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

[snow_walker]

I was in error.. it wasn't KC who claimed that bad guys kidnapped the baby, it was more what CA was implying or trying to imply.. she seemed to be trying to get KC to explain herself by asking if 'someone had threatened the family'.. 'if someone had been in the house'..she may have actually thought that too, early on in the case. Not that it matters, it is just a scenerio to explain the body in the trunk problem.

Of course no normal Mother would have ever acted as KC has .. I once lost my (then) 2 year old son for about 5 minutes, and was nearly crazy with panic.. when I found him, I was so relieved. I had to sit for about half an hour until my heart beat slowed down to normal and my legs stopped trembling, and I could breathe again.

 

[noonie]

Yes, Im sure they have lot's more than we heard about

 

[Bobbisangel]

This is rather silly of me, but I am going to pay devils advocate at the moment.. just to explain why I don't feel this is an open and shut cse.. not because I really believe KC is innocent.
Taking just one piece of evidence like 'odour of decomposition of a human body in car trunk' .. If I were the defense, I would explain that as:
KC ran with a rather lively crowd, and spent time in nightclubs frequented by some notorious people (I dunno about that, but the defense could say it was so, be hard to prove otherwise).. some bad person stowed a body in the trunk of her car..she didn't notice it for awhile, and when things got to the point she did notice it, she found it.. notified some bad ppl she knew... they removed it..

You could do the same sort of thing with every piece of evidence brought out so far. Of course we don't know everything they have, far from it, but lawyers seem to be really creative people when it comes to thinking up alternate explanations for everything. It might defy all common sense, but it 'could' be true. Wherther any jury would buy it is another matter, but juries do some odd things. I think this case is far from won. (sigh)

How often does this happen though....someone putting a dead body in the trunk of someones car? Maybe in the movies but not often in real life. I think if the Pros handles his closing argument the same way the Pros in the Scott Peterson case did....there will be no question on the decision the jury comes to.That Pros in the Scott Peterson was just amazing. He slowly put all of the pieces of the puzzle together for the jury. This happened and then that happened and then this happened, etc. It was perfect and and clear.

I think Casey not telling anyone that Caylee was missing...all of the lies told to the investigators...the things that she did while Caylee was missing...her lack of caring...her focus being on herself all of the time and on and on will hang Casey. There are things we don't even know yet.

 

[Chilly Willy]

Nope, I do not think they normally would be able to get a conviction with the evidence we think they have.

However, because of the unprecedented release of recordings and interviews, notes, etc. that may have been kept out of a trial - and the ability of potential jurors to read/hear them, they probably will get a conviction. LE, IMHO, have circumvented the judicial system in this case.

I think they could get a conviction with the evidence they have, however I agree that, under similar circumstances, an innocent person would not have a chance of being acquitted. Too much incriminating and uncontested information has been embedded in the minds of potential jurors for the defense to even have a shot at a fair trial, IMO.

 

[natsound]

I agree with Chilly Willy. And I think the how can be surmised to be via chloroform. Significant traces in the trunk with the decomp plus searches for how to make it on the internet months before. I think the key is not how she died, but that she did die and that mom made that happen intentionally. I think there is a huge amount of cumulative evidence to prove those elements.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there's still a chance the hair affixed to the duct tape could reveal some chemical composition too.

 

[LindaFaye]

I think the police have more than they are telling us also
I don't think they will let everything out and will save it
for trail.

 

[mysteriew]

I think they have enough for a conviction.

They arrested her even before Caylee was found. That is extremely rare, it means they thought they had enough for a conviction at that time. Since her arrest they found Caylee's remains and even more evidence. So yeah, I think they will have more than enough.

 

[wanetta]

I think they could get a conviction with the evidence they have, however I agree that, under similar circumstances, an innocent person would not have a chance of being acquitted. Too much incriminating and uncontested information has been embedded in the minds of potential jurors for the defense to even have a shot at a fair trial, IMO.

Sad - but oh, so true..

 

[Mendara]

I think the report Baez and team mentioned regarding Forensic Science is going to be damaging to this case as it seems he will be using it as a crutch. Has anyone read the reports about this report that will be released?

I think this Case will be the first to use it to their advantage as it seems they are preparing us for it. This also explains CA's comment that "Science is just Science"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/us/05forensics.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=police%20labs%20critiqued&st=cse&scp=3

 

[Hot Dogs]

Why the long trial delay by the prosecutors? I thought it was supposed to start in March and now they are saying the end of the year. Is this because they do not have enough evidence, or the analysis of the found evidence will require lots more time? It the hang-up based on trying to establish an acceptable (for jurors) motive?

 

[kgeaux]

I don't believe you do. According to this pdf file (http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2008/sc08-744.pdf) these are the requirements for First Degree murder in Florida:

To prove the crime of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: ​

1. (Victim) is dead.

2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).

3. There was a premeditated killing of (victim).

Definitions.

An "act" includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose. ​

"Killing with premeditation" is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing. ​

The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing.

If a person has a premeditated design to kill one person and in attempting to kill that person actually kills another person, the killing is premeditated. ​

You need to know that the death occurred as the result of a criminal act. We do not know that. We can suspect it, but no forensic evidence was found (so far) that shows how Caylee died. If she drowned in the pool, for instance, and Casey just plotted to hide the body and blame it on someone else, that is not First Degree.

I haven't read any toxicology reports--could have missed them, but they've not been released to my knowledge---that would prove that Caylee had been drugged. Those reports may be coming, and hopefully we will hear soon.

It is true that Casey was arrested very early on and it is clear LE believes this is a murder. However, their evidence is not air-tight as of this point, and there are MANY loop-holes. The prosecutor has yet to take his case before a jury, and he may well decide to go for charges he KNOWS he can get a conviction for if the evidence stays at the level it is now. And I don't think the prosecutor would be certain of a conviction of first degree murder.

 

[Chilly Willy]

You need to know that the death occurred as the result of a criminal act. We do not know that. We can suspect it, but no forensic evidence was found (so far) that shows how Caylee died. If she drowned in the pool, for instance, and Casey just plotted to hide the body and blame it on someone else, that is not First Degree.

I haven't read any toxicology reports--could have missed them, but they've not been released to my knowledge---that would prove that Caylee had been drugged. Those reports may be coming, and hopefully we will hear soon.

It is true that Casey was arrested very early on and it is clear LE believes this is a murder. However, their evidence is not air-tight as of this point, and there are MANY loop-holes. The prosecutor has yet to take his case before a jury, and he may well decide to go for charges he KNOWS he can get a conviction for if the evidence stays at the level it is now. And I don't think the prosecutor would be certain of a conviction of first degree murder.

If Caylee did drown in the pool, why wasn't Casey watching her? Wouldn't that be negligence - a criminal act? The fact that Casey has not spoken up and claimed it was an accident could be considered, IMO, enough reason for a jury to believe that the death was caused by an intentional act. Who would allow themselves to be tried for murder one when all they have to do to save themselves from life in prison is admit to an accident?

I'll be surprised if evidence shows that Caylee was being drugged. I don't think she was.

Can't the prosecution give the jury options as far as charges, including murder one, and let them convict on a lesser charge if they feel it fits the facts better? I don't know how that works but I've seen it on TV

 

[kgeaux]

If Caylee did drown in the pool, why wasn't Casey watching her? Wouldn't that be negligence - a criminal act? The fact that Casey has not spoken up and claimed it was an accident could be considered, IMO, enough reason for a jury to believe that the death was caused by an intentional act. Who would allow themselves to be tried for murder one when all they have to do to save themselves from life in prison is admit to an accident?

I'll be surprised if evidence shows that Caylee was being drugged. I don't think she was.

Can't the prosecution give the jury options as far as charges, including murder one, and let them convict on a lesser charge if they feel it fits the facts better? I don't know how that works but I've seen it on TV

If Caylee drowned in the pool, it surely could be the result of negligence. (I have known a family here in Laf. who lost their 2 year old to drowning in the family pool, and no one was charged because the baby had been put down for a nap and he climbed out of the crib and sneaked out while Mommy believed he was still snoozing. So it doesn't necessarily have to be negligence. Although if any parent were ever primed to be negligent, it has got to be Casey.)

If Caylee drowned in the pool as the result of negligence, then yes, that would be a criminal act. It would not be first degree murder, however. Negligent homicide, maybe? (In the quote of the law above, please note that all three aspects must be met: the victim must be dead, must have died as the result of another's criminal act, and the criminal act must have been premeditated.) Simply being negligent would not meet the requirements.

Although many jurys are given an option to choose what to convict on, this poll asked if I believed LE had enough evidence right now to convict Casey of FIRST degree murder.

I really don't think so. I wish they did. But I don't think they do.

 

[Chilly Willy]

If Caylee drowned in the pool, it surely could be the result of negligence. (I have known a family here in Laf. who lost their 2 year old to drowning in the family pool, and no one was charged because the baby had been put down for a nap and he climbed out of the crib and sneaked out while Mommy believed he was still snoozing. So it doesn't necessarily have to be negligence. Although if any parent were ever primed to be negligent, it has got to be Casey.)

If Caylee drowned in the pool as the result of negligence, then yes, that would be a criminal act. It would not be first degree murder, however. Negligent homicide, maybe? (In the quote of the law above, please note that all three aspects must be met: the victim must be dead, must have died as the result of another's criminal act, and the criminal act must have been premeditated.) Simply being negligent would not meet the requirements.

Although many jurys are given an option to choose what to convict on, this poll asked if I believed LE had enough evidence right now to convict Casey of FIRST degree murder.

I really don't think so. I wish they did. But I don't think they do.

If the defense does not claim that Caylee died as a result of an accident, but rather maintains the story that she was kidnapped, is the jury even allowed to consider the possibility of an accidental death? It doesn't seem to me that the jury can just create possible scenarios of what might have happened to Caylee. She could have drowned in the pool, she could have fallen off a balcony, she could have choked on a candy bar. I don't think they can do that.

 

[kgeaux]

If the defense does not claim that Caylee died as a result of an accident, but rather maintains the story that she was kidnapped, is the jury even allowed to consider the possibility of an accidental death? It doesn't seem to me that the jury can just create possible scenarios of what might have happened to Caylee. She could have drowned in the pool, she could have fallen off a balcony, she could have choked on a candy bar. I don't think they can do that.

The defense really doesn't have to do very much. The onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt. All the defense has to do is throw out ANY reasonable doubt (or facsimile thereof!) and pray one juror buys it.

Part of the burden the prosecution is facing is that they must PROVE Caylee was murdered. If they expect to get a first degree sentence, then they must also prove that Casey caused the death through her own criminal act, AND that the murder was premeditated.

It's so easy for us to sit here and read the evidence (one side of it, at that!) and conclude that Casey is guilty. (I think she is guilty, even though I can see dozens, maybe HUNDREDS of holes in the evidence!) But we don't all agree on WHAT she is guilty! Is it murder? Is it first degree? Second degree? Negligent homicide? Just negligence? Is she guilty of failing to report a death and orchestrating a coverup? We don't know what evidence is going to make it into the courtroom and what will be blocked. We do know the jury will be expected to render a verdict based ONLY upon what evidence is presented during the trial.

If the defense sticks to the "nanny took her!" defense, then they obviously are going to pin the blame of the death of Caylee on her sitter, too. She wasn't just kidnapped, she was kidnapped and murdered. In that case, I would think they would hope to get a "not guilty" to all charges at any level. (Not that I can see that happening.) They would be contending that Casey had NOTHING to do with Caylee's or death.

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and make a little kgeaux prediction. Jose Baez will not be the defense attorney by the time Casey walks into her trial. He will have been replaced by someone bigger, better and much more experienced. And when someone else steps into those shoes, we will not hear a "nanny did it" defense.

editing to add: I enjoy chatting with you, Chilly. I've been so busy that I don't get to spend as much time here as I would like to, but I always look for your posts when I'm here!

 

[dax]

If the defense does not claim that Caylee died as a result of an accident, but rather maintains the story that she was kidnapped, is the jury even allowed to consider the possibility of an accidental death? It doesn't seem to me that the jury can just create possible scenarios of what might have happened to Caylee. She could have drowned in the pool, she could have fallen off a balcony, she could have choked on a candy bar. I don't think they can do that.

You're correct....the jury can't do that. They can only base their decision on the facts presented at trial. If a drowning scenario is not presented at trial then they cannot consider it in their deliberations.

 

[Chilly Willy]

The defense really doesn't have to do very much. The onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt. All the defense has to do is throw out ANY reasonable doubt (or facsimile thereof!) and pray one juror buys it.

Part of the burden the prosecution is facing is that they must PROVE Caylee was murdered. If they expect to get a first degree sentence, then they must also prove that Casey caused the death through her own criminal act, AND that the murder was premeditated.

It's so easy for us to sit here and read the evidence (one side of it, at that!) and conclude that Casey is guilty. (I think she is guilty, even though I can see dozens, maybe HUNDREDS of holes in the evidence!) But we don't all agree on WHAT she is guilty! Is it murder? Is it first degree? Second degree? Negligent homicide? Just negligence? Is she guilty of failing to report a death and orchestrating a coverup? We don't know what evidence is going to make it into the courtroom and what will be blocked. We do know the jury will be expected to render a verdict based ONLY upon what evidence is presented during the trial.

If the defense sticks to the "nanny took her!" defense, then they obviously are going to pin the blame of the death of Caylee on her sitter, too. She wasn't just kidnapped, she was kidnapped and murdered. In that case, I would think they would hope to get a "not guilty" to all charges at any level. (Not that I can see that happening.) They would be contending that Casey had NOTHING to do with Caylee's or death.

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and make a little kgeaux prediction. Jose Baez will not be the defense attorney by the time Casey walks into her trial. He will have been replaced by someone bigger, better and much more experienced. And when someone else steps into those shoes, we will not hear a "nanny did it" defense.

editing to add: I enjoy chatting with you, Chilly. I've been so busy that I don't get to spend as much time here as I would like to, but I always look for your posts when I'm here!

You need to put whatever it is that's keeping you so busy aside and spend more time here where your voice of reason is sorely needed.

 

[Chilly Willy]

You're correct....the jury can't do that. They can only base their decision on the facts presented at trial. If a drowning scenario is not presented at trial then they cannot consider it in their deliberations.

Thanks.

 

[LinasK]

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and make a little kgeaux prediction. Jose Baez will not be the defense attorney by the time Casey walks into her trial. He will have been replaced by someone bigger, better and much more experienced. And when someone else steps into those shoes, we will not hear a "nanny did it" defense.

OMG! Something we actually agree on! I never thought that would happen in a million years.

 

[kgeaux]

OMG! Something we actually agree on! I never thought that would happen in a million years.

One of life's little pleasures! What a nice Wednesday this is turning out to be! :blushing: