KC defense team.What now?

[Wudge]

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.

SNIP

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?

It's a high burden. It's not an impossible burden.

Under this discussion, three million trials would be the best reference. Though almost assuredly, more than one in a hundred innocent people accept a plea deal, so its really not important other than as a numerical measure.

HTH

 

[Carrington]

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

Yes, she will pick out a couple of men to smile at and flirt with.
Bait, more than a few times I have felt her attorney has fell for her antics.
IMO

 

[Capri]

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

LOL, ok I needed that,:blowkiss:KC's perfect jury

 

[TURBOTHINK]

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

The dogs didn't search in the water, that is why they did not find her. They also were searching toward the end of Suburban, not anywhere near where the body was found.

There was heavy brush there and a steep drop off, so unless the dogs were downwind (where the swamp was) and in the exact area they would not have found her. You don't have to "walk them up" to the body, but you do have to have them where they can get a scent and where they searched was far away. That is over 15 acres (some reports said 24 acres, one said 33 acres) and that is a large area with a swamp to search. It would have taken 2-3 days to search and even then if the body was underwater unless they had specially trained water cadaver dogs, it might not have been found. (especially if the bag was still sealed at that time)

 

[TURBOTHINK]

Yes, she will pick out a couple of men to smile at and flirt with.
Bait, more than a few times I have felt her attorney has fell for her antics.
IMO

I would bet money on it !!

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

"the totality of the evidence" should prevail in this case.

When prosecutors fail to present a single item of inculpatory evidence required to support the charge that meets the reliability level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then totality of evidence cannot cure that failure.

HTH

 

[TURBOTHINK]

When prosecutors fail to present a single item of inculpatory evidence required to support the charge that meets the reliability level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then totality of evidence cannot cure that failure.

HTH

But we all know that is not going to happen in this case. If I were related to KC, I would try to get her to get another attorney ASAP. Baez is not qualified or smart enough to try this case. He reminds me of a friend of mine in grade school who would learn bits and pieces of things, and then run his mouth about them totally out of context. He was funny, but Baez could be DEADLY to his client.

 

[shgrbkr]

When prosecutors fail to present a single item of inculpatory evidence required to support the charge that meets the reliability level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then totality of evidence cannot cure that failure.

HTH

I hear ya, but the common lay person will comprise the members of the jury and regardless of the truth of the above statement, anybody with an iota of common sense will, without a doubt, look at the totality of events in this saga and IMO, reach their verdict that way.

 

[snowbun]

When prosecutors fail to present a single item of inculpatory evidence required to support the charge that meets the reliability level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then totality of evidence cannot cure that failure.

HTH

Umm, but let's say I was a juror (I have no legal or criminal expertise). If the Fact that "the accused did not raise an alarm about her daughter missing for 31 days" seems to me to be reliable proof (beyond a reasonable doubt that it is inculpatory evidence) and if in addition I infer, with other facts that are not reasonably refutable, that it all points to guilt, then I would feel very comfortable finding the accused guilty. Is there anything wrong with this scenario? TIA

 

[Wudge]

I hear ya, but the common lay person will comprise the members of the jury and regardless of the truth of the above statement, anybody with an iota of common sense will, without a doubt, look at the totality of events in this saga and IMO, reach their verdict that way.

Then it would be a wrongful conviction (insufficient evidence).

 

[Wudge]

Umm, but let's say I was a juror (I have no legal or criminal expertise). If the Fact that "the accused did not raise an alarm about her daughter missing for 31 days" seems to me to be reliable proof (beyond a reasonable doubt that it is inculpatory evidence) and if in addition I infer, with other facts that are not reasonably refutable, that it all points to guilt, then I would feel very comfortable finding the accused guilty. Is there anything wrong with this scenario? TIA

After-the-fact behavior cannot prove pre-fact state of mind (intent).

 

[snowbun]

After-the-fact behavior cannot prove pre-fact state of mind (intent).

ok thanks. Do you think they could prove, for example, she wanted her child dead in a moment of rage (perhaps induced by drugs) after a period of time where the child was increasingly annoying & becoming burdensome to her?

 

[tehcloser]

Just looked at the update thread. Why would Conway the Anthony's attorney go to a meeting about the autopsy photos? Isn't that a little strange? Unless they are going to try and sell them.

 

[Wudge]

ok thanks. Do you think they could prove, for example, she wanted her child dead in a moment of rage (perhaps induced by drugs) after a period of time where the child was increasingly annoying & becoming burdensome to her?

Based on the evidence we know of, (which I suspect is all significant evidence) I don't see how that would be possible.

The prosecution might wish to argue that storyline, but the reality is that if they did so, it would be speculation based. The Judge should not allow that storyline to be argued, for, as best we know, it's guesswork not supported by evidence.

 

[trac]

Umm, but let's say I was a juror (I have no legal or criminal expertise). If the Fact that "the accused did not raise an alarm about her daughter missing for 31 days" seems to me to be reliable proof (beyond a reasonable doubt that it is inculpatory evidence) and if in addition I infer, with other facts that are not reasonably refutable, that it all points to guilt, then I would feel very comfortable finding the accused guilty. Is there anything wrong with this scenario? TIA

Yes I agree - and that is how most NORMAL people on the jury would think

Legal stuff can be spouted off from the rooftops - a NORMAL person would think that if that childs own mother, did NOT report the child missing for 31 days AND during that 31 days stole money to go shopping, go party, etc. would have something to hide and in my mind is guilty

BUT we have not heard both sides at trial - we will have to wait

 

[snowbun]

Yes I agree - and that is how most NORMAL people on the jury would think

Legal stuff can be spouted off from the rooftops - a NORMAL person would think that if that childs own mother, did NOT report the child missing for 31 days AND during that 31 days stole money to go shopping, go party, etc. would have something to hide and in my mind is guilty

BUT we have not heard both sides at trial - we will have to wait

Yes this is why I am so riveted I think...the trial should be very interesting indeed!!! I do really want justice for Caylee as well, how awful if the guilty party is let off on a "technicality".

 

[sarah7855]

I don't really know how indictments work. Does the GJ hear anything from the defence, or is it just a presentation of evidence and witness testimony for the prosecution? If the latter, then IMO George's testimony about the 'smell' in the trunk, the apparent evidence from Det. Melich about bruises seen on Caylee, plus KC's *advertiser censored*-a-bull nanny story and her party pics was likely more than enough to convince the jury that KC should face trial - BUT, the consideration they had to make was not whether she was guilty of deliberately murdering Caylee or not, but whether there was a case to answer and if she should be indicted and face trial. This is a far lower level of responsibility IMO for a jury to have placed upon them and so they are not obliged to struggle with the notions of 'reasonable doubt' and 'levels of certainty'. I think if I had been on that jury and presented only with an account of the lies, the stench in the car, the bruises, the pole dance slide show etc, it would probably have taken me all of 30 seconds to decide KC should stand trial, but making a decision in a murder trial itself is a whole different ball game.

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

Here's a .pdf of the indictment itself:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/acrobat/2008-10/42895889.PDF

From what little I know about how the GJ works, they only hear evidence from the prosecution, and determine what, if any, charges should be filed against an accused. And, from what I read on this board leading up to the day the GJ met, they only hear a fraction of the evidence. Obviously, in this case, they wouldn't have heard about any of the truckloads of evidence found when Caylee was found because she had not been recovered at that point.

Regarding the bolded portion of your post above, that's my point: if all the GJ heard was George saying the trunk smelled, and heard from technicians who said that air samples show that there "could" have been a body in the trunk at some point in time, amongst other less-than-definitive evidence (by the way, I must have missed the part about bruises on Caylee, where'd you hear that?), and the outrageous nanny story, then they would have likely just charged her with aggravated manslaughter or some other lesser charge. But they went all the way with murder one. If you read the indictment .pdf, the wording is actually pretty concise: Casey killed Caylee in a premeditated fashion. For the GJ to "go all the way" if you will, and in such a short amount of time, there has to be something more compelling that they saw than what you and I agree to be flimsy evidence.

 

[Wudge]

Here's a .pdf of the indictment itself:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/acrobat/2008-10/42895889.PDF

SNIP

If you read the indictment .pdf, the wording is actually pretty concise: Casey killed Caylee in a premeditated fashion. For the GJ to "go all the way" if you will, and in such a short amount of time, there has to be something more compelling that they saw than what you and I agree to be flimsy evidence.

There absolutely does not need to be anything more compelling than the evidence we have heard or read.

The indictment is merely a claim. The claim is based on a Grand Jury finding probable cause. Probable cause is based on a lower legal standard; i.e., preponderance of the evidence -- for example, a 51/49 level of certainty. It differs from the far higher trial standard of proof; i.e., proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

HTH

 

[Jolynna]

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

I think men tend to want to think the best about and are even protective toward "sweet looking young things".

IMO, women are more realistic about what other females may be capable of.

 

[Devon]

Here's a .pdf of the indictment itself:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/acrobat/2008-10/42895889.PDF

From what little I know about how the GJ works, they only hear evidence from the prosecution, and determine what, if any, charges should be filed against an accused. And, from what I read on this board leading up to the day the GJ met, they only hear a fraction of the evidence. Obviously, in this case, they wouldn't have heard about any of the truckloads of evidence found when Caylee was found because she had not been recovered at that point.

Regarding the bolded portion of your post above, that's my point: if all the GJ heard was George saying the trunk smelled, and heard from technicians who said that air samples show that there "could" have been a body in the trunk at some point in time, amongst other less-than-definitive evidence (by the way, I must have missed the part about bruises on Caylee, where'd you hear that?), and the outrageous nanny story, then they would have likely just charged her with aggravated manslaughter or some other lesser charge. But they went all the way with murder one. If you read the indictment .pdf, the wording is actually pretty concise: Casey killed Caylee in a premeditated fashion. For the GJ to "go all the way" if you will, and in such a short amount of time, there has to be something more compelling that they saw than what you and I agree to be flimsy evidence.

Thank you for posting the link Sarah, I will go read. I'm not convinced that the JG must have been privy to some evidence more compelling than we have seen so far. They only had to decide if KC should stand trial, not whether the evidence was sufficient to prove her guilty of the charges against her.

I read about the alleged bruises on Caylee on one of the threads on this forum but can't remember which one. IIRC, Det Mellich apparently testified that he had received information from a friend/acquaintance of KC's (Tara?) that she had seen bruises on Caylee some time in the past.