Premeditation

[lin]

They sealed the video taped reaction of Casey in jail reacting to investigators arriving at the site where Caylee was found because it was inflammatory. To me that tape shows signs of conscientiousness of guilt. That's why it was sealed for being inflammatory.

Some of DC's depo was sealed too, wasn't it? I'm sure there are other instances known and unknown. What I don't know is what it has to do with premeditation unless the suggestion is there may be more evidence of same?

 

[RR0004]

The point is that based on all the evidence in the public domain, people in this forum have hundreds, if not thousands, of different holdings on what transpired. Obviously, this immemse breadth of view and holding points to an immense lack of clarity -- a smog pot centric case. This is true not only as regards premeditation and the murder one charge, but lesser charges as well.

This lack of clarity exists, because the evidence itself does not provide a high degree of clarity. And when the evidence does not provide a high degree of clarity, then people must necessarily guess amongst a large number of options. The problem is that jurors are forbidden to guess (or assume or specuate), because the degree of certainly demanded at the level of 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' certaintly cannot be satisfied by guessing.

As I have said elsewhere, this goes to explain why so many poor souls who got caught up in a high-profile case have been wrongfully demonized in monstrous ways or, worse still, have been or were wrongfully convicted and imprisoned.

So we can't show our outrage at the senseless, heinous killing of a child? We're demonizing an innocent person? I may not know the how, what, or why...but I most certainly know the who! I feel absolutely nothing for Casey...she doesn't deserve my energy...Caylee does. Three pieces of tape is enough premed for me.

 

[marspiter]

Some of DC's depo was sealed too, wasn't it? I'm sure there are other instances known and unknown. What I don't know is what it has to do with premeditation unless the suggestion is there may be more evidence of same?

Yeah that's what I was referring too. That the state has yet to release all of its evidence and that for all any of us know the smoking guns that show premeditation might not be made public. Then I suggested that the state may not want this information released because it would be to inflammatory to the potential jury pool thus why we haven't seen and might not see such evidence until trial (the defense will have copies of it just not the public). I also doubt we have seen that last of the doc dumps before trial.

Now the state could have such evidence and I would think they have to have something in order for the state to feel it had such a strong case to charge her with murder before the body was found. The state knows the key elements it needs for a conviction and I personally highly doubt the DA would be willing to go to trial if all of the key elements weren't met by evidence.

 

[RR0004]

The point is that based on all the evidence in the public domain, people in this forum have hundreds, if not thousands, of different holdings on what transpired. Obviously, this immemse breadth of view and holding points to an immense lack of clarity -- a smog pot centric case. This is true not only as regards premeditation and the murder one charge, but lesser charges as well.

This lack of clarity exists, because the evidence itself does not provide a high degree of clarity. And when the evidence does not provide a high degree of clarity, then people must necessarily guess amongst a large number of options. The problem is that jurors are forbidden to guess (or assume or specuate), because the degree of certainly demanded at the level of 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' certaintly cannot be satisfied by guessing.

As I have said elsewhere, this goes to explain why so many poor souls who got caught up in a high-profile case have been wrongfully demonized in monstrous ways or, worse still, have been or were wrongfully convicted and imprisoned.

I think you're assuming way too much here. We're given bits and pieces- months apart- and have no idea how the SA will lay this all out. We don't have the whole picture yet. We're trying to connect the dots and predict how this will be presented...that's one of the great things about this board. To say we lack clarity in regards to the "evidence" is just not true and does not indicate personal uncertainty IMO. I may see the evidence as evidence. You may not. It doesn't mean that I'm right and you're wrong either.

 

[RR0004]

I agree that there is no smoking gun evidence of Caylee's hands being restrained, however, I'm not comfortable myself in saying there is no evidence of it. Q104, the Henkel tape found near Caylee's remains versus on her skull, suggests that Caylee's hands may indeed have been restrained.

IIRC early on, immediately after the recovery, they did mention the other tape...but why did I think it was more than one "other" piece?

 

[Wudge]

My reasonable thought process.


1,2 and 3 pieces of tape plastered to Caylee's nose and mouth. KC had to pick that tape up from somewhere around the Anthony home. Put the tape nearby sometime. Pick up the tape again to apply it to Caylee.
She wanted that child gone and she saw to it that Caylee would be gone.
Thus in my mind PREMEDITATION.


No we will never know scientifically if Caylee suffocated from her nose and mouth being DUCT TAPPED but I think any reasonable person can conclude for themselves that that just may be the way Caylee died.

You're using an assumption as evidence, that assumption being: "She wanted that child gone". You are assumming what you wish to prove. That's a logical fallacy known as 'begging the question'.

Further, your position that the duct tape "may be the way Caylee died" does not represent a level of certainty anywhere close to 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'. Though 'may be' is a fair assessment.

 

[Brini]

You're using an assumption as evidence, that assumption being: "She wanted that child gone". You are assumming what you wish to prove. That's a logical fallacy known as 'begging the question'.

Further, your position that the duct tape "may be the way Caylee died" does not represent a level of certainty anywhere close to 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'. Though 'may be' is a fair assessment.

What is not debatable is the fact that she died, of homicide (per the coroner), while in her mother's sole care and control.

What is also not debatable is that her airways were closed with duct tape. That may have been applied pre-or post-mortem. Per the Florida Supreme Court, there is only one conclusion to be drawn from that.

That may or may not be the case. If there is some understandable reason for taping the child's face that way, KC will have to take the stand. That is unavoidable.

My opinion: she won't be able to explain it away, and she will do badly on cross-X.

Everything is not the state's fault, here, honey. Based on the defendant's behavior, and the evidence that has so far been released (due to the defense's opposition to the state's request for a gag order) there is reason for KC's negative image with the public. Thanks!

 

[sleutherontheside]

I am being sincere in this request. I see many factors that "imply" premeditaion including, but not limited to, discussion of zanny prior to June 16th, searches on the computer about chloroform / weapons / missing children websites. I am struggling to see factors supporting an accident and paniced cover up. Behavior prior to death such as creating fake emails, faking employment, developing stories about where she spent time seem to all be crafted with some effort and consideration. Behavior post June 16 is self serving, filled with theft, and the cat and mouse game that she played with her family. She didn't panic and run, hide, or create any illusion of any problem. She enjoyed her freedom. She lived for the moment and didn't look back. She didn't fake e-mails from Zanny from the beach, she didn't take fake phone calls in front of people to establish any credibility. She just moved on. Can someone give me any evidence to support an accident and subsequent CYA mode?? I am really at a loss.

 

[marspiter]

You're using an assumption as evidence, that assumption being: "She wanted that child gone". You are assumming what you wish to prove. That's a logical fallacy known as 'begging the question'.

Further, your position that the duct tape "may be the way Caylee died" does not represent a level of certainty anywhere close to 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'. Though 'may be' is a fair assessment.

My reasonable thought process.


1,2 and 3 pieces of tape plastered to Caylee's nose and mouth. KC had to pick that tape up from somewhere around the Anthony home. Put the tape nearby sometime. Pick up the tape again to apply it to Caylee.
She wanted that child gone and she saw to it that Caylee would be gone.
Thus in my mind PREMEDITATION.


No we will never know scientifically if Caylee suffocated from her nose and mouth being DUCT TAPPED but I think any reasonable person can conclude for themselves that that just may be the way Caylee died.

I believe the poster was expressing their opinion and why they felt the application of the duct tape would constitute premeditation in the bolded area. They are merely presenting their opinion and not presenting "evidence" or their opinion as fact.

I personally feel that if the tape was applied while Caylee was alive that it would constitute premeditation. The amount of time needed to tear off each piece of duct tape and apply it to the child is more then sufficient time for premed as outlined in the Florida jury instructions. I also believe that the tape was applied before death. The ME's statements is what leads me to this thought. The only question I have is what state Caylee was in at the time of the application. Such as being drugged or restrained in some way.

Further more with the Huck case that Lin brought forward I find application of the tape after death to be unreasonable. Also there is no reasonable need to place that amount of duct tape on the child's face other then to cover the mouth and nose in my opinion which any person can conclude would cause asphyxiation.

To me the tape clearly indicates premeditation. It was not just placed over the mouth to keep Caylee quite. Also to me if there was an accident placing tape over the child face is such a way is not reasonable in my opinion. I personally can not think why someone would take the time to do such a thing. That and it begs the question what kind of person could place that amount of tape on the face of this child. That is what the jury is going to be thinking about when they see the photo's. The only thing demonizing Casey is the evidence.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I believe the poster was expressing their opinion and why they felt the application of the duct tape would constitute premeditation in the bolded area. They are merely presenting their opinion and not presenting "evidence" or their opinion as fact.

I personally feel that if the tape was applied while Caylee was alive that it would constitute premeditation. The amount of time needed to tear off each piece of duct tape and apply it to the child is more then sufficient time for premed as outlined in the Florida jury instructions. I also believe that the tape was applied before death. The ME's statements is what leads me to this thought. The only question I have is what state Caylee was in at the time of the application. Such as being drugged or restrained in some way.

Further more with the Huck case that Lin brought forward I find application of the tape after death to be unreasonable. Also there is no reasonable need to place that amount of duct tape on the child's face other then to cover the mouth and nose in my opinion which any person can conclude would cause asphyxiation.

To me the tape clearly indicates premeditation. It was not just placed over the mouth to keep Caylee quite. Also to me if there was an accident placing tape over the child face is such a way is not reasonable in my opinion. I personally can not think why someone would take the time to do such a thing. That and it begs the question what kind of person could place that amount of tape on the face of this child. That is what the jury is going to be thinking about when they see the photo's. The only thing demonizing Casey is the evidence.

I was half hoping she was drugged, but from the post mortem report by Dr B.Goldberger, Toxicologist. It states that no OTC, prescription or illicit drugs were found, and in particular no Alprazolam (Xanax).
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/6440.6475.pdf
Scroll all the way down, it is the last report.

 

[ZsaZsa]

You're using an assumption as evidence, that assumption being: "She wanted that child gone". You are assumming what you wish to prove. That's a logical fallacy known as 'begging the question'.

Further, your position that the duct tape "may be the way Caylee died" does not represent a level of certainty anywhere close to 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'. Though 'may be' is a fair assessment.

Whoever applied that tape to obstruct her nose and mouth most assuredly 'wanted her gone'.
She was in Casey's hands when that was done.

What other purpose would duct tape covering nose and mouth have? Do you have some suggestion that it might have a benign presence?

 

[marspiter]

I was half hoping she was drugged, but from the post mortem report by Dr B.Goldberger, Toxicologist. It states that no OTC, prescription or illicit drugs were found, and in particular no Alprazolam (Xanax).
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/6440.6475.pdf
Scroll all the way down, it is the last report.

Yep and Dr. Goldberger's last statement is "These results do not rule out the decedents prior use and/or exposure to volatiles and/or drugs."

That to me indicates the the remains were to skeletonized to make a clear determination since no soft tissue was available. The sample they did have though did not have signs of drugs but that it couldn't rule it out is also telling.

 

[celticthyme]

How much of the duct tape was wrapped around Caylee's head?

(When an inferred conclusion has problems, the first thing you do is check the truth and/or reliability of your premises. If your premises contain errors, your conclusion must suffer too.)

SKULL & DUCT TAPE information from scene
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/im...ny.autopsy.pdf

"Although there is no trauma evident on the skeleton, there is duct tape over the lower facial region still attached to head hair.

Dr Goldberger and Dr Garavaglia removed specimens for toxicologic examination, including strands of head hair measuring approximately six inches in length which were tied at the proximal end (near the beginning or point of attachment). These were teased from the mat of head hair which was present initially underneath the skull. . . ."

"The mat of hair which was initially found beneath the skull with strands of hair extending across the calvarium (skullcap or roof of skull) and face consists of medium brown hair. Some strands of hair could be teased from the mat and were at least 6 to 7 inches in length. There were various small defects within this mat of hair, presumably from insect activity, and there are multiple small roots growing through the mat of hair. . . ."

"The calvarium (skullcap) is totally exposed and there is only a very small adherent of soil and leaf litter. No soft tissue remains. Multiple strands of medium brown straight hair extend over the calvarium (skullcap) in the sagittal (vertical plane passing through the body from front to back) and coronal (vertical plane that divides the body into front and back) planes. They are attached to a nest-like mass of matted hair which covers the basilar (base) and lower posterior (back or rear portion) skull, including inferior (below or bottom) portions of the mandible (lower jaw). Plant roots have grown into and over the surface of the hair mat.

Attached to the hair and overlying the posterior (back) mandible (lower jaw) and maxilla (upper jaw) are several pieces of overlapping gray tape. The tape has an open weave fabric backing and is delaminating (splitting into layers). The tape is removed and allowed to dry. The matted hair is removed from the skull. Plant roots permeate the mat and there are multiple small roughly circular, irregular defects in the mat, suggestive of insect predation artifact. The hair is permitted to dry pending additional examination. Preliminary examination of the skull reveals no evidence of trauma."

 

[ZsaZsa]

Yep and Dr. Goldberger's last statement is "These results do not rule out the decedents prior use and/or exposure to volatiles and/or drugs."

That to me indicates the the remains were to skeletonized to make a clear determination since no soft tissue was available. The sample they did have though did not have signs of drugs but that it couldn't rule it out is also telling.

Yes, I know, but I was hoping for a biggie!

 

[Jolynna]

(Not a single juror is going to care whether or not KC tied Caylee's hands together before she taped over her face.

I think KC has boxed herself into a corner. Nobody thinks Casey didn't do something. The only thing debated is whether it was deliberate murder or covering up a convenient accident.

Zanny-did-it couldn't have happened.

If KC suddenly remembers she's been covering up an oopsy for over a year (2 years if the case goes to trial), she's an impeached liar who's just admitted to being with Caylee at the time of Caylee's death to save her own skin.

When KC appeals her conviction, KC can't say the "taping after death" hypothesis wasn't considered because that has already been deemed an unreasonable hypothesis.

Oh what a tangled web we weave...


jmo

 

[Brini]

I was half hoping she was drugged, but from the post mortem report by Dr B.Goldberger, Toxicologist. It states that no OTC, prescription or illicit drugs were found, and in particular no Alprazolam (Xanax).
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/6440.6475.pdf
Scroll all the way down, it is the last report.

Wasn't that from analysis of Caylee's hair?

That would speak to CHRONIC drug ingestion, but not acute (around the time of death).

Analysis of ACUTE drug ingestion would require, again, soft tissue analysis.

And, there wasn't any soft tissue.

So, it's possible that Caylee was sedated or drugged, at the time of death.

 

[Wudge]

I am being sincere in this request. I see many factors that "imply" premeditaion including, but not limited to, discussion of zanny prior to June 16th, searches on the computer about chloroform / weapons / missing children websites. I am struggling to see factors supporting an accident and paniced cover up. Behavior prior to death such as creating fake emails, faking employment, developing stories about where she spent time seem to all be crafted with some effort and consideration. Behavior post June 16 is self serving, filled with theft, and the cat and mouse game that she played with her family. She didn't panic and run, hide, or create any illusion of any problem. She enjoyed her freedom. She lived for the moment and didn't look back. She didn't fake e-mails from Zanny from the beach, she didn't take fake phone calls in front of people to establish any credibility. She just moved on. Can someone give me any evidence to support an accident and subsequent CYA mode?? I am really at a loss.

What is the date of death? What behavior prior to the date of death constitutes highly reliable evidence of premeditation?

As regards accident, it's but an option, as is manslaughter. There's no need to prove accident, because the burden of proof for either murder one or manslaughter is entirely on the State to prove their case.

 

[Brini]

What is the date of death? What behavior prior to the date of death constitutes highly reliable evidence of premeditation?

As regards accident, it's but an option, as is manslaughter. There's no need to prove accident, because the burden of proof for either murder one or manslaughter is entirely on the State to prove their case.

LE thinks the date of death was 6/16.

Now that there is a new witness, the time would be placed between about 4 PM, and early evening. I don't remember exactly the time that KC and TonE went to rent videos. But, Caylee was not with them, and TonE did not see Caylee that night.

I don't see a charge of manslaughter filed. And, given the amount and quality of forensic and behavioral evidence after the baby's death, I don't see a jury going for it. Especially if KC still insists an unnamed SODDI. Certainly, KC won't plead manslaughter, or even accident. At least, she has been unwilling to do to this point. Again, her choice.

I don't know what evidence led the state to file murder charges BEFORE the body was found. My guess is that it's pretty significant. And, again, The FBI doesn't generally remain involved in cases that they are not likely to win.

My guess is that the entomologist's report will be very critical.

IMVHO, the state will have an easy time proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't think that behaviors prior to the baby's death are important. The fact that the baby died unnaturally in KC's care is indisputable.

However, some people take the computer searches for chloroform, before the death, and for ways to kill as intent. I really don't-- I search a lot of weird stuff, myself.

Thanks, hon!

 

[Wudge]

I think you're assuming way too much here. We're given bits and pieces- months apart- and have no idea how the SA will lay this all out. We don't have the whole picture yet. We're trying to connect the dots and predict how this will be presented...that's one of the great things about this board. To say we lack clarity in regards to the "evidence" is just not true and does not indicate personal uncertainty IMO. I may see the evidence as evidence. You may not. It doesn't mean that I'm right and you're wrong either.

I said: "The point is that based on all the evidence in the public domain, people in this forum have hundreds, if not thousands, of different holdings on what transpired. Obviously, this immemse breadth of view and holding points to an immense lack of clarity -- a smog pot centric case. This is true not only as regards premeditation and the murder one charge, but lesser charges as well.

This lack of clarity exists, because the evidence itself does not provide a high degree of clarity. And when the evidence does not provide a high degree of clarity, then people must necessarily guess amongst a large number of options."

I didnt say that you or others lack clarity in presenting hypos or alleged storylines. People here are certainly clear enough. But their hypos or storylines are anything but consistent as regards what transpired. And when the evidence is not clear, you will find an immense breadth of output as regards how people read the evidence and interpret what must have transpired. That lack of unity establishes that the evidence is ambiguous and open wide to interpretation. In other words, the evidence itself is not clear and does not produce for storyline consistency (not even close) on what transpired. In a non high-profile case, that would significantly favor the defense.

 

[ZsaZsa]

What purpose do you suppose there is for duct tape over the mouth and nose other than to cause death. Do you suggest it had a benign presence?