2010.12.03 Agreement: No Death Penalty, Life In Prison For Elisa Baker

[FaerieB]

what is it that concerns you about the wording FaerieB? the sufficient and credible evidence part? That is what is worrisome to me. Sufficient and credible to whom? Sufficient in what way? Sufficient to gain a conviction? Or sufficient to level charges?

plus IF the investigators determine she was not involved. That part concerns me. If they determine they are not able to PROVE she was involved in the death or if they actually BELIEVE she was not involved -no charges?

Those are the questions I still have about the agreement.

I had a couple of hinky moments reading that statement. The biggest one is what you mention above. I'm also concerned about what will happen if they can't/don't PROVE death, but CAN prove she was involved in the dismemberment and dispersement. Will she face no charges then?

Every single time I think I have a handle on this case, there's another curveball thrown into it.

P.S. I'm not sure I'd want to be EB if they can't prove she was involved in the death and so she walks out the door at any point in her life. I don't believe in vigilante justice, but I could definitely see it coming into play if there are no charges.

 

[FaerieB]

Well I think they are just making nice in the above statement, same as they wont call anyone a 'suspect' or 'person of interest' until an arrest is made....covering their legal *advertiser censored**es I am rather liking the B&UBY part, any deal EB has made looks like it's not going to help her if they find they have enough to charge her with Murder 1, as it should be.

Totally agree with you. But what if they can't prove COD and therefore can't prove murder 1?

 

[salvarenga]

That statement seems like a whole lot of CYA.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Totally agree with you. But what if they can't prove COD and therefore can't prove murder 1?

They can prove Murder 1 by the circumstances surrounding the death. Dismemberment and disposal would do it for most juries I imagine (it's enough for me). Think of Caylee's case, can't prove cause of death there either, yet Casey is facing the Death Penalty.

 

[FaerieB]

They can prove Murder 1 by the circumstances surrounding the death. Dismemberment and disposal would do it for most juries I imagine (it's enough for me). Think of Caylee's case, can't prove cause of death there either, yet Casey is facing the Death Penalty.

I keep trying to compare it to Caylee, and use that knowledge to stay sane. But while they can't prove COD with Caylee, there is a TON of circumstantial evidence, and we at least have Dr. G. saying "homicide."

I guess I just wish that NC had "Sunshine Laws."

ETA: I guess I'm just not convinced that they can prove Murder 1. IF EB told LE the same thing she told Gein (that they didn't kill her) I truly hope they have evidence we haven't heard of that can prove murder and not manslaughter. (I'll be the first to admit that I have not checked out the NC statutes.)

 

[Aedrys]

http://www2.hickoryrecord.com/news/2010/dec/07/gaither-death-penalty-still-option-ar-598655/

ETA: I really don't like the wording of that statement. It is very ambiguous!

Is he saying if she wasn't involved with the death itself, she'll face no charges?? Surely not....I hope.

I'm wondering if the prosecutor was trying not to laugh when he or she wrote that statement? I notice the words "sufficient" and "credible" are only on the side of finding her involved with the murder. Seriously, he had to be biting his tongue as he wrote this. He had to know it was pure CYA because certainly "sufficent" and "credible" don't belong in the same breath as EB. Sounds to me like the prosecutor knew she was lying from the getgo and was certain "sufficient" and "credible" evidence would be found against her to render the agreement null and void.

It almost seems way too casual to be a real agreement, unless that's how they are written? I just don't know. And I think it means no charges in Zahra's death. That doesn't mean there can't be other charges against her.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

http://www2.hickoryrecord.com/news/2010/dec/07/gaither-death-penalty-still-option-ar-598655/

ETA: I really don't like the wording of that statement. It is very ambiguous!

Is he saying if she wasn't involved with the death itself, she'll face no charges?? Surely not....I hope.

I don't find that statement worrisome, I find it fairly straight forward...if EB maintains her innocence, and the evidence bears that out, she won't be charged with murder. If she's lying about being involved in the murder, the deal is off, and she could face the death penalty or life in prison.

Works for me.

 

[matou]

District Attorney Says No Deal With Zahra Baker's Stepmom:

http://www.foxcharlotte.com/news/nc...Deal-With-Zahra-Bakers-Stepmom-111493709.html

 

[nosysw]

District Attorney Says No Deal With Zahra Baker's Stepmom:

http://www.foxcharlotte.com/news/nc...Deal-With-Zahra-Bakers-Stepmom-111493709.html

Thanks are not enough for this update, matou! Great, great news!

 

[Peliman]

Also on Tuesday, District Attorney James Gaither Jr. reiterated what he told the Observer last week, that Elisa Baker could face capital punishment if she's found responsible for the death of her stepdaughter.

Gaither has said TV news reports incorrectly stated that he had removed the death penalty and first-degree murder charges against Elisa Baker if she cooperated in the investigation.

"If the investigation determines that Elisa Baker is not involved in the death of Zahra Baker, she will not be charged," he said in statement Tuesday.

"If, on the other hand, there is sufficient and credible evidence to prove that Elisa Baker was involved in the death of Zahra Baker, the State is under no obligation to limit charges."


Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/20...ins-say-they-didnt-assault.html#ixzz17UlxbEaV

 

[westsidefox64]

IT seems to me to be a teeter totter in the media. I dont think its any different than it was from this weekend. JMO

 

[Dr. Know?]

Oh my, not another Jose Baez defence....throw it out to see if it sticks again.

The DA came out strong in rebuttal to that statement and appears they are going to stick to it. Yes!

No one has been charged yet. Can you agree upon an upcoming charge, I think you can, but glad they have the legalities about what they would do or not do worked out to move forward with charges. Sorry EB and her lawyer. Good try. DP and LWOP are still on the table from what I'm reading.

 

[Dr. Know?]

Sorry O/T Oh, good thread and hi Peli! Miss you. Hope you are keeping warm! brrrr. Just cold as heck out here. lol xoxoox

 

[little lulu]

I'm happy they finally corrected the confusion, but will have to admit am wondering WHY there has been no charges filed yet..."cause of death??"

 

[raisincharlie]

Additional info here:


http://www2.hickoryrecord.com/news/2010/dec/07/gaither-death-penalty-still-option-ar-598655/



I rather suspect that a proffer was made, the Queen for a Day Deal, in which EB says she had nothing to do with it in addition to other statements. If evidence is found that she did, the entire deal is out due to giving false statements.

We do know she failed a poly which directly asked her if she hurt Zahra or knew who did. Now if they can prove that to be false, that she did indeed hurt Zahra or knows who did, the deal is dead. If she had no hand in it, no harm no foul.

 

[wenwe4]

So the way this is worded (If I understand this correctly) is:
1) If EB was not involved in the COD but only the dismemberment and disposal - then she will not be charged with 1st degree murder - no capital charges and no LWOP.
2) If no COD can be proven - EB will not be charged with anything over 2nd degree.
3) Unless EB can be directly linked to COD - she will not spend the rest of her life in jail.

Conversely, if:
1) EB is found to have lied to LE and be found to be significantly involved she could be charged with Murder 1.
2) EB hasn't been able to keep any story straight for many years - LE is betting on her story containing lies (and/or knew so from the very beginning) there was really no threat in writing up this agreement - as she had violated it before she signed it (without her Atty's knowledge).
3) The only thing they can directly tie EB to is dismemberment and disposal - she would face Murder 2 (up to 30 yrs?)
4) Any or all accomplices (real or imagined) are being throw under the bus to save her butt. I wonder if she lied about "who" was an accomplice and that fact alone could make her deal null and void for Murder 2.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

Additional info here:


http://www2.hickoryrecord.com/news/2010/dec/07/gaither-death-penalty-still-option-ar-598655/



I rather suspect that a proffer was made, the Queen for a Day Deal, in which EB says she had nothing to do with it in addition to other statements. If evidence is found that she did, the entire deal is out due to giving false statements.

We do know she failed a poly which directly asked her if she hurt Zahra or knew who did. Now if they can prove that to be false, that she did indeed hurt Zahra or knows who did, the deal is dead. If she had no hand in it, no harm no foul.

BBM

What strikes me as curious about the LDT questions she failed is that none of those questions asks, "Did you kill Zahra?". I would THINK LE would have asked that question directly. So, did they ask her that and she passed? Or did they NOT ask her that? :waitasec:

ETA: It's certainly possible to have hurt someone and NOT killed them, KWIM?

 

[raisincharlie]

BBM

What strikes me as curious about the LDT questions she failed is that none of those questions asks, "Did you kill Zahra?". I would THINK LE would have asked that question directly. So, did they ask her that and she passed? Or did they NOT ask her that? :waitasec:

ETA: It's certainly possible to have hurt someone and NOT killed them, KWIM?

The three questions asked are reported in the search warrant for EB's AOL account on 10/14/2010.

Nothing about "killing" and yes you are correct, it is also possible to hurt someone without killing them. But it is also possible to hurt someone when you kill them. Just my thought, if LE wanted info from her, the last thing they would do is mention killing someone, no accusation. However LE might well have also told EB she passed the LDT to her face - seems like a good reason to keep this warrant sealed since it specifically states EB failed.

 

[Quiche]

Oh, thank goodness! Thanks for the thread, Peli...


Good to see you, and hey Doc! :seeya:

 

[Carolina Girl]

My question right now is this: If it can not be proven she had anything to do with Zahra's death, she would not be charged anyway. So what good is the deal, if she can be charged if they can prove she is connected?