KC defense team.What now?

[seagull65]

My bold:

KC has made so many amazingly stupid moves in this case. You say if KC were the perp, why would she dump the body so close to home and use duct tape. These are things we know she DID do:

1, Road around with the body in the back of her car for at least two days. Brilliant!
2. Placed the body in the back yard at some point! Dogs don't lie
3. borrowed a shovel from a neighbor when we know she can break into the shed. come on KC, you are smarter than that, aren't you??
4. abandoned the car because it was out of gas. we all know she knows her way around gas cans. amazing
5. lie to LE's face up until the point where she is actually in the hollway of her former imployment. unbelievable
6. Signed a stolen check with her own name. Bold to say the least, stupid at best
7. said her daugter called her from a private number and was immediately disconnected!! now how did she know that if it was a private number. Does this girl have a clue that phone records are available??

She is not smart at all. The dumping of the body was done in haste because she was about to be caught by her dad so had to get rid of it. The duct tape was to silence Caylee, thinking she would remove it later, but probably got distracted by a cute little workout bra at target. imo

To me, just guessing of course, her intelligence seems at least normal, maybe high-normal range, she seems fairly intelligent. I personally have definitely not ruled out mental illness, her speech and behavior is very strange, tangential, she sounds almost delirious when she tries to explain things, shifting from one thing to another as if they are proof of each other, for example, "Caylee called me and was talking about the book", then KC drifts right into talking about Caylee being in that video talking about the book, as if one proves the other , or as if she can't distinguish the two in her mind....many other instances of that kind of thing in her speech. If I were her family I'd be desperately yelling, "Wake up, KC! KC, do you understand where we are, do you understand what's happening!" etc, because she doesn't seem to be all there. She also doesn't fake normal behavior, like a calculating perpetrator would.
Her so-called "lies" certainly don't seem to be strategic in any way, it was all stuff that would be immediately disproved, unless she really was trying to point LE toward someone or some evidence in an indirect way, and I'm not ruling that possibility out, personally. To me her inability to tell a coherent story of what happened definitely seems like it could be mental illness. I did always wonder if she "cracked" because of finding Caylee's body, whether that was in her trunk, in her parents' pool or yard, under TL's balcony, at the bottom of the Sawgrass stairwell, or wherever. If the duct tape around the mouth is true, she could have found Caylee's murdered body with the duct tape around the mouth. She could have had a breakdown after someone she trusted harmed Caylee. Or she might have cracked up because of the shock of discovering Caylee was missing, lack of sleep after that, etc.
And excuse any errors and rambling here, my brain is way too tired at the moment, too ...:crazy:
excuse if this multi-posts, system isn't letting me post at present

 

[seagull65]

My bold:

KC has made so many amazingly stupid moves in this case. You say if KC were the perp, why would she dump the body so close to home and use duct tape. These are things we know she DID do:

1, Road around with the body in the back of her car for at least two days. Brilliant!
2. Placed the body in the back yard at some point! Dogs don't lie
3. borrowed a shovel from a neighbor when we know she can break into the shed. come on KC, you are smarter than that, aren't you??
4. abandoned the car because it was out of gas. we all know she knows her way around gas cans. amazing
5. lie to LE's face up until the point where she is actually in the hollway of her former imployment. unbelievable
6. Signed a stolen check with her own name. Bold to say the least, stupid at best
7. said her daugter called her from a private number and was immediately disconnected!! now how did she know that if it was a private number. Does this girl have a clue that phone records are available??

She is not smart at all. The dumping of the body was done in haste because she was about to be caught by her dad so had to get rid of it. The duct tape was to silence Caylee, thinking she would remove it later, but probably got distracted by a cute little workout bra at target. imo

Just to respond to your items (1) we don't know if that is the case (2) If dogs don't lie, how do we explain them not finding the body there off of Suburban where it was, either they missed it (or the body wasn't there, also a possibility.... )
I know NG likes to say, "Well, they just didn't take them to the right spot" (not an exact quote, I am paraphrasing), but cadaver dogs are trained to find bodies, if you have to walk them up to the body and tell them to bark, what's the point of that?

re: duct tape, obviously indicates violence, murder. I don't know who the perp is yet. I haven't ruled KC out completely but she has no history of abuse or violence toward the child to begin with, plus, as mentioned earlier I think if she were the perp she would remove the duct tape for obvious reasons before disposing of the body (i.e. to leave “accident” option open, to lessen appearance of cruelty, etc), but I also don’t feel she would place the body in that location (not move it to better location) at all. So I’m not convinced at this stage that it was her. Obviously any predator could dump the body there in the A's neighborhood, anyone who already knew where KC's house was or who saw it on TV.

(other thought on duct tape: unless the duct tape was placed after the murder by a person so mentally ill they were trying to silence the body from speaking to them or for other bizarre reason, or the tape is simply some kind of staging, of course.)

P.S. What do you think the "simple explanation which is going to make everything clear" might be, that the defense said would come out at trial. Do you think it could be that at first KC thought her parents had taken Caylee back? Then when she eventually realized they didn't have her she was too afraid to admit she didn't know where Caylee was and was hoping to find her before they found out? To me she seems very much like the kind of person who would try to maintain appearances to her parents, even going to this length

 

[seagull65]

re: borrowing shovel, if she could buy bras with stolen checks at Target, why not a shovel? Do we have to believe the shovel story at all? See, I don't necessarily take anyone's statement at face value. If I were LE, the shovel house is another house I would have taken the dogs into. (ID's house being another). But that's just me. And I'm not making any accusation, I'm just talking about ruling people out using forensics. How else can they find out what happened to Caylee? Before anyone starts saying, "oh right, it's all a big conspiracy", I don't have any conspiracy theory at all, I don't think all the witnesses were lying, I just don't know if one of them was. There's a difference. The only conspiracy theory I've heard in this case is the one about a "daisy chain" extending from Mr. K back through other people to KCA, etc. I'm not knocking it, it could be true for all I know, but that is the only conspiracy theory I've heard. So far.

 

[seagull65]

Personally I have a feeling that something might change fairly soon, although I haven't a clue who will blink first, the prosecution or the defence. The impression I get is that the prosecution, faced with fairly strong evidence that Caylee was dead and a suspect who was not giving them anything other than BS, decided to go for broke and let KC have it with both barrels, probably hoping that either she would crack under the pressure of facing LWOP or even the big needle, or that they would quickly find Caylee's body and some strong evidence of murder pointing right at KC.

At present, there is no evidence of cause of death, no confession, and (I suspect) not much left to be revealed in respect of evidence that would support the murder1 charge. That's just my feeling at the moment, but since this whole case is crazy, I am preparing to have my 'gast' flabbered' at any moment!

Great post

also no crime scene (besides site where body was dumped, no murder crime scene)

I hope they surprise us at trial with evidence that "ratchets things down" --a lot.

 

[Friday]

If the defense team will be working the ZFG-story I thought I'd bring this over from the Sticky Forum where ButWhatIf posted Iassen's IM's. IMHO, this won't help the ZFG-did-it alibi any...

Great Catch!!

 

[Wudge]

I don't really know how indictments work. Does the GJ hear anything from the defence?

As to what else LE has up it's sleeve, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

No.

I can't recall the last high-profile case where prosecutors kept significant evidence undisclosed until trial.

 

[Devon]

My guess is that they were quite taken aback by finding that Caylee's remains disclosed no cause of death and that they have probably had to go back to square one and review their case. I suspect that the latest search of the A's home was to find anything and everything that would help support the 'storyline' that has been preliminarily set out in the released documents, to find any proof that Caylee's death actually occurred at the house, and to bolster all the other circumstantial evidence. If they have found anything new, it might be a while before any tests are completed, but I would have thought that anything they already had prior to the discovery of the remains would have been released before now, to counteract any possible perception of weakness in their case following the decision not to seek the DP. Just MO.

 

[Chilly Willy]

No.

I can't recall the last high-profile case where prosecutors kept significant evidence undisclosed until trial.

I agree. I recall during the Scott Peterson trial many people expected the prosecution to come out with some bombshell evidence that we'd not heard of before. People were stunned when the prosecution rested without revealing anything new. What they had was enough to convict though, and there is a lot more evidence in this case.

 

[anastacia129]

Isn't most circumstantial evidence based on speculation? Why can jurors not speculate? I think they are allowed to draw their conclusions based on facts presented, right? If they all agree, you get a verdict, right? All this legal mumbo jumbo isn't going to mean squat to a juror. I think if they establish the computer searches could only have been done by her, givin the GP's work schedules, and what else transpired on the computer at the same time (ie kc's personal email being accessed, or other things accessed at the same time that are accounts only used by kc) I think they have good cause to believe a death was planned, and Caylee is the only one dead. So, draw from it what you like, and try all the legistics you want to. One fact alone may not be cause to believe it was a premeditated murder, but put them all together and the jurors will see the truth. To say speculation is not a tool used in trial is completely false. Do we have a picture of Casey putting Caylee in her trunk, dead, then leaving her body in the woods? No, but based on the evidence of Caylee's decomp in the trunk, and the fact it is kcs car, we can speculate she put her there.... I mean reasonable speculation fills in the blanks of the case, and thats why we have jurys, to decide if it is reasonable enough to convict.

 

[Chilly Willy]

Isn't most circumstantial evidence based on speculation? Why can jurors not speculate? I think they are allowed to draw their conclusions based on facts presented, right? If they all agree, you get a verdict, right? All this legal mumbo jumbo isn't going to mean squat to a juror. I think if they establish the computer searches could only have been done by her, givin the GP's work schedules, and what else transpired on the computer at the same time (ie kc's personal email being accessed, or other things accessed at the same time that are accounts only used by kc) I think they have good cause to believe a death was planned, and Caylee is the only one dead. So, draw from it what you like, and try all the legistics you want to. One fact alone may not be cause to believe it was a premeditated murder, but put them all together and the jurors will see the truth. To say speculation is not a tool used in trial is completely false. Do we have a picture of Casey putting Caylee in her trunk, dead, then leaving her body in the woods? No, but based on the evidence of Caylee's decomp in the trunk, and the fact it is kcs car, we can speculate she put her there.... I mean reasonable speculation fills in the blanks of the case, and thats why we have jurys, to decide if it is reasonable enough to convict.

I completely agree. Unless there's a videotape of the crime as it happened, all evidence presented to a jury is subject to interpretation/speculation by the jury.

 

[Marina2]

respectfully snipped.

The less than one percent figure is mine. It's anything but what the general public will answer when you ask a person for a figure that represents the level of certainty that equates to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The typical range for that answer will range from 75% to 99%+ with a strong gathering in the low to mid 90%+ range, which greatly troubles me.

As for what evidence might best move me to a guilty posture, it would be strong inculpatory evidence that's supported by strong corroborative evidence. DNA, fingerprints, or similar physical evidence certainly would be at the top of my list. Mutiple eyewitness identification by two or more people who know the defendant would likely stand well too.

As for the level of certainty that you would require, I suggest that you should use a figure that you would ask others to use if you or someone in your family were on trial.

The figure given by the general public as to what equates to proof beyond a reasonable doubt is troubling. 75%?? That is scary to say the least. I'm not surprised though as I have a family member who is serving a life sentence for premeditated murder for what was essentially a bar room brawl started by the victim. Eyewitnesses would testify to this but were never called by the public defender. He didn't even have a weapon; the victim pulled out a knife though. The family of the victim was close friends of the judge. (She admitted this but stated it should be put aside, "After all, this is a small town and we would never get anything done if things like this got in the way.") Many, many other injustices but for the sake of brevity I won't list them. Trial took all of three hours...jury deliberation included. He's currently waiting for a hearing to decide if he should be granted a new trial...to be heard by the same judge that presided over the murder trial.
I guess my answer to that question would be 98%+. I would go higher but I feel that any evidence can be disputed to 1 or 2 percent. Even DNA can be disputed to that degree. Look what happened in the OJ case. Though the error rate is very low for DNA, labs can be brought into question, chain of custody, storage, transport, possible planting by LE. Fingerprint evidence can be disputed to an even higher degree. From my reading it's error rate hasn't even been established. Faulty eyewitness testimony accounts for more than half of wrongful convictions. More than one eyewitness that knows the defendant may be better but then you can factor in group mentality because knowing the defendant they probably know each other and will likely testify the same.

I'm not disputing the reliability of that type of evidence. I agree with you. This is the type of evidence I would like to see before I could convict. But to say a prosecutor has to have evidence that is greater than 99% reliable, I think, would be an impossible task. It can all be disputed. I think it's the totality, or the corroberating evidence that would allow me to consider evidence that is only 98 or 99 percent reliable. I don't have to consider it singularly, do I?
It's said that it can't be proven that KC was the only one who drove that car but, she was the last one who had Caylee and the one who lied about her whereabouts. She lied when she stated that she received a phone call from Caylee. Wouldn't evidence of Caylee's decomposing body in the trunk of her car be inculpatory and her lies and misleading the investigation into finding Caylee be corroboration of this?
I hope forensics are able to find prints, fibers from KC's clothes, KC's hair or something of that nature on the tape because it looks like they will need it to convict. At least they don't have to argue whether Caylee is dead or not.

Your point about my using a level of certainty that I would require others to use if me or my family were on trial is well taken but would never work. You see, in that case, I would require absolute certainty!

 

[Wudge]

Isn't most circumstantial evidence based on speculation? Why can jurors not speculate?

SNIP

Jurors are triers of facts. Jurors take an oath to use the evidence presented at trial to determine what they believe the facts to be.

Jurors are not triers of speculation.

If the jury needs to speculate to conclude on a guilty verdict, then prosecutors failed to meet their burden of providing evidence to support proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

HTH

 

[Wudge]

respectfully snipped.


The figure given by the general public as to what equates to proof beyond a reasonable doubt is troubling. 75%?? That is scary to say the least. I'm not surprised though as I have a family member who is serving a life sentence for premeditated murder for what was essentially a bar room brawl started by the victim. Eyewitnesses would testify to this but were never called by the public defender. He didn't even have a weapon; the victim pulled out a knife though. The family of the victim was close friends of the judge. (She admitted this but stated it should be put aside, "After all, this is a small town and we would never get anything done if things like this got in the way.") Many, many other injustices but for the sake of brevity I won't list them. Trial took all of three hours...jury deliberation included. He's currently waiting for a hearing to decide if he should be granted a new trial...to be heard by the same judge that presided over the murder trial.
I guess my answer to that question would be 98%+. I would go higher but I feel that any evidence can be disputed to 1 or 2 percent. Even DNA can be disputed to that degree. Look what happened in the OJ case. Though the error rate is very low for DNA, labs can be brought into question, chain of custody, storage, transport, possible planting by LE. Fingerprint evidence can be disputed to an even higher degree. From my reading it's error rate hasn't even been established. Faulty eyewitness testimony accounts for more than half of wrongful convictions. More than one eyewitness that knows the defendant may be better but then you can factor in group mentality because knowing the defendant they probably know each other and will likely testify the same.

I'm not disputing the reliability of that type of evidence. I agree with you. This is the type of evidence I would like to see before I could convict. But to say a prosecutor has to have evidence that is greater than 99% reliable, I think, would be an impossible task. It can all be disputed. I think it's the totality, or the corroberating evidence that would allow me to consider evidence that is only 98 or 99 percent reliable. I don't have to consider it singularly, do I?
It's said that it can't be proven that KC was the only one who drove that car but, she was the last one who had Caylee and the one who lied about her whereabouts. She lied when she stated that she received a phone call from Caylee. Wouldn't evidence of Caylee's decomposing body in the trunk of her car be inculpatory and her lies and misleading the investigation into finding Caylee be corroboration of this?
I hope forensics are able to find prints, fibers from KC's clothes, KC's hair or something of that nature on the tape because it looks like they will need it to convict. At least they don't have to argue whether Caylee is dead or not.

Your point about my using a level of certainty that I would require others to use if me or my family were on trial is well taken but would never work. You see, in that case, I would require absolute certainty!

I'm sorry to read about your family experience. Obviously, there's a number of very troubling things in your event summary.

Yes, there are people who answer that proof beyond a reasonable doubt to them would represent around 75% certainty (3 out of 4 right). You would be surprised at some of the feedback that comes from the general population, which is our jury pool.

I agree that over 99% reliability is a high burden for a prosecutor. It's supposed to be a high burden.

Recognize that in moving just one percent from our original discussion point of 99% to 98%, you have raised the number of expected wrongful convictions by another 30,000 (out of every three million trials). So a two percent error rate would mean 60,000 people wrongfully imprisoned and 60,000 lives destroyed (plus the heinous multiplier effect.)

It's not good that you would require near absolute certainty for you or your family but, outside you and your family, you are ok with sending an innocent person to prison in 1 out of every 50 trials. It's not right either.

(Do unto others as ...... )

 

[seagull65]

Marina, that is awful about your wrongly convicted family member. I am very sorry.

 

[seagull65]

What drives me crazy and I find very unjust, as in Marina's story, is when so many people are not called, the whole picture isn't shown to the jury.
Can someone explain to me, how does the LE keep itself separate from the prosecution? For example, how can the LE continue to seek all facts in the case, seek the truth, without being hampered by a prosecution that may bring charges and then want to stick with the one theory, and not risk opening any cans of worms. Basically what is the relationship of LE and prosecution? For us non legal types. I mean, investigators should be independent of both the prosecution and defense shouldn't they?

 

[seagull65]

Wudge, your above post was very interesting. The idea of even one wrongful conviction is so disturbing. Thank you for your posts.

 

[Marina2]

I'm sorry to read about your family experience. Obviously, there's a number of very troubling things in your event summary.

Yes, there are people who answer that proof beyond a reasonable doubt to them would represent around 75% certainty (3 out of 4 right). You would be surprised at some of the feedback that comes from the general population, which is our jury pool.

I agree that over 99% reliability is a high burden for a prosecutor. It's supposed to be a high burden.

Recognize that in moving just one percent from our original discussion point of 99% to 98%, you have raised the number of expected wrongful convictions by another 30,000 (out of every three million trials). So a two percent error rate would mean 60,000 people wrongfully imprisoned and 60,000 lives destroyed (plus the heinous multiplier effect.)

It's not good that you would require near absolute certainty for you or your family but, outside you and your family, you are ok with sending an innocent person to prison in 1 out of every 50 trials. It's not right either.

(Do unto others as ...... )

I didn't say that over 99% percent is a high burden. I said that it is an impossible burden because all evidence can be disputed. Even the DNA that you stated could move you to convict can be disputed, as in the OJ trial. Fingerprints, that you feel are reliable, can be disputed as can eyewitness testimony. IMO, all evidence can be brought down by the defense to only 98 or 99 percent reliability. I firmly believe that there is no evidence that is greater than 99% reliable so that is an impossible standard to hold a prosecutor to. I agree that he should be held to a high standard not an impossible one.

Our original discussion you refer to spoke of three miilion people imprisoned not three million trials. Is it 3 million imprisoned or three million trials?

Your original statement:
"Just so you understand, a 1% error rate against our annual population of three million imprisoned people means that, at any point in time, there are 30,000 people who should not be imprisoned."

It's important to know what you're referring to. If prison population, then that doesn't belong in a discussion of trial by jury. I stated earlier that 95% of felony charges are plea bargained. The other 5% go to jury trial or bench trial. You can see how this changes your number of those wrongfully convicted by a jury. Most wrongful convictions come as a result of plea bargains. Innocent parties threatened with serious charges or sentences if they pursue a trial by jury. Innocent but convicted.

I was being facetious when I said I would require absolute certainty if myself or a family member were on trial. In all seriousness, I don't feel I should be entitled to any more consideration than others during a trial.

It's wrong for you to twist my words and say that I'm alright with sending an innocent person to prison in one out of 50 trials. My position is that your requirement that a prosecutor's evidence be greater than 99% reliable is an impossible task. Every piece of evidence can be disputed to at least 98 or 99 percent reliability. If you read my post you will see that I stated that I would require corroborating evidence in order for me to convict on that evidence. IOW, the totality of the evidence, not just one piece of evidence that may be 99.9 percent reliable but tore down by the defense rendering it not so reliable. As in the OJ case, the jury should have considered the totality of the evidence, not just the DNA, DNA that you consider to be reliable (per your previous post) that can obviously be brought down a notch or two by the defense.

 

[manatee]

Isn't most circumstantial evidence based on speculation? Why can jurors not speculate? I think they are allowed to draw their conclusions based on facts presented, right? If they all agree, you get a verdict, right? All this legal mumbo jumbo isn't going to mean squat to a juror. I think if they establish the computer searches could only have been done by her, givin the GP's work schedules, and what else transpired on the computer at the same time (ie kc's personal email being accessed, or other things accessed at the same time that are accounts only used by kc) I think they have good cause to believe a death was planned, and Caylee is the only one dead. So, draw from it what you like, and try all the legistics you want to. One fact alone may not be cause to believe it was a premeditated murder, but put them all together and the jurors will see the truth. To say speculation is not a tool used in trial is completely false. Do we have a picture of Casey putting Caylee in her trunk, dead, then leaving her body in the woods? No, but based on the evidence of Caylee's decomp in the trunk, and the fact it is kcs car, we can speculate she put her there.... I mean reasonable speculation fills in the blanks of the case, and thats why we have jurys, to decide if it is reasonable enough to convict.

for me is as simple as a mother NOT REPORTING her daughter missing for 31 days! ( or really ever since CA reported it and not KC).
I would never be able to get around that as a mother

 

[suspicious mind]

I think the best the defense team can hope for is a jury of 20 something males who enjoy a good hot body contest.

 

[accordn2me]

Jurors are triers of facts. Jurors take an oath to use the evidence presented at trial to determine what they believe the facts to be.

Jurors are not triers of speculation.

If the jury needs to speculate to conclude on a guilty verdict, then prosecutors failed to meet their burden of providing evidence to support proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

HTH

Greetings Wudge :blowkiss: It's been awhile....

You "drew me out" with..."Jurors are triers of facts."

The FACTS on this case....is that a thread already? :waitasec:
The most damaging fact imo, is that this child's mother NEVER reported her missing....and discouraged the report being filed at all...."Give me one more day...!"

wtf? Something's just not right with that...WHAT>>>>jurors can't speculate??? OK....FACT>>>there's all those LIES "tot mom" told....again...HELLO!!!!Her child's been supposedly missing for 31 days...actually she can't remember exactly how many days....and all she can do is LIE....about practically everything! :furious:

OK, I'll stop speculating...but I want to relate my own personal life expericence here....when I can't get intouch with my daughter....a VERY SHORT amount of time goes by before I've contacted every mutual contact we have....even threatening some of them if I think need be...and if I don't have information in like, TEN MINUTES.....I'm in full-on PANIC, HYSTERICAL MODE...ready to call in Special Ops....sell my soul....WHATEVER....total confession of every sin or mistake I've ever committed would be AUTOMATIC!

You "get my drift" sorry for the cliche.... Seriously....jurors are allowed to consider what they would do given the same circumstances....so what Marina2 said..."the totality of the evidence" should prevail in this case.