Does the State's Case Have Any Weaknesses? What Are They?

[shgrbkr]

If they don't know the COD, then that might be perceived as a weakness, but not necessarily so. The duct tape really says it all, in my mind. Nor do I think KC appearance will sway the jury to her side. Once the prosecution starts putting on witnesses who attest to KC lying about everything, the whole crazy scenario of actually leading the cops into a Universal Studios office building and down a hall before she finally relented that she had no job, etc....the jury will stop seeing a pretty demure young lady and start seeing the monster she really is; especially after seeing photos of beautiful Caylee followed by photos of Caylee's skeleton triple bagged with duct tape wrapped completely around her skull so tightly it was still in place despite months of being submerged under water. KC's looks, her attire, none of it will matter by then. I don't think there is anything JB can toss in there that will take the monster image away.

 

[DotsEyes]

Since I don't know what the State has in its bag of tricks, I can't say where its weakness lies. However, the strengths of the case which come from KC's own mouth, are overwhlelmingly in favor of a conviction.

I consider myself to be conservative and it wouldn't be any easier on me than anyone else to condemn someone to death. Not sure if I could.

 

[OneLostGrl]

I wasn't aware this forum was only for people who are already convinced KC killed her child in cold-blood! Sorry, I guess I'll have to find a forum where impartiality, alternative viewpoints and reasoned questioning is welcome!

Well Goodness. You are going to let people run you off (or threaten to anyway) because they question and therefore debate your logic? People are not going to change their minds or stop expressing their opinions just because you want them to. We don't all agree with one another.. these threads, these discussions are so we can discuss and debate our opinions with one another.. if everyone ran away (or threatened to) when people disagreed with them, WS would have much, much fewer members.

I don't agree with all of your posts (and I don't have to, just like you don't have to agree with mine) but it would be a shame if you let the reason you came to post here (I'm assuming it was to discuss, debate and share your opinions with others interested in true crime cases, even though I know one should never assume) be the same reason you leave..

Stick around- nobody is picking on you or singling you out, it's just what we do, I promise! And just an FYI, not everyone here is sure it was Casey who killed Caylee, I am one of those people. Nobody has kicked me off yet (though I know there are some who'd love to! LOL

 

[OneLostGrl]

Because she is dead and the manner of her death is homicide.

Good answer, good answer!! (I feel like I'm playing family feud! LOL)

 

[OneLostGrl]

True.

But, if the duct tape was applied post-mortem, then an average juror would wonder why?

Answer: to prevent decomposition fluids from leaking from the baby's mouth.

Juror realizes: even if the Baby died accidentally, she was mishandled and treated with gross, gross indignity after the 'accidental' death and left to decompose for approximately 2.6 days, part of which were spent being driven around town in the tuck of her Mother's car before being tossed aside?

The post-mortem speculation is almost as gruesome and horrific as the pre-mortem speculation, don't you think?

I certainly do!

 

[Devon]

Well Goodness. You are going to let people run you off (or threaten to anyway) because they question and therefore debate your logic? People are not going to change their minds or stop expressing their opinions just because you want them to. We don't all agree with one another.. these threads, these discussions are so we can discuss and debate our opinions with one another.. if everyone ran away (or threatened to) when people disagreed with them, WS would have much, much fewer members.

I don't agree with all of your posts (and I don't have to, just like you don't have to agree with mine) but it would be a shame if you let the reason you came to post here (I'm assuming it was to discuss, debate and share your opinions with others interested in true crime cases, even though I know one should never assume) be the same reason you leave..

Stick around- nobody is picking on you or singling you out, it's just what we do, I promise! And just an FYI, not everyone here is sure it was Casey who killed Caylee, I am one of those people. Nobody has kicked me off yet (though I know there are some who'd love to! LOL

I have absolutely no problem with having my opinions or theories challenged by reasoned argument and debate since that is what I'm here for, and I respect everyone else's right to hold their own opinions, but it's not healthy debate when alternative views are met with ridicule and sarcasm.

Why is it that any view that is not pro-prosecution, or that does not match the general consensus is met with suggestions that the poster must be pro-defence, or a troll on behalf of the defence, or simply working to 'cast reasonable doubt'? I am totally neutral on this case, neither pro or ante either side, but if one wished to 'help the defence' by posting certain hypotheses here, why would that be unacceptable? Why is it that if a juror should dissent from a guilty verdict, that would be because of their 'stupidity'? These are all comments (not verbatim) that I have read on recent threads and I've lost count of the number of times certain threads have descended into a 'bash the 'pro-defence' poster' fest. I can think of at least 2 'alternative' thinkers who used to make very articulate, intelligent and reasoned posts but who have been driven away by the antagonism shown towards their views.

As I said, I am not on any side, well except for the side of Justice, but if I was pro-defence and had stated as much, I expect I would have been eaten alive on here by now (metaphorically speaking)! That is not debate as I understand it.

 

[Devon]

Because she is dead and the manner of her death is homicide.

What I meant was - how do you KNOW that Caylee was killed by the positive act of someone? Homicide is a generic term for many different types of 'killing', including those that occur as the result of negligent omission, such as an accident where someone bears a degree of fault but where there was no intent to kill:

homicide n. the killing of a human being due to the act or omission of another. Included among homicides are murder and manslaughter, but not all homicides are a crime, particularly when there is a lack of criminal intent. Non-criminal homicides include killing in self-defense, a misadventure like a hunting accident or automobile wreck without a violation of law like reckless driving, or legal (government) execution. Suicide is a homicide, but in most cases there is no one to prosecute if the suicide is successful. Assisting or attempting suicide can be a crime.

 

[Whisperer]

One can come to the conclusion of homicide in this case by ruling out possibilities of other methods of death.

1. Caylee did not take her own life.
2. It has not been stated it was an accident by anyone who has kge of the death.
3. It is unlikely a perp killed her in self-defense.

The finding of a body wrapped and secreted can add to the conclusion that a homicide took place. If one were to argue accident, they have to speak out and say it was an accident, not doing so gives the State only death by homicide.

 

[SewingDeb]

What I meant was - how do you KNOW that Caylee was killed by the positive act of someone? Homicide is a generic term for many different types of 'killing', including those that occur as the result of negligent omission, such as an accident where someone bears a degree of fault but where there was no intent to kill:

homicide n. the killing of a human being due to the act or omission of another. Included among homicides are murder and manslaughter, but not all homicides are a crime, particularly when there is a lack of criminal intent. Non-criminal homicides include killing in self-defense, a misadventure like a hunting accident or automobile wreck without a violation of law like reckless driving, or legal (government) execution. Suicide is a homicide, but in most cases there is no one to prosecute if the suicide is successful. Assisting or attempting suicide can be a crime.

Isn't Casey charged with First Degree Murder?

 

[circe257]

The argument was being discussed on another thread and it appears that C & G admitted there was an argument to Mark Fuhrman, it is in OCSO notes here,
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/2810987/...sed-Nov-26-004

Page,139
or
Hand numbered, 2499

Whiteangora - TY for that link. I was unaware that Fuhrman corroborated this/reported it to LE. I think though the defense can call his credibility into question given his testimony in the OJ trial.

 

[aafromaa]

Weaknesses in the state's case? Hmm... Actually, I think the weakest point in the state's case was that JB was the lead defense attorney - and I think it likely that a conviction would have been overturned on appeal. I just can't help wondering if at least part of the reason for putting DP back on the table wasn't to force him out of that lead chair and avoid that issue on appeal.

I do think they will have a hard time getting the death penalty since as far as we know they cannot establish cause of death, time of death, place of death but I do not think this would prevent a guilty verdict - just a DP sentence.

I also agree with many others who have said mentioned various things about Casey - appearance, young mother, troubled individual, etc - might keep the jury from recommending the DP - but again I don't think it would prevent them from reaching a guilty verdict.

I think the statement that the state has put the DP back on the table because their case is weak is ridiculous and I don't think the state has any concerns about the strength of their case. Caylee's age alone is enough of an aggrevating factor to warrant seeking the DP but the timing of their decision to put it back on the table certainly has me wondering if they have more evidence regarding the circumstances of her death than has been released to this point.

 

[Devon]

Isn't Casey charged with First Degree Murder?

There are 3 alternative charges against her:

1st Degree Murder
Manslaughter
Aggravated Child Abuse

 

[SewingDeb]

There are 3 alternative charges against her:

1st Degree Murder
Manslaughter
Aggravated Child Abuse

Thank you. My post was in response to yours explaining that homicide is not necessarily illegal. First Degree murder, manslaughter and aggravated child abuse are all obviously illegal.

 

[StickPoint]

Thank you. My post was in response to yours explaining that homicide is not necessarily illegal. First Degree murder, manslaughter and aggravated child abuse are all obviously illegal.

Let us not forget the fraud charges as well. She's a whole kaleidescope of "good" things, isn't she?

 

[whiteangora]

Whiteangora - TY for that link. I was unaware that Fuhrman corroborated this/reported it to LE. I think though the defense can call his credibility into question given his testimony in the OJ trial.

I agree about Fuhrman, but the neighbors still claim to have heard the fight, I'm hoping that will be allowed as a setting of the stage at opening statements.

 

[whiteangora]

Let's say Caylee's death was an accident and Casey freaked.
Wouldn't the concealing of the body in a reckless way and allowing it to decompose to the point of not being able to name a cause of death be aggravating circumstances to push the charges up to 1st degree murder? I'm probably not wording this right, but hopefully someone will know what I'm asking.

 

[Koozit]

It has always puzzled me as to why KC would have used chloroform on Caylee when over-the-counter meds (cough syrup, Benadryl, etc.) could have easily been used to knock her out. KC just seems like the type to always go for the short cut in everything she does.

Also, what do extra hairs matter? Do they lead us to someone else? I sincerely hope this jury is not duped by the same tactics that were used in the OJ case. Yes, there was contamination in that case, but contamination does NOT negate the fact that crucial DNA evidence was found at the crime scene and in OJ's car.

Frankly, I don't see many weaknesses in the SA case against KC. I know it won't be a cake walk, but I think they've got her pretty good. Now I'm really anxious to see the next release of documents by the SA.

Bolded by me;
It was never stated in court as to where HL found those 17 hair's. Let's not forget HL's past.

 

[Devon]

Let's say Caylee's death was an accident and Casey freaked.
Wouldn't the concealing of the body in a reckless way and allowing it to decompose to the point of not being able to name a cause of death be aggravating circumstances to push the charges up to 1st degree murder? I'm probably not wording this right, but hopefully someone will know what I'm asking.

I don't know if you're confusing the aggravating circumstances that can be taken into consideration during the DP phase, with aggravated child abuse, but no, if the death was an accident then abuse of a corpse (which is what you are describing) could not change a conviction for a lesser charge than murder one into murder one. If you are thinking of aggravated child abuse, this applies in relation to a live child - causing pain, suffering, injury or disfigurement. It wouldn't apply to anything done postmortem.

 

[whiteangora]

I don't know if you're confusing the aggravating circumstances that can be taken into consideration during the DP phase, with aggravated child abuse, but no, if the death was an accident then abuse of a corpse (which is what you are describing) could not change a conviction for a lesser charge than murder one into murder one. If you are thinking of aggravated child abuse, this applies in relation to a live child - causing pain, suffering, injury or disfigurement. It wouldn't apply to anything done postmortem.

ok, But I thought I had read somewhere that purposely hiding a corpse to prevent an autopsy was a factor in deciding what the charges would be.....manslaughter, negligent homicide, murder1 etc. I'm not talking about the DP phase, just the charges themselves. Isn't the hiding of a corpse considered more than just abuse? Like a conspiracy?

 

[jon_burrows]

True.

But, if the duct tape was applied post-mortem, then an average juror would wonder why?

Answer: to prevent decomposition fluids from leaking from the baby's mouth.

Juror realizes: even if the Baby died accidentally, she was mishandled and treated with gross, gross indignity after the 'accidental' death and left to decompose for approximately 2.6 days, part of which were spent being driven around town in the tuck of her Mother's car before being tossed aside?

The post-mortem speculation is almost as gruesome and horrific as the pre-mortem speculation, don't you think?

I believe the state will have an expert on the stand to say there is no reason to put duct tape on a corpse. Dr. Perper (a very experienced coroner) has already stated that as fact. Since the defense says the Nanny did it, they don't need to bring up the duct tape because Casey is completely innocent (riiiiiiiigt). Poor thing, thoses forces are against her. IMO it's a no brainer, especially with the heart sticker. Assuming the duct tape was used to contain fluid (BS), what's the purpose of the heart sticker? To hold more fluid? Any layman seeing/smelling a deceased person in that stage of decomposition would be horrified, especially if it was their own child. I find it unbelievable that she would see her body in that state and take the time to put duct tape and a sticker over her mouth.