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

[Murdock]

I've never been on a jury. How does that work? If they come back with a guilty verdict, do they have to explain how they reached their decision?

 

[Patty G]

Guilty 1st Degree Murder
Guilty 2nd Degree Murder
Guilty Manslaughter - Not premeditated
Not Guilty - Complete Accident
Completely Innocent


Theories here: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85576"]New Smoking Gun Theories for DP - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]


Jury instructions here: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86380"]Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]


fftopic: Questions and Answers here: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81903"]LIST LIST Questions and Answers #7 LIST ONLY - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[Balthazar]

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.

 

[Tuffy]

I've never been on a jury. How does that work? If they come back with a guilty verdict, do they have to explain how they reached their decision?

I've been on a jury three times, and have not been asked anything after delivering the verdict.

 

[Wudge]

I've never been on a jury. How does that work? If they come back with a guilty verdict, do they have to explain how they reached their decision?

No. However, after the verdict is read and jurors are thanked for their service and dismissed, they are free to talk.

 

[MissJames]

Jurors are not permitted to speculate, period.

It would seem to me that circumstantial evidence ,by it's very nature,requires one to "speculate" in order to draw reasonable conclusions.
That's why KC not reporting Caylee missing for 31 days will come in,along with abandoning the car.KC being seen on video at Blockbusters and all the pics of her out partying.The fact that NO ONE saw Caylee after the 15th/16th.All begs for speculation to reach a conclusion,does it not?
Otherwise ,it means nothing to the prosecution.

 

[MissJames]

Guilty 1st Degree Murder
Guilty 2nd Degree Murder
Guilty Manslaughter - Not premeditated
Not Guilty - Complete Accident
Completely Innocent


Theories here: New Smoking Gun Theories for DP - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


Jury instructions here: Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


fftopic: Questions and Answers here: LIST LIST Questions and Answers #7 LIST ONLY - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Sorry Patty G!
It's so hard to break a conversation up into different threads sometimes .
I thought since the poll mentioned premeditaion and rage we could discuss it here.
Mea Culpa. Will try to do better.:blowkiss:

 

[Patty G]

Sorry Patty G!
It's so hard to break a conversation up into different threads sometimes .
I thought since the poll mentioned premeditaion and rage we could discuss it here.
Mea Culpa. Will try to do better.:blowkiss:

Of course you can discuss why you voted the way you did. My little reminder is a "general" reminder for the thread.

 

[Balthazar]

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.

Based on what we have so far, it is my contention that the evidence against premeditation of a fake kidnap plot is much stronger than the evidence that Casey may have tried to set a fake kidnap plot up in advance of Caylee's disappearance and murder. My belief is that the fight between Cindy and Casey on June 15 is the inciting incident which led to Casey killing Caylee in a fit of rage against her mother. Based on this, I believe there is a lack of premeditation, therefore, I believe this to be a Manslaughter case rather than Murder 1.

 

[Tuffy]

Based on what we have so far, it is my contention that the evidence against premeditation of a fake kidnap plot is much stronger than the evidence that Casey may have tried to set a fake kidnap plot up in advance of Caylee's disappearance and murder. My belief is that the fight between Cindy and Casey on June 15 is the inciting incident which led to Casey killing Caylee in a fit of rage against her mother. Based on this, I believe there is a lack of premeditation, therefore, I believe this to be a Manslaughter case rather than Murder 1.

I respectfully disagree completely. In my opinion, based on the evidence so far, I think the prosecution is correct in going for first degree murder. I believe the crime was premeditated.

I'm looking at the same things as you, but coming to the opposite conclusion.

 

[Brini]

I've never been on a jury. How does that work? If they come back with a guilty verdict, do they have to explain how they reached their decision?

Nope.

 

[Brini]

Jurors are not permitted to speculate, period.

I think we'll see that what you are calling "speculation" is actually "drawing conclusions from the evidence."

If jurors couldn't do that, we could go to computers to render a verdict.

And, I think you are going to see a lot of it, on this trial.

I have never been on a jury that did not have to do a lot of "speculating," when all of the evidence was circumstantial.

Going back to the example: You are in the rain, and you get wet. You have direct evidence that it's raining. You see a man come in the door in a wet raincoat, with a wet umbrella, you have circumstantial evidence that it's raining, and you so speculate. Or, rather, you draw the common sense conclusion that it's raining.

When there is ONLY circumstantial evidence, that is what juries will, and must do. There is no witness that can give direct evidence, in this case.

KC's gonna go down, honey.

 

[Wudge]

It would seem to me that circumstantial evidence ,by it's very nature,requires one to "speculate" in order to draw reasonable conclusions.
That's why KC not reporting Caylee missing for 31 days will come in,along with abandoning the car.KC being seen on video at Blockbusters and all the pics of her out partying.The fact that NO ONE saw Caylee after the 15th/16th.All begs for speculation to reach a conclusion,does it not?
Otherwise ,it means nothing to the prosecution.

(I'm not sure where your question best fits, but I followed Patty's bread crumb trail and responded on the new jury instruction thread.)

 

[Themis]

Based on what we have so far, it is my contention that the evidence against premeditation of a fake kidnap plot is much stronger than the evidence that Casey may have tried to set a fake kidnap plot up in advance of Caylee's disappearance and murder. My belief is that the fight between Cindy and Casey on June 15 is the inciting incident which led to Casey killing Caylee in a fit of rage against her mother. Based on this, I believe there is a lack of premeditation, therefore, I believe this to be a Manslaughter case rather than Murder 1.

I actually agree with you on the scenario, but not the legal result. Start with a background of dysfunctional family relationships and problem solving. Maybe KC was even capable of being diagnosed as a sociopath, I don't know. She was certainly manipulative and an habitual liar. There was a pattern of denial; ie of KC's pregnancy. Then, the parents "supported" KC in having and keeping a baby that at first KC wouldn't even acknowledge the pregnancy! KC faked a job so she could have leisure time alone or hauled Caylee with her with no particular place to go. KC had probably exclusive use of her mother's Pontiac. She was already stealing money from family and friends. KC's changed her current boyfriend as often as her hair style. Cindy wanted KC to "settle down" and take care of Caylee. Cindy was contemplating getting custody (proof that Cindy didn't think KC was the "Mother of the Year.") The tension was very strong and KC resented her parents. I think KC had explored the idea of killing her parents and/or her daughter to gain her personal and economic freedom, but had not decided to act on that thought; hence the searches and comments to Amy about the residence. I think KC has an explosive temper. I think Cindy had been building up to confront KC. Cindy had her 50th birthday and wanted to think about retirement. Cindy had been seeing a therapist. The therapist had given Cindy emotional and moral support to start the custody challenge showdown. From that point, a high pitched "intervention" was inevitable.

What triggered the crises was Cindy found out that KC was stealing from her grandparents retirement account meant solely for the nursing home for Cindy's father. These are legally restricted funds and I'd bet not even a creditor could reach them. The grandparents may have been put in a precarious situation; another situation of KC having callous disregard for the needs of weaker and dependent family members of Cindy's. KC had left the A home the morning of June 15th at the same time Cindy left with Caylee to go to the grandfather's nursing home to honor Father's Day. KC did nothing to honor Father's Day. When Cindy returned to the A home, after leaving her mother's house, Cindy demanded that KC leave AL's apartment and come home. The confrontation/intervention was going to happen right now! KC took her sweet time getting there. The fight was so loud and explosive that the neighbors had a memory of it a month later.

I believe, that night, KC killed Caylee. However, just being in a screaming rage at your mother does not automatically eliminate premeditation. Premeditation can be as short as the act of intending to apply duct tape over a mouth and nose of a hysterical two year old and then doing it. There doesn't have to be any more planning than that. It is just the amount of intent that is required to decide to shut the kid up by using duct tape, getting the tape, tearing off several strips and applying it, knowing the toddler is no longer able to breathe. That is premeditated murder. It doesn't matter how angry. IF that happened that way, Caylee would have had convulsive movements before she died. She may have turned blue. KC probably saw all of that.

Other modes of death would also have the same legal result. IF KC applied chloroform to get Caylee to unconsciousness and be quiet, that would be so extremely, grossly negligent and out of the norm for parents handling dependent children that it could indeed rise to premeditated murder. Same with drugging with other drugs. At some point, the doseage applied is certain to kill and knowing that, the parent applied the killer doseage. That too can be specific intent and it wouldn't take much planning other than the resolve to do the act. That would also satisfy the legal specific intent requirement for premeditation.

Intentionally leaving the pool ladder connected and intentionally walking away or deliberately not checking on Caylee knowing she was inevitably going to climb the ladder and drown would also be enough for specific intent. The means are more indirect, but giving access to the pool would be sufficient for specific intent to support premeditation.

Locking Caylee in a hot car or trunk knowing she was there and it would kill her would also be enough for the specific intent to support meditation. Using what other people have experienced as totally accidental by an otherwise loving and caring parent can be the method that is intentionally used to kill by somebody like KC when her history is to ignore the well being of her child to the point that Cindy is on the verge of starting a legal fight for custody to the exclusion of KC.

All of these scenarious could indeed be legal premeditation. Some of them could also support a lesser included charge like murder in the second degree, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter or felony murder. The jury will have to choose, based on facts and evidence admitted at the trial. I don't envy them that task.

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

 

[Jolynna]

In that scenario, where's the proof it was Casey and not the squeeze who killed the child, then? Whoever killed Caylee is most likely a psychopath, I agree with you there. (The other possibilities I can imagine would be someone who is or was actually psychotic, or someone who was heavily substance impaired.)

The squeeze was in his Summit Apartment with his roommates.

 

[Themis]

Guilty 1st Degree Murder
Guilty 2nd Degree Murder
Guilty Manslaughter - Not premeditated
Not Guilty - Complete Accident
Completely Innocent


Theories here: New Smoking Gun Theories for DP - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


Jury instructions here: Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


fftopic: Questions and Answers here: LIST LIST Questions and Answers #7 LIST ONLY - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Sorry. I beg to disagree.


1st degree premeditated murder with death penalty
1st degree premeditated murder without death penalty
2nd degree murder
Voluntary manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter
Felony murder with any of the above
Acquitted because the charges and the lesser included offenses the jury has been instructed on were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is no finding of "innocent." Juries do not have to find somebody innocent; their only duty is to see if there is sufficient evidence to prove the elements of the crime charged and instructed.

An accident theory goes to the element of intent, it is not a complete defense to a homicide.

ETA Footnote: OH! I'm sorry. I just realized you were stating the thread topic as it did. Sorry. Obviously, I disagree that the list of choices is complete or accurate.

 

[Jolynna]

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.

All of those things are true.

I agree that the idea of a kidnapper didn't come up until after the murder. I don't even think KC thought up a kidnapper before July 15. Even on July 15, KC was downplaying the kidnapper part. She said she talked to Caylee and Caylee sounded great like she wanted everyone not to get so upset. According to Yuri (during the first bond hearing), KC wasn't use the word kidnapper. During the 31 day period, KC wasn't telling people Zani about concerns that Zani was getting overly attached to Caylee or hanging out with new questionable friends.

I think Zani came into being because KC didn't want to tell Cindy things like she and Caylee were sleeping with Ricardo OR that she and Caylee were spending their days sitting around the house while KC texted and talked on her cell phone. Zani was KC's fall back lie nobody could call & cross examine.

IMO, Caylee's demise became a premeditated act when KC grabbed the duct tape. When she used more than one layer of tape over her baby's face she knew Caylee wasn't going to survive. Even if choking or something else was also used and worked first...when KC started taping she intended for Caylee to die.

 

[Balthazar]

Snipped for space, with respect...

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

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?

 

[Balthazar]

All of those things are true.

While KC had talked about Zani before the Zani name may have been made up to explain to people what she did with Caylee when she "worked". She couldn't tell Cindy that she and Caylee were sleeping with Ricardo. Or that she was sneaking back into the house with Caylee everytime the family was gone so she could text and instant message all day.

But when you more than one layer of tape over a baby's face you know the child isn't going to survive. It is a deadly act. Even if choking or something else worked first.

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.

 

[Tuffy]

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.

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