KC defense team.What now?

[sariebell]

The best argument I have heard in KC's defense is the idea that CA (or LA or GA) could be tied to the murder as well. They all lived in or around the home, they all had access to the car, they all allegedly lied to LE. The defense can say that yes the evidence is incriminating to KC, but it's hard to prove without reasonable doubt that she is the perp. How can you prove that CA didn't do it, but KC was covering for her? I think it very unlikely, but without a doubt?

I personally think that the circumstances on and around the disappearance and KC's demeanor/actions speak volumes to her culpability. I just think (as with all of these cases) that the theatre of the courtroom can mess with the odds.

 

[Wudge]

The best argument I have heard in KC's defense is the idea that CA (or LA or GA) could be tied to the murder as well. They all lived in or around the home, they all had access to the car, they all allegedly lied to LE. The defense can say that yes the evidence is incriminating to KC, but it's hard to prove without reasonable doubt that she is the perp. How can you prove that CA didn't do it, but KC was covering for her? I think it very unlikely, but without a doubt?

I personally think that the circumstances on and around the disappearance and KC's demeanor/actions speak volumes to her culpability. I just think (as with all of these cases) that the theatre of the courtroom can mess with the odds.

The best argument is that based on the evidence we know of, there is insufficient evidence to prove the current premeditated murder charge. The same holds for the other charge of child abuse.

I have yet to hear the prosecution's storyline as to what happened to Caylee. But they need to develop a storyline that supports either child abuse or a premeditated murder. Based on what we know, they can't do both.

I would look for one of these charges to be dropped.

 

[magic-cat]

The best argument I have heard in KC's defense is the idea that CA (or LA or GA) could be tied to the murder as well. They all lived in or around the home, they all had access to the car, they all allegedly lied to LE. The defense can say that yes the evidence is incriminating to KC, but it's hard to prove without reasonable doubt that she is the perp. How can you prove that CA didn't do it, but KC was covering for her? I think it very unlikely, but without a doubt?

I personally think that the circumstances on and around the disappearance and KC's demeanor/actions speak volumes to her culpability. I just think (as with all of these cases) that the theatre of the courtroom can mess with the odds.

I think something that everyone keeps thinking in this is that Casey has to be convicted beyond a doubt...she does not...only beyond a REASONABLE doubt, and just about any reasonable thinking person is going to have no problem convicting her on those premises.

 

[Wudge]

I think something that everyone keeps thinking in this is that Casey has to be convicted beyond a doubt...she does not...only beyond a REASONABLE doubt, and just about any reasonable thinking person is going to have no problem convicting her on those premises.

Based on what we know there is a lack of sufficient evidence to prove the necessary elements that must, by law, be proven.

Moreover, your premises are based on what you think, not evidence. Your assuming what you wish to prove. That's known as begging the question which is fallacious logic.

 

[concentric]

WHAT FOLLOWS IS MY FICTIONAL OPINION OF HOW THIS MIGHT GO DOWN:

So we are now watching the trial. and Baezs' opening statements are:

(JB speaking to the court):
We will prove that Casey didn't murder her daughter Caylee.
Casey gave a statement to police when she was first arrested that she "would lie and steal to get her daughter back." Well, Casey DID lie to police; there is NO "Zenaida Gonzales" and Casey STOLE money from anyone she could. Why??

Around March, 2008, Casey got involved with a bad bunch of people who assured her that by "joining them" she would make a lot of money and make herself a better life. In order to make money, she had to have money to 'invest' with them. Problem was, Casey had nothing, no job, no income. So she stole money however she could in order to prove her worth to them. When Casey's funds ran dry, "they" were angry. Casey was in waaaayyyy over her head. It was 'them' that took Caylee Marie as payback. Casey WAS given a script of instructions to follow if she wanted to get her baby back. Casey was given between 30 and 55 days to repay them. She was to say nothing to anyone; her family, friends, police, etc. Time ran out and Cindy blew the alarm off re Caylee missing.

Now fearing for her daughter's life, Casey lied to everyone about Caylee's whereabouts, even to the police, about the nanny, her job, etc.,etc. Casey was trying TO BUY TIME by lying. "They" also stole her car when Casey came to talk things over with them. The car was later found abandoned, towed, stinking to high heaven of decomp.

Please don't bash me too much...I am no lawyer and no fiction writer. I just want to know if anyone could add to or imagine such a defense. And if not, WHAT WILL HIS DEFENSE FOR CASEY BE????

Hi. This story has been thought up by 3 people so far on this site. I was the first. I can retrieve the proof of this if need be; however, I don't want to.
Interesting that three of us thought this up as a defense. It will and has been knocked down for very good reasons. IMO

 

[Black Magic Woman]

Hi. This story has been thought up by 3 people so far on this site. I was the first. I can retrieve the proof of this if need be; however, I don't want to.
Interesting that three of us thought this up as a defense. It will and has been knocked down for very good reasons. IMO

Please give summary of how it has been knocked down, aside from the car issue which someone addressed a few posts back. I'm curious!

 

[Kat]

This question is about the defense in that I am curious about these things:

1. Has the death banding on hair ever been used in a court of law? If not, can the defense move to have this thrown out? If so, has the time line in which this death band on a hair occurs after death and can that be disupted by defense?

2. The analysis of the air in the trunk: 1. Has this technology been used in a court of law? If not, will the defense be able to ask that it is not used? If it is used wasn't there another study of the gases done by a different agency that could not conclude the same as the body farm?

3. The internet searches: Can they be shown to be KC's searches and not anyone else that resided in the A home?

I'm sorry if I have posed questions that have already been addressed. If I have, can someone be so kind as to link me to the answers? Thank you in advance.

 

[Rumpole]

Forensics are important, because prosecutors need clear and unyielding evidence that proves their charge of Caylee dying from a planned and deliberated murder. They can't do that with post-act behavior and nothing else that has been reported is dispositive of premeditation.

Bold by me

How about not planned to any extent, but a violent deliberate act on the spur of the moment? Perhaps some vague general planning and an ongoing desire to be rid of Caylee as a burden.

 

[Wudge]

This question is about the defense in that I am curious about these things:

1. Has the death banding on hair ever been used in a court of law? If not, can the defense move to have this thrown out? If so, has the time line in which this death band on a hair occurs after death and can that be disupted by defense?

2. The analysis of the air in the trunk: 1. Has this technology been used in a court of law? If not, will the defense be able to ask that it is not used? If it is used wasn't there another study of the gases done by a different agency that could not conclude the same as the body farm?

3. The internet searches: Can they be shown to be KC's searches and not anyone else that resided in the A home?

I'm sorry if I have posed questions that have already been addressed. If I have, can someone be so kind as to link me to the answers? Thank you in advance.

During pre-trial motions, all of the State's evidence will be challenged by the defense, and a claim of junk science will certainly be amongst those put forth. If the death-banded hair is admitted into evidence, the defense will almost assuredly bring in an expert to counter the prosecution's contention.

Please recognize too that the FBI did not conclude that any of the hairs recovered from the trunk were Caylee's hair. Most importantly, the hair evidence can not not prove any of the elements needed to prove premeditation.

Regarding the air-sampling evidence, it's certainly a new field of evidence and this would be one of the early cases. Most importantly, the FBI did not conclude that human decomposition took place in the trunk of Casey's car, and like the hair evidence, it can't prove any of the elements needed to prove premeditation.

As best we know, the computer searches (chloroform, neck breaking et al) have not been established to have been made my Casey. Moreover, I have not heard that she admitted to conducting any of the allegedly sinister searches.

 

[Kat]

Thank you wudge for your concise and educated answer. Those questions have been on my mind for quite a while.

 

[manatee]

Bold by me

How about not planned to any extent, but a violent deliberate act on the spur of the moment? Perhaps some vague general planning and an ongoing desire to be rid of Caylee as a burden.

as far as I understand, premeditated murder can happen in an instant. It does not have to be days in advance. All it means, is that at that moment in time when you cause harm to the person you intended to kill them. that's all.

 

[Absolutely Addicted]

How will they ever be able to defend things she did after her daughter "allegedly" went missing.Things like (What she texted one of her friends ):
June 22, 8:05 a.m.
Hey, we should get together. Come out to Fusion. Ladies night 'til midnight. Give me a call.

I'm going to say go for insanity ,cause that's what all this stuff is....

Oh there's a very good explanation. CA pointed it out in an interview when asked how one would explain the pics of KC in the Hot Body contest. "There was ONE picture. Those pictures are used by the club to get other people to come in. She was paid for the picture. She was working". Oh, THANK YOU CA.......THAT explains everything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (side note to KC - working? it's about time...)

 

[Rumpole]

as far as I understand, premeditated murder can happen in an instant. It does not have to be days in advance. All it means, is that at that moment in time when you cause harm to the person you intended to kill them. that's all.

Thanks for that support.
I have been reluctant to post here. Extremely interesting to read, but I am not up to the depth of legal expertise.
It seems to me that most posters in various threads are fixated on PREMEDITATION. An evil plot started at least back in March. Obviously a popular desire for DP (As an aside: in this case I think DP would be easier for KC than prison). I don't see convincing proof of premeditation or advanced thinking at all. JWG previously in this thread has presented compelling arguements refuting the assumptions regarding computer searches for chloroform etc.. Viewing the geshtalt of all that has been presented to the public since mid June, I visualise a spoilt hedonistic angry sociopath killing her child in a fit of rage, then callously hiding the fact, lying to suit the moment as she has always done. If that is not quite premeditation and "Murder1", then so be it. Based on what I have seen, that is how I think it was. I would imagine that, combined with the miriad of other crimes would still warrant a very long prison sentance, even life+.

 

[Wudge]

Thanks for that support.
I have been reluctant to post here. Extremely interesting to read, but I am not up to the depth of legal expertise.
It seems to me that most posters in various threads are fixated on PREMEDITATION. An evil plot started at least back in March. Obviously a popular desire for DP (As an aside: in this case I think DP would be easier for KC than prison). I don't see convincing proof of premeditation or advanced thinking at all. JWG previously in this thread has presented compelling arguements refuting the assumptions regarding computer searches for chloroform etc.. Viewing the geshtalt of all that has been presented to the public since mid June, I visualise a spoilt hedonistic angry sociopath killing her child in a fit of rage, then callously hiding the fact, lying to suit the moment as she has always done. If that is not quite premeditation and "Murder1", then so be it. Based on what I have seen, that is how I think it was. I would imagine that, combined with the miriad of other crimes would still warrant a very long prison sentance, even life+.

The focus has largely been on a premeditated murder, because that is the primary charge. You're correct in assessing that convincing proof of premeditation is not discernable in the evidence we know about.

Your speculation based scenario would be best assessed as murder two; i.e., it appears to contain the element of malice aforethought but not intent, planning and deliberation.

Murder two is a charge that prosecutors decided to skip. If they had anything at all to substantiate their premeditated murder charge, it would have made far more sense for them to marry a murder two charge with their premeditated murder charge rather than attaching a seemingly unrelated child abuse charge to their premediated murder charge.

The current combination of charges tells me that they were almost assuredly based on nothing more than speculation, which is an ugly place to be for a prosecutor -- guess once, guess twice and guess again.

 

[Rumpole]

The focus has largely been on a premeditated murder, because that is the primary charge. You're correct in assessing that convincing proof of premeditation is not discernable in the evidence we know about.

Your speculation based scenario would be best assessed as murder two; i.e., it appears to contain the element of malice aforethought but not intent, planning and deliberation.

Murder two is a charge that prosecutors decided to skip. If they had anything at all to substantiate their premeditated murder charge, it would have made far more sense for them to marry a murder two charge with their premeditated murder charge rather than attaching a seemingly unrelated child abuse charge to their premediated murder charge.

The current combination of charges tells me that they were almost assuredly based on nothing more than speculation, which is an ugly place to be for a prosecutor -- guess once, guess twice and guess again.

Yes, thanks.
It seems to me then that it would have made sense to charge so that murder 2 was an option if murder 1 failed, especialy as DP was ruled out? Guessing is what us web sleuths do best - I guess the prosecution has a lot we are not privy to. Rumour has it they are good at what they do so I'm keeping my faith in them. What is the likely Florida penalty for murder 1? Murder 2? What aprox penalty for all the lesser charges likely? eg theft, cheque fraud, obstruction, whatever else.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Frankly, I would like them all to throw their hands up and walk away leaving Casey with the Public Defender which she should have had in the first place.

 

[Rumpole]

Mods I have a problem here I have experienced with other threads.
The next page no. (p12) is shown but clicking onthat or changing the URL to p12 just reloads p11.
As before I expect my next post(this one) will pop up as first on p12

 

[Jolynna]

You brought up "reasonable inferences". The integrity and reliability of an inferred conclusion cannot be stonger than the premises upon which it is based. So I asked for valid and true premises, which is standard fare in applied logic.

Moreover, as best I know, the evidence that we know of does not support developing premises that would reliably force a conclusion of a "premeditated murder". Further, that includes what we so far know of the forensic evidence, which could not even yield a cause of death.

Without a cause of death, the pre-act evidence we know of (such as chloroform searches) cannot be connected to Caylee's death with a high degree of certainty.

Post-act evidence cannot establish a pre-act state of mind. Some examples of post-act evidence that we have heard of in this case are: dog evidence (bowser's nose), consciousness of guilt (some people don't like Casey's behavior) and false or misleading statements. In instructing the jury (jury instructions), trial judges cite what the limits of certain evidence are, and, in and of itself, corroborative evidence is not sufficient to prove premeditation, deliberation, intent or malice aforethought.

HTH


ETA: "Clear" evidence is self-explanatory. If evidence is not clear, it certainly cannot be reliable.

"Unyielding" refers to the fact that if the defense offers a reasonable explanation for an item of evidence, the jury cannot use that item of evidence to support a "guilty" verdict (it yields to the defense). Obviously, this is why it is wise to wait until both sides have addressed the evidence.

If the jury selected is intelligent enough to understand the meaning what Wudge just said, Casey will be convicted. I am sorry Wudge, but, IMO, the strongest thing Casey has on her side is that she is a young, wholesome looking mother who better be dabbing her eyes everytime Caylee's name is mentioned.

Physical evidence ties Caylee's body to the Anthony home. Testimony and science puts Caylee's body in the trunk of Casey's car before it was towed. Casey's OWN words put smelly decomposition in Casey's car before it was towed.

Text messages will show Casey was covering up Caylee's absense from her family which will clear them from the actual murder. Pings and eyewitnesses put Casey in the Anthony home (the likely murder site) when Caylee was killed and in the days afterwards (probably picking up Caylee's body).

We don't know yet all computer forensics will show. We also don't know why they took portions of drywall from the Anthony home. Or about what dirt from where ended up where. Or what fingerprints or carpet fibers or cat hair might be on the adhesive side of the duct tape. Or what else from the Anthony home was found with Caylee.

I am sure there will also be convincing testimony about the duct tuct being wrapped around Caylee's head and mouth while she was alive.

IMO, Casey's only hope is a touchy-feely juror that thinks any mother that would kill her child must be insane. I think logic and science are gonna go against Casey. Otherwise there wouldn't be the need for the big-name defense experts.

I believe the defense loaded up to counter what they thought was gonna go the most AGAINST them...the science.
JMO

 

[believe09]

Mods I have a problem here I have experienced with other threads.
The next page no. (p12) is shown but clicking onthat or changing the URL to p12 just reloads p11.
As before I expect my next post(this one) will pop up as first on p12

HP, I have had this happen as well before-I have logged out, cleared my cookies and tried again. It usually works...good luck!

 

[Wudge]

Yes, thanks.

SNIP

I guess the prosecution has a lot we are not privy to. Rumour has it they are good at what they do so.

What is the likely Florida penalty for murder 1? Murder 2? What aprox penalty for all the lesser charges likely? eg theft, cheque fraud, obstruction, whatever else.

I doubt the prosecution has anything significant that we do not know about. Prosecutors (and their case) looked weak and poor when they dropped the death penalty.

If they had something significant in the way of evidence, they would almost assuredly have let the crimetainment media in on the action so to try and recapture a bit of their now very tarnished lustre.

In a murder one conviction, it's reasonable to expect a life sentence. For a murder two conviction, I would typically expect a sentence to be in the range of 25 to 30 years, but sentences there can vary greatly.

I would have found Phil Spector guilty of murder two for the shooting death of Lana Clarkson. Likewise, I would have found Jayson Williams guilty of murder two for the shotgun death of Gud Christofi.

Neither of the juries in those cases agreed with my assessment of the evidence, and, in comparison to this case, those prosecutors had a wealth of evidence to go along with what I considered to be solid storylines.

In this case, all prosecutors are doing is speculating. I have no idea why anyone thinks one or more of the prosecutors are especially good. It appears to me that after all these months, they are still probing around for footing in very deep and muddy waters.