Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[Wudge]

Killing another human being is a criminal act barring circumstances such as self-defense, act of war or government ordered execution.

The duct tape rules out an oopsy, accident situation.

In 2004, The Florida Supreme Court, Florida vs Huck, asserted that "the only logical reason to tape her eyes and mouth shut would have been to prevent her from seeing, talking,screaming for help, or breathing while she was alive. There is no logical or reasonable purpose for taping a person's eyes and mouth shut after she is dead.

http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin2004/071204/5D03-1906.op.pdf

I reviewed the relevant facts in "Huck" elsewhere. Against the existance of duct tape over the victim's mouth and eyes, the victim's hands and feet were also bound (fact). How do these facts compare to the facts in this case?

 

[MissJames]

I reviewed the relevant facts in "Huck" elsewhere. Against the existance of duct tape over the victim's mouth and eyes, the victim's hands and feet were also bound (fact). How do these facts compare to the facts in this case?

The part that says it's not logical or reasonable to assume the tape would be placed on a person AFTER death. That was one of the defense arguments as it's been argued here.
It is just not logical or reasonable to assume KC put duct tape over Caylee's mouth after death.

 

[Jolynna]

I reviewed the relevant facts in "Huck" elsewhere. Against the existance of duct tape over the victim's mouth and eyes, the victim's hands and feet were also bound (fact). How do these facts compare to the facts in this case?

Because the Supreme Court of Florida asserted:

There is no logical or reasonable purpose for taping a person's eyes and mouth shut after she is dead.

As to the second hypothesis, there was evidence inconsistent with death by natural causes, and as noted above, taping the eyes and mouth after death is not reasonable.

Huck was convicted on circumstantial evidence. No witness. No time of death. No place of death. No "for certain" cause of death. No confession.

Huck's defense claimed either SODDI OR taping was part of Huck's panicked response to Ms. Morse's natural death.

 

[Wudge]

The part that says it's not logical or reasonable to assume the tape would be placed on a person AFTER death. That was one of the defense arguments as it's been argued here.
It is just not logical or reasonable to assume KC put duct tape over Caylee's mouth after death.

The Appellate Court's finding in "Huck" was made against facts in that case. Case facts are always the key. The facts in Huck are much different than in this case.

Unlike the victim in "Huck", Caylee's hands and feet were not bound, nor were her eyes covered. The murdered woman in "Huck" could not use her hands to remove the tape while she was alive. Obviously, there's no evidence that is true with Caylee, which further evidences that Caylee was not alive when the tape was applied.

HTH

 

[MissJames]

The Appellate Court's finding in "Huck" was made against facts in that case. Case facts are always the key. The facts in Huck are much different than in this case.

Unlike the victim in "Huck", Caylee's hands and feet were not bound, nor were her eyes covered. The murdered woman in "Huck" could not use her hands to remove the tape while she was alive. Obviously, there's no evidence that is true with Caylee, which further evidences that Caylee was not alive when the tape was applied.

HTH

That would call for an assumption that her hands were bound before the duct tape was placed on her mouth.How can that be proven?
The point was it is not reasonable to put duct tape on a body after death.That has nothing to do with her hands being bound.
A two year old child can easily be held down while she struggles,then loses consciousness.There would be no need to bind her hands.And there there's the possible evidence of chloroform........

 

[Jolynna]

The Appellate Court's finding in "Huck" was made against facts in that case. Case facts are always the key. The facts in Huck are much different than in this case.

Unlike the victim in "Huck", Caylee's hands and feet were not bound, nor were her eyes covered. The murdered woman in "Huck" could not use her hands to remove the tape while she was alive. Obviously, there's no evidence that is true with Caylee, which further evidences that Caylee was not alive when the tape was applied.

HTH

Caylee was a two-year-old. She couldn't use her hands if KC was sitting on her arms.

The facts are not different. Caylee and Ms. Morse were both found 6 months after death. No evidence proves Ms. Morse was alive when duct tape was applied. Nothing REALLY shows how Ms. Morse died. She was found in water. Duct tape was on her face. No bullet. No fractures. No neck bones to prove or disprove strangulation. The medical examiner said a blow could have killed her. She could have had a heart attack, seizure or been strangled during kinky sex.

Only the Supreme Court of Florida specifically did not find that reasonable because of the duct tape.

The Florida Supreme Court's "there is no logical reason to duct tape a dead person" left no wriggle room. The only reason to gag and bind a person's face is to keep them from screaming or breathing.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

There would be no need to bind her hands.

SNIP

If your plan were to use tape to cover an unwilling person's mouth, nose or eyes, it's entirely reasonable that you would first tie their hands.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

The Appellate Court's finding in "Huck" was made against facts in that case. Case facts are always the key. The facts in Huck are much different than in this case.

Unlike the victim in "Huck", Caylee's hands and feet were not bound, nor were her eyes covered. The murdered woman in "Huck" could not use her hands to remove the tape while she was alive. Obviously, there's no evidence that is true with Caylee, which further evidences that Caylee was not alive when the tape was applied.
HTH

BBM We get "spanked" for speculation and assumption here all the time. And yet your bolded statement is precisely that. How can you prove that statement applying the same rigorous standard to yourself as you apply to us? Just b/c Caylee's hands and feet were not bound? That does not disprove that she was alive when that tape was applied. If you are implying that b/c the murdered woman in Huck's case could not remove the tape from her breathing passages b/c her hands and feet were bound, and Caylee's were not.........how could a 2 year old get duct tape off her mouth and nose even though her hands were not bound? A 2 year old should be able to remove industrial strength duct tape from her face all by herself?:waitasec:

Sorry, if OT. I think I am forgetting what thread I'm in.......

 

[Wudge]

Caylee couldn't use her hands if KC was sitting on her. Caylee was two-years-old.

The facts are not different.

There's no evidence whatsoever that Casey sat on Caylee. That's pure speculation.

The evidence and facts in "Huck" are, indeed, very different from this case.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

If your plan were to use tape to cover an unwilling person's mouth, nose or eyes, it's entirely reasonable that you would first tie their hands.

No. Caylee was 2 years old, easily restrained. And it's been brought up, KC could have sat on her or grabbed her and held her in a firm hold from behind.

 

[Wudge]

BBM We get "spanked" for speculation and assumption here all the time. And yet your bolded statement is precisely that. How can you prove that statement applying the same rigorous standard to yourself as you apply to us?

SNIP

Because there's no evidence that Caylee's hands or feet were bound.

 

[MissJames]

If your plan were to use tape to cover an unwilling person's mouth, nose or eyes, it's entirely reasonable that you would first tie their hands.

That has nothing to do with our discussion.
In Huck they argued that the tape could have or was applied after death.The court said there was no reasonable explanation for applying tape after death.That has nothing to do with the hands being bound .

 

[Wudge]

No. Caylee was 2 years old, easily restrained. And it's been brought up, KC could have sat on her or grabbed her and held her in a firm hold from behind.

"Could" is not evidence.

 

[MissJames]

If your plan were to use tape to cover an unwilling person's mouth, nose or eyes, it's entirely reasonable that you would first tie their hands.

Respectfully,would you please address the entire quote? It was pretty short.No need to snip and it it was all important to the issue you raised.
And tied together.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

Because there's no evidence that Caylee's hands or feet were bound.

Again, how does that disprove that the duct tape was put on before she died? I asked you to explain.......Why should a 2 year old need binding? Huck's victim would have been able to remove the tape from her breathing passages, hence, he bound her hands and feet to make mobility impossible. That would not be a factor w/ a 2 year old. That is why I asked you and am politely asking you again, to explain why when we are talking about a 2 YEAR OLD you are applying the need for binding of an adult woman to this case?

 

[Wudge]

That has nothing to do with our discussion.
In Huck they argued that the tape could have or was applied after death.The court said there was no reasonable explanation for applying tape after death.That has nothing to do with the hands being bound .

The Court used the facts in "Huck". The facts are much different in this case.

If you are of the mind that the trial Judge will use "Huck" as a settled law precedent and so instruct the jurors that there is no reasonable explanation for the tape being placed over Caylee's mouth and face after she was dead, you will never hear that instruction.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

Nevermind. It doesn't matter. My post got a hatchet job (different than "respectfully snipped", IYKWIM) and then the question in its entirety or even in its framework never gets addressed or answered.

Oh well, moving on......

 

[cecybeans]

Because there's no evidence that Caylee's hands or feet were bound.

We may not have evidence that they were not either. We have not yet seen all of the items that were found with the body. Much has been made about how unusual it was that the duct tape remained on the skull, some of which may have been due to the fact that it was stuck to the hair that did not separate from the skull and helped hold the duct tape in place.

If other pieces of duct tape (or string, cloth, or other, materials) were used to bind her hands or feet, it is very likely they fell away from the body after it skeletonized and may have shifted in location away from the body. I am looking forward to the experts' interpretation of what was found at the crime scene at trial because it's really difficult and frustratring for us to intelligently speculate not having all the facts and their specialized knowledge.

 

[coco puff]

Maybe I missed it but what reasons have been stated for putting tape over a dead person's mouth and nose? (bound body parts aside)

 

[Jolynna]

There's no evidence whatsoever that Casey sat on Caylee. That's pure speculation.

The evidence and facts in "Huck" are, indeed, very different from this case.

There doesn't have to be evidence KC sat on Caylee. Restraining a two-year-old is easy peasy.

I disagree that the facts are different.

If it wasn't for the duct tape Ms. Morse could have fallen in the river walking home. She could have had a seizure. She could have been accidently killed during kinky sex followed by Huck panicking, not calling 911 & tossing Ms. Morse in the river.

The duct tape was the only thing leading to a murder 1 charge.

It is the same for Caylee. It is no more reasonable or logical to duct tape over a child's face than it is an adult's. Actually, I'd think a loving parent would shudder at the very thought.