KC defense team.What now?

[Rumpole]

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

Thanks a lot!!
That is compatible with the timeline and scenario I am hypothesising.

It was a concern that JG had recanted one instance of hearing a background Caylee. At least this one still valid.

Sorry we are straying OT.

 

[Wudge]

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?

I know the prosecutors are thinking in the way that I will now go, so don't think I'm giving out novel or hard to figure out approaches that prosecutors could benefit from.

What prosecutors needs more than anything else is an emotional jury. If they want to capitalize to the maximum on the best evidence they have that we know of (the tape around the mouth), then they should drop the premeditated murder charge and add a felony murder charge.

The penalty for felony murder is the same as a premeditated murder (sans the death penalty), and to obtain a felony murder conviction, prosecutors do not need to prove intent.

Then prosecutors can argue an emotional and highly speculative tale to an emotional jury in the hopes the the jury would convict Casey on a lesser felony charge. If they do, then felony murder would automatically attach.

 

[elfie]

Are Florida jurors allowed or encouraged to take notes during the trial?

 

[Jolynna]

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 think just the opposite.

My husband has a college degree and is the most left-brained human I have ever met. I have a college degree. We don't get worked up over funny brownies/smokes or girls dancing with girls.

I know all about PTSD.

But, from what we've seen, the prosecution's case looks pretty overwhelming.

I think less-educated people that are suspicious of law enforcement and that like conspiracy theories would be make better defense jurors.

I am going to do a questionaire.

 

[Wudge]

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?

I know the prosecutors are thinking in the way that I will now go, so don't think I'm giving out novel or hard to figure out approaches that prosecutors could benefit from.

What prosecutors need more than anything else is an emotional jury. If they want to capitalize to the maximum on the best evidence they have that we know of (the tape around the mouth), then they should drop the premeditated murder charge and add a felony murder charge.

The penalty for felony murder is the same as a premeditated murder (sans the death penalty here), and to obtain a felony murder conviction, prosecutors do not need to prove intent.

Then prosecutors can argue an emotional and highly speculative tale to an emotional jury in the hopes the the jury would convict Casey on a lesser felony charge. If they do, then felony murder would automatically attach.

 

[Gaia713]

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.

It also resuolts in correct convictions, including Michael Peterson, Jeffrey MacDonald, Scott Peterson, etaol

 

[Gaia713]

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.

The ME already made the determination of death by homicide. Jurors are, however, allowed to think. The child had no illnesses, so she didn't die by natural causes. She was too young to commit suicide. And the child's mother never claimed there was any accident. The only thing left is homicide.

 

[Wudge]

The ME already made the determination of death by homicide. Jurors are, however, allowed to think. The child had no illnesses, so she didn't die by natural causes. She was too young to commit suicide. And the child's mother never claimed there was any accident. The only thing left is homicide.

Correct. The M.E. said homicide, not murder.

 

[Kat]

I found this website yesterday to help me understand, in a very broad way, Florida law on any type of Homicide.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0782/titl0782.htm

Off hand are all of KC's charges from her indictment still on the table ( the ones that pertain to Caylee)?
1.first-degree murder
2.aggravated child abuse
3.aggravated manslaughter of a child

 

[Kat]

Correct. The M.E. said homicide, not murder.

Wudge if you don't mind I'm going to quote you here to illustrate what I am trying to say.

I had to look up the difference between homicide and murder as opposed to another form of homicide.

Where I got confused is that (remember I do not have any formal education, actually I only have about 2 years of college credits, so I have to dummy things down for myself) in the past, I had only heard the word homicide used in reference to murder.

But homicide when used by the ME (Dr. G) only means the medical term...which is defined "as death at the hands of another".

Police and Prosecutors use it in a Legal sense (definition) that we can see outlined in the link that I provided above.

To everyone that has this knowledge already, I apologize, I just wanted to share this in case there were others out there that weren't exactly sure about the difference between homicide in the medical and legal sense.

 

[Friday]

TO WUDGE--

So glad you're here tonight; would you give us a couple of glaring examples wherein a person who is undeniably guilty of a violent crime cannot be prosecuted or else cannot be found guilty at trial due to a "technicality."

For example, a businessman is being arrested on suspicion of raping and beating three young girls. Before the police have a chance to Mirandize him, he starts crying and confessing and even leads the officers to a hidden photo album with incriminating photos of his victims. In the furror, the officers forget that he hasn't been Mirandized. On the way to the jail, the businessman asks that his attorney be notified. The attorney meets him at the jail and discovers he wasn't Mirandized. Under those general circumstances, would his confession be thrown out and the incriminating evidence be inadmissible?

If the businessman were a police officer instead, would the results of not being Mirandized be the same? If he were a defense attorney, would the results be the same?

I'd like you to help me keep this really simple because my desire is to illustrate how failure to Mirandize could result in a guilty party going free. If my scenario above needs to be adjusted to make that viable, please do so.

Can you give us other examples that don't involve Miranda?

Thanks. I think this will help a lot of us get over our frustrated indignation at some of the things you teach us about criminal trials and criminal justice.

:blowkiss:

 

[magiemay]

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

I so agree with what you said and as DR. p said why the duct tape if it was not deliberate? There was no earthly reason for it to be placed on Caylee after she had died. jmo

 

[Wudge]

Wudge if you don't mind I'm going to quote you here to illustrate what I am trying to say.

I had to look up the difference between homicide and murder as opposed to another form of homicide.

Where I got confused is that (remember I do not have any formal education, actually I only have about 2 years of college credits, so I have to dummy things down for myself) in the past, I had only heard the word homicide used in reference to murder.

But homicide when used by the ME (Dr. G) only means the medical term...which is defined "as death at the hands of another".

Police and Prosecutors use it in a Legal sense (definition) that we can see outlined in the link that I provided above.

To everyone that has this knowledge already, I apologize, I just wanted to share this in case there were others out there that weren't exactly sure about the difference between homicide in the medical and legal sense.

Correct. Homicide is death at the hands of another. It was good of you to clarify.

Sometimes death at the hands of another person is a crime, sometimes it is not.

 

[Mel1024]

I so agree with what you said and as DR. p said why the duct tape if it was not deliberate? There was no earthly reason for it to be placed on Caylee after she had died. jmo

Maybe in her worped mind she placed it after the death to confirm kidnapp your know duct tape and all part of kidnap scenario
just a thought

 

[Wudge]

TO WUDGE--

So glad you're here tonight; would you give us a couple of glaring examples wherein a person who is undeniably guilty of a violent crime cannot be prosecuted or else cannot be found guilty at trial due to a "technicality."

For example, a businessman is being arrested on suspicion of raping and beating three young girls. Before the police have a chance to Mirandize him, he starts crying and confessing and even leads the officers to a hidden photo album with incriminating photos of his victims. In the furror, the officers forget that he hasn't been Mirandized. On the way to the jail, the businessman asks that his attorney be notified. The attorney meets him at the jail and discovers he wasn't Mirandized. Under those general circumstances, would his confession be thrown out and the incriminating evidence be inadmissible?

If the businessman were a police officer instead, would the results of not being Mirandized be the same? If he were a defense attorney, would the results be the same?

I'd like you to help me keep this really simple because my desire is to illustrate how failure to Mirandize could result in a guilty party going free. If my scenario above needs to be adjusted to make that viable, please do so.

Can you give us other examples that don't involve Miranda?

Thanks. I think this will help a lot of us get over our frustrated indignation at some of the things you teach us about criminal trials and criminal justice.

:blowkiss:

Your arrest scenario represents a case where the confession and related evidence could (and I suspect would) be ruled inadmissable as evidence.

Whether the person arrested was a lawyer, a police officer or a judge, the requirement to advise them of their rights (under Miranda) do not change. Rights do not differ by profession.

A coerced confession and evidence obtained without a search warrant are two other examples of situations that will result in evidence being ruled inadmissible.

 

[kline]

What now for the defense team?
Hmmm,I would advise them to start drinking heavily.
Unless they already are,then never mind.

 

[Pedrosmom]

The case against Scott Peterson was based on circumstantial evidence. MG through out a "suspicious van" theory to a jury and they nailed him to a pulp. There is no getting around the 31 days that Casey did NOTHING in regards to her "missing" child. In fact Casey did nothing after the 31 days as well, so to say she didn't look for her for 31 days is not true - she didn't look for her AT ALL. Remember it was Cindy that called 911. In jail or out of jail, Casey Anthony never put forth a single effort in finding her child. Scott Peterson did, caled 911 himself, organized and assisted in searches for Laci, and look where that got him.

 

[MarleneM]

The case against Scott Peterson was based on circumstantial evidence. MG through out a "suspicious van" theory to a jury and they nailed him to a pulp. There is no getting around the 31 days that Casey did NOTHING in regards to her "missing" child. In fact Casey did nothing after the 31 days as well, so to say she didn't look for her for 31 days is not true - she didn't look for her AT ALL. Remember it was Cindy that called 911. In jail or out of jail, Casey Anthony never put forth a single effort in finding her child. Scott Peterson did, caled 911 himself, organized and assisted in searches for Laci, and look where that got him.

And this fact will resonate the loudest with all 12 jurors at the deliberation table. It would have been easier for any doubting juror to acquit KC of murder charges (at least) if only KC had at least reported baby Caylee was missing/dead/gone, but she never did. Cindy called 911 not KC, and even then KC can be heard on the call asking CA to give her "just one more day" which strikes me as an attempt to flee. Sure, the defense team doesn't HAVE to explain why KC never reported Caylee missing to anyone, but imo they can do nothing more to prepare for this case than cross their fingers if they don't.

 

[trac]

The case against Scott Peterson was based on circumstantial evidence. MG through out a "suspicious van" theory to a jury and they nailed him to a pulp. There is no getting around the 31 days that Casey did NOTHING in regards to her "missing" child. In fact Casey did nothing after the 31 days as well, so to say she didn't look for her for 31 days is not true - she didn't look for her AT ALL. Remember it was Cindy that called 911. In jail or out of jail, Casey Anthony never put forth a single effort in finding her child. Scott Peterson did, caled 911 himself, organized and assisted in searches for Laci, and look where that got him.

ACTUALLY Scott Peterson did NOT organize or assist in any searches for Laci - he went to a few command centers and he wore a button for his TV interviews - that was it - Laci's family and friends organized and searched for Laci - Scott went to ONE vigil and that was where he was on the phone with Amber, he was not there for Laci

His ACTIONS as well helped convict him

ACTIONS speak a lot louder than words

 

[ecs5298]

Your arrest scenario represents a case where the confession and related evidence could (and I suspect would) be ruled inadmissable as evidence.

Whether the person arrested was a lawyer, a police officer or a judge, the requirement to advise them of their rights (under Miranda) do not change. Rights do not differ by profession.

A coerced confession and evidence obtained without a search warrant are two other examples of situations that will result in evidence being ruled inadmissible.

Another question for you Wudge. I don't know if you've read or listened to KC's interview by LE in the conference room at Universal the day she led them on the wild goose chase. I do not remember them advising her of her Miranda rights. All I remember them asking is if she was aware that the door was unlocked and that she could leave at any time and that if she didn't want to answer any questions that she could get up and leave. Would this suffice for a Miranda warning? Or do you think that whole statement will be inadmissible.