Premeditated Murder #972

[marspiter]

Just wanted to point out that more evidence is coming down the pipeline. http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21361234/detail.html

Gee I guess the prosecution hasn't released everything they have yet, and I would be willing to bet that there is more to come as we get closer to trial. I guess that means thinking the SA might have other damaging evidence isn't to illogical.

That's just my opinion though.

 

[RR0004]

The trial should be in the courtroom not the media.
ok now I am erally giving myself a TO LOL.

ETA that is why they sequester and admonish a jury. So they cannot be influenced by media reports and water cooler talk.

So does that mean we are helping or hurting the case here?

(Though I still continue to believe we are better informed than any media outlet.)

Hope you won't be gone for long JB!

 

[RR0004]

Just wanted to point out that more evidence is coming down the pipeline. http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21361234/detail.html

Gee I guess the prosecution hasn't released everything they have yet, and I would be willing to bet that there is more to come as we get closer to trial. I guess that means thinking the SA might have other damaging evidence isn't to illogical.

That's just my opinion though.

I know I caught that too in the news thread. Couldn't help but wonder if it will come to us within a day. I'm getting greedy!

 

[lin]

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.

Just so there is no confusion: This must be a personal standard because it is certainly not a legal requirement that 'at least one item of highly reliable inculpatory evidence prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KC committed a premeditated murder.

Instead, as has been discussed at length, it is the totality of the evidence that will be considered to come to a conclusion of guilt or innocence. Of course, my opinion is that the discovery released so far shows overwhelming evidence of guilt of premeditated and felony murder.

 

[lizzysf]

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.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX5jtw7VZTA"]YouTube - 9222 CanalPlus[/ame]

 

[lin]

I do not hold that any chloroform allegedly found in the trunk to necessarily be related to Caylee's death. Nor do I hold that the tape is the instrument of Caylee's death. Without an established cause of death, I would be guessing. And guessing to a conclusion is obviously not of sufficient reliability to support proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, all juries make reasonable inferences based upon the evidence presented to come to their verdicts.

 

[lin]

Right now, the evidence that we know of has Caylee's remains being found on the top of the ground. Unless evidence is presented at trial that suppports her having been buried, the jury must necessarily work off evidence that supports a non-burial (left or tossed on the surface).

That's not quite accurate: If the jury is presented with evidence from which they may make a reasonable inference that Caylee was buried, they are free to do so and use that as a fact in considering their verdict. They are the finders of fact, after all.

 

[lin]

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

Yes, before rendering a binding verdict that may deprive someone of their liberty or even their life, the jury must consider the testimony of the experts from both sides. However, for the purposes of discussion, those of us not in a position to affect someone else's liberty are free to draw whatever conclusions we like. For example, the lack of any expert reports being turned over as required in reciprocal discovery under Florida law may lead some to conclude that no such evidence exists at this time. Unless and until such evidence is presented, some of us see no point in postulating that it may someday exist.

 

[lin]

Good that they're not required 'cause they don't have one...IMO.

rofl, gmta! I've been saying that all day! The defense may be able to explain some of the evidence away if taken individually but it's my firm opinion there is no possible cohesive defense theory that could overcome all of the evidence. The defense can't credibly argue SODDI or my personal fav, SONDI, to explain away some evidence and then turn around and try to argue accident and panic to explain away other evidence, such as Caylee in the trunk.

 

[lin]

It does appear that understanding the process of modern law (not the textbook variety) can well be defined by the tracking of the cashflow... And who is to blame?

I'd vote to convict the media on that one in this case!

 

[lin]

: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?

lol, clearly, ITA. The reason those cases of wrongful convictions make such headlines is because of their rarity. Were it a common event, they wouldn't garner such attention, imo. I don't have any stats to back this up but common sense leads me to believe that more people are convicted of crimes in an average day than are wrongfully convicted in the average decade. Even so, that minute error rate is steadily decreasing as technological and investigative advances continue.

 

[lin]

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

Thanks but nah, Muzikman rocks, I just roll.

 

[lin]

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.

And that, boys and girls, is the best explanation on some of the problems with the current defense experts that you're likely to ever read! (And Dr. Lee's admonishment during the Specter trial wasn't even needed to make the excellent points very clear!)

 

[lin]

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.

Sorry I wasn't more clear -- I meant the behavioral evidence as opposed to just circumstantial evidence in general. I predict the behavioral evidence will be admitted and used at trial over the strong objections of the defense.

 

[lin]

----------
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.

I'm so glad you're getting clarification cos I don't want to have to look it up! But if none is forthcoming, I'll do a search later tonight or in the a.m.

 

[Brini]

I know I caught that too in the news thread. Couldn't help but wonder if it will come to us within a day. I'm getting greedy!

Not greedy. Jonesing!

We need a 12-step. We devour doc dumps, then we get into withdrawal until the next doc dump.

 

[Brini]

I'm so glad you're getting clarification cos I don't want to have to look it up! But if none is forthcoming, I'll do a search later tonight or in the a.m.

It's definately, "if she isn't found."

 

[Brini]

Sorry I wasn't more clear -- I meant the behavioral evidence as opposed to just circumstantial evidence in general. I predict the behavioral evidence will be admitted and used at trial over the strong objections of the defense.

Yeah, I don't think the "ugly coping" thing will be accepted by the jurors.

 

[Wudge]

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.

High profile cases creates tremendous pressure on LE and the D.A.s office. My experience is that what they both want to do is lessen the pressure on themselves, so they will happily throw someone to the crimetainment wolf pack based on but minor particles of evidence or just a suspicion. And they do not have to arrest someone to ruin their lives. The experience of being wrongfully demonized by the media does a superb job of that.

I could list high-profile case after high-profile case where there was wrongful demonization and/or a wrongful conviction or, sometimes, a likely wrongful acquittal (often a result of celebrity justice). When a case is goes under the floodlights, my experience is that it's a great environment for bad things to happen, especially in our rush-to-judgment culture.

As for framing, just remember that most every wrongful conviction represents a framing. Sometimes it's a passive framing, because the person who truly committed the crime does not step forward. And sometimes D.A.s frame people by withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense -- 999 times out of a 1,000, nothing will happen to them. Moreover, LE has certainly been known to manufacture false evidence and use it to convict people, but I'm sure you know that.

 

[Brini]

High profile cases creates tremendous pressure on LE and the D.A.s office. My experience is that what they both want to do is lessen the pressure on themselves, so they will happily throw someone to the crimetainment wolf pack based on but minor particles of evidence or just a suspicion. And they do not have to arrest someone to ruin their lives. The experience of being wrongfully demonized by the media does a superb job of that.

I could list high-profile case after high-profile case where there was wrongful demonization and/or a wrongful conviction or, sometimes, a likely wrongful acquittal (often a result of celebrity justice). When a case is goes under the floodlights, my experience is that it's a great environment for bad things to happen, especially in our rush-to-judgment culture.

As for framing, just remember that most every wrongful conviction represents a framing. Sometimes it's a passive framing, because the person who truly committed the crime does not step forward. And sometimes D.A.s frame people by withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense -- 999 times out of a 1,000, nothing will happen to them. Moreover, LE has certainly been known to manufacture false evidence and use it to convict people, but I'm sure you know that.

Sorry, hon. There are always rotten apples, in any profession.

But, most people are NOT gonna buy that most LE and DAs are corrupt and that innocents are "framed" routinely, on the basis of political convenience. Particularly when WE see LA and DA's offices busting their buns chasing down leads and tracking perps. Some of us are married to, or are judges, LE, or lawyers, and we KNOW better.

And, at least in my experience, jurors aren't as stupid as you seem to think they are.

That's YOUR personal prejudice. With respect, you're welcome to it.

I just hope you never need a cop! Or, a DA.

BTW-- How the heck do you know which convictions are wrongful, unless there is an exoneration? Your "opinion" of the evidence?

And if you are upset about the media demonizing KC, be sure to give Jose Baez a call. He i the reason why there is no gag order. Him, PERSONALLY.