Premeditation

[ThoughtElf]

This is where I get very confused. What exactly is she charged and what points do the prosecution have to prove to get a conviction? Wasn't there a thread on this very subject before? I would love to read it so if anyone could help me find it, I would be grateful.

I found stuff dispersed across many threads, but this is a good starting point:

This thread is to discuss each of the three major charges, what they mean and what must be proven to the jury for a guilty conviction.

Murder 1

(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:

1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;
is murder in the first degree and constitutes a capital felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0782/SEC04.HTM


Aggravated Manslaughter

(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0782/SEC07.HTM&Title=-%3E2007-%3ECh0782-%3ESection%2007

Aggravated Child Abuse:

2) "Aggravated child abuse" occurs when a person:

(a) Commits aggravated battery on a child;

(b) Willfully tortures, maliciously punishes, or willfully and unlawfully cages a child; or

(c) Knowingly or willfully abuses a child and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child.

A person who commits aggravated child abuse commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0827/SEC03.HTM

7.7 MANSLAUGHTER [section] 782.07, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Victim) is dead.

Give 2a, 2b, or 2c depending upon allegations and proof.

2. a. (Defendant) intentionally knowingly or consciously committed an act that caused the death of (victim).

b. (Defendant) intentionally knowingly or consciously procured an act that resulted in the death of (victim).

c. The death of (victim) was caused by the culpable negligence of (defendant).

In order to convict of manslaughter by intentional act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had a premeditated intent to cause death.

Culpable Negligence - culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing careless disregard for the safety and welfare of another person or persons.

 

[Dear Prudence]

I found stuff dispersed across many threads, but this is a good starting point:

Thanks ThoughtElf! Exactly what I was looking for and I'm off to read it now.

 

[ThoughtElf]

Some high-profile cases produce a proper conviction. However, my experience has been that high-profile cases more often result in wrongful convictions or celebrity justice wrongful acquittals or extensively demonize some poor soul or souls in the media without there ever being an indictment. Similarly,this case could well result in a conviction when the evidence does not support the charge.

I don't think I have ever asked before, do you feel there is enough evidence to support any conviction of Casey for any crime in regards to Cayle's death? And if so, what crime would you expect an indictment/conviction for?

If it follows that Caylee's death was an accident, would you support charges relating to Casey not reporting Caylee's death? Or charges relating to how she disposed of Caylee's remains?

 

[Wudge]

I don't think I have ever asked before, do you feel there is enough evidence to support any conviction of Casey for any crime in regards to Cayle's death? And if so, what crime would you expect an indictment/conviction for?

If it follows that Caylee's death was an accident, would you support charges relating to Casey not reporting Caylee's death? Or charges relating to how she disposed of Caylee's remains?

We have trials to hear the evidence from both sides and then decide if the evidence supports any charge. What I have been able to functionally do is assess the evidence that we know of against the well understood 1st degree murder charge, which is possible because the State bears the full burden of proof, and it's highly unlikely that there is smoking gun evidence that we do not know about.

 

[ThoughtElf]

We have trials to hear the evidence from both sides and then decide if the evidence supports any charge. What I have been able to functionally do is assess the evidence that we know of against the well understood 1st degree murder charge, which is possible because the State bears the full burden of proof, and it's highly unlikely that there is smoking gun evidence that we do not know about.

I understand. I also am not anticipating the release of smoking gun evidence at this stage of the game. I think we've seen the bulk of it, as is.

I'd still like to prod you into sharing your opinion on whether you believe ther is enough evidence to perhaps lay different charges if the accident theory was in play? *poke*

 

[Just Jayla]

Well,since they are never going to be able to show how it was applied due to not having any body tissue and the elements wreaking havoc, then I guess you would not vote for the DP.I don't even know why we keep going back and forth on this premeditation point anyway, because I think I have read she can get the DP by virtue of Caylee's young age.

I am not a big fan of the DP anyway, as I don't think it is applied evenly enough, so for me it does not matter what they convict her of, just so long as they convict her and she gets hardtime for a LOOOOONNNNG time.

BBM, now we might be getting into the area of what is reasonable when in doubt...If a jury hears death smell+missing 31 days+partying+duct tape+more evidence we have not seen, they might make the leap to the DP.

The question of when/how it was applied might not be a strong argument for the defense if the state has evidence that nullifies that point.

 

[JBean]

Oh, I'd love to see a thread on this. I've gotten so many different explanations of how it works. From what I've heard, the SA releases all discovery (that they are finished investigating) to the defense, who gets a head start (15 to 30 days - I've heard both) before it is available, under Sunshine Law, to the media. However, I believe that the defense can withhold discovery (pending their own investigation) if they so wish for as long as they like before trial. Also, the media is also not required to release their copies of it all at once to the public if the desire.

If that's the way it works (and I hope some Floridian will help clear this up if I've misunderstood), then it would appear there could be three points of restriction: first the SA, then the defense and then the media. Since the SA has turned over 10K+ pages, I'm assuming that the reason we do not have them all (barring docs from FBI which are not on that timetable) is that a) the defense is holding some back pending investigation or the media is releasing things over time (which I doubt they are likely to do since they would be competing with private citizens who could also petition access to the material and publish them on websites). TIA to anyone who can give us the scoop!

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78590&highlight=sunshine

 

[Wudge]

I understand. I also am not anticipating the release of smoking gun evidence at this stage of the game. I think we've seen the bulk of it, as is.

I'd still like to prod you into sharing your opinion on whether you believe ther is enough evidence to perhaps lay different charges if the accident theory was in play? *poke*

From day one, my position has been and remains that the evidence that we know of is insufficient (state lacks the necessary evidence) to support a 1st degree murder charge. That's all that I'm able to assess at this time.

 

[ThoughtElf]

I think I'm off for the night, too. I have a turkey & ham to cook tomorrow so y'all show up on the doorstep around 5:00 EST and we'll debate premeditation over stuffing & pie.

 

[sleutherontheside]

While I recognize and respect the requirements for a murder 1 conviction, I can't logically explain away or discount evidence released thus far and leave room for the possibility that KC is not guilty of something. I would be more inclined to allow an accident defense if the actions of KC were other than what she displayed. If there were several true "grey areas" or "contradictory evidence", I would feel an obligation to err on the side of caution (reasonable doubt). In this case, while I don't believe there is a "golden" smoking gun, I do feel that there are still avenues and leads being worked and thus info yet to be released. Sunshine State Laws allow for "work in progress" to remain confidential until it has been exhausted and is considered complete. I can't think of a single other person that would have a motive / opportunity to kill Caylee. Too allow an acquittal, there would be too much evidence to question and assign reasonable doubt. I am clearly not an attorney, but I have logic and reasoning on my side.

 

[JBean]

From day one, my position has been and remains that the evidence that we know of is insufficient (state lacks the necessary evidence) to support a 1st degree murder charge. That's all that I'm able to assess at this time.

I have to agree.
I do, however, think she is guilty of some degree of murder; perhaps felony murder.
But once I see all the evidence laid out and presented I suspect there will be more information to support 1st degree.

 

[Cat13067]

Oh, I'd love to see a thread on this. I've gotten so many different explanations of how it works. From what I've heard, the SA releases all discovery (that they are finished investigating) to the defense, who gets a head start (15 to 30 days - I've heard both) before it is available, under Sunshine Law, to the media. However, I believe that the defense can withhold discovery (pending their own investigation) if they so wish for as long as they like before trial. Also, the media is also not required to release their copies of it all at once to the public if the desire.

If that's the way it works (and I hope some Floridian will help clear this up if I've misunderstood), then it would appear there could be three points of restriction: first the SA, then the defense and then the media. Since the SA has turned over 10K+ pages, I'm assuming that the reason we do not have them all (barring docs from FBI which are not on that timetable) is that a) the defense is holding some back pending investigation or the media is releasing things over time (which I doubt they are likely to do since they would be competing with private citizens who could also petition access to the material and publish them on websites). TIA to anyone who can give us the scoop!

You pretty much nailed it. The FBI is not under any guide lines from the state of Florida, so they can release their findings to the SA when they are completed.

 

[Kentjbkent]

As much as I hate to say it, duct taping the mouth isn't necessarily done with the intent to kill.

Indiana Teacher Fired for Duct Taping Kid's Mouth Shut
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,480259,00.html

Disabled child hurt when stepfather rips duct tape from his mouth
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13169561

Child's Mouth Duct-Taped At Day Care, Says Family
LINDEN, Tenn. -- The parents of a Perry County child said their 4-year-old son had his mouth duct-taped by his teacher while attending day care.
http://www.wsmv.com/news/20949720/detail.html

But with all due respect, we are not talking about just Caylee's mouth being duct taped. In the above cases, I would assume the reasoning behind placing duct tape over the mouth was to QUIET the child since no mention of the nose area (to completely block ability to breathe) being covered as well.

I think that is what makes these cases different from Caylee's. Caylee's mouth and nose openings were completely covered by duct tape, I believe, not in attempt to quiet her, but to stop her ability to breathe by any means.

 

[Kentjbkent]

This is exactly what I think happened. Maybe kc was afraid the drug/chloroform wouldn't work so she duct taped her just in case or maybe she just couldn't hold her down and tape her, so she gave her the drugs/sedatives to quiet her first.

I think all the discussion about if her hands and feet were bound is pointless. It wouldn't be impossible to tape her mouth without doing so to her feet and hands, so it doesn't really matter.

And, as others have pointed out, her tiny little bones were scattered. The pieces of duct tape found around the dump site could've easily been used, or something else taken away by animals.

I have been thinking about this myself as well.

I am currently theorizing whether KC originally attempted a chloroform end to Caylee's life, but it either did not produce the results she was looking for, she didn't "produce" enough or something of this nature.

As for the duct tape scenario, I am wondering if:

KC made the decision to end Caylee's life (premeditation) but wanted to do it in the "cleanest", easiest and manner least likely to be traced back to her as a suspect.

a manner that supported her "kidnap scenario" since this story to cover a murder has been attempted (and reported by the media, think Susan Smith) before.

I wonder if KC used duct tape to suffocate Caylee as placing her hands around Caylee's neck or face would not support her "kidnapping" scenario (common for kidnappers to bound and gag their victims during the commission of the kidnapping), and could possibly lead LE back to her as a suspect when Caylee's body found (fingerprints, indentations).

Suffocation is a clean and quick death.

 

[Kentjbkent]

For the sake of debating with myself, has anyone come up with a logical, rational possible explanation for why these three pieces of duct tape would have been placed over the entire mouth AND nose area, either before after the death of Caylee, by KC (or the person who murdered Caylee for those who are still following that theory)?

I am so trying to play devil's advocate with myself here, but cannot for the life of me come up with a single scenario that makes sense logically or brings any of the evidence we also know into play?

 

[LawRig]

"..a logical, rational possible explanation for why these three pieces of duct tape would have been placed over the entire mouth AND nose area, either before after the death of Caylee..." Kentjbkent


as much as it hurts my heart to type this, the ONLY logical and biological explanation (IMO) that fits three pieces of layered tape being placed over the nose and mouth is to ensure the obstruction of breathing... suffocation of the living victim.

not leakage prevention of fluids, but suffocation of a living, breathing victim


the horror of that is nearly more than I can bear to think of....

 

[Kentjbkent]

As much as I hate to say it, duct taping the mouth isn't necessarily done with the intent to kill.

(CLIPPED FOR BREVITY)

JBean, you really have me thinking here, so for the sake of argument, I am going to make a 180 degree turn and surmise that perhaps the duct tape does NOT constitute intent to kill.

Is it possible that Caylee DID die on the afternoon of the 16th due to a neglectful accident on the part of KC. Since it is surmised that Caylee's body was in a fetal position, perhaps KC used a chloroform "cloth" on Caylee while she was sleeping on the bed in her room.When KC discovered that Caylee was no longer alive, she panicked which brought on the quick flurry of cellphone calls.

Not reaching anyone, KC immediately begins creating the lie to cover Caylee's death and immediately comes up with the kidnapping scenario. She eventually moves Caylee's body to the trunk of her car (for disposal) which is why there were traces of chloroform.

Perhaps she did not immediately place Caylee in the trunk. In her panic of covering up, she may have taken Caylee into the backyard and placed her by the pool hoping to "set up" a scenario of Caylee drowning, but then figured evidence was not going to support that (she is CSI knowledgable, remember?)

To eventually support the story she is going to use (when Caylee's body is found, and I do think she knew it would be eventually as it wasn't really "hidden"), she placed the duct tape while Caylee (still in a fetal position since death has now occurred) is in the trunk.

Perhaps the reason that the "accident scenario" has never been mentioned by the defense is that KC has never suggested it. To admit to any type of an accident scenario would still bring charges and possible jail time, and I believe that KC still strongly believes that her "nanny kidnapping story" is very believable and that she has JoseBGood (sorry, Brini!) already convinced of it.

Those who lie regularly have absolutely no problem immediately believing their lies.

So now, someone talk me out of this scenario because I really want a 1st degree murder conviction!!

 

[ThoughtElf]

So now, someone talk me out of this scenario because I really want a 1st degree murder conviction!!

I'd start with the discussion here:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3959195&highlight=huck#post3959195

The merits of the Huck case have been thoroughly debated there. Personally, I walked away agreeing with the state of FL that there is no reasonable explaination for applying duct tape to a body's mouth after death.

 

[Sdavidson11]

For the sake of debating with myself, has anyone come up with a logical, rational possible explanation for why these three pieces of duct tape would have been placed over the entire mouth AND nose area, either before after the death of Caylee, by KC (or the person who murdered Caylee for those who are still following that theory)?

I am so trying to play devil's advocate with myself here, but cannot for the life of me come up with a single scenario that makes sense logically or brings any of the evidence we also know into play?

For me the third piece of the duct tape is what causes me to think that murder was the intent. Two pieces of tape one over the mouth and one piece over the eyes, I agree no intent to kill. The third strip places tape over the entire face = murder to me at least.

 

[celticthyme]

Good night all! I am now going to perform a premeditated Diet Crime and make myself hot chocolate. Somebody mentioned the "S" word (snow) as a possibility this weekend. Sigh. The leaves haven't even all turned yet. What is wrong with this picture??

I live is St Paul.mn & woke up to SNOW on my flowers this morning!!!!!!