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

[magnolia]

Suppose a child climbs a tree, falls, breaks his neck, and dies.

Mother comes out and finds dead child. Picks him up and stuffs him in a garbage bag. Drives around with body a few days, then stops by side of road and tosses bag into woods. Does not report it to police.

One month later, police question mother on why child is missing. In this case, she tells them she found her dead son by a tree, bagged him, drove around with him in trunk and tossed him in the woods. She leads police to body. Autopsy confirms cause of death.

Putting your feelings for the mother aside (none of us would befriend her on Facebook, I hope)...what crime was committed and if there was a crime, what should the sentence be?

And don't get me wrong here...I am in the anger phase of grief on this and I absolutely hate Casey. I think she is a horrible waste of human flesh. But I am not convinced at all that an accident did not occur and she had about the most inappropriate reaction one could have.

I understand completely.

I'm forced to put aside my extreme dislike and lack of respect for this woman in order to answer the question truthfully. I refer to her as a woman, but in my mind (irresponsible immature child) is a more appropriate term.

Absolutely no reasonable doubt here that KC is guilty.

However, based on what we know now, I would have a difficult time sentencing her to premeditated first degree murder.

I don't think it was an accident, but what I think is not enough.

If this case revolved around a mature 22 yr. old with a history of accepting responsibility, I would probably feel differently. We all know this was not the case with KC. She's an immature 22 yr. old who has never been held accountable for her actions. Like a child, she may have had thoughts..."I can't deal with this today"...."I will deal with it tomorrow". As we know, tomorrow never came.

Right now, based on what I know of the family dynamics,I believe KC's actions and behavior might have been the same. Either way, KC had a dead body on her hands and wanted to push it under the rug.

The pros may present evidence at trial proving KC planned and carried out the murder. Until that time, I have reasonable doubt she planned the murder.

On the other hand,when I allow my feelings for KC to take control, I would vote to lock her up and throw away the key.

 

[LaLaw2000]

I do know that everyone is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, I am not in a courtroom as a juror, so my personal opinion is guilty.

Waiting 31 days before even admitting she had not seen her child during this time period is a factor for me as well as the computer searches, the decomposition odor in the trunk of her car, the cadaver dog hits, the hair strand with a death band, her demeanor with the police, her lies, evidence in the bag Caylee's body was in that tied back to the Anthony home, the duct tape, and on and on. These are the things that make me feel that Casey did murder little Caylee, and to use the phrase - with malice and aforethought. I say guilty of murder one with aggravating circumstances! This, as always, JMO.

 

[tiredofthis]

I voted premeditated. It only takes a moment to make it premeditated, so even if she hadn't planned on going through with it, in a moment of rage she could have thought, "hey, I have this plan, I'll use it."

If she had a plan, doesn't that make it premeditated?

 

[Anais]

Not Guilty. The presumption of innocence prevails. Moreover, assuming the body is Caylee, without a cause of death or mechanics of death, we know of no new evidence that would support either manslaughter or premeditated murder.

I disagree. Scott Peterson was convicted in DP case without Time of death, cause of death and location of death. Although I don't think the prosecution has a slam dunk per se I do believe that they will have more than enough for a conviction!

 

[angelmom]

Suppose a child climbs a tree, falls, breaks his neck, and dies.

Mother comes out and finds dead child. Picks him up and stuffs him in a garbage bag. Drives around with body a few days, then stops by side of road and tosses bag into woods. Does not report it to police.

One month later, police question mother on why child is missing. In this case, she tells them she found her dead son by a tree, bagged him, drove around with him in trunk and tossed him in the woods. She leads police to body. Autopsy confirms cause of death.

Putting your feelings for the mother aside (none of us would befriend her on Facebook, I hope)...what crime was committed and if there was a crime, what should the sentence be?

And don't get me wrong here...I am in the anger phase of grief on this and I absolutely hate Casey. I think she is a horrible waste of human flesh. But I am not convinced at all that an accident did not occur and she had about the most inappropriate reaction one could have.

Perhaps the only crime here would be improper disposal of a body, since the mother fessed up when confronted.

Did she call LE and falsely report a child missing? Casey did. (Cindy called, but Casey did get on the phone and say Caylee was missing during the call.)

Did she lie to LE about where the child was last seen? Casey did.

Did she lie to LE about the person last responsible for the child? Casey did.


Also, in your example the autopsy confirms the accident. Casey has no such luck. Although the autopsy cannot prove the cause of death, it cannot prove an accidental death either.

And in light of this lack of cooperation and physical evidence, we must rely on experience and reason. What reasonable person would do such a thing? A judge's instruction often includes wording along the lines of, "If you are deciding between two things, which one is more reasonable?"

Is it more reasonable that Casey refused to cooperate with LE to find Caylee, OR that she was covering for a murder?

This is what is wrong with today's society. We are so busy looking for zebras that we leave our common sense behind.

 

[tiredofthis]

I have a very hard time with "an adult giving a minor child drugs" being called an accident! You don't "accidently" give people drugs, therefore if she did die from drugs it is murder. JMO of course,

I share your opinion. It is not an accidental death when you give a child harmful drugs and the child dies!

 

[magnolia]

I do know that everyone is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, I am not in a courtroom as a juror, so my personal opinion is guilty.

Waiting 31 days before even admitting she had not seen her child during this time period is a factor for me as well as the computer searches, the decomposition odor in the trunk of her car, the cadaver dog hits, the hair strand with a death band, her demeanor with the police, her lies, evidence in the bag Caylee's body was in that tied back to the Anthony home, the duct tape, and on and on. These are the things that make me feel that Casey did murder little Caylee, and to use the phrase - with malice and aforethought. I say guilty of murder one with aggravating circumstances! This, as always, JMO.

I agree KC is guilty, but my problem is, what is she guilty of. When forming my opinion, I can't factor in the duct tape because the ME didn't confirm. However,she did state there was no soft tissue left on the body. At that time, I had to ask myself, without soft tissue, how did the duct tape stay on. During an interview, right after the body was found,Baden said, without soft tissue, the tape would fall off. Is he right? Is he wrong? I don't know.

I will have to wait until the trial and hear all the evidence before I can form an opinion on the premeditation.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Duct tape over her mouth could be post mordem, perhaps to contain fluids. Or to maintain some stupid kidnapping theory.

Or perhaps, not.

imo

 

[sweetmop]

Your mentioning that KC is one scarey, evil girl reminds me of the video taken at JB's office after the indictment for murder one had been handed down. KC looked straight into the camera and the look in her eyes gave me chills. I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt, I was looking into the eyes of someone who is pure evil.

Amen!
I remember exactly the shot you're speaking of! Just the sight of her looking into the camera, gave me a chill down my neck and spine! I agree tiredofthis, this girl is pure evil! I can't imagine if she were my daughter! I'd be in the loony bin for sure!

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I share your opinion. It is not an accidental death when you give a child harmful drugs and the child dies!

I agree and am sort of appalled when someone labels that an "accident". First if that were true, it is a crime and illegal. Children aren't to be loaded up on some type of drugs or some chloroform cocktail. If they are and they die then it is a homicide and certainly not a benign accident.

This was no accident and it is no coincidence that Casey and Cindy had the blowout of a life time on June 15th and Caylee was dead shortly thereafter.

No jury is going to believe it was an accident with the time of events that happened right before Caylee's was killed imo.

imoo

 

[JWG]

There, there, now, JWG. :blowkiss: Take a deep, relaxing breath... You are so innately organized that I fear you're trying to plot out a swift progression through all the stages of grief in your usual precise, orderly manner. It doesn't work that way. Grief is messy. It's slow and lazy. It's sneaky. Phases can stick to you like flypaper while you're trying to shove your way through the next one.

Step back, celebrate life, and let grief take care of itself, don't try to take care of it. You can't and if you try, it will make you crazy. From now until after the final verdict is read, there's nothing for you to worry about. And depending upon the verdict, there may never be anything to worry about.

You are right Friday...thanks :blowkiss:

 

[magnolia]

Not Guilty. The presumption of innocence prevails. Moreover, assuming the body is Caylee, without a cause of death or mechanics of death, we know of no new evidence that would support either manslaughter or premeditated murder.

I will admit to having reasonable doubt about the premeditation, but I don't agree with you on the manslaughter.

 

[Coley]

2nd degree. I believe it was 2nd degree b/c she committed the offense while she was engaging in aggravated child abuse (whether that be drugging her or whatever).

 

[Fandy]

guilty, guilty, guilty of premeditated murder. I think there is a side of Casey that hasn't been seen in photographs. the one we briefly heard in her jailhouse conversation before she knew she was being recorded.

 

[TopGunner]

I think the computer searches and Casey's behavior after Caylee went missing nails premeditated. Mostly her behavior afterwards. She was beaming with joy while partying, and deleting all of Caylee picts from her computer PROVES BARD that she wanted Caylee gone, completely.

 

[Celt1997]

Personally I lean towards believing this case is Murder 1 w/ Premeditation. However based on the evidence we DON'T have (e.g. cause of death, etc.) I have a feeling this case will end in a charge of 2nd Degree Murder or Manslaughter. It's unfortunate, but in the halls of "justice" it happens.

 

[tragco]

Suppose a child climbs a tree, falls, breaks his neck, and dies.

Mother comes out and finds dead child. Picks him up and stuffs him in a garbage bag. Drives around with body a few days, then stops by side of road and tosses bag into woods. Does not report it to police.

One month later, police question mother on why child is missing. In this case, she tells them she found her dead son by a tree, bagged him, drove around with him in trunk and tossed him in the woods. She leads police to body. Autopsy confirms cause of death.

Putting your feelings for the mother aside (none of us would befriend her on Facebook, I hope)...what crime was committed and if there was a crime, what should the sentence be?

And don't get me wrong here...I am in the anger phase of grief on this and I absolutely hate Casey. I think she is a horrible waste of human flesh. But I am not convinced at all that an accident did not occur and she had about the most inappropriate reaction one could have.

This post really got me thinking. In this scenario, the mother should be found not guilty, even though her behavior afterward was baffling. Of course, the premise is that the mother did not, in fact, contribute in any way to the death.

My question: Can a juror, when considering reasonable doubt, take into account the actions of the accused when making a determination? If I believe KC's actions afterward indicate an attempt to cover up a crime, can I allow that to affect my verdict? In KC's case, the thing that makes me sure it wasn't an accident is her behavior. I am curious if anything other than proven evidence can be considered, having never sat on a jury before.

 

[cacnotcam]

Guilty "Absolutely"

I was JUST going to say that!!! LOL Anyways, I say GGGGGGG!!! BUT as far as premeditated or not, I think some of the jurors may have a hard time with that one, even with the knowledge of the internet searches. Just based on the lack of tissue and COD, besides being homocide. Hopfully something will show up in the toxicology reports!!!

 

[cacnotcam]

This post really got me thinking. In this scenario, the mother should be found not guilty, even though her behavior afterward was baffling. Of course, the premise is that the mother did not, in fact, contribute in any way to the death.

My question: Can a juror, when considering reasonable doubt, take into account the actions of the accused when making a determination? If I believe KC's actions afterward indicate an attempt to cover up a crime, can I allow that to affect my verdict? In KC's case, the thing that makes me sure it wasn't an accident is her behavior. I am curious if anything other than proven evidence can be considered, having never sat on a jury before.

I'm not sure. I would think so, but even if it isn't...boy, how hard would that be to sit on the jury and pretend that you were not aware of her partying, etc...? I think it has to come into play.

 

[Wudge]

I will admit to having reasonable doubt about the premeditation, but I don't agree with you on the manslaughter.

Based on the evidence we know of, a finding of premeditation would need to be based on speculation.

Based on the evidence we know of, a finding of manslaughter would need to be based on speculation.