KC defense team.What now?

[Wudge]

To me all murder cases are not logical. No murderer is logical to me. If they were, then they would think.. "if I do this crime... then logically I could go to jail."

We have to seperate while nothing about Casey is logical the trail of clues she left behind is.

1. she did not report her child missing for 31 days.
2. she was the last to see her child.
3. she was partying and dancing and showing no outward signs of distress.
4. she dumped her car
5. decompostion found in her car
6. body found close to her home
7. lied to the cops
8. lied to family and friends
9. motive

To much of a coincidence for me. This with any other scientific evidence that comes forth that points towards Casey would lead me to a conviction based upon beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT. Unless there is some other outstanding evidence that puts Caylee in the hands of another person then logically all signs AT THIS POINT to Casey.

For a conviction on a premeditated murder charge, the law requires evidence to be presented at trial that proves the specific elements of: intent, planning, deliberation and malice aforethought. What evidence in your list proves those four elements?

Note: most everything on your list allegedly took place after-the-fact.

 

[ibyoungr]

For a conviction on a premeditated murder charge, the law requires evidence to be presented at trial that proves the specific elements of: intent, planning, deliberation and malice aforethought. What evidence in your list proves those four elements?

Note: most everything on your list allegedly took place after-the-fact.

I was agreeing with you on the fact that the jurors have to use logic to convict. My evidence shows she most likely guilty of Caylee's death.
I do not think it was premeditated murder. I think she suffocated her. She was busy on the computer, Caylee was having a standard 2 year old tantrum and Casey "lost it" and suffocated her.
So with that in mind what can they convict her on? I do appreciate your posts and thoughts.

 

[Jolynna]

I think the prosecutors will want the most LOGICAL of LOGICAL minds on their jury.

To me, the circumstances and what we already know overwhelmingly point to Casey deliberately killing Caylee. The only reason people give for thinking otherwise is because they "feel" a mother couldn't do such a thing.

I think the defense might look for emotional personalities. But, I think the state will want left-brained and organized thinkers.

JMO

 

[ibyoungr]

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+.

ITA :clap::clap:

 

[ibyoungr]

Wudge.. I read your answer to Hercule Poirot in stating that it could be a murder 2 charge but that they did not tie that to the premeditated charge. I understand what you are saying completely. Law is fascinating and ultimately very logical!

 

[Wudge]

I was agreeing with you on the fact that the jurors have to use logic to convict. My evidence shows she most likely guilty of Caylee's death.
I do not think it was premeditated murder. I think she suffocated her. She was busy on the computer, Caylee was having a standard 2 year old tantrum and Casey "lost it" and suffocated her.
So with that in mind what can they convict her on? I do appreciate your posts and thoughts.

Your death by suffication scenario would suggest a charge of manslaughter or murder two --proof of malice aforethought is required for a murder two conviction.

The problem with your scenario is that no one knows the mechanism of death or the circumstances of death. Thus, out of logical necessity, your scenario has to be based on speculation, which jurors are not permitted to do.

 

[Devon]

I think the prosecutors will want the most LOGICAL of LOGICAL minds on their jury.

To me, the circumstances and what we already know overwhelmingly point to Casey deliberately killing Caylee. The only reason people give for thinking otherwise is because they "feel" a mother couldn't do such a thing.

I think the defense might look for emotional personalities. But, I think the state will want left-brained and organized thinkers.

JMO

I disagree. I am not yet convinced that there is any clear evidence that KC deliberately killed Caylee and I am perfectly aware that mothers can and do kill their own children.The reason that I am not convinced is because I am NOT letting any emotional reactions I might have get in the way of looking at the evidence subjectively.

IMO it is the emotional personalities who are more likely to consider KC guilty of premeditated murder because they will be less able to separate their feelings of disgust and anger (upon hearing the prosecution's presentation of KC's actions after Caylee died etc) from the actual facts and evidence available. It is the organised, logical thinkers who will be more likely to be subjective.

 

[Jolynna]

For a conviction on a premeditated murder charge, the law requires evidence to be presented at trial that proves the specific elements of: intent, planning, deliberation and malice aforethought. What evidence in your list proves those four elements?

Note: most everything on your list allegedly took place after-the-fact.

Casey told Jesse G. and Tony she couldn't stay at the Anthony's June 16. Tony said Casey could come but that Caylee wasn't welcome.

The conversation with Tony probably happened before the fact. Jesse said he heard Caylee so maybe that also was before, too.

Tony says Casey moved in with him June 16. They are videotaped at blockbusters smooching. Although Caylee just died, according to the blockbuster video and Tony's roommates, Casey isn't breathing hard, jumpy or in a trance. She was happy as a clam.

I sort of think whether or not the "accused" acts a little bit shook up or not within moments after the victim's death is relevant.

She was concious of guilt. Despite sleeping in and spending part of the next day with Tony, she manages to get over to the Anthony house June 17 to check things out. She is also pinged there the day after that when the neighbor says Casey borrowed a shovel.

I believe the adhesive side of the duct tape will show fiber or something to tie in with Casey and/or the Anthony home. And the dirt from the Anthony backyard, and in Casey's car trunk will be somewhere in the bag found wrapped around Caylee. Casey was too messy not to leave a trail. I have no doubt there will be plenty of physical evidence.

If Dr. Perper is right and there is proof the duct tape was put over Caylee's mouth while she was alive, that combined with a happy-go-lucky Casey moving in with her boyfriend and publically smooching with him right after the child died points toward a deliberate act.

JMO

 

[Wudge]

Wudge.. I read your answer to Hercule Poirot in stating that it could be a murder 2 charge but that they did not tie that to the premeditated charge. I understand what you are saying completely. Law is fascinating and ultimately very logical!

Law can be fascinating or frustrating or logical or illogical (ever try to make sense out of tax laws or sentencing guidelines from-state-to state). Often the law is very much like Forrest Gump's box of chocolates, especially when it comes to criminal procedure and practice.

I believe the best use of applied logic comes in its application to the assessment of evidence against the hurdle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This is really where the rubber either meets the road or fails to meet the road.

The latter situation can and does result in wrongful convictons, which usually destroys or severely damages many people beyond the wrongfully convicted defendant. So making sure the evidence equation closes is of paramount importance, and that requires a solid skill set in classical logic.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

If Dr. Perper is right and there is proof the duct tape was put over Caylee's mouth while she was alive, that DOES show some malicious intent.

JMO

It could certainly be argued that way (and likely would) by the prosecutor. However, it does not appear that the M.E. was able to make that determination.

 

[Rumpole]

I like the point about JG could have called on 16th before Caylee killed and so he could have heard Caylee in background. Do we know the time of the JG call?

A concern I have about people waiting for evidence to link Caylee's remains with the GP home is that Caylee and KC lived there too. All the good forensic stuff like fibres that normally tie things to a location my have a legitimate explanation.

 

[Wudge]

I think the prosecutors will want the most LOGICAL of LOGICAL minds on their jury.

To me, the circumstances and what we already know overwhelmingly point to Casey deliberately killing Caylee. The only reason people give for thinking otherwise is because they "feel" a mother couldn't do such a thing.

I think the defense might look for emotional personalities. But, I think the state will want left-brained and organized thinkers.

JMO

The best thing that prosecutors have is a highly poisoned jury pool and a case that can fire-up emotions.

They will not want highly educated people who could well have great skill in applied logic. First and foremost, they will want Mothers, Grandmothers, and other women. Any juror who might react in an emotional manner during voir dire is likely someone they will consider.

 

[TURBOTHINK]

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 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.

(snipped)

I disagree. I do believe it was pre-meditated but not in the sense most believe. I believe she had the plan, but had it planned for later and something went array. Either the confrontation by CA or something triggered the rage which had been simmering for some time.

I believe she not only had Caylee's death planned but GA and maybe CA's also. She is much more cunning and smart than most people give her credit for. Dumping the body where she did was a spur of the moment thing and she planned to retrieve it later to set up the kidnapping scene. The hurricane happened and the water rose, and she could not find it. That is why she wanted to "go searching" with Baez.

I believe the $15,000 she kept talking about was either insurance on Caylee or GA. I believe the "home self defense" was going to be her plan for GA, not for Caylee. The total contempt in that household for GA would have made it easy for CA to accept his death, but as for Caylee, that was going to have to be after the fact, and be a kidnapping which CA could not control. She planned to get the house and live out her life partying with her friends.

I believe the reason the SA pulled back the death penalty was because they knew it could be reinstated at anytime prior to trial and without a body they felt being a young woman, they stood a better change of getting a conviction of LWOP. Some people might be hesitant to give someone that young the DP. It was a matter of logistics, not because they were lacking in a case.

 

[Kat]

Now that Caylee's body has been found and the ME said that no soft tissue remained then that is more than likely to the defense's advantage.
If there is not soft tissue, no internal organs, nothing but skeletonized remains then would there be any way of proving an overdose of any kind? Accidental or deliberate.
Dr. G (ME) said that any hair found could be tested for drugs and other chemicals but the levels of any those found would be difficult to interpret.
Until more evidence comes out, and even though I have no formal education in forensics, law, etc. I am going to say that this charge of Murder will be very difficult to prove. Of course, there might be a lot more physical evidence that we haven't seen, I for one and crossing my fingers that there is such evidence.

Just my own humble opinion.

 

[ibyoungr]

Your death by suffication scenario would suggest a charge of manslaughter or murder two --proof of malice aforethought is required for a murder two conviction.

The problem with your scenario is that no one knows the mechanism of death or the circumstances of death. Thus, out of logical necessity, your scenario has to be based on speculation, which jurors are not permitted to do.

Very true... so unless some evidence that was at the sight Caylee was found that directly ties her to her mother will not be enough for a murder 2. What do you believe is needed at this point to convict Casey?

 

[TURBOTHINK]

The best thing that prosecutors have is a highly poisoned jury pool and a case that can fire-up emotions.

They will not want highly educated people who could well have great skill in applied logic. First and foremost, they will want Mothers, Grandmothers, and other women. Any juror who might react in an emotional manner during voir dire is likely someone they will consider.

I believe they will stay away from women and try for the majority of men. Women are historically more revengeful and unforgiving when a child has been murdered and most could see right through KC. They will want the under educated, so the information stream becomes too difficult to interpret. I can see her now flirting with any man on that jury as she sits in the defense chair.

I disagree the jury pool is poisioned. While we sit here and read all the facts of the case, the majority of people have no clue about it. I have a friend in the area who knows almost nothing about this case. Very few people anymore read new papers and over 60% don't watch the news. There are plenty of people out there who could do a good job on the jury.

 

[TURBOTHINK]

Now that Caylee's body has been found and the ME said that no soft tissue remained then that is more than likely to the defense's advantage.
If there is not soft tissue, no internal organs, nothing but skeletonized remains then would there be any way of proving an overdose of any kind? Accidental or deliberate.
Dr. G (ME) said that any hair found could be tested for drugs and other chemicals but the levels of any those found would be difficult to interpret.
Until more evidence comes out, and even though I have no formal education in forensics, law, etc. I am going to say that this charge of Murder will be very difficult to prove. Of course, there might be a lot more physical evidence that we haven't seen, I for one and crossing my fingers that there is such evidence.

Just my own humble opinion.

The hair will be one factor, because NO 2 year old should have any trace of drugs in their hair. Even a trace will be damning, but I believe the real kicker in this one will be the larvae,maggots and flies and what they found in them. I believe that will be what makes if premeditated.

 

[TURBOTHINK]

It could certainly be argued that way (and likely would) by the prosecutor. However, it does not appear that the M.E. was able to make that determination.

Just because the ME didn't say, doesn't mean they didn't make a determination as to when it was applied. That actually is very easy to determine.

 

[Jolynna]

I like the point about JG could have called on 16th before Caylee killed and so he could have heard Caylee in background. Do we know the time of the JG call?

A concern I have about people waiting for evidence to link Caylee's remains with the GP home is that Caylee and KC lived there too. All the good forensic stuff like fibres that normally tie things to a location my have a legitimate explanation.

Jesse talked to Casey June 16 at 2:52 p.m. for 11 minutes. She told Jesse then she was leaving the Anthony home that day. Jesse may or may not have heard Caylee.

This was AFTER George went to work. Casey's phone was pinging in THAT area still.

IMO

 

[Rumpole]

Another guess: Any drugs found in the hair might indicate historical ingestion but will not show say, the final fatal dose?

Also finding a forensic link to KC or any family member on Caylee's remains proves nothing she legitimately interacted with her family.