Premeditated Murder #972

[BeanE]

I am guessing here. There was a parallel drawn between the huck case and this case several times. We were also discussing that the victim's airways were taped shut. but the ME testified with medical probabilty because they could not have medical certainty, that Misty Morse was asphyxiated by drowning or the tape. 50-50.
It was most likely translated to be about this case because it was intermingled with the discussion so much.

Oooohhhhh gotcha. Sorry. I thought Wudge meant Caylee's ME.

Thanks so much, JBean.

 

[BeanE]

Yes, but wouldn't they have tested all who are known to have handled it afterward to exclude it being a stranger?
Isn't it a given that they would have already tested it against the A family dna?

As of Sept 30 2009:

FBI officials found DNA from one of their own lab technicians on duct tape taken off Caylee Marie Anthony's remains, according to documents released Tuesday by the State Attorney's Office.

Authorities also found a partial DNA profile from someone else on the tape — and the FBI acknowledged in documents that it doesn't know who that person is.

The FBI said it ruled out members of Caylee's family, including mother Casey Anthony, who is charged with the toddler's death.

No link to Casey Anthony in DNA on duct tape, FBI says
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/serv...ony-discovery-0930093009sep30,0,3152689.story

 

[tweety933]

I think the non-existant paternity of Caylee, the invention of Zanny the Nanny, and non-existant employment by Casey, infers premeditation due to the "previous difficulties between the parties", I also think the nature by which the duct tape was used being multiple layers covering both Caylees mouth and nose plus attached to her hair, infers premeditation.
As per Johnson v. State, 969 So. 2d 938, 951 (Fla. 2007) ("Premeditation can be inferred from circumstantial evidence such as 'the nature of the weapon used, the presence or absence of adequate provocation, previous difficulties between the parties, the manner in which the homicide was committed, and the nature and manner of the wounds inflicted."

 

[Wudge]

My repsonse in your quote in red.

I don't think an accident theory is going to even come in. Casey Anthony's defense team told 48 hours a stranger too Caylee. That sure explains the lies to her family and friends.,.http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2009/10/casey-anthony-defense-team-tells-cbs-48-hours-mystery-that-somebody-else-is-the-killer-of-this-child.html

If Casey's defense team uses SODDI as their case-in-chief, an accident is still on the table and will almost assuredly be considered and discussed, because the evidence supporting the State's murder one charge is extremely weak, to say the least.

Allegedly, planning a murder and then driving around with the victim's body in the trunk of their car for days, as the State contends, is not an act that supports a planned murder. 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. Both of these items of evidence work strongly against murder one and strongly for reasonable doubt, yet it's the State that will introduce this evidence at trial.

When the defense presents its case-in-chief, it would not even have to bring these points up, because these items of evidence will be presented by the prosecutors. And it's the State that carries the full burden of proof, yet reasonable doubt is naturally embedded and self-highlighting within the evidence they must necessarily claim constitutes a planned murder.

Net, the prosecutor's own evidence easily defeats their charge of Casey committing a premeditated murder.

 

[Ripley007]

If Casey's defense team uses SODDI as their case-in-chief, an accident is still on the table and will almost assuredly be considered and discussed, because the evidence supporting the State's murder one charge is extremely weak, to say the least.

Allegedly, planning a murder and then driving around with the victim's body in the trunk of their car for days, as the State contends, is not an act that supports a planned murder. 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. Both of these items of evidence work strongly against murder one and strongly for reasonable doubt, yet it's the State that will introduce this evidence at trial.

When the defense presents its case-in-chief, it would not even have to bring these points up, because these items of evidence will be presented by the prosecutors. And it's the State that carries the full burden of proof, yet reasonable doubt is naturally embedded and self-highlighting within the evidence they must necessarily claim constitutes a planned murder.

Net, the prosecutor's own evidence easily defeats their charge of Casey committing a premeditated murder.

You're forgetting that by law, just thinking about killing someone, SECONDS before actually doing so, constitutes pre-planned murder.

 

[lin]

You're forgetting that by law, just thinking about killing someone, SECONDS before actually doing so, constitutes pre-planned murder.

Exactly. Regardless of whether we like the law, it is what it is and that's the framework within which KC will be tried and convicted of premeditated murder or at the least convicted of felony murder with child abuse as the underlying felony. Either way she'll be eligible for the death penalty and I disagree with most who think that because of her age, looks and status that the dp is an unlikely sentence. I believe the facts of this case are sufficiently heinous, atrocious and cruel that the jury will feel they have no choice but to sentence KC to death whether they convict her of premeditated or felony murder.

I don't think the jury is going to be expecting a well thought out "plan" even for the murder much less for the aftermath when it's explained to them that premeditation can be formed in the twinkling of an eye, even as the act is in progress. Premeditation doesn't even have to be formed prior to the start of the murder, much less involve some long deliberation and planning. In one of the old threads a case was posted showing that, iirc, the act of beating someone to death showed premeditation due to the length of time involved.

Again, Premeditation can be found to have occurred during the murder. Planning in advance may be a noble requirement but it is not a legal requirement

I hope this is the best the defense can come up with at trial to argue against premeditation, that her "after plan" was so lacking. Can you spell 'slam dunk'?

 

[lin]

I think the non-existant paternity of Caylee, the invention of Zanny the Nanny, and non-existant employment by Casey, infers premeditation due to the "previous difficulties between the parties", I also think the nature by which the duct tape was used being multiple layers covering both Caylees mouth and nose plus attached to her hair, infers premeditation.
As per Johnson v. State, 969 So. 2d 938, 951 (Fla. 2007) ("Premeditation can be inferred from circumstantial evidence such as 'the nature of the weapon used, the presence or absence of adequate provocation, previous difficulties between the parties, the manner in which the homicide was committed, and the nature and manner of the wounds inflicted."

I think the jury will draw the same inferences from the evidence that you just did. I don't see how they could not. We're talking about 12 reasonable people; not 12 defense shills. Even those, I would think, would be hard pressed not to infer premeditation from the facts of this case.

 

[lin]

Like what, specifically?

Yes, I'm curious too --- What recent history, say within the last ten years, shows 'ample evidence' of the FBI labs finding things that aren't there?

 

[lin]

BBM

I'd like to also point out again that the duct tape was of sufficient strength, and/or applied in such a way, that through months of exposure to the elements, including heavy rains and flooding, as well as through the animal activity, Caylee's mandible was still held in place by the subject tape. Given that, I question whether, even if not restrained, Caylee could have removed that tape.

Exactly. I'm not sure I could pull off that tape. I don't think I've ever known of a two year old with that kind of intellect that would be able to figure out what was happening and even make the attempts to take it off rather than just being in a total crying panic. Earlier in the thread I posted about one of my children being knocked over or tripping into the water at the beach and not understanding that she could just sit up or stand up to get her face out of the water because she was just a baby.

Truthfully, my seven year olds although possessing the necessary intellect, would be more likely to just freak out, especially if they wake up in a dark trunk unable to breathe. I doubt either of them would have the strength or would be able to muster their physical and mental resources because of the terrifying panic of the ordeal.

 

[lin]

I thought I recalled reading this in documentation as well, which is why I wondered why LBK stated today that the prosecution's claim that the tape covered Caylee's mouth is NOT true?

The state has led you to believe that there's duct tape around the mouth," attorney Linda Kenney Baden tells CBS' Maggie Rodriguez. "All we can say is that's going to be a disputed issue."
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...omebody-else-is-the-killer-of-this-child.html

Yeah and CA disputes Caylee is dead.

 

[lin]

That's a warning shot across the prosecutor's bow from an attorney who is extremly capable at defending her position when it comes to forensic evidence. Defense attorneys who have the goods enjoy taking such pre-trial cannon shots.

And defense attorneys who have absolutely nothing, such as Geragos defending Scott Peterson, bluster and make promises they can't keep in vain attempts to sway the public, just like LKB is doing. We've all read the docs. She's speaking only to those who haven't and won't and hoping to sway public opinion.

The prosecutors weren't feeling a warning shot across their bow -- they were laughing themselves silly at the desperation of the defense.

 

[lin]

I understand the importance of denying the duct tape on the mouth, to defend against murder and/or premeditation. But, why would the defense challenge this piece of evidence if they intend to deny KC's involvement? It's also inconsistent with asserting the mystery DNA.

Because they have no cohesive theory of the case that can overcome the mountain range of evidence that is already in the hands of the public. It's not their fault that the facts of the case are so clearly damning and that KC boxed herself in with her narcissism, her inability to live more than 10 minutes at a time and just plain stupidity. There are major flaws in any alternative theory they may want to put forth. Unfortunately for KC, they can't put forth several different theories and expect a jury to cobble them together to convict of a lesser included offense, much less acquit.

 

[lin]

Ok, so this is the premeditated page, and the duct tape being a major piece of evidence toward that thought, does anyone worry about the unknown dna on the tape, or is that something that can be explained away.
It has me worried I have to admit, but I am probably ignorant of some facts about this. I know about the forensic lab person's dna, but this is the partial unknown I am talking about.

With the huge numbers of pieces of evidence in this case and the amount of people handling that evidence, from those on their hands and knees searching at the remains scene to the ME's office to the various labs testing and retesting various pieces of evidence, I'd be more surprised if there wasn't at least one piece of evidence that had something on it from some LE or lab person. The amount of dna was too small to get a real profile to show who it belongs to and to answer your question, nope, not worried a bit.

 

[lin]

My opinion, if Caylee's DNA wasn't on the tape, then any DNA found on it is probably post-collection.

Yeah, what treeseeker said.

 

[lin]

Agreed, and also let's consider that Caylee was bound papoose style in the Winnie the Pooh blanket so that she could not use her arms to try to pull the tape off, even if she had the motor skills to do so. Apologize if someone already mentioned this but didn't see it so I am throwing it out there.

Great point and great to have you back posting with us!

 

[Rlaub44]

That's a warning shot across the prosecutor's bow from an attorney who is extremly capable at defending her position when it comes to forensic evidence. Defense attorneys who have the goods enjoy taking such pre-trial cannon shots.

And prosecutors who have the goods and follow the provisions of the Sunshine Act are poisoning the jury pool, some say.

 

[Ripley007]

Exactly. I'm not sure I could pull off that tape. I don't think I've ever known of a two year old with that kind of intellect that would be able to figure out what was happening and even make the attempts to take it off rather than just being in a total crying panic. Earlier in the thread I posted about one of my children being knocked over or tripping into the water at the beach and not understanding that she could just sit up or stand up to get her face out of the water because she was just a baby.

Truthfully, my seven year olds although possessing the necessary intellect, would be more likely to just freak out, especially if they wake up in a dark trunk unable to breathe. I doubt either of them would have the strength or would be able to muster their physical and mental resources because of the terrifying panic of the ordeal.

I so agree. And there are a zillion documented cases of very young children DROWNING in very shallow pools of water....

 

[reeseeva]

Great point and great to have you back posting with us!

I'd also like to say Welcome Back, and have seen quite a few seasoned posters from the Caylee forums coming back on here:blowkiss:

 

[lin]

I'd also like to say Welcome Back, and have seen quite a few seasoned posters from the Caylee forums coming back on here:blowkiss:

And they add so much!

 

[Ripley007]

And defense attorneys who have absolutely nothing, such as Geragos defending Scott Peterson, bluster and make promises they can't keep in vain attempts to sway the public, just like LKB is doing. We've all read the docs. She's speaking only to those who haven't and won't and hoping to sway public opinion.

The prosecutors weren't feeling a warning shot across their bow -- they were laughing themselves silly at the desperation of the defense.

Remember, re: Scott P- Geragos promised to PROVE other people killed Lacy, yet when the it was the defences turn, he basiclly folded shop and rested. He made EMPTY promises in his opening statement, and then....NOTHING. Absofrigginlootyly NOTHING! Case closed. And his client will fry someday.