"G (Guilty)" vs "NG (Not Guilty)" Where do you stand?

[Brini]

But applying tape after death just doesn't make sense.

You're right, it doesn't.

BWT-- Am wondering whether Dr. G. might clarify her answer that the tape was applied "before decomp." Decomp begins at death. The body shuts down in stages. What stage of decomp?

 

[Brini]

The only problem I see with all of your scenarios is that we have absolutely no proof as to how Caylee died - there is only conjecture. We only know that she is dead but we don't know how. There might be an explanation as to how Caylee died that is less toxic to a jury. For example, during Casey's fight with Cindy, Caylee might have gotten pushed into something and hit her head - not enough to damage her skull, but enough to cause a brain injury which went unnoticed in the midst of the big fight between Casey and Cindy. Caylee might have seemed fine initially and Casey might have blown out of the house with Caylee that night after the fight and they might have slept in the car only for Casey to discover the next morning that Caylee had died during the night of an epidural hematoma at which point Casey went into shock and coverup mode, duct tape and all and began hiding out from her parents. Because we can't prove that Casey specifically planned to kill Caylee or even how Caylee was died, we can't assume it was intentional.

If Caylee died in such a manner as described above, would you still consider this a Murder 1?

If Caylee died by accident, why have KC and her attorney not come forward with this explanation, long ago? Why did he let her get charged w/ murder I? Why did he refuse to plea bargain?

Why did he announce that any explanation by KC would be harmful to her?

Doesn't make sense, Princess.

 

[Searchfortruth]

The only problem I see with all of your scenarios is that we have absolutely no proof as to how Caylee died - there is only conjecture. We only know that she is dead but we don't know how. There might be an explanation as to how Caylee died that is less toxic to a jury. For example, during Casey's fight with Cindy, Caylee might have gotten pushed into something and hit her head - not enough to damage her skull, but enough to cause a brain injury which went unnoticed in the midst of the big fight between Casey and Cindy. Caylee might have seemed fine initially and Casey might have blown out of the house with Caylee that night after the fight and they might have slept in the car only for Casey to discover the next morning that Caylee had died during the night of an epidural hematoma at which point Casey went into shock and coverup mode, duct tape and all and began hiding out from her parents. Because we can't prove that Casey specifically planned to kill Caylee or even how Caylee was died, we can't assume it was intentional.

If Caylee died in such a manner as described above, would you still consider this a Murder 1?

I like to compare this case to the Scott P case, there are many similarities as far as the evidence goes. Both cases have a great deal of circumstantial evidence, this case more than Scott's. There was no cause of death in Lacy and Conner's case either, but Scott's actions before/after the death point to his guilt and no other. As you know Scott is sitting on Death Row in California. The jury had no problem piecing together the bits of circumstantial evidence in Scott's case, all signs pointed to his guilt.

It really isn't hard, IMO, to figure out who the guilty party is in Caylee's death. I don't think a jury will have problems figuring it out either.

 

[Jolynna]

But there is no proof that the tape was applied before death so far. If there is never any proof that the tape was applied before death, the jury will not be able to make that assumption in this case.

People use duct tape on other people to gag, restrain or kill. No mother/father has ever used it to cover up her/his child's face after death.

There's no reason to do it. Caylee wasn't respectfully put away. She was stuffed in a trash bag wearing a t-shirt and pull-ups with bare feet.

The Blockbuster video negates any thoughts of KC being shell-shocked or hysterical from any surprise accident or dead body handling.

Tony was home Monday June 16. I think KC hurried over at the first possible moment she was free of Caylee. I don't think she stayed at her parent's house a single second longer than necessary after the deed was done. George says he saw them at 1 p.m. Whether anybody believes him on not, his testimony makes KC look more like more cold-hearted, deliberate and thoughtful.

JMO

 

[marspiter]

Pointing back to People v. Scott. You do not have to prove how a person died. Only that the person is dead. You can then use circumstantial evidence to prove that the defendant is the killer and had intent with premeditation.

Keep in mind there are only 3 elements that the prosecution must prove to the jury. Caylee is dead, Casey killed her, and she did it with premeditation.

Also keep in mind that circumstantial evidence can be used to prove all of these elements. Despite what some would argue a juror is allowed to have doubt in their mind but after using their own reason and weighing the evidence is allowed to draw a conclusion from that evidence.

Its pretty clear Caylee is dead. Element number one met.

Caylee was in good health and only 2 years old. Meaning she had to rely on others for her basic needs. We are not talking about an adult here which is one thing to keep in prospective (trust me being a 2yr old is going to constantly be on the jurors minds).

She was last seen in the care of Casey (eyewitness testimony). Searches were made on the home computer for chloroform, shovel, neck breaking and others during time periods when no one else was in the house (computer forensics). Leads to premeditation.

Duct tape was place in several strips on the face of a 2 yr old before decomposition and to me shows premeditation.("before decomp" that's key plus the coroner deemed the death a homicide). The body was then place in multiple bags and into the trunk of the car (cadaver dogs and chemical analysis finding chloroform and decomp).

Child was not reported missing for 31 days. During said 31 days Casey went on a crime spree stealing money from friends and family (check evidence and video).

I could go on in detail but this post will get long.

The circumstantial evidence proves that Caylee was in Casey's care and that during that time the child was killed (not an accident) element two confirmed.

The last element is going to be premeditation. For premeditation one does not have to have a documented well thought out plan detailing every aspect of the crime.

I will argue that her actions before, during, and after the incident (not accident) prove premeditation. An innocent person does not cover their tracks or toss a child on the side of the road. Element 3 met.

Guilty

 

[The Eunice Burns]

Oh, I agree that the homicide was done first and then the kidnapping story made up as a cover up.

(respectfully snipped)

I agree. I think ZFG was in place b/c KC used "her" as a fallback and an alter ego of sorts. She fleshed out the "ZFG" character when she needed to lead LE on the wild goose chase.

 

[Searchfortruth]

People use duct tape on other people to gag, restrain or kill. No mother/fatherr has ever used it to cover up her/his child's face after death.

There's no reason to do it. Caylee wasn't respectfully put away. She was stuffed in a trash bag wearing a t-shirt and pull-ups with bare feet.

The Blockbuster video negates any thoughts of KC being shell-shocked or hysterical from any surprise accident or dead body handling.

Tony was home Monday June 16. I think KC hurried over at the first possible moment she was free of Caylee. I don't think she stayed at her parent's house a single second longer than necessary after the deed was done. George says he saw them at 1 p.m. Whether anybody believes him on not, his testimony makes KC look more like more cold-hearted, deliberate and thoughtful.JMO

BBM.

I hadn't thought about that. If George's story is true (a sighting on the afternoon of the 16th) then that points more towards a motive of Casey wanting to be free to be w/ Tony. It sort of takes away from the "fight" theory and a possible heat of the moment murder. It DOES point to a cold, callous killing of a two year old.

 

[Jolynna]

Dr. G. closed the accident door when she ruled Caylee's death a homicide instead of undetermined. Caylee was killed. Somebody killed her.

The "means" or how the homicide was ultimately achieved is what is left open.

When the prosector's office opted to go for the expensive death penalty option they made a statement, IMO.

 

[marspiter]

Dr. G. closed the accident door when she ruled Caylee's death a homicide instead of undetermined. Caylee was killed. Somebody killed her.

The "means" or how the homicide was ultimately achieved is what is left open.

Yep and the prosecution is not required to prove how the person was killed.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

Evidence to the contrary - this evidence indicates that this was likely a crime that was committed in the absence of premeditation and that Casey did not originally intend to setup a fake kidnapping, but just used that as an excuse when confronted by Cindy:

1. Not reporting Caylee missing for 31 days
2. Not acting like the mother of a kidnapped child
3. Not begging for the child's safe return
4. Refusing to explain what happened in such a way that would make any sense whatsoever due to a lack of a pre-planned cohesive story
5. Blow up with Cindy on July 15, 2008
6. Avoiding parents, LE and anyone who could help with "missing child" for 31 days
7. Lying about child's whereabouts to anyone who asked for 31 days
8. Making stuff up as she goes along (changing story)
9. Only mentioning ZFG took Caylee when confronted by Cindy

Please suggest any further evidence that speaks to premeditation or lack of premeditation.

(Respectfully snipped) After re-reading your list of facts above, I have to say that none of those things disprove premed. I don't see why you think they do. All of those actions and events described above (w/ the exception of #5, in which I think you meant to type June 15) occured AFTER the murder. All actions taken by a murderer after a killing are to ensure they don't get caught. What you have laid out above in 1-9 are just behaviors and actions KC took to prevent getting caught; they don't disprove premed. As for #5, the big blowout between her and CA........that doesn't disprove premed either. On the contrary, I think it made her so enraged, she then acted on that rage, a rage and resentment that had been brewing.

IMO, we can beat this nag and send her to the glue factory, but the duct tape is going to nail her.

 

[Themis]

(Respectfully snipped) After re-reading your list of facts above, I have to say that none of those things disprove premed. I don't see why you think they do. All of those actions and events described above (w/ the exception of #5, in which I think you meant to type June 15) occured AFTER the murder. All actions taken by a murderer after a killing are to ensure they don't get caught. What you have laid out above in 1-9 are just behaviors and actions KC took to prevent getting caught; they don't disprove premed. As for #5, the big blowout between her and CA........that doesn't disprove premed either. On the contrary, I think it made her so enraged, she then acted on that rage, a rage and resentment that had been brewing.

IMO, we can beat this nag and send her to the glue factory, but the duct tape is going to nail her.

Someone indicated that things that happened after the murder could not be considered on the issue of whether or not premeditation existed. Oh indeed. If a defendant confesses in court to premeditation, that confession happened after the murder, but it surely can be used to prove premeditation. The same with evidence of a guilty state of mind; like inventing a kidnapping story. It becomes clear then why the SA would like to proceed with the economic charges, but wait until the homicide case to try the lying to LE charges.

 

[Wudge]

(Respectfully snipped) After re-reading your list of facts above, I have to say that none of those things disprove premed. I don't see why you think they do. All of those actions and events described above (w/ the exception of #5, in which I think you meant to type June 15) occured AFTER the murder. All actions taken by a murderer after a killing are to ensure they don't get caught. What you have laid out above in 1-9 are just behaviors and actions KC took to prevent getting caught; they don't disprove premed. As for #5, the big blowout between her and CA........that doesn't disprove premed either. On the contrary, I think it made her so enraged, she then acted on that rage, a rage and resentment that had been brewing.

IMO, we can beat this nag and send her to the glue factory, but the duct tape is going to nail her.

The duct tape was examined by the M.E.. They did not conclude it was the cause of death or related to the cause of death, nor did they conclude it was the mechanism of death. Given that the M.E. could not so conclude, what highly reliable inculpatory evidence proves otherwise?

 

[Amil]

The duct tape was examined by the M.E.. They did not conclude it was the cause of death or related to the cause of death, nor did they conclude it was the mechanism of death. Given that the M.E. could not so conclude, what highly reliable inculpatory evidence proves otherwise?

Let's see....duct tape over the nose and mouth...I think jurors will conclude it caused breathing to cease.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

The duct tape was examined by the M.E.. They did not conclude it was the cause of death or related to the cause of death, nor did they conclude it was the mechanism of death. Given that the M.E. could not so conclude, what highly reliable inculpatory evidence proves otherwise?

Could you please explain to me a plausible reason to duct tape a 2 year old's mouth, if not to suffocate her? The accident theory, as we have all gone round and round with you--will not fly. So where would the duct tape come in---is my contention. If no accident, and I think the SA will be able to prove that handily, the duct tape remains for one reason only. Why did Dr. G find this was a homicide? Can you cite examples of duct tape being used post mortem? Why would the SA go for the DP if this evidence is so tenuous? Why would they risk it all on one throw if they didn't have the goods to convict her?

 

[yolorado]

The only problem I see with all of your scenarios is that we have absolutely no proof as to how Caylee died - there is only conjecture. We only know that she is dead but we don't know how. There might be an explanation as to how Caylee died that is less toxic to a jury. For example, during Casey's fight with Cindy, Caylee might have gotten pushed into something and hit her head - not enough to damage her skull, but enough to cause a brain injury which went unnoticed in the midst of the big fight between Casey and Cindy. Caylee might have seemed fine initially and Casey might have blown out of the house with Caylee that night after the fight and they might have slept in the car only for Casey to discover the next morning that Caylee had died during the night of an epidural hematoma at which point Casey went into shock and coverup mode, duct tape and all and began hiding out from her parents. Because we can't prove that Casey specifically planned to kill Caylee or even how Caylee was died, we can't assume it was intentional.

If Caylee died in such a manner as described above, would you still consider this a Murder 1?

Personally, I'm of the opinion that, given the facts in this case, it really doesn't particularly matter how Caylee died. We don't know. KC's never said. We know for certain that Caylee is dead and was thrown away like garbage for critters to gobble up and snakes to slither over. The facts of the hows and even whys could have been relevant if KC had chosen to make them relevant by offering explanations early on, but she never did. That speaks volumes by itself. KC's silence, on top of her lies, has screamed guilt from Day 1-31 and beyond! I'm also of the opinion that if she were to come up with something now, as Baez seems to infer might happen, no one would believe a word out of her mouth. She's lied before and lied and lied and lied. Now, she has a really good reason to lie. And, any explanation now would have to be from her to have any shot at all. She'd have to take the stand and attempt to withstand cross. Inferrals, hints, ideas by Baez et al ain't going to convince anyone. We don't know how. But we know the result. I really think that KC's gone beyond a point of being able to explain anything away.

 

[Jolynna]

The duct tape was examined by the M.E.. They did not conclude it was the cause of death or related to the cause of death, nor did they conclude it was the mechanism of death. Given that the M.E. could not so conclude, what highly reliable inculpatory evidence proves otherwise?

The "means" was not determined.

However, the "cause" was. Dr. G ruled the cause of death was homicide. Somebody killed Caylee.

It doesn't matter if the duct tape was or wasn't the actual final mechanism. It is reasonable to conclude that whoever taped over Caylee's face intended for Caylee to die.

There is no way to know what else was done to Caylee in addition to the duct tape. It a fact that the duct tape alone would have been enough.

We do have a cause of death. Homicide. Somebody killed Caylee. That has been conclusively determined.

 

[chris1990]

Just to clarify this discussion, in order to determine exactly what Casey is guilty of, we are trying to prove or disprove premeditation of Caylee's murder with the evidence we have so far.

Some people here are speculating that the setup of a fake kidnapping proves premeditation. Here's the evidence for the setup of the fake kidnapping that you have listed so far - if I leave anything out, add it in, please.

1. Computer searches on missing children
2. Computer searches on One Tree Hill
3. Telling Cindy that ZFG has taken Caylee
4. Tape on Caylee's mouth
5. Telling LE that ZFG has taken Caylee
6. Claiming to have talked to Caylee on the phone July 15
7. Talking about ZFG over an extended amount of time - possibly as early as 2006 per RG.
8. Duct tape over Caylee's mouth and nose

Evidence to the contrary - this evidence indicates that this was likely a crime that was committed in the absence of premeditation and that Casey did not originally intend to setup a fake kidnapping, but just used that as an excuse when confronted by Cindy:

1. Not reporting Caylee missing for 31 days
2. Not acting like the mother of a kidnapped child
3. Not begging for the child's safe return
4. Refusing to explain what happened in such a way that would make any sense whatsoever due to a lack of a pre-planned cohesive story
5. Blow up with Cindy on July 15, 2008
6. Avoiding parents, LE and anyone who could help with "missing child" for 31 days
7. Lying about child's whereabouts to anyone who asked for 31 days
8. Making stuff up as she goes along (changing story)
9. Only mentioning ZFG took Caylee when confronted by Cindy

Please suggest any further evidence that speaks to premeditation or lack of premeditation.

bbm
IMO KC did not care that Caylee was gone, she did not start to care until she presented the kidnapping story to LA and CA, and they bought it. Then she became a victim. She knew that Caylee was dead and SHE DIDNT CARE!:furious: She wanted her gone. The result of an accident or a real kidnapping would leave a parent heartbroken. Not KC she was having the time of her life, juggling boyfriends, stealing money, playing pretend........

 

[Wudge]

Someone indicated that things that happened after the murder could not be considered on the issue of whether or not premeditation existed. Oh indeed. If a defendant confesses in court to premeditation, that confession happened after the murder, but it surely can be used to prove premeditation. The same with evidence of a guilty state of mind; like inventing a kidnapping story. It becomes clear then why the SA would like to proceed with the economic charges, but wait until the homicide case to try the lying to LE charges.

Testimony by an eyewitness is direct evidence and carries the weight of inculpatory evidence. Likewise, a confession is direct evidence that carries the weight of inculpatory evidence. In Caylee's case, no direct evidence exists.

The post-death evidence I referred to (on another thread) was post-death behavioral evidence and post-death lies to LE, both of which are circumstantial evidence that be used as but corroborative evidence. Moreover, lying to LE about an untrue kidnapping could be admitted as consciousness of guilt, however, it does not follow that any such guilt stemmed from Casey committing murder one.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

Let's see....duct tape over the nose and mouth...I think jurors will conclude it caused breathing to cease.

Yes. I think when the jurors see the photos of Caylee's skeleton and see the duct tape in its application, they will realize she was murdered and that this was no accident. We have read the autopsy reports, but the photos will be worth "a thousand words".

 

[Wudge]

The "means" was not determined.

However, the "cause" was. Dr. G ruled the cause of death was homicide. Somebody killed Caylee.

It doesn't matter if the duct tape was or wasn't the actual final mechanism. It is reasonable to conclude that whoever taped over Caylee's face intended for Caylee to die.

There is no way to know what else was done to Caylee in addition to the duct tape. It a fact that the duct tape alone would have been enough.

We do have a cause of death. Homicide. Somebody killed Caylee. That has been conclusively determined.

Homicide does not equal murder.

(Homicide is a manner of death.)