It seems you may be hung up on cause of death. Maybe your feelings are getting in the way. Cause of death is not important...we have manner of death. It is always interesting to hear how people reason.
Thank you for your explanation. I hope your fingers get better. You have lots of good stuff to post. :innocent:
Okay, so I caved and checked one last time before going to bed... I would respectfully disagree that cause of death is not important, but the exact cause death is not required if the state can find other ways to support their claim that the crime meets the elements required for the charge, in this case first degree murder. I'm not disputing the manner of death, homicide is a reasonable conclusion given the facts. But homicide isn't the same as murder, it includes murder, manslaughter, even self defense (justifiable homicide). All the manner of death tells us is that Casey is responsible for Caylee's death, either by something she did, or by failing to act when she should have. Of the crimes she's charged with, two are homicides. First degree murder, and aggravated manslaughter of a child.
In order to prove murder in the first degree the state must prove, BARD, that:
1. The victim is dead
And
2. The victim died as a result of a criminal act by the defendant
3. The act was premeditated
Or
2. The victim died as the result of a predicate felony (in this case, aggravated child abuse)
We can all agree that #1 is true. The rest of the elements are not as clear. As I said, I'm really not sure chloroform was involved. If there was any evidence that tied the actual production or ownership of chloroform to Casey prior to the death, I would feel differently, but it's a huge logical leap to say that searches three months prior and the forensic testing done over a month after are proof positive that it was involved. Which is not good for the state because the chloroform easily supported aggravated child abuse. So we're left with the duct tape, and again, I'm just not sure about that. I know some may find that unreasonable, but as I said, the long form of my issues with this can be found earlier in the thread. So without the duct tape or the chloroform, what else is there to prove that premeditation existed or aggravated child abuse occurred? Others have said the 31 days of "Yay!" (credit to AZlawyer), but my argument is that Casey is incredibly narcissistic and possibly sociopathic. If Caylee died because Casey was negligent in some way, she wouldn't have gone for help, she would have looked at the situation and done what was best for Casey, not Caylee. (Interestingly, research suggests that NPD and sociopathic people may actually have underdeveloped amygdalas, which is the part of the brain responsible for the fear and panic response, so no "OMG it's an emergency, call 911" instinct to fight) The best thing for Casey would be to not be held responsible in any way, and hey, bonus, now doesn't have a kid to deal with. The point of all that is, I don't think the 31 days are reasonable proof of anything other than Casey knowing she was responsible for Caylee's death.
So, do I think Caylee was murdered? probably. Do I think it happened the way the state said it did? Maybe, maybe not. Given those two things, could I say that Caylee's death meets the legal standard for murder? No, not beyond a reasonable doubt. What would I need to be able to say I did? Some stronger evidence that the death must have logically been premeditated, or an act of aggravated child abuse occurred and resulted in her death.
For example, the Scott Peterson case... No exact cause of death, but you have him telling the girlfriend his wife was dead less than a month before she died, and evidence of antemortem trauma that precluded any scenario other than violence, and a coldly calculated plan to dispose of her body in a way that would hopefully keep her remains from ever being discovered.