior to the one and only time that they did, - after Caylee's bones were found.

BBM and IMO after the autopsy was complete in its entirety.

 

[beach]

How strange! Without ANY inside information from the SA, I was able to come up with the SAME list on the "questions for lawyers" thread before this was filed. :waitasec: This is very odd, as of course I was forced to "guess" based on a complete lack of information from the SA in the documents disclosed thus far.

Be careful, you might be asked to join the defense team, especially since you fit their criteria of being out-of-state!

Bless her heart! She already does her civic duty providing all the pro bono work here for us!

Although, I betcha we WS'ers would be willing to chip in and make sure you got the royal treatment, in addition to the pittance JAC allowance.