Premeditated Murder #972

[lin]

Of course it's illogical. It's also frightful and absurd reasoning. For it does not follow that just because a prosecutor charges a person or persons with a particular crime that they must have some big evidence to support that charge.

Moreover, the action of the prosecutors in this case prove what I said to be true, because they originally charged Casey with murder one (premeditated murder) and the death penalty, but they later dropped the death penalty only to add it back. Obviously, prosecutors did not have something big in the way of evidence when they first dropped the death penalty.

As for trial experience, reason as you will. However, reasoning from what you do not know often produces conclusions that are simply wrong, sometimes hugely so.

HTH

You assume the prosecution didn't have anything "big" due to the fact they chose to not seek the death penalty at one time. That doesn't make sense at all. They didn't drop the murder charges nor did they make any announcement that they did not intend to seek substantial jail time. At no time did the prosecution announce they were considering any "slap on the wrist" type punishment. To suggest they did not have anything to support such serious charges, multiple felonies, remember, must be some sort of joke.

So, reason as you will. However, reasoning from what you do not know often produces conclusions that are simply wrong, sometimes hugely so.

ETA: IMO, missmybaby is one of the better posters here. The reasoning presented in the post under discussion, imo, is virtually flawless. However, the disagreement with that reasoning seems very farfetched and illogical, at best.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

It's actually not "logic." It's the law. If prosecutors file charges, they must believe the evidence supports those charges and expect the finder(s) of fact to agree and convict. How many times have we heard of investigations that seemed to go on and on because "there just isn't enough yet?" How many times have we all heard of prosecutors passing on cases, letting folks walk because "there wasn't enough?"

Seems like my experience is there are a whole lot more, as in an exponentially greater amount cases wherein someone is not prosecuted because the state feels they need "more" rather than wrongful convictions. That old saying about 'ten guilty men go free' lives, breathes and greatly outweighs wrongful convictions, as far as my recollection of noticing these things throughout my life.

ETA: So yeah, it is scary to the nth degree how many guilty are walking around and will offend again, just because prosecutors generally want slam dunk cases only.

:clap: Great post, lin!

I agree w/ you........I think the actuality of it is that there are far more perps running around that should have been charged, but could not be rather than the insinuation being made that SAs are charging innocent people right and left.

I can't believe (I know--- me, just a woman w/out a law degree, whose only experience in such matters is having served on a jury and time spent in a courtroom) that it is so common place for an innocent person to have specious, unfounded charges filed against them. What is this world coming to?

 

[lin]

Given that Casey's DNA was not found on any of the tape, yet the FBI lab admits to finding unidentified DNA on the tape, there is another clear option. That option being that someone other than Casey cut (or cut and tore) the tape and placed it over Caylee's face.

HTH

Please explain how some nefarious (imaginary) perpetrator's dna remained on the duct tape while none of Caylee's dna remained? It's clear that there was some contamination of that evidence, as is not an uncommon event. We do not live in a sterile world; that tape was not left in a sterile environment due to the fact that KC threw that baby away like trash, in a swampy, animal infested, bug infested, snake infested area. Well, maybe you reside in a sterile world and can expect that type of thing but most of us, I dare say, do not. It's a fact that poor Caylee's remains were not.

 

[magic-cat]

lin, You rock honey! Keep up the good work my dear because well, YOU ROCK!!!

 

[cecybeans]

Ya see now, I trust what comes from the FBI and the Body Farm...they're just doing their jobs IMO without thoughts of $$$. How are they poisoning the pool?

Sorry - that was a little dig at another post...I think you know how I feel about the situation.

 

[lin]

Yes. Please reread my prior post, specifically where I said: "For it does not follow ...

(I could not be clearer.)

It would be very helpful to me if you did not slash most of the posts you choose to quote. The meaning of whatever thoughts to which you respond are completely lost too often, imo, making it difficult to follow what's really going on. Quite often, it causes your reply to be nonsensical for the most part, to my reading. This post is a perfect example. By deliberately editing out most of the post to which you were responding, if one hasn't been following right along, they are left clueless as to what is being discussed. It's something I've noticed in many of your posts and it's kind of a pain to have to go back to find the post to which you responded to determine what is being discussed. Or is that the point in doing it that way?

All that being said, I certainly hope you can be clearer because it makes no sense to me, either. How is it logical to draw the inference, form the opinion, the state must not have any "big" evidence based on deciding not to seek the death penalty for a time but to conversely hold the totally contradictory opinion that to then turn around and seek the death penalty does not mean there is any "big" evidence? Seems to be the big change in strategy would necessarily mean a big change in the evidence. Logically speaking, of course.

 

[marspiter]

Listen to the experts testify for both sides, then decide if it's a proven match.

Sorry but for me the defense experts lose a lot of credibility. Take Kobi for example he almost completely changed his tune on Nancy Grace once he started working for the defense.

That pay check basically caused Kobi to contradict or lessen his previous statements on the show. I have a feeling those broadcasts will be brought in to discredit him.

Also these experts are being paid directly by the defense which also leads one to question the defense experts credibility.

Take Dr. Vass he is working for the University of Tennessee at their Oak Ridge lab. He is not being paid directly by the state to make the evidence fit their theory. The defense experts are.

The defense experts are being paid to confuse evidence and try to make the evidence fit the defenses thoery in the juries minds. They are not there to give accurate unbiased information in my opinion.

Also JB shot his experts credibility in the foot when he said that his experts where beyond the age of technology. These "experts" are not even able to log into a secured server to compare info stored on the server.

Your average sleuth on here has shown on ability to compare evidence posted on this site alone.

So I would question any "expert" that is not familiar with the latest technology. How can a person before the age of technology give accurate credible information about the latest technology and practices being used today in forensic science?

It's kind of like this. My stepfather was an engineer for many years back in the day. He worked mainly with electrical and hydraulic components. Despite his skill and knowledge he has no knowledge or working experience with the latest technologies in that field today. So as say a plant manager for a Coke bottling plant should a trust his opinion or the opinion of an engineer who has current working experience with the latest and greatest technology in that field today to design our new bottler?

Also if the information that was supposed to be on that secured server is now leaked into the public after the defense is allowed to make copies of the information....well I would venture to guess that if that happens the defense experts will lose more credibility.

 

[lin]

The problem is that a jury is supposed to be impartial (objective), but releasing alleged circumstantial evidence that allows crimetainment knuckleheads to continually demonize a defendant and poison minds of the jury pool. That creates stealth jurors, and stealth jurors are not easy to spot.

Please recognize that a trial provides the defendant with a defense team or at least an attorney who is responsible for presenting a side to the evidence that our media largely ignores. The media ignores it, because "guilty" improves ratings, whereas not guilty and/or a wrongful conviction is not a crowd pleaser. At best, they're channel changers.

That may be your opinion but the facts show that the defense is on tv regularly. The defense is blatantly attempting to "poison the jury pool" but without presenting a bit of evidence. The defense's voluntary media appearances; spurious allegations made without a whit of proof to back them up; and at best misleading statements as to the released discovery is the "poison" in this instance. The state's actions in complying with Florida law and complying with the defense's requests for release of discovery but without commentary are simply part of the legal process. I get so tired of seeing the state condemned for following the law, complying with orders of the court and defense requests.

Remember, folks, discovery is released to the defense prior to the public so the defense may challenge the release of any bit of that discovery prior to release, if they so choose. And they have challenged release of multiple discovery items, with some success.

Remember too that the defense fought the gag order requested by the state to prevent this information from getting into the hands of the public. Why? Perhaps because knowing the evidence they're facing, (remember JB sought a plea deal in July 2008), the defense figures their only chance is to deliberately spin the facts or to falsely represent the evidence in the media like they will be unable to do in the courtroom?

 

[lin]

I disagree. I think there is some manipulation as far as timing in the release of the information by the state or it would all come out at once. The media cannot request what has not been turned over and the SA controls to a degree what is turned over. That is where it is somewhat manipulated,imo.
Further I think it invades the privacy of many innocent bystanders and that is in and of itself an injustice. I understand the theory of transparency in government, but I don't think this is the way to do it.
Moreover revealing this to the jury pool prior is also poor form imo. We need an impartial jury and this doesn't lend itself to that.

But we have a whole thread on that topic and it seems we just cannot stay on the premeditation topic in here LOL.

So what about premeditation anyway?

I feel the manipulation is by the defense and the fight against the gag order proves it to me. None of this information had to be made public and the state sought a gag order to prevent the release. The state tried to do the right thing, so imo, can't be blamed for the fallout caused by the defense's need/desire to be in the media constantly.

 

[lin]

Excellent post Jill.

As for premeditation, the evidence that we know of requires too much in the way of guesswork to equate to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Relevant and highly reliable premises cannot be forged from the evidence that, in turn, would allow for a highly reliable conclusion of guilt on the premeditated murder count. And I'm not of the mind that this same evidence can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the aggravated child abuse charge or the manslaughter charge either. The circumstances surrounding Caylee's death are not at all clear.

What you seem to consider "guesswork" the law considers "drawing reasonable inferences."

 

[lin]

The cell phone records might be probative evidence of something, but I have no idea what they prove that relates to the major charges. We don't know when or how Caylee died or what the circumstances surrounding her death were. These are huge gaps in highly relevant and important evidence against the major charges.

What do the cell phone records prove?

The "when" or the "how" are not required to prove murder, even 1st degree murder, under Florida law. They "how" may be helpful to prove premeditation but it is again, not necessary. Furthermore, the trier of fact may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence presented.

 

[marspiter]

That may be your opinion but the facts show that the defense is on tv regularly. The defense is blatantly attempting to "poison the jury pool" but without presenting a bit of evidence. The defense's voluntary media appearances; spurious allegations made without a whit of proof to back them up; and at best misleading statements as to the released discovery is the "poison" in this instance. The state's actions in complying with Florida law and complying with the defense's requests for release of discovery but without commentary are simply part of the legal process. I get so tired of seeing the state condemned for following the law, complying with orders of the court and defense requests.

Remember, folks, discovery is released to the defense prior to the public so the defense may challenge the release of any bit of that discovery prior to release, if they so choose. And they have challenged release of multiple discovery items, with some success.

Remember too that the defense fought the gag order requested by the state to prevent this information from getting into the hands of the public. Why? Perhaps because knowing the evidence they're facing, (remember JB sought a plea deal in July 2008), the defense figures their only chance is to deliberately spin the facts or to falsely represent the evidence in the media like they will be unable to do in the courtroom?

This post deserved more then a simple click of thank you. This is absolutely correct. To me this above quoted statement eliminates any argument the defense can make about jury poisoning and possible CoV and or appeals based on such "poisoning".

Also remember the defense was asked to show evidence of Casey's innocence to back up TM's statements in court. It's one thing to plead your client is not guilty of the charges at hand, it's another thing entirely to state your client is innocent and you have evidence of such. That evidence has yet to surface and they have until February to disclose it.

I would venture to guess that if such evidence existed the defense would have already been tripping over themselves to release it has fast as possible. Also when this first came about the defense said they interrupted Casey's innocence from the states evidence (ie they had nothing of their own to prove it).

 

[celticthyme]

That may be your opinion but the facts show that the defense is on tv regularly. The defense is blatantly attempting to "poison the jury pool" but without presenting a bit of evidence. The defense's voluntary media appearances; spurious allegations made without a whit of proof to back them up; and at best misleading statements as to the released discovery is the "poison" in this instance. The state's actions in complying with Florida law and complying with the defense's requests for release of discovery but without commentary are simply part of the legal process. I get so tired of seeing the state condemned for following the law, complying with orders of the court and defense requests.

Remember, folks, discovery is released to the defense prior to the public so the defense may challenge the release of any bit of that discovery prior to release, if they so choose. And they have challenged release of multiple discovery items, with some success.

Remember too that the defense fought the gag order requested by the state to prevent this information from getting into the hands of the public. Why? Perhaps because knowing the evidence they're facing, (remember JB sought a plea deal in July 2008), the defense figures their only chance is to deliberately spin the facts or to falsely represent the evidence in the media like they will be unable to do in the courtroom?

Lin, A simple Thanks does not suffice here. You've got it exactly. Defense gets the discovery and rather then trying to find an actual defense for their client, ( which of course in reality they will never be able to do) they spend all their time trying to spin and challenge what is there. LKB may even be able to throw a lot of smoke, mirrors and confusion at the jurors, but none of them can do a damn thing about the 31 days, not a one of them. 31 days, 3 pieces of duct tape & no one else having access to Caylee in that short period of time on June `6, 2008. Done deal

Thankfully, I really do believe that a jury of her peers will be representative of the general population, and the mountains of evidence against the defendent, can in no way be twisted enough to have any question about her lack of guilt. There is no one else who had a horse in this race to want Caylee gone, except for Casey. Motive & opportunity, squarely in her corner. After all, she had a hot date waitin'

 

[lin]

But presenting facts when the other side cannot present their argument at the same time is contrary to our judicial system.
I know if I were on trial for a serious crime I would want all the facts and my rebut released at trial;otherwise it is prejudicial imo.
How much time have we had to pour over KC's defense? none because we don't have it yet. we can see her statements and actions and draw some conclusions but as we all know things are not always as they appear.
Enter my favorite point making youtube #3 is my favorite.
YouTube - Funny Ameriquest Commercials

Point is I'd like to see what the defense has to say.

I appreciate transparency in proceedings and I would want to make sure everything was available at the right time to anyone that wants to review specifics of a case. but the almost gossip like mentality of how this thing goes down is positively frightening to me.
There just has to be a better way to put the information out there but save the innocent people and lend to an impartial jury. Our 24/7 news fix can just be over the top.

Ok now that I have gone so far off topic I am going to give myself a time out.
a long time out.

That's where I differ -- the defense is often "saying" in various media forums, including the national media while the prosecution is saying nothing. If the defense had agreed to the gag order requested by the state, the discovery the defense demands; (whether it's due yet or not; whether it's under the state's control or not); would not be released to the public. Again, just in case anyone missed it -- The defense is free to challenge the release of any of the discovery which is one of the reasons the defense is given access prior to public release. The defense has successfully argued against the release of various bits of discovery; some we know about such as the jail video of KC when the remains were found; and some we may not yet know about.

 

[lin]

Holding that charges by a prosecutor equates to big evidence is scary, frightful and absurd. Still, I've heard jurors say worse.

Holding that prosecutors charge without compelling evidence is frightful and absurd, imo. However, if that were to happen, the checks and balances in the system, ie the judge and/or jury, generally prevent most wrongful convictions. Wrongful convictions represent a minute fraction of all convictions nationwide and I challenge anyone to provide reasonable statistics from a credible source that show otherwise. Furthermore, wrongful convictions are becoming fewer and fewer all the time due to advances in technology. In point of fact, it has been opined the so-called "CSI Effect" has caused some very guilty, very dangerous people to be set free and able to re-offend, which they most promptly did.

Conversely, I stand by my statement that as compared to wrongful convictions, there are an exponentially greater number of perpetrators set free without charges or plea bargained down to a slap on the wrist punishment compared to the offense committed due to the prosecutor's reluctance to take a case to trial without "slam dunk" evidence.

 

[marspiter]

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.

I would like to point out that it is not required by law. Cases can and are tried with only circumstantial evidence, and those verdicts do hold up on appeals.
Many cases have been cited in this discussion and other threads showing this. Also the standard is beyond "reasonable " doubt.

The law does not require absolution or a standard of proof beyond the shadow of doubt as nothing in a court of law can be proven beyond or to the point of 100% absolution. Also want to point out that I am not using the 100% as an example of assurance of a verdict's probability and not saying that a verdict must undergo a mathematical formula standard of proof. It was merely used to say nothing is 100% provable.

lol If you want a percentage figure for standard of proof I could ask my grand pappi, but it wouldn't be a standard of proof of evidence.....unless that evidence comes in a mason jar, is clear, and knocks your socks off. :crazy:

 

[lin]

I simply wanted to highlight those words, because they capture true wisdom.

...or the true idiocy of the defense in refusing to cooperate with a gag order...

 

[lin]

Do the cellphone records and/or a video and/or snuggling prove Casey committed a premeditated murder?

The behavior of the defendant is valid evidence and will be used as part of the whole. Isolating any one bit of evidence, as the defense regularly attempts to do, may make an explanation appear somewhat reasonable. However, when taken as part of the whole, as any circumstantial case must be viewed, it is a valid and vital part of that whole.

The defense wishes they could attack any single bit of damning evidence as was just done but sadly for them, very happily for the protection of society at large, that's just not what the law requires/allows. The defense must come up with a cohesive theory that explains all the evidence, to achieve an acquittal. It cannot be done, imo.

 

[lin]

--------------------------------------
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 thought it was if they "don't" find her?

 

[lin]

Jelly . . Love it!

We have had as much time to pour over Casey's defense as we have her prosecution.

There is no defense of triple taping a 3 year old child's airways, putting her in garbage bags wrapped in her own blanket, and dumping her in a swamp at the end of her street.

No defense what so ever. They could have 20 years, and there still would be no defense of this. I feel so strongly about the point that the truth is truth, fact is fact, no matter when it comes out or when we hear it, it is still constant. The defense can put out all the facts, truth & evidence they have to support Casey and her innocence.

Exactly. As JBean's very funny Ameriquest commercials pointed out, some things may seem obvious but when one discovers other facts one may reach a totally different conclusion. There are no such other facts in this case, else the defense would be touting them from the rooftops on their many national media appearances. Were their client truly innocent and were there actually any evidence of this, it would be horrible to let her pine away in jail all this time, destroying her health and losing so much of her young life. But unless and until I see such evidence, I won't assume it exists just because the defense insists it does.

The defense has lied to me before -- why would I take their word on this against all available evidence, all logic and against the honest, caring professionalism shown by the state thusfar?