Prosecutors won't seek death penalty UPDATE Or will they?

[madeleine]

It has been mentioned that Casey will have to face general population if convicted.
Im not sure how Florida differs from my state but here an inmate can request being housed on a protective custody unit if they feel their life is in danger and provide plausible reason for that concern.
Which Im sure she could.
Prison Administration can also decide to simply place them there if they feel its in the best interest of the institution to avoid liabilty and in the inmates best interest.
I doubt she will ever see General Pop unless she requests it and even then Administration would probably deny it.
Since it would be suicide.

I would be really interested in knowing what would happen between her and her folks IF she would walk free.But I don't think it will happen.
She belongs :behindbar

 

[tiredofthis]

I'll start by apologizing if this has already been said in the other posts and I missed it.

Does anyone think this decision may be related to a possible Casey pregnancy? We know the GGM suspected it. I saw someone else mention that she looks like she has gained weight. Also, I saw someone else say that she has not ordered tampons or pads in jail (admittedly I don't know how up-to-date that info was). Is there any weight to this theory, or is it totally out there?

I believe NG on one of her shows this week listed items Casey has ordered and tampons was on that list. I remember it because I thought there was a chance Casey could be pregnant.

 

[not_my_kids]

I'll start by apologizing if this has already been said in the other posts and I missed it.

Does anyone think this decision may be related to a possible Casey pregnancy? We know the GGM suspected it. I saw someone else mention that she looks like she has gained weight. Also, I saw someone else say that she has not ordered tampons or pads in jail (admittedly I don't know how up-to-date that info was). Is there any weight to this theory, or is it totally out there?

If she were preggers, we would have seen some emotion, by now. Also if you look at what is provided for inmates, casey doesn't have to buy pads or plugs, since they are provided for her at no charge by the county.

 

[Valrico Analyzer]

It has been mentioned that Casey will have to face general population if convicted.
Im not sure how Florida differs from my state but here an inmate can request being housed on a protective custody unit if they feel their life is in danger and provide plausible reason for that concern.
Which Im sure she could.
Prison Administration can also decide to simply place them there if they feel its in the best interest of the institution to avoid liabilty and in the inmates best interest.
I doubt she will ever see General Pop unless she requests it and even then Administration would probably deny it.
Since it would be suicide.

I believe the threshold is much higher upon sentencing to provide protective custody for everyone who requests it. Truth is, NO ONE is "safe" from death or assualt in prison.

2 cases that come to mind is Georgahan in Mass. who was a priest convicted of child molestation and Dahmer who were both afforded a level (unknown how much) of protection. Both ended up dead.

If they want you dead in prison, then the DP is the way to go to get the best isolation...or, criminally insane...which could also be in the works...Andrea Yates comes to mind...so does John Hinckley...

I feel she is going to find out just what a little princess the legal system believes she is. The only exception maybe a medium federal security facility like Lowell as opposed to Union or the like...

 

[TxRose]

As of right now, I believe that the defense has only listed three witnesses for trial. Of course, they are free to add more later and probably will do so. Does anyone think Casey will testify? That is rarely a good idea. Or will the defense attempt to find someone that can present "her side of the story"? If so - who could that be? The scientists and experts listed now are only there for forensics...not to verify her story of events.

I know they do not have to present a "defense" so to speak - the prosecution has the burden of proving their case. However, I was wondering how "Casey's story" is going to be presented at the trial. It would seem it would almost HAVE to be...otherwise you are left with the prosecutions theory of what happened...and all that evidence - circumstantial or not. All the prosecution has to do is say...the last independent verified sighting of Caylee was with her mom. She was never seen again and her mom went out partying and carried on as if nothing had happened. Mom has been stealing. Mom is jealous of GM and fights with her over her lack of parenting skills. Mom has lied and has never helped LE. Cadaver dogs hit on car and yard, car smelled of decomp, etc. Maybe not means, but motive and opportunity would be pretty evident. Other than exposing her lies, it seems the prosecution would benefit from not even bringing up the Zenaida story at all! That would force the defense to do it, because it seems at some point the defense would need to put the idea in the jury's mind that Casey was not the last person with Caylee. Then they would also have to choose which Zenaida story to go with - the Sawgrass or Blanchard Park. Whichever they present, it will be contested with the other! Not to mention that neither could be verified. So how are they going to debunk the state's case and say Casey was not the last person with little Caylee?

I think seeing what the defense comes to trial with will be VERY interesting...

 

[impatientredhead]

I believe the threshold is much higher upon sentencing to provide protective custody for everyone who requests it. Truth is, NO ONE is "safe" from death or assualt in prison.

2 cases that come to mind is Georgahan in Mass. who was a priest convicted of child molestation and Dahmer who were both afforded a level (unknown how much) of protection. Both ended up dead.

If they want you dead in prison, then the DP is the way to go to get the best isolation...or, criminally insane...which could also be in the works...Andrea Yates comes to mind...so does John Hinckley...

I feel she is going to find out just what a little princess the legal system believes she is. The only exception maybe a medium federal security facility like Lowell as opposed to Union or the like...

Not sure about the priest but Dahmer requested that he be put in general pop, he had been in protective custody prior to that.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

As of right now, I believe that the defense has only listed three witnesses for trial. Of course, they are free to add more later and probably will do so. Does anyone think Casey will testify? That is rarely a good idea. Or will the defense attempt to find someone that can present "her side of the story"? If so - who could that be? The scientists and experts listed now are only there for forensics...not to verify her story of events.

I know they do not have to present a "defense" so to speak - the prosecution has the burden of proving their case. However, I was wondering how "Casey's story" is going to be presented at the trial. It would seem it would almost HAVE to be...otherwise you are left with the prosecutions theory of what happened...and all that evidence - circumstantial or not. All the prosecution has to do is say...the last independent verified sighting of Caylee was with her mom. She was never seen again and her mom went out partying and carried on as if nothing had happened. Mom has been stealing. Mom is jealous of GM and fights with her over her lack of parenting skills. Mom has lied and has never helped LE. Cadaver dogs hit on car and yard, car smelled of decomp, etc. Maybe not means, but motive and opportunity would be pretty evident. Other than exposing her lies, it seems the prosecution would benefit from not even bringing up the Zenaida story at all! That would force the defense to do it, because it seems at some point the defense would need to put the idea in the jury's mind that Casey was not the last person with Caylee. Then they would also have to choose which Zenaida story to go with - the Sawgrass or Blanchard Park. Whichever they present, it will be contested with the other! Not to mention that neither could be verified. So how are they going to debunk the state's case and say Casey was not the last person with little Caylee?

I think seeing what the defense comes to trial with will be VERY interesting...

I am really shocked that the defense has not done more in the way of pre-trial motions.
I do not see how they will become more "fired up" to start a dazzling display, with the death penalty off the list of possible outcomes.

I cannot visualize a series of witnesses who could present Casey's story whether the original version or the one with the bigger cast which includes Z's sister.
I seriously wonder if she is pushing to take the stand because she sees herself as smarter than smart, so convincing, and the real victim in this sad sad mess.
With the DP threat gone, she might be convincing herself to tell her story no matter what her counsel is recommending she do.
We will get snippets of that story through testimony of LE as they describe their investigation but it will be slanted 100% against Casey, as one would expect.
She can get on the stand to explain it away or let it ride.
Her choice.
jmho

 

[Wudge]

I am really shocked that the defense has not done more in the way of pre-trial motions.
I do not see how they will become more "fired up" to start a dazzling display, with the death penalty off the list of possible outcomes.

I cannot visualize a series of witnesses who could present Casey's story whether the original version or the one with the bigger cast which includes Z's sister.
I seriously wonder if she is pushing to take the stand because she sees herself as smarter than smart, so convincing, and the real victim in this sad sad mess.
With the DP threat gone, she might be convincing herself to tell her story no matter what her counsel is recommending she do.
We will get snippets of that story through testimony of LE as they describe their investigation but it will be slanted 100% against Casey, as one would expect.
She can get on the stand to explain it away or let it ride.
Her choice.
jmho

Explain what evidence away?

From what we know, there's no inculpatory evidence that supports the murder one charge of Casey killing Caylee via a willful and premediated murder. Nor is there evidence that supports the act that allegedly caused Caylee death was manslaughter.

 

[TxRose]

Explain what evidence away?

From what we know, there's no inculpatory evidence that supports the murder one charge of Casey killing Caylee via a willful and premediated murder. Nor is there evidence that supports the act that allegedly caused Caylee death was manslaughter.

Perhaps not. But you do have a child that appears to be at the center of some conflict with her mother and grandmother. A child whose mother chose to party with her friends when she went "missing". You have a child that was never reported missing by her own mother. You have forensic evidence of human decomposition in the mother's car...as well as cadaver hits there and in the back yard. You have a mother who has not cooperated with LE...and in fact has lied at every turn. You have a mother who insists her child was taken by a person that does not exist. There is a considerable amount of circumstantial evidence...that alone might not amount to much...but together paints a clear picture to me.

Bottom line - Caylee is not where she is supposed to be - and her mother is directly responsible for that one way or the other. She won't be honest about what happened...so it could easily lead a reasonable person to conclude she is guilty. JMO.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

You have a child that was never reported missing by her own mother. You have forensic evidence of human decomposition in the mother's car...as well as cadaver hits there and in the back yard.

Bottom line - Caylee is not where she is supposed to be - and her mother is directly responsible for that one way or the other. She won't be honest about what happened...so it could easily lead a reasonable person to conclude she is guilty. JMO.

I've yet to hear any scientist certify that the alleged air sampling evidence represents human decomposition. I've simply read and heard that it "could be" a result of human decomposition.

What's the certified reliability on the air sampling evidence?

If the air sampling evidence is admitted, why would it be inculpatory evidence versus corroborative evidence?

Please recognize that the alleged air sampling evidence is after-the-fact evidence as is the alleged cadaver dog evidence. How can you discern the circumstances surrounding an alleged unlawful killing from after-the-fact evidence?

 

[TxRose]

I've yet to hear any scientist certify that alleged air sampling evidence represents human decomposition. I've simply read and heard that it "could be" a result of human decomposition.

What's the certified reliability on the air sampling evidence?

If the air sampling evidence is admitted, why would it be inculpatory evidence versus corroborative evidence?

Please recognize that the alleged air sampling evidence is after-the-fact evidence as is the alleged cadaver dog evidence. How can you discern the circumstances surrounding an alleged unlawful killing from after-the-fact evidence?

So are you saying that you don't believe there is any real evidence that Caylee is dead? Or are you saying it doesn't prove Casey is the one responsible? Or are you saying that the evidence does not prove whether it was an accident or premeditated murder?

 

[Wudge]

So are you saying that you don't believe there is any real evidence that Caylee is dead? Or are you saying it doesn't prove Casey is the one responsible? Or are you saying that the evidence does not prove whether it was an accident or premeditated murder?

I'm saying that if you were to accept your air sampling evidence and cadaver dog evidence as representing sufficient proof of death, there's still no inculpatory evidence, at least no such evidence that I'm aware of, to support the circumstances of death or the mechanics of death.

Without such evidence, what valid and reliable premises allow you (or anyone else) to conclude that Caylee died from an act of manslaughter or from a premeditated murder versus an accident or some minor form of neglect?

 

[JBean]

I'm saying that if you were to accept your air sampling evidence and cadaver dog evidence as representing sufficient proof of death, there's still no inculpatory evidence, at least no such evidence that I'm aware of, to support the circumstances of death or the mechanics of death.

Unless there is evidence that we are unaware of, Ithere is no information to support the circumstances of death or the mechanics of death that I know of.

Without such evidence, what valid and reliable premises allow you (or anyone else) to conclude that Caylee died from an act of manslaughter or from a premeditated murder versus an accident or some minor form of neglect?

From what we have seen, it would be impossible to make those determinations.
Even if all the air sampling , dogs,DNA ,and everything else came back with 100% certainty that she was dead, it wouldn't tell us an of the things you mention; it would only tell us she is dead.

 

[Wudge]

Unless there is evidence that we are unaware of, Ithere is no information to support the circumstances of death or the mechanics of death that I know of.
From what we have seen, it would be impossible to make those determinations.
Even if all the air sampling , dogs,DNA ,and everything else came back with 100% certainty that she was dead, it wouldn't tell us an of the things you mention; it would only tell us she is dead.

I agree JBean.

 

[JBean]

I agree JBean.

Unless I am misunderstanding, I don't think it is debatable is it?
There is no evidence that we know of telling us how she died.
Doesn't mean they won't be able to convict on something, but what exactly I am not sure.

 

[KellioPSL]

I believe that the dp was taken off of the table because it was an accident, even though it happened during the comission of felonious assault, I think the prosecution thinks that the jury would not vote for the dp because of this. I think that the prosecution will roll out their theory of what occurred and it will be died in trunk drugged because of the chloroform either being transported or spilled in the trunk.

 

[JBean]

I believe that the dp was taken off of the table because it was an accident, even though it happened during the comission of felonious assault, I think the prosecution thinks that the jury would not vote for the dp because of this. I think that the prosecution will roll out their theory of what occurred and it will be died in trunk drugged because of the chloroform either being transported or spilled in the trunk.

Do you think there is any evidence to support it being an accident?

 

[Wudge]

Do you think there is any evidence to support it being an accident?

Assuming Caylee is, in fact, dead, and that she died under Casey's watch, we have as much evidence that proves Caylee died from an accident or as a result of simple negligence as we have evidence that proves Casey committed a wilful, premeditated murder or killed Caylee via an act of manslaughter.

 

[Andy H.]

Assuming Caylee is, in fact, dead, and that she died under Casey's watch, we have as much evidence that proves Caylee died from an accident or as a result of simple negligence as we have evidence that proves Casey committed a wilful, premediated murder or killed Casey via an act of manslaughter.

Curious--what is your take on the computer forensics? Because the ID of the person searching for such items has not been admitted to or proven--is this the mechanical detail missing so the jury should dismiss them entirely?

 

[Devon]

Assuming Caylee is, in fact, dead, and that she died under Casey's watch, we have as much evidence that proves Caylee died from an accident or as a result of simple negligence as we have evidence that proves Casey committed a wilful, premediated murder or killed Casey via an act of manslaughter.

I agree!:yes::yes::yes: