Premeditation

[Wudge]

I would imagine that this particular case is going to go very poorly for the defense. And the defense team, chiefly, Jose Baez, has made so many IMO insanely illogical and dumb manuevers in this case. The logical defense is that it was an accident. I would be hammering that into my client's head. I realize that they are bound to what KC wants...but other than the radically incompetent Baez whispering moronic notions of a mistrial in her ears...I don't think that the more competent members of the defense team have had much of an opportunity to speak to KC...much less alone.

If I were the Judge in this particular case, I would want to know if KC truly understands the defense strategy and that it is likely to hand her straight to death row.

There is no nanny. No SODDI. There was a dead Caylee in a car controlled by KC.

Even if say for instance KC threw Caylee in the trunk for her "date" and just duct taped Caylee's mouth shut...and pushed down the seats of the back seat to put more air in the car. It doesn't matter if she never intended the child to die. But I don't believe that rises to the level of a DP case.

What I believe...taking in all of the evidence is that Caylee died and that KC intended for Caylee to died and took steps to ensure that Caylee died. I know we haven't seen everything yet...I sincerely think that the entomology findings will prove that a live child was placed in that car trunk.

But based on everything that has been put out there thus far, the defense's motions are as fatally flawed as their defense.

Were I KC I would put more stock in a jury/Judge (poisoned or no) than I would in their current strategy. JB's motions/numerous appearances on shows/statements to the media about her innocence...are some of the most moronic and laughable than I have ever seen.

I am not trying to set the grounds for an appeal here. And I don't know what KC's thoughts are. But the two of them...KC/JB are basically working in conjunction to send her straight to death row. And given all I have heard about KC...and read...and seen...and there are no character witnesses at all...her whole life...save immediate family willing to vouch for her (which SPEAKS volumes) even though I am a staunch anti-DP type...maybe Death Row is exactly where the dark lass belongs. JMO.

Based on the evidence that we know of, if the jury convicts Casey of premediated murder, I would certainly agree at that point that the trial went poorly for the defense.

(I've seen too many wrongful convictions in high-profile trials to think this case could not easily be yet another such happening.)

 

[JBean]

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.

Imo, if it is a slam dunk that the tape was placed on her nose and mouth and it killed her, then Dr G would have been able to make that determination.

Perhaps the tape was applied post mortem but prior to decomposition. Therefore, I cannot conclude that this was the cause of death and as a result show clear premeditation.
If she died accidentally and a coverup by KC ensued then I am not sure I could vote premed. By accident it could certainly be an accident caused by negligence which could be argued to be premed in an of itself.

I think the state's argument is legitimate and I understand completely why things are leaning in this direction. I would need to see all the evidence put together and argued before I would be able to reach verdict.

The irony, as I see it and at this point, is that no one is arguing accidental death and consequently the states argument will go unanswered in terms of premeditation. It is going to come down to she did it by any means or she didn't do it at all... period.
Faced with that, the jury could very well return a guilty verdict even if the murder was not premeditated.
It could have been 100% accidental through no fault or negligence of KC and KC only disposed of a body in such a way that is against the law, filed a false report and endangered her child. Even though those crimes are serious, they are not murder 1 and any one of them would be a better conviction for KC than the charge at hand.
before anyone gets excited, I don't think that happened, I am just saynig that if it did happen, she is a fool to not defend it.

 

[Bittiness39]

Based on the evidence that we know of, if the jury convicts Casey of premediated murder, I would certainly agree at that point that the trial went poorly for the defense.

(I've seen too many wrongful convictions in high-profile trials to think this case could not easily be yet another such happening.)

The only thing I would disagree on...(and I know we are all attached to our particular theories)...would be that her conviction would be wrongful.

What is even more challenging for the defense is that KC is not even likeable. Her own grandmother thinks she should be in general population. Not one friend is willing to be a character witness. Not one. Now I completely realize that just because the defendent has all of the marks of a horrible person doesn't mean that they are guilty.

But with every single solitary piece of evidence that comes out...not one shows KC in anything other than a cold, opportunistic, grifter-type, callous way.

Again that doesn't prove guilt.

I suspect that there will be more evidence to prove that forthcoming.

I realize that defense attorneys use terms like "ugly coping" to explain away incomprehensible actions of their clients. But KC was anything but a grieving mother panicked over the tragic accidental death of her child. Anything but.

I would still say...that it is one of two things. KC threw her daughter in the trunk alive in order to have her toes curled by Tony that night and the next morning discovered she had died. Or she deliberately and with malice killed the small tiny helpless sweetheart.

Given the level of competence I have seen thus far from the SA's office...I am betting that they have enough evidence to keep a jury from thinking it was an accidental death by trunk. JMO. But again...we all await the evidence.

PS. Despite what side anyone is on...can we all at least agree that we get antsy sometimes more emotional...when we are promised a doc dump...and it doesn't happen or stuff that was promised to be in there is not? It infuriates me.

 

[cecybeans]

JB

I also tend to think that the continuous duplicitous behavior and possible obstruction of justice, from not only the defendant but her family, have started to erode any presumption of innocence that may have been initially conferred.

When the only "character" witnesses a defendant has (including her own family) are on record as saying she was already a criminal with no regard for the property of others, continuously lied, and exhibited the vindictive behavior of a jealous, malignant narcissist, it's hard to look at anyone else (particularly those with little or no motive, intent or opportunity) as a reasonable alternative candidate. When the defendant herself reduces the pain she causes her family as simply the actions of a "spiteful little b**ch" and shows no interest in anyone other than herself from the minute the crime is discovered, or remorse for the actions we know she has committed (various thefts on record), and is eager to implicate anyone else, then it's almost impossible to imagine anything other than premeditation.

I think that, even in the event of an accident, the calculated, prolonged and determined attempt to shift blame to innocent people is a pretty good indication that premeditated behavior is pretty much SOP for the person in question.

 

[cecybeans]

PS. Despite what side anyone is on...can we all at least agree that we get antsy sometimes more emotional...when we are promised a doc dump...and it doesn't happen or stuff that was promised to be in there is not? It infuriates me.

That's certainly been my excuse for being cranky and curmudgeonly lately. Take a pic of me at the keyboard and label it Exhibit 6-A for the class action civil suit "KC gave me OCD!".

 

[Wudge]

The only thing I would disagree on...(and I know we are all attached to our particular theories)...would be that her conviction would be wrongful.

What is even more challenging for the defense is that KC is not even likeable. Her own grandmother thinks she should be in general population. Not one friend is willing to be a character witness. Not one. Now I completely realize that just because the defendent has all of the marks of a horrible person doesn't mean that they are guilty.

But with every single solitary piece of evidence that comes out...not one shows KC in anything other than a cold, opportunistic, grifter-type, callous way.

Again that doesn't prove guilt.

I suspect that there will be more evidence to prove that forthcoming.

I realize that defense attorneys use terms like "ugly coping" to explain away incomprehensible actions of their clients. But KC was anything but a grieving mother panicked over the tragic accidental death of her child. Anything but.

I would still say...that it is one of two things. KC threw her daughter in the trunk alive in order to have her toes curled by Tony that night and the next morning discovered she had died. Or she deliberately and with malice killed the small tiny helpless sweetheart.

Given the level of competence I have seen thus far from the SA's office...I am betting that they have enough evidence to keep a jury from thinking it was an accidental death by trunk. JMO. But again...we all await the evidence.

PS. Despite what side anyone is on...can we all at least agree that we get antsy sometimes more emotional...when we are promised a doc dump...and it doesn't happen or stuff that was promised to be in there is not? It infuriates me.

I believe your current position to be that Casey was most likely in a state of rage when Caylee died (was murdered). Typically, that would be murder two, not murder one.

In any event, a conviction of murder one based on the evidence that we know of would eventually cause me to find a place for Casey on my list of likely wrongful convictions. And after years went by, there's a decent chance that something, somewhere, would cause her murder one conviction to reversed, which would formally make it yet another wrongful conviction in a high-profile case.

 

[RR0004]

No. At least I have no recall of such. Remember too, that we're talking about proven wrongful convictions, not likely wrongful convictions. In these cases, blaming the defense team would be a bit ... uh, weak.

To be honest with you...IMHO...there has to be some link. For example, in OJs case...the State attorneys' failed to prove their case. Everyone accused them of not doing their job properly. In most people's minds a guilty man went free. Why isn't the defense team held accountable when an innocent person is found guilty?

 

[RR0004]

I believe your current position to be that Casey was most likely in a state of rage when Caylee died (was murdered). Typically, that would be murder two, not murder one.

In any event, a conviction of murder one based on the evidence that we know of would eventually cause me to find a place for Casey on my list of likely wrongful convictions. And after years went by, there's a decent chance that something, somewhere, would cause her murder one conviction to reversed, which would formally make it yet another wrongful conviction in a high-profile case.

...but you won't find anyone crying.

 

[Bittiness39]

I believe your current position to be that Casey was most likely in a state of rage when Caylee died (was murdered). Typically, that would be murder two, not murder one.

In any event, a conviction of murder one based on the evidence that we know of would eventually cause me to find a place for Casey on my list of likely wrongful convictions. And after years went by, there's a decent chance that something, somewhere, would cause her murder one conviction to reversed, which would formally make it yet another wrongful conviction in a high-profile case.

State of rage. Yes. But if what I believe happened can be proven...KC had more than enough time to save Caylee from suffocating. JMO. Hence, premeditation. But I believe in the last several weeks of Caylee's life, KC saw Caylee as a liability to her own life. Things were beginning to pile up around her. Her mother was seeing a therapist that was advising CA to file for custody of Caylee and boot KC out of the home. Her parents were onto her on some level about her fake job (why KC would send a fake work email to herself...because likely CA asked to see it). CA saw the pictures of KC living it up at the no clothes party. Her own grandmother didn't want KC near the nursing home on Father's Day. She was running out of options at home. Her current light-o-love (or Lays potato chip) was not interested in Caylee living with them. Not a criticism of Tony. KC's bargaining chip for living rent free and stealing her way around town was Caylee.

I think more than once KC imagined Caylee dead. Was infuriated and jealous of her. So even if she snapped in a fit of rage that day...she had the opportunity to stop and save Caylee. She chose not to. And I think she likely had been invisioning scenarios of a dead Caylee...no more "little snothead" to anchor her to a life of completing what appears to be her sole accomplishment...sleep with every male in Orlando.

But I don't believe that this case will at all result in a wrongful conviction. IMO, KC is guilty. She deserves to be behind bars. Why did the SA's office go for the DP? Only they know at this point. But I imagine that they know more than I do...and that whatever made them go with the DP had everything to do with KC and the evidence than it did to bow to political or societal pressure.

That is jmo. I could be 100% wrong. But it is so rare that I am...:blushing: The only miscarriage of justice would be if KC were to be set free and walk. That would make me :steamed:

 

[Brini]

The only thing I would disagree on...(and I know we are all attached to our particular theories)...would be that her conviction would be wrongful.

What is even more challenging for the defense is that KC is not even likeable. Her own grandmother thinks she should be in general population. Not one friend is willing to be a character witness. Not one. Now I completely realize that just because the defendent has all of the marks of a horrible person doesn't mean that they are guilty.

But with every single solitary piece of evidence that comes out...not one shows KC in anything other than a cold, opportunistic, grifter-type, callous way.

Again that doesn't prove guilt.

I suspect that there will be more evidence to prove that forthcoming.

I realize that defense attorneys use terms like "ugly coping" to explain away incomprehensible actions of their clients. But KC was anything but a grieving mother panicked over the tragic accidental death of her child. Anything but.

I would still say...that it is one of two things. KC threw her daughter in the trunk alive in order to have her toes curled by Tony that night and the next morning discovered she had died. Or she deliberately and with malice killed the small tiny helpless sweetheart.

Given the level of competence I have seen thus far from the SA's office...I am betting that they have enough evidence to keep a jury from thinking it was an accidental death by trunk. JMO. But again...we all await the evidence.

PS. Despite what side anyone is on...can we all at least agree that we get antsy sometimes more emotional...when we are promised a doc dump...and it doesn't happen or stuff that was promised to be in there is not? It infuriates me.

Just like a bunch of addicts.

Is there a 12-Step program?

 

[RR0004]

State of rage. Yes. But if what I believe happened can be proven...KC had more than enough time to save Caylee from suffocating. JMO. Hence, premeditation. But I believe in the last several weeks of Caylee's life, KC saw Caylee as a liability to her own life. Things were beginning to pile up around her. Her mother was seeing a therapist that was advising CA to file for custody of Caylee and boot KC out of the home. Her parents were onto her on some level about her fake job (why KC would send a fake work email to herself...because likely CA asked to see it). CA saw the pictures of KC living it up at the no clothes party. Her own grandmother didn't want KC near the nursing home on Father's Day. She was running out of options at home. Her current light-o-love (or Lays potato chip) was not interested in Caylee living with them. Not a criticism of Tony. KC's bargaining chip for living rent free and stealing her way around town was Caylee.

I think more than once KC imagined Caylee dead. Was infuriated and jealous of her. So even if she snapped in a fit of rage that day...she had the opportunity to stop and save Caylee. She chose not to. And I think she likely had been invisioning scenarios of a dead Caylee...no more "little snothead" to anchor her to a life of completing what appears to be her sole accomplishment...sleep with every male in Orlando.

But I don't believe that this case will at all result in a wrongful conviction. IMO, KC is guilty. She deserves to be behind bars. Why did the SA's office go for the DP? Only they know at this point. But I imagine that they know more than I do...and that whatever made them go with the DP had everything to do with KC and the evidence than it did to bow to political or societal pressure.

That is jmo. I could be 100% wrong. But it is so rare that I am...:blushing: The only miscarriage of justice would be if KC were to be set free and walk. That would make me :steamed:

Maybe I'm naive, but I feel...truly feel...that the SA has tried to keep this as clean as possible. I don't think they've bowed to any pressure..my gut tells me whatever they've done has been with only one thing in mind, and that is justice for this child. I don't think they're messing around here...they have a lot already... and ITA they have more.

 

[Bittiness39]

Just like a bunch of addicts.

Is there a 12-Step program?

I am looking into it.

I fully expect to send my bill for treatment to CBS and Kid Finders. I accept cash payments.

The Defense can go back and agree to a retro-active gag order. The SA's attorneys office can pick me up at the airport and drop me off at Disney World.

I have it all worked out. I plan to spend the vast majority of my time at various Orlando themeparks looking for Zenaida. She supposedly hangs at places like this all of the time. I might extend my search for her by popping by Fusion...and searching various parks...Target...Walmart...Amscot...empty apartments for rent... with I will conclude my "fact finding/therapy" mission by stopping by WESH to have my picture made with Kathy B.

In all seriousness, it will be interesting to see what evidence there will be from the SA to prove premedition. I would like to see such evidence. The entomology results should be just as darning as everything else that has been unearthed about KC.

 

[Wudge]

To be honest with you...IMHO...there has to be some link. For example, in OJs case...the State attorneys' failed to prove their case. Everyone accused them of not doing their job properly. In most people's minds a guilty man went free. Why isn't the defense team held accountable when an innocent person is found guilty?

More than a few people believe that OJ's acquittal was an example of celebrity justice. I have long differed. I believe that juror prejudice was the root cause of his acquittal.

At night and on weekends, I posted extensively before and throughout OJ's trial. Prior to the start of his trial, I predicted that if the defense were to seat a nucleus of four black women -- a strong mutually supporting force of jurors -- that the People would never be able to gain a conviction based on the evidence.

Obviously, I took race into consideration far before Johnny threw the race card formally into the trial. As voir dire progressed, I took the position that the trial was over for Marsha as soon as she agreed to seat the fourth black woman. It was controversial to post such on the internet back then, but anonymity on the internet is a wonderful thing. And time has well proven that legions of case followers agree with me.

Simply put, race matters. Sometimes it matters a great deal. And OJ's trial represented one of those times.

FWIW

 

[Bittiness39]

Maybe I'm naive, but I feel...truly feel...that the SA has tried to keep this as clean as possible. I don't think they've bowed to any pressure..my gut tells me whatever they've done has been with only one thing in mind, and that is justice for this child. I don't think they're mesing around here...they have a lot already... and ITA they have more.

That is my gut feeling here. The SA took the DP off of the table before the remains were found. The remains were found and identified in December 2008.
In April of 2009 the DP was put back on the table by the SA's office. This would lead me to believe that they were not acting politically or bowing to public pressure. There were tons of Florida peeps calling for her head when the SA took the DP off the table last year. Remember the A's webcam and all of the protesters. It would lead me to believe that they have evidence that necessitated the DP be put back on the table. Their own medical examiner said "homicide by undetermined means." Which still leaves room for an accidental death. IMO they have something else. Something really darning. Something we haven't seen...as of yet.

And if the defense has...just like their bogus mewling about the tape (when it turns out they had all of the stuff we just saw on the tape...save the WESH duct tape cam...since March) this darning information and is continuing to posture in front of the cameras about SODDI (Baez I mean) then SHAME on them.

 

[RR0004]

More than a few people believe that OJ's acquittal was an example of celebrity justice. I have long differed. I believe that juror prejudice was the root cause of his acquittal.

At night and on weekends, I posted extensively before and throughout OJ's trial. Prior to the start of his trial, I predicted that if the defense were to seat a nucleus of four black women -- a strong mutually supporting force of jurors -- that the People would never be able to gain a conviction based on the evidence.

Obviously, I took race into consideration far before Johnny threw the race card formally into the trial. As voir dire progressed, I took the position that the trial was over for Marsha as soon as she agreed to seat the fourth black woman. It was controversial to post such on the internet back then, but anonymity on the internet is a wonderful thing. And time has well proven that legions of case followers agree with me.

Simply put, race matters. Sometimes it matters a great deal. And OJ's trial represented one of those times.

FWIW

You are very brave...and I sincerely mean that.

ETA: (and sorry for OT)...I believed he was innocent going into the trial (don't hurt me) and agreed that there wasn't enough there to convict. The defense did a brilliant job in convincing the jury of his innocence. Goes back to what I said earlier...there has to be a link.

 

[Wudge]

State of rage. Yes. But if what I believe happened can be proven...KC had more than enough time to save Caylee from suffocating. JMO. Hence, premeditation. But I believe in the last several weeks of Caylee's life, KC saw Caylee as a liability to her own life. Things were beginning to pile up around her. Her mother was seeing a therapist that was advising CA to file for custody of Caylee and boot KC out of the home. Her parents were onto her on some level about her fake job (why KC would send a fake work email to herself...because likely CA asked to see it). CA saw the pictures of KC living it up at the no clothes party. Her own grandmother didn't want KC near the nursing home on Father's Day. She was running out of options at home. Her current light-o-love (or Lays potato chip) was not interested in Caylee living with them. Not a criticism of Tony. KC's bargaining chip for living rent free and stealing her way around town was Caylee.

I think more than once KC imagined Caylee dead. Was infuriated and jealous of her. So even if she snapped in a fit of rage that day...she had the opportunity to stop and save Caylee. She chose not to. And I think she likely had been invisioning scenarios of a dead Caylee...no more "little snothead" to anchor her to a life of completing what appears to be her sole accomplishment...sleep with every male in Orlando.

But I don't believe that this case will at all result in a wrongful conviction. IMO, KC is guilty. She deserves to be behind bars. Why did the SA's office go for the DP? Only they know at this point. But I imagine that they know more than I do...and that whatever made them go with the DP had everything to do with KC and the evidence than it did to bow to political or societal pressure.

That is jmo. I could be 100% wrong. But it is so rare that I am...:blushing: The only miscarriage of justice would be if KC were to be set free and walk. That would make me :steamed:

(chuckle)

I could extract the nucleus of your post, slip it into a Cynthia Sommer's forum (another high-profile murder one case) and no one would know it did not fit there -- I have vivid memories of posts like: "how dare that *advertiser censored* get a boob job, that's proof enough for me".


(Cynthia Sommer was wrongfully convicted of using arsenic to murder her husband, Todd Summer. ... jury error)

 

[Bittiness39]

(chuckle)

I could extract the nucleus of your post, slip it into a Cynthia Sommer's forum (another high-profile murder one case) and no one would know it did not fit there -- I have vivid memories of posts like: "how dare that *advertiser censored* get a boob job, that's proof enough for me".


(Cynthia Sommer was wrongfully convicted of using arsenic to murder her husband, Todd Summer. ... jury error)

I remember that case that you are talking about. Obviously, I didn't follow it as much as I have with this case. But I remember some vague details.

I do agree...KC's overall demeanor, appearance etc...are not evidence of guilt. There are a lot of unlikeable people out who don't commit crimes. I will say that once she is convicted...the defense is going to have one whopper of a time trying to show that she is worth saving. She may be, outside of Scott Peterson (the one we heard on the Amber tapes...not the faker he was at trial and in television views...the real one) the least likeable and salvagable defendent in a high profile case that I have seen in a long time. Well, Phil Spector...but he also had the added bonus (by that I mean something the very deceptive and attractive KC and Scott didn't have) of being the most creepy looking defendent on the planet. Creepy doesn't begin to cut his appearance. But as you wisely and sagely pointed out...appearance, likeability do not make someone guilty...but KC has enough strikes against her on that score that it will make an impression on the jury. But hey, that is life. And KC is in a mess of her own making. So I shed no tears.


Another thing that might go into premeditation...could be whatever JT alleges KC purchased at the Walmart that day. I have no idea. But his information would not have come before April 2009 when the DP was put back on the table.

So I am just curious to see if LE was able to track down her purchase (if it is true that KC was there and made one)...so far I don't have much reason to doubt the witness that came forward and I don't think he would have wound up on the SA's list of witnesses unless throughly checked out. I wonder if LE had an surveillance tapes or if they were able to track her purchase. He alleges in a written statement at this link http://marinadedave.wordpress.com/2009/10/10/james-thompson-responds/ that KC held her purchase very close to the chest and appeared from his vantage point in the bag to be either a bottle or a small box. Many thought she often drugged her daughter so she could get busy with the men in the phone book...but it would be interesting if said purchase could be linked with items found at the dump site...just a thought.

 

[RR0004]

(chuckle)

I could extract the nucleus of your post, slip it into a Cynthia Sommer's forum (another high-profile murder one case) and no one would know it did not fit there -- I have vivid memories of posts like: "how dare that *advertiser censored* get a boob job, that's proof enough for me".


(Cynthia Sommer was wrongfully convicted of using arsenic to murder her husband, Todd Summer. ... jury error)

...but the jury was also given false information. Considering what was presented to them-arsenic found in his system-coupled with her overall behavior, jurors IMO were not derelict in their duties by offering up a guilty vote (nor does it prove that they were swayed by her getting a "boob" job). It was science that saved this woman in the end. I believe it will be science that ultimately convicts Casey.

 

[Wudge]

...but the jury was also given false information. Considering what was presented to them-arsenic found in his system-coupled with her overall behavior, jurors IMO were not derelict in their duties by offering up a guilty vote (nor does it prove that they were swayed by her getting a "boob" job). It was science that saved this woman in the end. I believe it will be science that ultimately convicts Casey.

No. An expert testified at trial that if Todd Sommer had been murdered with arsenic, then arsenic should have been found in everyone of his organs. However, it was only found, erroneousely, in but a few of his organs -- bunk on the alleged error, there was no error in my book , I hold it to be corrupt lab work.

After Cynthia was convicted, sentenced and imprisoned an alternate juror, Lorie Cosio Azar, said the jurors who deliberated told her after the trial that they overlooked doubts about the arsenic. Lorie said: "They were annoyed the defense attorney brought up arsenic, because, otherwise, why were we there? They thought, `Of course there must be something wrong, there must have been a murder. We're here in the courthouse.'"

(When exonerating evidence is purposefully ignored, at best that is jury error ... putting it nicely.)

 

[Snaz]

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.

BBM

And since we have not seen all the evidence, that is like JB and crew asking to have the charges dismissed before all the evidence has been presented.

I have faith the SA has a very strong case against KC Anthony... and I have even more faith that she will pay for the crime she has committed. Because if we saw nothing more than what we have already seen, it is more than apparent to me that she is the one, and the only one, who committed this horrendous act against Caylee.