KC defense team.What now?

[MarleneM]

Sure, many (maybe most) guilty ones claims they're innocent. But, check out the link I gave and you'll see quite a few people whom were wrongly convicted and only cleared via DNA evidence.

Which, at it's early inception as evidence in the courtroom, was also regarded as "junk science". Interesting.

 

[elfie]

It can be excluded ONLY if there is no precedence in using it - it's a new technology - for the prosecution to use it they might have to have someone from the body farm to testify as to it's valdity and exactness - the judge will rule off of that

Anyone do research on precedence for using the trunk gases? Unless someone does and can present them even those that say the are professionals have to curb on the 'knowing everything'

The state could also cite peer reviewed papers where the same technology is deemed to be valid.

 

[Wudge]

I do find it interesting that the news blurb on the home page of The Innocence Project is the below:

Florida Exoneration Sparks Calls for Investigation

The same discredited dog-handler has contributed to two wrongful convictions later overturned through DNA testing – and William Dillon's (left) exoneration is sparking calls for Florida’s governor to launch an investigation.

The full story on their site is at http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/1767.php

This is nothing new. Dogs don't lie; dog handlers do.

Dog handlers are usually brought into a case as a consultant and get paid by LE. They know that if they do not favor LE that, in the future, LE will find a dog handler who will.

In the Scott Peterson case, two dog handlers were severely impeached on the witness stand by the defense. One impeachment took place in the preliminary hearing and one at trial. Both times, the credibility of the dog handler was totally destroyed.

 

[gitana1]

IIRC, she was arrested almost immediately after the interview at Universal and didn't return home; instead she went straight to jail (and didn't pass Go!). What do you think about the hearsay stuff?

The defense doesn't need to prove that there was no Zanny, without a shadow of a doubt. They just need to prove that KC did not murder her daughter without reasonable doubt.

What book is next to your computer? LOL!

Actually, they do not have to prove anything. They just have to be able to show that the prosecution failed to prove ITS case.

 

[NJ Lawyer]

Is it really less than 1 percent error rate that defines reasonable doubt?

No. Also, when a juror is considering the application of reasonable doubt to one specific defendant, the juror does not consider 1% (or other) error rates among other defendants/convicts. I think dialogue concerning required standards of proof, evidence, jury trials and frankly all aspects of our criminal justice system to be very interesting (and important) discussions. But I do think it's helpful to distinguish between the current lay of the land/state of the law on these issues, as opposed to approaches that *might* be more fair, balanced or otherwise better implement our ideas on justice.

Just my $.02.

 

[Jolynna]

Sure, many (maybe most) guilty ones claims they're innocent. But, check out the link I gave and you'll see quite a few people whom were wrongly convicted and only cleared via DNA evidence.

I'm definitely not saying this is the case with KC. Just that our justice system is not perfect. But it's the best system we have.

I agree that the system is not perfect. It is weighted against people who already have received life's worst breaks.

That is why I do not believe in the death penalty.

I don't consider Casey among the oppressed. I think she earned her charges. She has a more than capable defense team protecting her rights.

IMO

 

[Wudge]

No. Also, when a juror is considering the application of reasonable doubt to one specific defendant, the juror does not consider 1% (or other) error rates among other defendants/convicts. I think dialogue concerning required standards of proof, evidence, jury trials and frankly all aspects of our criminal justice system to be very interesting (and important) discussions. But I do think it's helpful to distinguish between the current lay of the land/state of the law on these issues, as opposed to approaches that *might* be more fair, balanced or otherwise better implement our ideas on justice.

Just my $.02.

Some jurors do consider error rates, such as a geologist or a scientist, and nothing prohibits them from doing so. It's a higher level of thought and they are more skilled at applied logic than most other jurors.

 

[Wudge]

Actually, they do not have to prove anything. They just have to be able to show that the prosecution failed to prove ITS case.

titcr

 

[NJ Lawyer]

Some jurors do consider error rates, such as a geologist or a scientist, and nothing prohibits them from doing so. It's a higher level of thought and they are more skilled at applied logic than most other jurors.

In evaluating a particular charge against a particular defendant, the law does not define reasonable doubt in terms of percentages of error and that is why the judge does not so instruct the jury.

As to whether one calls it "higher level of thought" when a juror evaluating the existence of reasonable doubt (and a particular piece of evidence) begins to factor in error rates in other cases having nothing to do with the case at hand.....that would be a subjective opinion. I would not necessarily assume such juror was embarking on some "higher" level of thought. I also would not assume a geologist or scientist is necessarily more skilled at applied logic than a juror who is of a different profession (or is even employed).

 

[Jolynna]

Some jurors do consider error rates, such as a geologist or a scientist, and nothing prohibits them from doing so. It's a higher level of thought and they are more skilled at applied logic than most other jurors.

It sounds like you want the same kind of jury for your defense that I would be praying for if I were a prosecutor.

The more analytical the better, but with enough sense to know that if it walks and quacks like a duck...it's a duck.

 

[Wudge]

In evaluating a particular charge against a particular defendant, the law does not define reasonable doubt in terms of percentages of error and that is why the judge does not so instruct the jury.

As to whether one calls it "higher level of thought" when a juror evaluating the existence of reasonable doubt (and a particular piece of evidence) begins to factor in error rates in other cases having nothing to do with the case at hand.....that would be a subjective opinion. I would not necessarily assume such juror was embarking on some "higher" level of thought. I also would not assume a geologist or scientist is necessarily more skilled at applied logic than a juror who is of a different profession (or is even employed).

As I said in an earlier post, you will never hear the Court talk to or endorse a number (positive or negative).

The careers of many geologists are based on examining the available evidence and calculating the liklihood that something precious lies deep underneath the ground. Moreso than any other profession that I have come across, geologists are the ultimate assessors of evidence and appliers of classical logic. It's the way many of them earn a living. They're used to making tough calls too.

Scientists, mathematicians, programmers, doctors, lawyers and well educated senior executives in large corporations are usually skilled in applied logic too.

 

[Wudge]

It sounds like you want the same kind of jury for your defense that I would be praying for if I were a prosecutor.

The more analytical the better, but with enough sense to know that if it walks and quacks like a duck...it's a duck.

No one, anywhere, has been able to lay out the premises and supporting evidence that would represent clear and unyielding evidence that would prove Casey committed a premeditated murder.

Why you think a prosecutor would want highly educated people assessing a lack of required evidence is beyond me.

Based on all that we know, the best thing going for prosecutors is a poisoned jury pool and an emotionally charged case. They will look to seat Mothers, Grandmothers, and other women first and foremost.

Unless it is there, skilled logicians are not going to invent evidence to support premises that force a conclusion that Casey wilfully murdered Caylee via a planned and deliberated murder.

Prosecutors will want jurors that they think may be prone to react emotionally to the case. They will not want highly skilled assessors of evidence or trained logicians.

 

[Friday]

There isn't a judge in America who would ever again let KC see the light of day. With a jury trial they get 12 people with a variety of life experiences. They only need 1 out of 12 to have a sliver of doubt that maybe someone else did it. Maybe someone else helped. Maybe LE should have looked harder to find Zanny. Maybe, maybe, maybe...

Assuming Wudge is representative of how a judge would look at this case, I think we'd have a better chance of conviction with a jury. Am I wrong?

 

[anastacia129]

No one, anywhere, has been able to lay out the premises and supporting evidence that would represent clear and unyielding evidence that would prove Casey committed a premeditated murder.

Why you think a prosecutor would want highly educated people assessing a lack of required evidence is beyond me.

Based on all that we know, the best thing going for prosecutors is a poisoned jury pool and an emotionally charged case. They will look to seat Mothers, Grandmothers, and other women first and foremost.

Unless it is there, skilled logicians are not going to invent evidence to support premises that force a conclusion that Casey wilfully murdered Caylee via a planned and deliberated murder.

Prosecutors will want jurors that they think may be prone to react emotionally to the case. They will not want highly skilled assessors of evidence or trained logicians.

You make it sound as if they are just presenting a flimsy case and want to convict an innocent person? Why wouldn't they just want a jury that will understand the facts and deliver a verdict accordingly? Your posts make it seem like they are on some kind of witch hunt. Just b/c they don't have a video of kc comitting the crime doesn't mean they cannot present enough evidence that any reasonable person could reasonably conclude that she committed this crime. I have yet to hear one thing from the defense that would give me any reasonable doubt, and this zanny story will have them ROFL.

 

[seagull65]

No one, anywhere, has been able to lay out the premises and supporting evidence that would represent clear and unyielding evidence that would prove Casey committed a premeditated murder.

Why you think a prosecutor would want highly educated people assessing a lack of required evidence is beyond me.

Based on all that we know, the best thing going for prosecutors is a poisoned jury pool and an emotionally charged case.


Skilled logicians are not going to invent evidence to support premises that force a conclusion that Casey wilfully murdered Caylee via a planned and deliberated murder.

I agree.
(Unless the prosecution has a bunch of evidence in store that we don't know about yet.)
(I wouldn't say educated jurors necessarily, but jurors who will want more than a theory.) For most jurors, I would think so much doubt would remain at this point, since KC was living with so many people, had Caylee around so many people, at the various apartments and other places, and no forensics done, no cadaver dogs or luminol or anything else done at any of these apartments where they'd been staying or the people's cars, etc (as far as we've heard, maybe there has been, I hope so.) (And of course these paramours, many roommates, and friends are all presumed innocent, but at least as far as we've seen, it seems too much has not been ruled out.)
Also, (so far) we don't know who all had access to the home computer or the car.
The location and style of the disposal of the body also suggests a different perpetrator. If KC were the perp, it seems unlikely that she would leave the body right there in their own neighborhood, so near the street, and most of all, with duct tape still around the mouth, forever ending any chance of claiming it was an accident. My opinion only.

 

[LaLaw2000]

You make it sound as if they are just presenting a flimsy case and want to convict an innocent person? Why wouldn't they just want a jury that will understand the facts and deliver a verdict accordingly? Your posts make it seem like they are on some kind of witch hunt. Just b/c they don't have a video of kc comitting the crime doesn't mean they cannot present enough evidence that any reasonable person could reasonably conclude that she committed this crime. I have yet to hear one thing from the defense that would give me any reasonable doubt, and this zanny story will have them ROFL.

:clap::clap::clap:

Great post, anastacia!

Casey will have a jury of her peers. The jurors will not be defense lawyers. Given the TOTALITY of what we know now, in addition to the evidence we are not privy to until trial, I feel that a logical jury would find that it is UNLIKELY that anyone else committed this murder.

There is no witch hunt here, IMO, and do not see how anyone could think there is, defense attorney or not. (I know YOU do not think there is a witch hunt)

And yes, the Zanny defense would make any reasonable person laugh and shake their head.

 

[mitzi]

If George told the truth and saw Caylee on June 16, Casey talked to Tony about moving in with him in the early morning hours while Caylee was alive.

Tony says Casey can come, but NOT Caylee.

Casey doesn't bother to pack anything for Caylee, but DOES pack up stuff for HERSELF to bring to Tony's apartment. (According to Cindy, Tony and Lee)

I may be wrong, but I thought it was Anthony R. (the cop), who said Casey can come, but not Caylee. :waitasec:

 

[Wudge]

You make it sound as if they are just presenting a flimsy case and want to convict an innocent person? Why wouldn't they just want a jury that will understand the facts and deliver a verdict accordingly? Your posts make it seem like they are on some kind of witch hunt. Just b/c they don't have a video of kc comitting the crime doesn't mean they cannot present enough evidence that any reasonable person could reasonably conclude that she committed this crime. I have yet to hear one thing from the defense that would give me any reasonable doubt, and this zanny story will have them ROFL.

Because the facts and evidence we know of do not support premeditation. The only way a person can conclude that Caylee was a victim of a premeditated murder is if a prson speculates, which jurors aare forbidden to do.

As for you not likling the Zanny story, that is not evidence of premeditation.

 

[Wudge]

:clap::clap::clap:

SNIP

Casey will have a jury of her peers. The jurors will not be defense lawyers. Given the TOTALITY of what we know now, in addition to the evidence we are not privy to until trial, I feel that a logical jury would find that it is UNLIKELY that anyone else committed this murder.

SNIP

You're speculating that Caylee was murdered.

 

[Wudge]

I agree.

(Unless the prosecution has a bunch of evidence in store that we don't know about yet.)

SNIP

If KC were the perp, it seems unlikely that she would leave the body right there in their own neighborhood, so near the street, and most of all, with duct tape still around the mouth, forever ending any chance of claiming it was an accident. MOO.

One thing is for sure, the location and placement of the body is not supportive of a planned and deliberated murder.