Premeditated Murder #972

[Brini]

It's not been proven that Caylee was murdered much less dying 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.

Pre-med is not necessary, in cases of death d/t child abuse age <12.

We've already discussed that many times.

KC denies being involved in an accidental death scenario, so that's out. Unless she changes her mind. THEN, she has to explain the duct tape to the jury, in the face of Huck.

 

[Brini]

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.

I'll be flabbergasted if she walks

I'm putting my money on LWOP. There's more circumstantial evidence in this case than most convictions show. And, we haven't even seen all the forensics.

 

[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.

And what is the evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder?

 

[Rlaub44]

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.)

No, they are definitely not directly additive, but then again crime and justice aren't mathematical formulas. Where human behavior and inculpatory evidence are involved, it becomes more about the cumulative effect of parts that could be explained away individually.

For example, if a bank was robbed by a 6'0" man in black, driving a red Bronco, the fact that I am a man is not a big deal. If I am a 6-footer as well, OK, I am in the range of possible suspects. If I drive a red Bronco, hmm, I will probably be questioned. If I was seen near the bank that day wearing black, I am now a definite "person of interest". If I made a very large deposit into my account the day after the robbery, I expect to be arrested.

See, any one of these pieces alone means little. The complete list paints a very clear picture, and in the absence of exculpatory evidence, the jury can make a clear connection, without a confession or an eyewitness to the actual crime.

We certainly won't have a video of what happened to Caylee, and we will never get a confession, but I believe the overwhelming trail of evidence will speak volumes in this case.

 

[lizzysf]

TO WUDGE:

In an earlier post of yours, you mentioned that "Stealth" jurors are hard to spot. "Stealth" jurors being those that sort through the evidence emotionally, over-relying on circumstantial evidence. That can work on either side of the continuum. If a retired judge could sit as a juror.. would he/she be labeled a "Stealth" juror? Perhaps disregarding the obvious circumstantial evidence..only following the law to the letter, exclusively left hemisphere driven? There is a middle ground juror, truly. I have faith this middle ground jury is found quite often. You also mentioned that LE can never be trusted. LE corruption is not acceptable, and thankfully not prevalent, but I can see how it occasionally happens. These men and women of LE, with street smarts and well-developed skills, with their noses in the stench of trunks with decomposing bodies, desperately wanting crimes properly convicted, to validate the hard work they do and a desire for justice... are shot down in the courtroom by "Stealth" Judges, who allow perps to walk for an improper filing. It doesn't make it right...AT ALL. Just saying..I think I see why it happens.

 

[JBean]

my time out isn't working very well LOL.

All this debate is good and even though we are way off topic for the most part, this is excellent discussion thank you.

 

[Brini]

TO WUDGE:

In an earlier post of yours, you mentioned that "Stealth" jurors are hard to spot. "Stealth" jurors being those that sort through the evidence emotionally, over-relying on circumstantial evidence. That can work on either side of the continuum. If a retired judge could sit as a juror.. would he/she be labeled a "Stealth" juror? Perhaps disregarding the obvious circumstantial evidence..only following the law to the letter, exclusively left hemisphere driven? There is a middle ground juror, truly. I have faith this middle ground jury is found quite often. You also mentioned that LE can never be trusted. LE corruption is not acceptable, and thankfully not prevalent, but I can see how it occasionally happens. These men and women of LE, with street smarts and well-developed skills, with their noses in the stench of trunks with decomposing bodies, desperately wanting crimes properly convicted, to validate the hard work they do and a desire for justice... are shot down in the courtroom by "Stealth" Judges, who allow perps to walk for an improper filing. It doesn't make it right...AT ALL. Just saying..I think I see why it happens.

Exactly, every sword is double edged. For every wrongful conviction there are also guilty parties who walk. It's not a perfect world.

For every pro-state "stealth juror," there can be a pro-defense one.

And, as for any jury-pollution 2nd to publicity-- the state requested a gag order. The defense opposed same. So, if KC is hurt by the revelations, she has her counsel to blame.

 

[Brini]

my time out isn't working very well LOL.

All this debate is good and even though we are way off topic for the most part, this is excellent discussion thank you.

It really is!

But, what happened to your TO? ;-)

 

[lizzysf]

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.

That is entirely based upon how you read the reports, and who is presenting it. The truth on the forensics, sadly, seems to be that the winner is whoever can break it down and feed it to the jurors most eloquently. I have a long background in medical/science...so as far as I can see on the forensics is that the fat lady hasn't yet sung... It's looking good for the State.. what do you expect to hear from Baez?? Just the opposite, of course.

 

[lizzysf]

And what is the evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder?

My fingers just say NO to the prospect of typing the same answer to you over and over. New question.

 

[Brini]

My fingers just say NO to the prospect of typing the same answer to you over and over. New question.

Or, as the lawyers say, "Asked and answered."

Several times, in fact.

 

[Imbackon]

"If there is a reasonable hypothesis from the proven facts
consistent with the defendant's innocence, then you must find the
defendant not guilty.8 (8. See People v Morris, 36 N.Y.2d 877 (1975).)
If the only reasonable inference you find is that the
defendant is guilty of a charged crime, and that inference is
established beyond reasonable doubt, then you must find the
defendant guilty of that crime.9 (9. See People v Kennedy, 47 N.Y.2d 196 (1979).)"

Why should this question and answer situation be one way?
Many times the inference of guilt based on known facts has been presented, but we haven't seen one coming from the posters for the defense.

WHERE IS YOUR REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS?

What don't have one?

 

[Wudge]

No, they are definitely not directly additive, but then again crime and justice aren't mathematical formulas. Where human behavior and inculpatory evidence are involved, it becomes more about the cumulative effect of parts that could be explained away individually.

For example, if a bank was robbed by a 6'0" man in black, driving a red Bronco, the fact that I am a man is not a big deal. If I am a 6-footer as well, OK, I am in the range of possible suspects. If I drive a red Bronco, hmm, I will probably be questioned. If I was seen near the bank that day wearing black, I am now a definite "person of interest". If I made a very large deposit into my account the day after the robbery, I expect to be arrested.

See, any one of these pieces alone means little. The complete list paints a very clear picture, and in the absence of exculpatory evidence, the jury can make a clear connection, without a confession or an eyewitness to the actual crime.

We certainly won't have a video of what happened to Caylee, and we will never get a confession, but I believe the overwhelming trail of evidence will speak volumes in this case.

You might be questioned, but you should not be arrested unless you confessed (inculpatory evidence) or someone identified you as the bank robber (direct inculpatory evidence) or the stolen money was traceable and your deposit was determined to have been from the batch that was stolen from the bank (inculpatory physical evidence).

 

[Wudge]

"If there is a reasonable hypothesis from the proven facts
consistent with the defendant's innocence, then you must find the
defendant not guilty.8 (8. See People v Morris, 36 N.Y.2d 877 (1975).)
If the only reasonable inference you find is that the
defendant is guilty of a charged crime, and that inference is
established beyond reasonable doubt, then you must find the
defendant guilty of that crime.9 (9. See People v Kennedy, 47 N.Y.2d 196 (1979).)"

Why should this question and answer situation be one way?
Many times the inference of guilt based on known facts has been presented, but we haven't seen one coming from the posters for the defense.

WHERE IS YOUR REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS?

What don't have one?

The defense is not required to put on a case. The burden of proof rests entirely with the State.

 

[lizzysf]

The defense is not required to put on a case. The burden of proof rests entirely with the State.

And it looks like the State is carrying their case quite well so far. All we have heard from the defense is non-factual, across the board, talk show denial of the States presented evidence. I see stalling while they work on a defense.

 

[Rlaub44]

You might be questioned, but you should not be arrested unless you confessed (inculpatory evidence) or someone identified you as the bank robber (direct inculpatory evidence) or the stolen money was traceable and your deposit was determined to have been from the batch that was stolen from the bank (inculpatory physical evidence).

So all the circumstantial evidence in the world wouldn't matter. It almost sounds as if the standard you are shooting for is "beyond all possible doubt."

I understand better now why we have been at loggerheads over the evidence in Caylee's case.

 

[Wudge]

So all the circumstantial evidence in the world wouldn't matter. It almost sounds as if the standard you are shooting for is "beyond all possible doubt."

I understand better now why we have been at loggerheads over the evidence in Caylee's case.

Correct. What is needed is at least one item of highly reliable inculpatory evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder.

 

[lizzysf]

So all the circumstantial evidence in the world wouldn't matter. It almost sounds as if the standard you are shooting for is "beyond all possible doubt."

I understand better now why we have been at loggerheads over the evidence in Caylee's case.

Yes... in a pristine world of law school...reality of the law process occurs when you graduate..
Never by the books...the real world comes in and messes it up.

 

[USARDOG]

....Allegedly, disposing of the body by leaving it on the surface of the ground close to the road and near the home, as the State contends, is not act that supports a planned murder....

Edit by me for brevity.

There is no evidence that Caylee was disposed of my leaving her on the surface of the ground that I am aware of. In fact, there is a shovel in evidence, it is entirely possible that KC buried her in a shallow grave, (being she is as lazy as she is) and during the flood, she was uncovered.

As far as her being close to the road, she was back far enough that people looking for her for months were not able to find her.

As to premeditation, wasn't there several computer searches on her computer involving "Neck breaking," and another something about house hold items as weapons, followed by a death in that family... Sounds a lot like some premeditation going on there to me.

 

[lizzysf]

Wudge...have you made a personal decision as to whether the forensic reports on the Chloroform found in the trunk and the HOW to make Chloroform searches on the computer are valid based on the reports you read? Tell me what your viewpoint is about the same duct tape found in 3 places relating back to Anthony owned duct tape is.