Premeditation

[RR0004]

You can swaddle a toddler in a blanket very rapidly to stop them flailing about.
Specially if they are sleeping or sedated while you need to do it. Once they wake to realize what is happening they cannot move. I am sure CA knows how to do that, as Nurse. KC may even have seen her do it to give meds etc.....

You make a very good point. Caylee could have already been sedated when the tape was applied. I don't think the 3 strips of tape were put on to "quiet" a screaming child IOW...overkill IMO.

 

[Curious Me]

This case reeks of premeditation. And really who would want Caylee gone for good? There is only one person who appears to have a motive to kill that beautiful child - her mother. There is nobody else that wanted that child out of their life for good. Go ahead, try to imagine why anyone else would have a motive. A kidnapper wouldn't leave all the intimate belongings from the Anthony house anyways. Everything points to Casey being the murderer of her own child, and that it was premeditated.

The tape is indication that this crime was premeditated. Lo and hehold, the special tape that keeps popping up in this case seems to come from the Anthony house. So, how I reasonably must see it, the tape being left on the remains is the truth, and Casey and her defense team just can't put a different spin on it. None of us wanted to believe Caylee died at the hands of her mother in such a manner, but that is what a reasonable person must surmise after going over all the facts and evidence.

 

[cecybeans]

Good post, Curious Me. Very concise. And I like the operative word reasonable. It's the one that plays over and over in my head when looking at what we know.

 

[Jolynna]

My understanding is that because of Huck vs State, an accident scenario with KC panicking and taping over Caylee's mouth and nose after death cannot come in as a hypothesis (an unknown that might have happened to explain the facts). Florida's Supreme Courts have already determined a hypothesis of taping over a dead person's mouth isn't reasonable.

I think an accident scenario would have to be brought in as fact.

imo

 

[Rlaub44]

Ah yes, the facts of a case doesn't matter doctrine.


(Fifty plus years and I never encountered this doctrine. Oh woe. ... chuckle )

Ah, there's that ego you wrote about yesterday. In the matter Jolynna is writing about, our opinions mean nothing - they have been trumped by FL Supreme Court precedent.

 

[lin]

My understanding is that because of Huck vs State, an accident scenario with KC panicking and taping over Caylee's mouth and nose after death cannot come in as a hypothesis (an unknown that might have happened to explain the facts). Florida's Supreme Courts have already determined a hypothesis of taping over a dead person's mouth isn't reasonable.

I think an accident scenario would have to be brought in as fact.

imo

The only evidence of an accident that I could possibly foresee at the moment is KC's testimony. Other than that, there's really nothing to suggest it that I've seen. Even if KC were to testify (oh please, please testify KC!!) there's still a lot of evidence that is incompatible with an accident theory which would put paid to that string of lies, should she choose to practically grab for the dp needle to inject herself by testifying.

The longer this plays out, the more discovery and discussion I read, the more premeditated this case seems, imo. Even so, remember that the dp is an option in Florida even without premeditation under the felony murder rules. That she was not indicted on that charge does not mean the jury may not be instructed on it, per Knight and the jury instructions discussed at length on those threads and the legal procedures threads. IIRC, every lawyer that weighed in on the subject agreed that the jury may be instructed on felony murder in this case and if they are and if KC is convicted not of capital or 1st degree murder but instead is convicted of felony murder, both the death penalty and lwop are still on the table as a possible sentence.

I don't mean to suggest that premeditation is irrelevant; again, I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt just based on the evidence/discovery available so far that this crime was premeditated. Just pointing out that even if the jury is not convinced of premed, as some posters are not yet convinced, that the ultimate penalties may still apply. Also remember that the jury will not have the luxuries we have enjoyed in isolating different aspects of the evidence/discovery for in depth discussion but will get the case all at once, so to speak. A + B + C + D + E + F and so on. While the duct tape may be a singularly damning bit of evidence, it is not the only evidence of premeditation and shouldn't, imo, be viewed as premeditation hinges solely on the duct tape facts.

It will be impossible, imo, to overcome all of the evidence in any credible way. Some alternate theory that may explain one piece of inculpatory evidence may thoroughly contradict an alternate theory that may otherwise explain another piece of inculpatory evidence.

 

[ZsaZsa]

When I first got interested in this case I would have listened to an accident explanation in the first few days,particularly drowning by neglect with the pool ladder left up, and a mother who was so overbearing that KC was more scared of her than the Police- but so scared that 31 days could elapse?
I would have needed a lot of convincing- but the idea that someone would purposely harm, never mind kill this cute little child was still so unimaginable that I just could not picture anyone doing it- there had to be some reasonable or bizarre explanation, given the online photos and the smutty life she lived, I felt maybe she had been involved in something shady and things went wrong- but the more evidence I see, including the duct tape with the shape of Caylee's little nose imprinted in it there is NO doubt in my mind that this is premeditated murder, and KC is the killer.

 

[Curious Me]

Thanks cecybeans for the encouragement.

What I've been thinking while reading some of the "accidental" theories is there's no excuse to explain willful negligence. (that's what I call it anyways) I hardly see Casey as having a mental handicap that limits her thinking ability. There's people who want to have reasonable doubt that Casey didn't know what she did to Caylee would kill her. Hogwash. Whatever she did to that little girl caused her to die, and it is a serious crime to prohibit someone from breathing.

Am I to believe Casey innocently may have drugged/duct taped her daughter to go on a date with Tony, but she really didn't think it'd kill Caylee. (surprise, surprise, as Casey would say) Well, it did kill Caylee, so now what.

On the subject of premeditation, it would seem that the "willful negligence" that caused this child to die through the act of the mother if proved in a court of law boils down to the fact that Casey neglected to care if her daughter lived, and in fact, hoped her daughter would stop breathing forever. That's not an accident, folks, it is premeditation.

 

[ZsaZsa]

If you look closely at photos Q63 and Q64 you can see the contours of Caylee's face, it looks to me that the duct tape was pinched closed over the nostrils.
That alone fits the definition of premeditation. She took the time to not only plaster the tape over but to seal the nostrils completely..

 

[lin]

Thanks cecybeans for the encouragement.

What I've been thinking while reading some of the "accidental" theories is there's no excuse to explain willful negligence. (that's what I call it anyways) I hardly see Casey as having a mental handicap that limits her thinking ability. There's people who want to have reasonable doubt that Casey didn't know what she did to Caylee would kill her. Hogwash. Whatever she did to that little girl caused her to die, and it is a serious crime to prohibit someone from breathing.

Am I to believe Casey innocently may have drugged/duct taped her daughter to go on a date with Tony, but she really didn't think it'd kill Caylee. (surprise, surprise, as Casey would say) Well, it did kill Caylee, so now what.

On the subject of premeditation, it would seem that the "willful negligence" that caused this child to die through the act of the mother if proved in a court of law boils down to the fact that Casey neglected to care if her daughter lived, and in fact, hoped her daughter would stop breathing forever. That's not an accident, folks, it is premeditation.

The "so now what" imo is at least felony murder if that can be proven to be the case which I don't think can or will happen. It would, imo, necessitate testimony from KC which the state will be well prepared to cross. (It would be a beautiful thing, legally speaking, imo.)

But yes, I agree with you, these facts strongly show premeditation imo. One doesn't innocently duct tape all airways regardless of whatever drugs were used prior to cutting off all means of oxygen and only those orifices. If Caylee could have breathed through her ears, those would have been taped up too, no doubt imo.

 

[Brini]

Ah, there's that ego you wrote about yesterday. In the matter Jolynna is writing about, our opinions mean nothing - they have been trumped by FL Supreme Court precedent.

.. and the Supremes may opine all they like. Their opinions interpret the law of the land, setting legal precident.

 

[Wudge]

Ah, there's that ego you wrote about yesterday. In the matter Jolynna is writing about, our opinions mean nothing - they have been trumped by FL Supreme Court precedent.

I see. Uh, what will the trial Judge's instruction to the jury be and when will it be given?


(Facts of the case don't matter doctrine ... you have to love it.)

 

[Brini]

I see. Uh, what will the trial Judge's instruction to the jury be and when will it be given?


(Facts of the case don't matter doctrine ... you have to love it.)

We went through this the last time we debated premeditation.

Jury instructions were posted. Here they are, again: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/...ers/entireversion/onlinejurryinstructions.pdf

That "the facts of the case don't matter" is doctrine is your opinion.

You are neither a judge nor a lawyer. Nor, am I. Nor are most of the other posters.

Our opinions are just that-- opinions. Nothing is "doctrine."

But, the law is the law.

Citizens may change the law, if they don't like it.

 

[Jolynna]

I see. Uh, what will the trial Judge's instruction to the jury be and when will it be given?


(Facts of the case don't matter doctrine ... you have to love it.)

I don't think an attorney can put a theory(hypothesis) already determined by a higher court not to be reasonable, in front of the court without basis or foundation.

Putting duct tape over a dead person's mouth from panic has already been deemed by the higher courts not to be a reasonable hypothesis.

jmo

 

[RR0004]

I see. Uh, what will the trial Judge's instruction to the jury be and when will it be given?


(Facts of the case don't matter doctrine ... you have to love it.)

I am assured that the Supreme Court took all matters of the case into consideration when making their ruling...don't you? I'll go by their decision.

 

[Brini]

Thanks cecybeans for the encouragement.

What I've been thinking while reading some of the "accidental" theories is there's no excuse to explain willful negligence. (that's what I call it anyways) I hardly see Casey as having a mental handicap that limits her thinking ability. There's people who want to have reasonable doubt that Casey didn't know what she did to Caylee would kill her. Hogwash. Whatever she did to that little girl caused her to die, and it is a serious crime to prohibit someone from breathing.

Am I to believe Casey innocently may have drugged/duct taped her daughter to go on a date with Tony, but she really didn't think it'd kill Caylee. (surprise, surprise, as Casey would say) Well, it did kill Caylee, so now what.

On the subject of premeditation, it would seem that the "willful negligence" that caused this child to die through the act of the mother if proved in a court of law boils down to the fact that Casey neglected to care if her daughter lived, and in fact, hoped her daughter would stop breathing forever. That's not an accident, folks, it is premeditation.

Be worse than that, IMHO. I think drugging her is a felony. And, it would certainly constitute child abuse resulting in death.

 

[sleutherontheside]

I take comfort in the "fact" that we arrive at "FACTS" after the scientific method has led us there...beginning with a "HYPOTHESIS". Because we are living in a modern age and many "FACTS" can be stated as such (thanks to the hypothesis and testing of those facts during the evolution of forensics) we can submit to the court a hypothesis and support it with facts known to be TRUE. This doesn't mean that an opinion supported by facts must automatically be accepted as truth, but one also can't discount a hypothesis because there are facts that remain unknown.

 

[Wudge]

I am assured that the Supreme Court took all matters of the case into consideration when making their ruling...don't you? I'll go by their decision.

They considered the facts in 'Huck', not 'Anthony'.

HTH

 

[Jolynna]

I take comfort in the "fact" that we arrive at "FACTS" after the scientific method has led us there...beginning with a "HYPOTHESIS". Because we are living in a modern age and many "FACTS" can be stated as such (thanks to the hypothesis and testing of those facts during the evolution of forensics) we can submit to the court a hypothesis and support it with facts known to be TRUE. This doesn't mean that an opinion supported by facts must automatically be accepted as truth, but one also can't discount a hypothesis because there are facts that remain unknown.

Duct taping over another's human mouth after the human is dead has specifically been addressed by Florida's Supreme Court and deemed an unreasonable hypothesis:

"The only reasonable reason to tape over another human's mouth is to keep the woman from screaming or breathing" http://www.denverda.org/DNA_Documents/Huck.pdf Brent Huck

​

I think this opinion puts duct-taping "after" death on the same level as a Martian-Other-Dude theory and that there will have to be some foundation, like KC testifying, to bring a duct-taping "after" death scenario in.

In order for the State to prove premeditated first-degree murder through circumstantial evidence, the evidence must be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Bedford v. State, 589 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 1009 (1992)

​

KC's defense can't just randomly throw theories out there.
imo

 

[celticthyme]

I take comfort in the "fact" that we arrive at "FACTS" after the scientific method has led us there...beginning with a "HYPOTHESIS". Because we are living in a modern age and many "FACTS" can be stated as such (thanks to the hypothesis and testing of those facts during the evolution of forensics) we can submit to the court a hypothesis and support it with facts known to be TRUE. This doesn't mean that an opinion supported by facts must automatically be accepted as truth, but one also can't discount a hypothesis because there are facts that remain unknown.

Sleuther, How true. over the past few days, I've gone back to reread some of the threads & initial " theories' and "Hypothesis" posted by many members. Many of these were posted before facts, evidence, and and forensic results were established. Of course, few if any , of those theories and hypothesis exist now, ( even by our most prolific sleuthers) because we have more facts in evidence now. We have a body and crime scene now. So as time passes, everyone comes to a newer or different theory, I think, even over this past few days, many of our theories have gone out of the window because of the sighting of Caylee, on the afternoon16th of June. Fortunately, and hopefully, the jury will have even more evidentiary information, more scientific results, maybe even more witnesses brave enough to come forward by the time of the trial. And of course we have the ping maps, phone records, e-mail and voice mail information to guide the timelines. Most of us have come a long way over the past year, from where we were in our original thinking.