Premeditated Murder #972

[lin]

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?

You are again mis-stating the law. Our standard of proof is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' but it is the duty of the trier(s) of fact to determine what the facts are, what they mean and to draw reasonable inferences from those facts.

As a simplistic example: In an imaginary case, we have a murder weapon, a gun, with the defendant's fingerprints on it and matching ballistics to the bullet that killed the decedent. Without a confession, witnesses or videotape, a jury cannot say conclusively that the defendant actually used that weapon to murder the victim. However, based on that evidence, the jury may draw the reasonable inference that is what happened and convict.

 

[lin]

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?

What a novel idea! Have you considered starting a thread specifically to discuss this more in depth? Maybe premeditation wouldn't be the thing to prove first; maybe proving KC committed the crime should be the first thing to prove and then build premeditation with that foundation? Just a thought.

 

[lin]

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.

bbm

As always, excellent post. But, not just in your opinion. In fact, it appears to me that the defense is desperately struggling to find anything that could possibly suggest reasonable doubt of at least premeditation to the jury but coming up empty handed.

 

[lin]

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.)

The misleading percentages which have nothing to do with Florida law aside, not one of those items must be reliable enough to use as a premise that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that KC committed a premeditated murder. However, taken as a whole, I think a very compelling summary was given that when played out before a jury will result in a Murder1 conviction and despite the many opinions to the contrary, I predict KC will be sentenced to death. In my personal opinion, the circumstances of this case exceed the legal standard of 'heinous, atrocious and cruel' not to mention the underlying felony charge and the potential dp sentence from a death resulting from same.

 

[lin]

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

Exactly -- ITA -- KC won't be convicted solely on behavior but her behavior will be an important piece of a much larger mountain range of evidence showing her guilt.

The problem the defense has, the insurmountable problem the defense has, is that while they can attack this or that piecemeal, they cannot come up with a credible theory to explain all of the evidence that will be used to convict KC of the premeditated murder, (or at the very least felony murder), of Caylee. The state will not present their case "piecemeal" but as a cohesive theory. The defense cannot do the same because their client did, in fact, murder her baby girl in a heinous, atrocious and cruel way which met the legal standard of premeditation, imo, based on all discovery released so far.

 

[lin]

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?

It may be hard to argue CoV when the defense appears in the media regularly, particularly national media, as do the perp's 'rents.

 

[lin]

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.

I agree wholeheartedly and then some. Those percentages are, imo, a weak distraction at best and certainly not founded in Florida law or the law of any other jurisdiction of which I'm aware. Any poster's personal standards notwithstanding, as you've posted repeatedly, we're stuck with Florida law, like it or not. (I do.)

Many have opined the standards should be much lesser than those required by law. Their opinions are just as valid as those who feel the legal standards should be higher. (And every bit as valued, at least by me.) It is my considered opinion, after reading many examples of both arguments, that the conflict has been adequately resolved by the standards that actually apply to this case being somewhere in between both points of view. It is also my considered opinion that it's much more productive to use the actual applicable parameters, Florida law, rather than what any of us feel the law should require.

ETA: Maybe that would make for an interesting thread someday -- IF the law required _______...

 

[lin]

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.

It is circumstantial evidence and will be used at trial, I predict. It may not carry the weight with some as does, say, dna or ballistics but it is very compelling and (generally) admissible evidence.

 

[lin]

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'd be stunned, shocked and probably have to think up some new adjectives and even a few adverbs to describe the depth of my stupefaction. I would not be shocked if KC receives less than the dp as a sentence, as has been predicted by many posters here whose opinions I not only respect, but also admire due to the thoroughness, logic and research used therein. (You know who you are!!)

 

[JBean]

It is circumstantial evidence and will be used at trial, I predict. It may not carry the weight with some as does, say, dna or ballistics but it is very compelling and (generally) admissible evidence.

Predicting that they will present all evidence at trial is a pretty safe bet. It is a given that they will use circumstantial evidence at trial.

 

[coco puff]

I survived the OJ verdict and lived through the decision of Bolder LE to not to charge Ramsey's in JB"s death but I don't think i could handle a not guity verdict in this case. She was found in the woods, in trash bags with duct tape on her mouth. Her mom was the last person she was last seen with her and can't truthfully tell us what happended nor does she want to. Caylee was a defenseless 2 year old child left in the woods to rot. That does not happen accidently period, end of story!!! The only defense has been pointing out the percieved ineptitude of LE. WTH? A child is dead but LE is the bad guy??? And while we are at it, i can see one piece of evidence looking bad but turning out to be benign, but every single piece of evidence either looks bad for KC or does not implicate anyone except for the partical DNA found on the duct tape and the first 17 markers are the same as the other DNA found to be from the FBI person. All of those folks on their knees recovering what was left of Caylee. gggrrrrrrrr sorry for the rant.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

Cases can and are tried with only circumstantial evidence, and those verdicts do hold up on appeals.

SNIP

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.

SNIP

Circumstantial evidence can be highly reliable inculpatory evidence. In this case, there is no such highly reliable circumstantial evidence that proves Casey committed premeditated murder.

As for 100%, of course, I never said that.

 

[Brini]

Circumstantial evidence can be highly reliable inculpatory evidence. In this case, there is no such highly reliable circumstantial evidence that proves Casey committed premeditated murder.

As for 100%, of course, I never said that.

True. You said 150%. Specifically, you said the evidence doesn't add up to 150%. Here's the quote:

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.)

The cited percentages are not found in the Florida juror instructions.

Again, your opinion of the evidence is your opinion. We all have one, and each is as valuable as the others.

However, one's opinion is not necessarily going to be accepted, just because it is stated. This particularly if it is stated as fact, and the facts contradict the opinion.

 

[coco puff]

Circumstantial evidence can be highly reliable inculpatory evidence. In this case, there is no such highly reliable circumstantial evidence that proves Casey committed premeditated murder.

As for 100%, of course, I never?said that.

Wudge, I'm respectfully asking you this question. Who do you think are commiting all of these high profile crimes that LE has arrested the wrong people for? I'm serioulsy asking you if you think that LE in general are just that ineffective or do you think there are just a lot of extremely talented criminals that kill for no apparent reason and then elude LE and frame innocent people for their crimes.

 

[sumbunny]

I've always been told those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.

All i've seen from KC, and family are a bunch of people attempting to hide behind their lawyers
Why no polygraphs? Why all the mistruths? The truth doesn't change,yet a lot of the Anthony's statements have. As have kc's statements.

I believe the prior searches for missing children, chloroform, household weapons, along with her need to be free from her controlling mother lead me to believe she premeditated this murder, without knowing when she would actually do the deed. She needed that little push to just put her thoughts in motion.

 

[Nore]

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

----------
Hi lin, I thought so also but I was corrected by a member who is "in the know". I am still hoping to hear this brought up at trial. Take care.

 

[lin]

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.

And it can't be considered "proven" using a legal standard until this case goes to trial and a conviction is made by the jury. However, those of us that are not on the jury are free to draw our own conclusions from the evidence/discovery available. That the evidence doesn't meet your personal standard is your opinion and it is your right to hold that opinion. Many of us, however, (including the prosecution who are intimately familiar with all details of this case), strongly disagree with your opinion and instead find there has been overwhelming proof of guilt provided thusfar. As has been suggested many times by several posters, I agree that imo it would be more helpful to the discussion to not speak/write in absolutes as if your opinion is the law of the land, law of the case or even the law of the forum. While I respect your opinions, I find it difficult to respect or discuss anyone's opinion when presented as if it is foregone conclusion or inarguable fact.

Furthermore, I thoroughly disagree with your opinion that an accidental death theory remains an option. I have seen absolutely nothing to indicate that is an option that will or even can be exercised by the defense. To the contrary, everything I've seen indicates just the opposite, whether it be the discovery released or the posturing of the defense, (sans required reciprocal discovery), in the national media. Do you have any evidence to support your contention this remains an option at all, much less a viable option? I assert that an accidental death theory is absolutely not a viable option for many reasons, imo, including those listed in the accidental death thread(s).

Finally, please explain the significance you find in the dna on the duct tape. Those familiar with criminal law/trials know that contamination during or after collection is not uncommon. The fact that there was no dna from any Anthony, including Caylee who necessarily had the most contact with the duct tape, the parents who also handled the roll from time to time, seems to me to make this total non-starter. (And this has also been voiced by those with much more experience in criminal proceedings than have I.) If even Caylee's dna eroded away, what hope is there of any dna of the perpetrator remaining? It just doesn't make sense. Yes, I've heard the defense try to make hay of that but I've heard most, if not all, others who opined on the subject and who aren't being paid to mislead or poison the jury pool, say the defense was being ridiculous in taking such a stance. I could understand a novice, someone with very little knowledge of criminal law or trials jumping to an erroneous conclusion about the contamination due to their total lack of knowledge on how things work in the real world. However, it was my understanding from previous posts you wrote that you have been following criminal cases through the media for over 50 years. I realize the internet wasn't available in its present form for most of those 50 years to allow better and more in depth understanding of the legal process and legal standards but surely this cannot be the first time you've ever heard of post-collection contamination?

 

[lin]

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

That question cannot be answered in a pithy post or concise summary. It is the cumulation of all of the evidence upon which the prosecution relies to prove their case, not any one or any three or four bits of evidence. Most convictions do not include a confession, eyewitness(es) or "smoking guns." To suggest otherwise is at best oversimplifying the legal process and misleading.

 

[lin]

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.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Simply brilliant! Thanks

 

[lin]

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

Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU!

:clap: :clap: :clap: