Premeditated Murder #972

[LCoastMom]

I agree...but personally when telling the gas can story (which makes my head hurt!) he was merely explaining how he had tricked Casey into revealing she had stolen them. George knew she was lying IMO. Do you think he was trying to say she hadn't taken those dang cans?

Right I agree; yes, he did know and caught her red handed.
Sorry I wasn't very clear. I was trying to say if GEO took the can/s out on his own, then told KC what he had done,she undoubtedly would have claimed she had no idea the can was in her trunk. That altercation between the two may end up being important.

And just pointing out how if this is a big piece of the puzzle, it was handed over to LE on a platter and gift wrapped; thanks to Lee and Geo.

I am asking about the swabs results of the two gas cans and the interior of the oil pan of KC's car. OCSO sent these swabs to the FBI asking to test for decomp. A letter, dtd 3.09, discusses the swabs but I cannot find the results for these swabs.

Sorry if my wording was confusing.

I should have asked it this way: Was decomp found on the bottom of the gas cans and in the interior of the oil pan of KC's car?

CZ, No you weren't confusing at all. I haven't seen that doc yet either. But if it does show decomp that's another nail in KC's coffin and possibly part of the states case against her.

There has to be the dreaded daisy chain connecting KC to Caylee. She isn't that smart to have known how to remove every little piece of trace. Granted 6 mos in the elements were all in her favor, but in my gut I can't see LE sticking with a DP, if they didn't know something BIG.

Have we ever gotten labs on any of the vacuum bags and all the other things taken from the house, that connect Caylee to the house?

 

[Wudge]

Thank God they are not. We would have no access to the real facts, only a sanitized version as would fit their needs. The public, and by extension, Juries are not permitted to see enough information in other states. I say Bravo for Florida.
Let all the information be scrutinized. If it's the truth it will withstand close examination.

Obviously, the media is not vested with publishing the evidence nor the 'real facts'. The closest thing we have for that purpose are trials.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

but in my gut I can't see LE sticking with a DP, if they didn't know something BIG.

SNIP

Logic: if prosecutors make a charge, they must know something big.

(Scary to the nth degree.)

 

[Rlaub44]

Logic: if prosecutors make a charge, they must know something big.

(Scary to the nth degree.)

Why is that scary? missmybaby was simply stating her opinion that prosecution is wise enough to not overcharge without some cause, something that you have certainly shared your opinion about frequently.

Is your post suggesting that missmybaby's opinion isn't logical? Because I happen to agree with her reasoning.

If State pursued the DP without some meaningful evidence that pointed toward premeditation, they run a greater risk of alienating jurors who are correctly looking for proof beyond a reasonable doubt before potentially sentencing KC to death. It is logical to think that jurors look for more certainty in a DP case, whose sentence cannot later be undone once carried out.

If we understand that about jurors, it is logical to expect prosecutors, who have much more trial experience than you or I, to understand that as well.

While I may hold a different opinion than you, I would never suggest that your beliefs are scary or that you are illogical. If I responded that way, I worry I would close off the possibility of any good discussions we could have about the evidence, and whether or not, in our opinion, it supports premeditation.

 

[snow_walker]

premeditation.. I am not so very sure that this crime was premeditated. Or maybe I still don't grasp what premeditation really means, despite having it explained to me numerous times.. I can see a person in a fury more or less grapping a piece of tape and slapping it across a childs mouth without any real thought.. but I have a much harder time seeing three or four pieces of tape being placed across their face without a moment to think about it.

it takes time to cut and paste that tape on a child.. but my real problem point is that she didn't take it off again.. a struggling child dying right in front of you when you know you have only to remove the tape (yes it would hurt, but still one would do it) so she could breathe. Maybe she had 3 or 4 minutes to come to the rescue, that is plenty of time to re-think one's actions.

Still let us say she got the tape on, and then tried to remove it and Caylee died before she could do so.. perhaps that is not premeditated... or not premeditated enough.

I think it is a moot point anyway, as I understand things in Florida law, death during an action of child abuse is still DP murder, even if the death was not intentional.

 

[Brini]

The effect is the same. Sunshine laws simply legalize the poisoning of jury pools. As I said elsewhere, Sunshine laws are not written by defense attorneys.

And, they are not voted in by attorneys on either side.

 

[Brini]

Logic: if prosecutors make a charge, they must know something big.

(Scary to the nth degree.)

Logic: If the state feel confident in making THOSE charges, in the absence of the victims remains, they must know something big.

Logic: If the FBI remains involved in a case (as they don't, unless they have a 90% chance if winning), they must know something big.

Yep, You're right! Scary to the nth degree!

Thanks!

 

[Brini]

Obviously, the media is not vested with publishing the evidence nor the 'real facts'. The closest thing we have for that purpose are trials.

So, how do you feel about the defense opposition to the gag order that the state requested?

 

[Brini]

I'm old but not wretchedly forgetful, not yet anyway. A reminder I sometimes offer is that 'could', 'if', 'maybe', 'possible', etc., matters not. What matters is the existence of evidence that proves the necessary elements of a charged crime. And in a recent post, I did state that premeditation can be formed in a short period of time. I also stated that in this case, I didn't think such could be proven without either an eyewitness or a confession, neither of which exist.

And, stating an opinion does not make it fact. It makes it another opinion.

This particularly true of no case law is posted to support said opinion.

And, as the jury instructions state, and as has been proven by case law many times, the jury may consider circumstantial evidence.

In how many prosecuted murder cases is there an eyewitness and/or confession?

Again, you appear to be confusing direct evidence with "real evidence" (your words).

 

[Brini]

Obviously, the media is not vested with publishing the evidence nor the 'real facts'. The closest thing we have for that purpose are trials.

What are the "real facts" of the case? In your opinion.

 

[LambChop]

premeditation.. I am not so very sure that this crime was premeditated. Or maybe I still don't grasp what premeditation really means, despite having it explained to me numerous times.. I can see a person in a fury more or less grapping a piece of tape and slapping it across a childs mouth without any real thought.. but I have a much harder time seeing three or four pieces of tape being placed across their face without a moment to think about it.

it takes time to cut and paste that tape on a child.. but my real problem point is that she didn't take it off again.. a struggling child dying right in front of you when you know you have only to remove the tape (yes it would hurt, but still one would do it) so she could breathe. Maybe she had 3 or 4 minutes to come to the rescue, that is plenty of time to re-think one's actions.

Still let us say she got the tape on, and then tried to remove it and Caylee died before she could do so.. perhaps that is not premeditated... or not premeditated enough.

I think it is a moot point anyway, as I understand things in Florida law, death during an action of child abuse is still DP murder, even if the death was not intentional.

Something else to think about. With three separate pieces did she rip three individually before taping or did she rip the tape as she was going along. Either way, time to stop and think about what she was doing.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP


Is your post suggesting that missmybaby's opinion isn't logical? Because I happen to agree with her reasoning.

SNIP

If we understand that about jurors, it is logical to expect prosecutors, who have much more trial experience than you or I, to understand that as well.

SNIP

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

 

[Wudge]

Something else to think about. With three separate pieces did she rip three individually before taping or did she rip the tape as she was going along. Either way, time to stop and think about what she was doing.

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

 

[Brini]

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

So, the fact that the state added the DP back in, as more forensic evidence came in from the labs (and after the remains were found), proves that they don't have a case?

Please explain that logic. It doesn't make sense, to me.

BTW-- I would also disagree that another member's opinion represents "frightful and absurd reasoning." because you do not agree.

 

[LambChop]

The most important DNA evidence would have been Caylee's on that tape. Complete absence of her DNA rules out the possibility of anyone else's DNA to still be on that tape. The tape was on her skin, face, nose, mouth. It should have been full of HER DNA. Nada. Any DNA did not survive. What survived were fibers and they will tell their story.

Now if I were a juror....that would make perfect sense to me.

 

[Brini]

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

No, not necessarily. Actually, some experts have weighed in to state that:

1) The original DNA was likely eradicated by being underwater for so long, and

2) It's not unusual to find some foreign DNA in a sample that goes though lab testing. When that happens, they weed our their lab techs. also,

3) In the event that some DNA DID survive the elements, it might also belong to the person who made/sold the tape.

And, logically, again, if one wants to point to a SOD, one must explain who and how wrested the baby from KC's care and control. They jury won't look past that. Also, how did said SOD get the decomp into the car?


But on topic! I think some of us feel that we've established that premed is not an issue, if Caylee died 2nd to aggravated child abuse. If taping up a baby's face isn't child abuse, I'm not sure what is. And, that it was placed to kill her enjoys legal precident.

BTW-- I can prolly find those sources re: the duct tape, if anyone wants them. It may have to wait until after an appointment that I have in an hour, though.

Thanks!

 

[Rlaub44]

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

OK, I have re-written this twice so far, as I like this place and don't wish to break TOS.

You call our reasoning "frightful and absurd", then follow that by stating that "obviously, prosecutors did not have something big in the way of evidence when they first dropped the death penalty."

If you cannot see the absolute contradiction in that, let me try to explain.

In your opinion, I cannot reason that because prosecutors are seeking the death penalty, they must have enough evidence in their minds to support it. You can, however, reason that because prosecutors dropped seeking the death penalty at one point in time, they obviously didn't at that time feel they had enough evidence to warrant it.

Am I reading your post correctly? When prosecutors dropped the DP, it is logical to state that they must not have had enough evidence. When prosecutors reinstituted the DP, it is then not logical to state that they must have enough evidence?

If I am misinterpreting your position, Wudge, please clarify for me, as I want to be certain I am understanding where you are coming from. Thanks in advance!

 

[marspiter]

OK, I have re-written this twice so far, as I like this place and don't wish to break TOS.

You call our reasoning "frightful and absurd", then follow that by stating that "obviously, prosecutors did not have something big in the way of evidence when they first dropped the death penalty."

If you cannot see the absolute contradiction in that, let me try to explain.

In your opinion, I cannot reason that because prosecutors are seeking the death penalty, they must have enough evidence in their minds to support it. You can, however, reason that because prosecutors dropped seeking the death penalty at one point in time, they obviously didn't at that time feel they had enough evidence to warrant it.

Am I reading your post correctly? When prosecutors dropped the DP, it is logical to state that they must not have had enough evidence. When prosecutors reinstituted the DP, it is then not logical to state that they must have enough evidence?

If I am misinterpreting your position, Wudge, please clarify for me, as I want to be certain I am understanding where you are coming from. Thanks in advance!

I believe Wudge is of the opinion that the state doesn't have enough evidence regardless of whether or not they dropped the death penalty. Wudge's point of view as I understand it is that based on the evidence we have seen thus far is that Casey is not guilty of the charges she is charged with in this case. Further I think Wudge believes the state could not have any such evidence to convict Casey of the charges based on the elements of what is needed for murder 1.

Not trying to speak for Wudge just trying to clarify what I think Wudge's stance is.

I personally am of the same thought as you Rluab. I personally don't see the prosecution moving forward on this case with these particular charges if they don't feel they have a case. They could have just charged her with felony murder which requires less elements then murder 1. They didn't do that and that leads me to think there is a reason for such.

I do have to admit however that based on the limited info we have currently that premeditation right now as it stands would be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I do however think that Dr. G's testimony along with other key evidence will take away that difficulty. Such as the entomology reports and other evidence that has yet to be released in this case. The thread talking about JB's objections during Cindy's depo also makes one wonder what other evidence is there that has been sealed or will be sealed until trial.

I will stand to reason that all of the evidence in this case has yet to be released and as we get closer to trial I feel more evidence will come to light showing Casey's guilt in accordance to all the elements for murder 1. Also based on Knight that Lin brought forward for us the SA can also ask for felony murder. That is not off the table even though its not been placed on the table so to speak.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

If I am misinterpreting your position, Wudge, please clarify for me, as I want to be certain I am understanding where you are coming from. Thanks in advance!

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

(I could not be clearer.)

 

[Wudge]

I believe Wudge is of the opinion that the state doesn't have enough evidence regardless of whether or not they dropped the death penalty. Wudge's point of view as I understand it is that based on the evidence we have seen thus far is that Casey is not guilty of the charges she is charged with in this case. Further I think Wudge believes the state could not have any such evidence to convict Casey of the charges based on the elements of what is needed for murder 1.

Not trying to speak for Wudge just trying to clarify what I think Wudge's stance is.

I personally am of the same thought as you Rluab. I personally don't see the prosecution moving forward on this case with these particular charges if they don't feel they have a case. They could have just charged her with felony murder which requires less elements then murder 1. They didn't do that and that leads me to think there is a reason for such.

I do have to admit however that based on the limited info we have currently that premeditation right now as it stands would be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I do however think that Dr. G's testimony along with other key evidence will take away that difficulty. Such as the entomology reports and other evidence that has yet to be released in this case. The thread talking about JB's objections during Cindy's depo also makes one wonder what other evidence is there that has been sealed or will be sealed until trial.

I will stand to reason that all of the evidence in this case has yet to be released and as we get closer to trial I feel more evidence will come to light showing Casey's guilt in accordance to all the elements for murder 1. Also based on Knight that Lin brought forward for us the SA can also ask for felony murder. That is not off the table even though its not been placed on the table so to speak.

I've stated my position often and clearly; i.e., the evidence we know of is insufficient to support a finding of premeditated murder. The reason being that there is no direct evidence and the rest of the evidence does not provide for highly reliable premises to be formed that would reach the certainty level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

HTH