Premeditated Murder #972

[snow_walker]

Anyone convinced against their will is of the same opinion still.. maybe it is time to agree to disagree and move on to other things.

I was trying to construct the order in which evidence should be presented by the prosecution.. not only to win the case, but to show it was premeditated.. but I keep having to rearrange things as one part of the story gets ahead of another..no matter how I try I can't seem to get it right.
Has anyone else given it a try?

 

[JBean]

Wow... my first quoting of Wudge (that I botched) has screwed up the whole thread! I am sorry! Now it looks like everyone's quotes are someone elses!

It's all good now. For the future:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76874"]Broken Post Quotes - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[Rlaub44]

Our standard of proof is not a 'reasonable conclusion'. Our standard of proof is 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'.

What highly reliable premises can be developed from cell phone records and/or video and/or snuggling to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed 1st degree murder?

I know you are looking for an answer we can't give. Again, I believe jurors will see a picture develop:

*Caylee was becoming a burden to KC in the days prior to her death,
*big fight with CA,
*KC was last person with her,
*cadaver dog hits in backyard and car,
*decomp on hair in trunk,
*smell of human decomp,
*computer searches previous,
*items at crime scene from Anthony home,
*abandoned car,
*lack of visible concern/searching for 31 days,
*very rare duct tape that family had,
*no reporting by KC,
*lying to LE,
*made-up nanny,
*family deception (washing pants, old pizza, we are watching the kidnappers, etc),
*lack of response to Blanchard search, and so on.

With no credible alternate theory presented by defense, jurors will be left struggling to find any reasonable doubt, in my opinion. Again, when we see all of the evidence laid out at trial, we will be in a better position to assess the premeditation argument.

 

[Wudge]

BBM

I didn't follow that trial very well - what exonerating evidence did the jury disregard? I know that the expert testimony about arsenic was a big kicker, although certainly disputed now.

The defense put four experts the witness stand who explained to the jury why arsenic poisoning was out of the question. One of the experts who testified for the defense was Laura Labay. Laura worked for NMS Labs of Willow Grove, Pa.. They had retested some of Todd's tissue samples that were previously tested by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. This was the organization that had found, allegedly, lethal levels of arsenic in two of Todd's organs; those organs being his liver and kidney. However, stunningly, neither his blood nor skin nor hair nor heart nor brain nor urine nor any other bodily tissue tested positive for high levels of arsenic poisoning.

Ms. Labay further testified that AFIP's testing protocol was 'unacceptable.'

The State did not put an expert on the witness who disputed the defense experts claims as regards the fact that arsenic should have been found in everyone of Todd's organs; i.e., if he truly died from arsenic poisoning.

(Cynthia's boob job and the wet tee shirt contest were far more probative of guilt.)

 

[lizzysf]

It's all good now. For the future:

Broken Post Quotes - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Thanks!!:blushing:

 

[JBean]

The defense put four experts the witness stand who explained to the jury why arsenic poisoning was out of the question. One of the experts who testified for the defense was Laura Labay. Laura worked for NMS Labs of Willow Grove, Pa.. They had retested some of Todd's tissue samples that were previously tested by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. This was the organization that had found, allegedly, lethal levels of arsenic in two of Todd's organs; those organs being his liver and kidney. However, stunningly, neither his blood nor skin nor hair nor heart nor brain nor urine nor any other bodily tissue tested positive for high levels of arsenic poisoning.

Ms. Labay further testified that AFIP's testing protocol was 'unacceptable.'

The State did not put an expert on the witness who disputed the defense experts claims as regards the fact that arsenic should have been found in everyone of Todd's organs; i.e., if he truly died from arsenic poisoning.

(Cynthia's boob job and the wet tee shirt contest were far more probative of guilt.)

It is an excellent example of someone being erroneously convicted on behavior:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34593&highlight=marine

 

[lizzysf]

--------------------------------------
lizzy, I am waiting to see what is said about the conversation between Kc.and AL..the cell phone message where she said to A. "if they ever find her,guess who will spend eternity in jail".This may have been in a text message,never heard it mentioned by the LE..I am not up on cell phones and texts, but I can read.This was mentioned very early in the messages, I believe the first batch released.:dance:

I agree. I think we will be hearing more about conversations that took place.

 

[Wudge]

I know you are looking for an answer we can't give. Again, I believe jurors will see a picture develop:

*Caylee was becoming a burden to KC in the days prior to her death,
*big fight with CA,
*KC was last person with her,
*cadaver dog hits in backyard and car,
*decomp on hair in trunk,
*smell of human decomp,
*computer searches previous,
*items at crime scene from Anthony home,
*abandoned car,
*lack of visible concern/searching for 31 days,
*very rare duct tape that family had,
*no reporting by KC,
*lying to LE,
*made-up nanny,
*family deception (washing pants, old pizza, we are watching the kidnappers, etc),
*lack of response to Blanchard search, and so on.

With no credible alternate theory presented by defense, jurors will be left struggling to find any reasonable doubt, in my opinion. Again, when we see all of the evidence laid out at trial, we will be in a better position to assess the premeditation argument.

The problem is that not one of those items of alleged evidence is reliable enough to use as a premise that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder.

If you take two items of inculpatory evidence (or one item of inculpatory and one item of corroborative evidence) that have degrees of certainty of 80% and 70%, you do not end up with a 150% certainty. Depending on how you might want to weight the evidence, you end up with a degree of certainty of less than 80%.

(The coefficients of various items of evidence are not additive.)

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Why can't the defense put out their side? Can't they THEIR discovery? The state's been asking for it, and it's well past the deadlines.

The defense SAYS it has exonerating evidence, AND proof that SODDI.

BTW_ Thanks a MILLION for the commercials! Now I have to clean split pea soup off my screen!

Baez has said many times that they have a bombshell, etc, etc, but apparently he's letting Casey sit in jail until he reveals it. THat's not the SA fault and Baez goes on tv and lies for Casey constantly - I don't see unfairness, except that the defense is dishonest. (Specifically, the 'she said she will hold her head high' when she really said 'get me the F out of here')

 

[lizzysf]

It is an excellent example of someone being erroneously convicted on behavior:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34593&highlight=marine

I don't think she will be convicted on behavior. Her behavior will support the forensics when it is all laid out.

 

[Brini]

The defense put four experts the witness stand who explained to the jury why arsenic poisoning was out of the question. One of the experts who testified for the defense was Laura Labay. Laura worked for NMS Labs of Willow Grove, Pa.. They had retested some of Todd's tissue samples that were previously tested by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. This was the organization that had found, allegedly, lethal levels of arsenic in two of Todd's organs; those organs being his liver and kidney. However, stunningly, neither his blood nor skin nor hair nor heart nor brain nor urine nor any other bodily tissue tested positive for high levels of arsenic poisoning.

Ms. Labay further testified that AFIP's testing protocol was 'unacceptable.'

The State did not put an expert on the witness who disputed the defense experts claims as regards the fact that arsenic should have been found in everyone of Todd's organs; i.e., if he truly died from arsenic poisoning.

(Cynthia's boob job and the wet tee shirt contest were far more probative of guilt.)

There are many ways to get arsenic poisoning. In the early 20th C, a diplomat was poisoned by ceiling dust falling into his food.

There is no manner of death applying to Caylee that doesn't involve an aggressive and murderous adult. Or, a fatal accident, but nobody os going to believe that, now. That train left the station, when the defense declined to plead accident.

KC's celebratory behavior notwithstanding, KC had the baby when she died. Or, she handed the baby of to a murderer, whom she is now protecting.

KC could be a nun, and she'd still look bad.

 

[lizzysf]

The problem is that not one of those items of alleged evidence is reliable enough to use as a premise that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder.

If you take two items of inculpatory evidence (or one item of inculpatory and one item of corroborative evidence) that have degrees of certainty of 80% and 70%, you do not end up with a 150% certainty. Depending on how you might want to weight the evidence, you end up with a degree of certainty of less than 80%.

(The coefficients of various items of evidence are not additive.)

It's entirely UNreasonable to think that anyone else killed Caylee...given the whole picture and forensics. If I, as a juror, without any exposure to this case..was given all the information in the courtroom.... which matched the information that I have seen in the doc dumps as a non-juror following the case... I can't see how I would come up with any other answer but premeditated, Murder1.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Practically speaking, if Casey is found guilty of any of the three major charges, an appeal is a foregone conclusion, and I suspect venue may well be one of the key issues.

This is one of the most publicized and emotion-based cases of all time (Laci Peterson, JonBenet and OJ probably top the list). Thanks to our digital technology age and today's culture of 'all opinion all the time', I'm not sure a venue in America exists where the jury pool that has not been poisoned.

Crimetainment coverage in this case has been five to ten times worse than what took place in Cynthia Sommer's fairly recent trial. And we saw how the jury wrongfully convicted her of 1st degree murder simply by looking past exonerating evidence. However, at least the prosecutor in that case had an 'alleged' cause of death. Of course, I say alleged, because what prosecutors had as a fact-based cause of death was not at all true.

Most people do not know about this case. It's on Nancy Grace, but that's about it. It's not a fraction of what the OJ, peterson and jonbenet cases were. It gets coverage in FL, but nowhere else to speak of. Of course, I have a feeling there will be a 'problem' with any venue they choose if one looks hard enough.

First amendment rights are rights too. That's why we have books written by defense lawyers working these cases right?

 

[Brini]

The problem is that not one of those items of alleged evidence is reliable enough to use as a premise that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder.

If you take two items of inculpatory evidence (or one item of inculpatory and one item of corroborative evidence) that have degrees of certainty of 80% and 70%, you do not end up with a 150% certainty. Depending on how you might want to weight the evidence, you end up with a degree of certainty of less than 80%.

(The coefficients of various items of evidence are not additive.)

There are no degrees of certainty in these cases. Certainly not 150%. That's something that you devised to use, yourself.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the only criterion, like it or not.

The state isn't going to take "any two" conditions. They are going to show the whole circumstantial pattern. That's how circumstantial evidence works.

I know you don't like circumstantial evidence, but no law is going to be re-written based on any of our preferences.

 

[JBean]

I don't think she will be convicted on behavior. Her behavior will support the forensics when it is all laid out.

Truly I was only remarking because many have pointed to her behavior (31 days partying etc.) as being "evidence". I agree that the whole picture, defense included, must be laid out before a conviction can take place.

 

[lizzysf]

The defense put four experts the witness stand who explained to the jury why arsenic poisoning was out of the question. One of the experts who testified for the defense was Laura Labay. Laura worked for NMS Labs of Willow Grove, Pa.. They had retested some of Todd's tissue samples that were previously tested by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. This was the organization that had found, allegedly, lethal levels of arsenic in two of Todd's organs; those organs being his liver and kidney. However, stunningly, neither his blood nor skin nor hair nor heart nor brain nor urine nor any other bodily tissue tested positive for high levels of arsenic poisoning.

Ms. Labay further testified that AFIP's testing protocol was 'unacceptable.'

The State did not put an expert on the witness who disputed the defense experts claims as regards the fact that arsenic should have been found in everyone of Todd's organs; i.e., if he truly died from arsenic poisoning.

(Cynthia's boob job and the wet tee shirt contest were far more probative of guilt.)

I am not saying that I haven't seen a multitude of cases that had ridiculous outcomes based on the evidence... We hear about them everyday. Those convicted when they never should have been....those that walked when they shouldn't have. This case seems pretty solid to me... If she walks...i'd be very surprised...but not shocked.

 

[Brini]

It is an excellent example of someone being erroneously convicted on behavior:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34593&highlight=marine

Not even close, Jilly Bean.

The husband was not in the total care and custody of the wife, and she didn't drive around with his corpse in the truck.

KCs celebratory bx are CERTAINLY going to be part of the case. But, it's the whole circumstantial and forensic gestalt that will convict her.

 

[JBean]

Not even close, Jilly Bean.

The husband was not in the total care and custody of the wife, and she didn't drive around with his corpse in the truck.

KCs celebratory bx are CERTAINLY going to be part of the case. But, it's the whole circumstantial and forensic gestalt that will convict her.

Not even close to what?
This was just a side remark to another post. I was not implying that there was only behavior against KC.
But read this forum and you will see that many put a lot of weight in her behavior and that is the only parallel to the Sommers case.

I have not seen the defense so i have no idea what their rebuttal will be to the evidence that the SA holds.

I just need to see the whole enchilada and i would want others to do the same for me in a courtroom. No more,no less.

 

[Wudge]

It's entirely UNreasonable to think that anyone else killed Caylee...given the whole picture and forensics. If I, as a juror, without any exposure to this case..was given all the information in the courtroom.... which matched the information that I have seen in the doc dumps as a non-juror following the case... I can't see how I would come up with any other answer but premeditated, Murder1.

It's not been proven that Caylee was murdered much less died from Casey committing a premeditated murder . Moreover, Caylee dying from an accidental death remains an option. Further, Casey's DNA was not found on the duct tape, but unidentified DNA was found on the duct tape.

 

[Brini]

The defense put four experts the witness stand who explained to the jury why arsenic poisoning was out of the question. One of the experts who testified for the defense was Laura Labay. Laura worked for NMS Labs of Willow Grove, Pa.. They had retested some of Todd's tissue samples that were previously tested by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. This was the organization that had found, allegedly, lethal levels of arsenic in two of Todd's organs; those organs being his liver and kidney. However, stunningly, neither his blood nor skin nor hair nor heart nor brain nor urine nor any other bodily tissue tested positive for high levels of arsenic poisoning.

Ms. Labay further testified that AFIP's testing protocol was 'unacceptable.'

The State did not put an expert on the witness who disputed the defense experts claims as regards the fact that arsenic should have been found in everyone of Todd's organs; i.e., if he truly died from arsenic poisoning.

(Cynthia's boob job and the wet tee shirt contest were far more probative of guilt.)

Doesn't apply to KC. Nothing is gonna get past the fact that KC had total care and control of Caylee, when she died. Period. Unless she killed Caylee by accident, which KC denies, or handed her off to a killer. If that happened, she can either drop the dime, or take the rap.