REVISIT Does LE have enough evidence to Convict Casey on 1st Degree Murder?

[AlwaysShocked]

I keep thinking back to the Scott Peterson case and how there was a lot of stuff that was known prior to the trial, but then there was a whole LOT more incriminating stuff that came out at the trial. Information that neither Laci's family members nor his own family members were ever told about, according to the books later written. And none of it was ever leaked.

So I suspect there is also a lot of stuff in this case that will come out at the trial. Both forensics and witness testimony.

 

[Wudge]

I keep thinking back to the Scott Peterson case and how there was a lot of stuff that was known prior to the trial, but then there was a whole LOT more incriminating stuff that came out at the trial. Information that neither Laci's family members nor his own family members were ever told about, according to the books later written. And none of it was ever leaked.

So I suspect there is also a lot of stuff in this case that will come out at the trial. Both forensics and witness testimony.

That's false. It was the reverse. Other than the location of the bodies, everything the media had portrayed as inculpatory evidence prior to the start of the trial was revealed to be mythology during the trial. At the end of the trial, all prosecutors had for clear and unyielding inculpatory evidence was the location of the bodies, from which premeditation cannot be discerned.

People didn't like Scott's behavior, that not inculpatory evidence. People don't like Casey's behavior. That's not inculpatory evidence.

After Laci disappeared, Scott made false statements. That's not inculpatory evidence. After Caylee disappeared, Casey made false statements. That's not inculpatory evidence.

Scott allegedly showed consciousness of guilt. That's not inculpatory evidence. Casey allegedly showed consciousness of guilt. That's not inculpatory evidence.

A dog's nose allegedly says something was fishy in the Peterson case. That's not inculpatory evidence. A dog's nose allegedly says something is fishy in this case. That's not inculpatory evidence.

All of the above represents corroborative evidence. Corroborative evidence is bun. Where's the beef?

 

[MiraclesHappen]

That's false. It was the reverse. Other than the location of the bodies, everything the media had portrayed as inculpatory evidence prior to the start of the trial was revealed to be mythology during the trial. At the end of the trial, all prosecutors had for clear and unyielding inculpatory evidence was the location of the bodies, from which premeditation cannot be discerned.

People didn't like Scott's behavior, that not inculpatory evidence. People don't like Casey's behavior. That's not inculpatory evidence.

After Laci disappeared, Scott made false statements. That's not inculpatory evidence. After Caylee disappeared, Casey made false statements. That's not inculpatory evidence.

Scott allegedly showed consciousness of guilt. That's not inculpatory evidence. Casey allegedly showed consciousness of guilt. That's not inculpatory evidence.

A dog's nose allegedly says something was fishy in the Peterson case. That's not inculpatory evidence. A dog's nose allegedly says something is fishy in this case. That's not inculpatory evidence.

All of the above represents corroborative evidence. Corroborative evidence is bun. Where's the beef?

Inculpatory evidence, I would hope we can agree, is the opposite of exculpatory evidence.

Inculpatory evidence is evidence which goes to show than a certain individual did in fact commit a certain act.

If corroborating evidence goes to provide further evidence that an individual did indeed commit a certain act as well, it is also inculpatory.

The two terms are not mutually exclusive. Surely you realize that corroborative evidence can be inculpatory.

And oh, people's behavior can definitely go as evidence of all sorts of nefarious doings. Casey's behavior may be used in a Court of law as inculpatory evidence.

In anticipation of your request for a cite or a link (even though you don't seem to provide much of those!!!) I would ask you to read the rules of evidence as promulgated just past the time we stopped dipping witches to determine guilt.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

Hello JBean, I trust all is well with you.

It's impossible for me to see the evidence source that would prove premeditation (murder one) or malice aforethought (murder two) beyond a reasonable doubt.

Some posters have mentioned LE air sampling the trunk for chloroform. However, I know of no case precedent that provides for any such evidence being admitted to the level of inculpatory evidence, which evidence law requires.

I remember having the same pre-trial argument on the dog tracking evidence in the Peterson case. I said then if it was admitted, it would only be admitted as corroborative evidence. That proved to be true.

In any event, sufficiency of evidence to prove premeditation, malice aforethought or any unlawful killing will almost assuredly be the central issue.

And I am guessing that you know of no case precedent for evidence NOT being admitted at a certain level of inculpatory, as well.

Evidence is not admitted or deemed inadmissable based upon a chart which determines levels at which it is inculpatory or exculpatory.

Evidence is either in or o-O-U-T. Once it is in, there are no proof levels assigned to it except that a Judge will explain the differing types of proof to a jury. They will be told, ultimately though, a jury will be told that they are the ones who have the duty and the authority to assign to evidence they have heard and to items admitted into evidence, how much PROBATIVE value it has in their collective mind. Jury also will be told they have the option to forego consideration of evidence and thus assign it NO probative value.

The suggestion that evidence comes in with clear cut pre-indicators as to its ultimate probative worth is unclear at best. Just wanted to clear this up.

my bold above and jmhumbleo

 

[Wudge]

Inculpatory evidence, I would hope we can agree, is the opposite of exculpatory evidence.

Inculpatory evidence is evidence which goes to show than a certain individual did in fact commit a certain act.

If corroborating evidence goes to provide further evidence that an individual did indeed commit a certain act as well, it is also inculpatory.

The two terms are not mutually exclusive. Surely you realize that corroborative evidence can be inculpatory.

SNIP

You're wrong.

As part of jury instructions, trial Judges instruct juries on what is corroborative evidence. Evidence the Judge cites as being corroborative evidence can only be that and nothing more. Jurors are not free to overrule the Judge and turn corroborative evidence into inculpatory evidence.

HTH

 

[MiraclesHappen]

You're wrong.

As part of jury instructions, trial Judges instruct juries on what is corroborative evidence. Evidence the Judge cites as being corroborative evidence can only be that and nothing more. Jurors are not free to overrule the Judge and turn corroborative evidence into inculpatory evidence.

HTH

Umm, there absolutely can be corroborative evidence which goes to show guilt.

I don't appreciate the personal attack. I have attempted to remain polite and to refrain from casting aspersions no matter how incorrect any poster might be.:blowkiss:

 

[Wudge]

Evidence is either in or o-O-U-T.

SNIP

The suggestion that evidence comes in with clear cut pre-indicators as to its ultimate probative worth is unclear at best.

Again, you're wrong.

The trial Judge is responsible for instructing jurors as to the law. Jury instructions represent law the jurors took an oath to follow.

As part of jury instructions, Judges frame corroborative evidence as follows: this evidence is not, by itself, sufficient to permit an inference that the defendant is guilty of xxxx.

 

[Wudge]

Umm, there absolutely can be corroborative evidence which goes to show guilt.

I don't appreciate the personal attack. I have attempted to remain polite and to refrain from casting aspersions no matter how incorrect any poster might be.:blowkiss:

By definition, from the vantage point of the prosecution, corroborative evidence corroborates non corroborative evidence; i.e., inculpatory evidence.

As for my alleged personal attack, I said; "You're wrong. That's fact and true. That was not a personal attack.

Moreover, HTH stands for: Hope This Helps.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

Again, you're wrong.

The trial Judge is responsible for instructing jurors as to the law. Jury instructions represent law the jurors took an oath to follow.

As part of jury instructions, Judges frame corroborative evidence as follows: this evidence is not, by itself, sufficient to permit an inference that the defendant is guilty of xxxx.

Evidence isn't either in or O-U-T?

Does it really hover somewhere between admissability and lack thereof?

Wow!

A juror may believe or disbelieve all or any part of the evidence or the testimony of any witness...

The above bold has been my point. If this is wrong, then I would direct you to the Supreme Court of Florida, since it is their language in bold.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

By definition, from the vantage point of the prosecution, corroborative evidence corroborates non corroborative evidence; i.e., inculpatory evidence.

As for my alleged personal attack, I said; "You're wrong. That's fact and true. That was not a personal attack.

Moreover, HTH stands for: Hope This Helps.

Ahhh no one's opinion on here is fact.

 

[strach304]

By definition, from the vantage point of the prosecution, corroborative evidence corroborates non corroborative evidence; i.e., inculpatory evidence.

As for my alleged personal attack, I said; "You're wrong. That's fact and true. That was not a personal attack.

Moreover, HTH stands for: Hope This Helps.

Hey there Wudge, haven't seen you in forever. :blowkiss:
Glad you stopped in. If anyone can give us insight as to the defense strategy it's you. So far the talking heads on NG's show have been cut off or completely off the mark.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

By definition, from the vantage point of the prosecution, corroborative evidence corroborates non corroborative evidence; i.e., inculpatory evidence.

As for my alleged personal attack, I said; "You're wrong. That's fact and true. That was not a personal attack.

Moreover, HTH stands for: Hope This Helps.

There can also be corroborative evidence which corroborates exculpatory evidence.I won't say you are wrong, though, as this is just my humble opinion which is based upon personal observation and experience and law.

You have already discounted the value of experience and gut feeling. So be it.

If I were charged with a capital crime (and that's a stretch) I would always choose to be represented by someone with tons of experience as opposed to one who had no experience but had read an entire legal library. I highly value experience and the gut reactions it produces. I am entitled to my opinions as you are `entitled to yours. Yours are not fact and they are not correct, per se because no ones claims merit that throne here....not mine, not yours....
jmho

 

[Wudge]

Hey there Wudge, haven't seen you in forever. :blowkiss:
Glad you stopped in. If anyone can give us insight as to the defense strategy it's you. So far the talking heads on NG's show have been cut off or completely off the mark.

(salute) LTNS.

I hope you and yours are well.

Obviously, this case is a media ratings bonanza in the vein of the JonBenet case and the Elizabeth Smart case and the Madeline McCann case and the baby Sabrina case et al.

As best we know, no one other than Casey knows what happened. Moreover, if Caylee is dead, no one knows how she died. Further, there is no body. Nor is there clear and unyielding inculpatory evidence to support premeditation. Yet, the vast majority hold for premeditation.

One defense theme almost assuredly will be insufficiency of evidence to support the charge.

I am reminded of the immortal words of Pogo. "We have met the enemy and it is us."

 

[jon_burrows]

Simply not reporting Caylee's disappearance should be grounds for the abuse charge.

Statute or case precedent?

Do you really need a statute or case precedent to tell you whether or not this was child abuse?

Common sense?

 

[Wudge]

Do you really need a statute or case precedent to tell you whether or not this was child abuse?

Common sense?

You said: "should be". I queried for your basis, which appears to be your "common sense".

The next step is evidence that proves your "common sense" beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

You said: "should be". I queried for your basis, which appears to be your "common sense".

The next step is evidence that proves your "common sense" beyond a reasonable doubt.

Actually, since we have been harping on Jury Instructions....Judge's generally DO tell juries to employ "common sense" in their deliberations regarding whether or not the prosecution has proven a case "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Apparently, the Courts in fact favor "common sense."

just my humble opinion...

 

[LeLe1953]

The State needs to produce inculpatory evidence that proves its murder charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The evidence does not prove a premeditated murder (murder one) was committed. The evidence does not prove a murder with malice aforethought (murder two) was committed.

Prosecutors do not have a body, a time of death, a cause of death, a place of death, a crime scene, a witness or a confession.

The defense should request a bench trial. If prosecutors move forward with a charge of murder one and/or murder two, the defense will ask and the Judge should award a summary judgment (pre-trial ruling) for the defense.

Case closed.

:behindbar And you would know what all the state has because of why? Remember, premeditation can be formed in an INSTANT. She is gonna fry & I cant wait.:behindbar:behindbar

 

[MiraclesHappen]

:behindbar And you would know what all the state has because of why? Remember, premeditation can be formed in an INSTANT. She is gonna fry & I cant wait.:behindbar:behindbar

Well LeLe:blowkiss:

I too am awaiting this revelation of evidence because to form an opinion as to the probative value of the evidence without knowing what it all is seems a little premature to me but that's just me and as always just my humbleo.

 

[ChrisAnn007]

They have enough evidence to send her to trial and ask for life....they will offer her a plea in exchange for the chance of parole in 25 years, JMO.

 

[Wudge]

:behindbar And you would know what all the state has because of why? Remember, premeditation can be formed in an INSTANT. She is gonna fry & I cant wait.:behindbar:behindbar

Premeditation must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That requires clear and unyielding inculpatory evidence. What is that evidence?