Scott Peterson vs. KC - Which case had/has more evidence?*POLL ADDED*

[sarah7855]

"Give me one more day"

:clap:
Very well stated!

 

[sarah7855]

Casey has more evidence against her.

I think the DP will be brought back. They have no reason to 'show their cards now' as Bumbling Baez would say. I think they want to keep Baez on the job as long as they can. He gives them some much needed laughter in such a horrible case.

I hope they bring back the DP, but I have a sinking suspicion that they won't.

 

[sarah7855]

I fear that the state is actually scared of the "dream team". I hope that is not the reason for the DP currently not in play. KC's case has a lot more to offer than SP's did.

Really? I get the impression that they are disgusted with them :wink:

 

[mimimama5]

I voted KC's case has more evidence. It may be due in part to the sunshine law, but I feel like the SP case was "winnable" so KC's should be a landslide!

 

[MarleneM]

Geesh, I was just thinking this also. I wish we had some "wired up" tapes of Casey at work. Blaming people for her situation. Bad mouthing her parents/brother. Something so obvious that her parents would be fools, by her words, for supporting her. They would have to logically take off the
blinders and join all of us who see the truth of her lies. I just don't understand them.

Well, there are text messages between KC and 'friends' before her arrest where she was touting how much she completely trusted her nanny AFTER Caylee was supposedly kidnapped by ZFG.

Also, her beloved boyfriend TL sent her texts just before KC went to jail stating: ""Y wouldn't u tell me of all people?" "Why would you lie to me thinking she was fine and with your nanny?"

 

[Dev]

I agree with all the other posters who said that there is more evidence against KC than against Scott Peterson. To this day, I still don't know exactly how he killed Laci, and that drives me crazy. IMO, it is obvious that he is the one who killed her and the baby.

In this case, I think there are several reasons why the death penalty is not currently "on the table". Perhaps one is that the state feels that it wants direct evidence (an eyewitness to the actual murder) before it seeks to jump through all the many hoops required for it to get a capital conviction. I don't know that the state feels that way; I am just surmising.

But there is another reason why the state may be leaving the death penalty "off the table". I read Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.112. It sets out the standards for attorney representation in capital cases. It says that in Florida, an attorney (whether retained, or appointed, or from the Public Defender's office) is to have 5 or more years of active criminal trial practice in order to be lead counsel on a capital case, and 3 or more years of same in order to be co-counsel on a capital case.

I keep hearing that JB has been practicing for less than 5 years. Anyone know exactly how long he's been a licensed attorney? If he is under 5 years--and I think he is--the state knows that he might become disqualified to represent KC in this case if it is a capital case. And, frankly, I think the state wants JB to be their opponent in this. So I think the state wants to keep this murder case at a level in which JB will stay on it and not be removed due to lack of years of experience.

 

[6angels]

Scott peterson. I think some will say the Casey just bc it is fresh on our minds.

 

[Gaia713]

The way I look at it, KC got pregnant by accident, was extremely immature and irresponsible, couldn't afford to raise a child, referred to herself as an "unfit mother," and had constant fights and jealousy issues with her mother regarding Caylee. Add to the fact that she was able to party, smile, rent horror movies with her bf, and get a "bella vita" tattoo days after her daughter gets "kidnapped," and I'm sure the jury will definitely not look at her as your normal, typical mother. Remember, Susan Smith killed her two children b/c the guy she was in love with didn't want kids. If she's capable of it, why not KC?

I think just because this is a high profile case that people think KC will walk. She's not an OJ, she's not even a Phil Spectre or Michael Jackson. Garegos counted on the high profile thing too, but it didn't stop justice.

It's difficult to resolve KC's behavior with that of a grieving mother. In fact, it's impossible. If it's impossible for the public, I expect a jury will feel the same way. Consciousness og guilt is powerful.

 

[Gaia713]

Casey has more evidence against her.

I think the DP will be brought back. They have no reason to 'show their cards now' as Bumbling Baez would say. I think they want to keep Baez on the job as long as they can. He gives them some much needed laughter in such a horrible case.

There's no doubt in my mind that she deserves the death penalty. However I am hoping they don't. I believe there's an automatic appeal in a death penalty case, whereas in a non-death-penalty case, she would have to pay for her own appeals attorney.

 

[magnolia]

Scott peterson. I think some will say the Casey just bc it is fresh on our minds.

I agree~There was a direct link to Scott/the Bay/and the bodies.

Unless the State has something we don't know about, they don't have a direct link to Casey and Caylee's body. They have a link to the car and a link to the A house, but no link directly to KC.

I think the circumstantial evidence against KC is strong, but still - no direct link.

 

[trixi491]

I remember SP's defense saying "just because he's a cheater, doesn't make him a murderer." Much like KC's saying "just because she's a liar, doesn't make her a murderer." Add the fact that both of these cases were so high profile that they requested/are requesting changes of venue, and that both defendants look like your everyday next-door neighbor, yet show no emotion in court regarding the deaths and these cases seem sooo much alike. Therefore, I'm hoping the outcomes are the same.

 

[Pink Panther]

I have followed only two cases this closely...The SP case and this one. There is just as much overwhelming evidence here as there was with SP. Most importantly, in both cases, there WAS NO ALTERNATIVE to the obvious. In the SP case they actually, PATHETICALLY, tried to give blame to "homeless vagrants"...In this case, they haven't even tried that!

She's a revolting sociopath and her family is just as sick.

MOO

 

[magnolia]

I have followed only two cases this closely...The SP case and this one. There is just as much overwhelming evidence here as there was with SP. Most importantly, in both cases, there WAS NO ALTERNATIVE to the obvious. In the SP case they actually, PATHETICALLY, tried to give blame to "homeless vagrants"...In this case, they haven't even tried that!

She's a revolting sociopath and her family is just as sick.

MOO

I totally agree~~

 

[Where's Andre]

I disagree completely. Both cases essentially come down to a parent murdering his/her child. Nope, don't buy it.

I respectfully disagree. Double murder mother with child, v.s. single murder of child. I have similar difficulty with comparing these cases to Susan Smith. She murdered two children but confessed, and got life with a parole chance in 2024.

 

[TURBOTHINK]

I think what you have written may have been true pre-Susan Smith, but now I think jurors are more apt to convict a mother.

The depravity of Susan Smith's actions has opened the eyes of most non-believers and made it less difficut for them to accept that a mother could easily kill her child.....imo

And this is Florida, not liberal California. The jury in Florida will be persons with more age and experience in life most likely. Floridians do not normally accept lame excuses for murdering a child.

 

[TURBOTHINK]

I fear that the state is actually scared of the "dream team". I hope that is not the reason for the DP currently not in play. KC's case has a lot more to offer than SP's did.

I don't think they are scared at all. The "dream team" is a bunch of incompetents who really do not have that good of a record when it comes to actual court trials. The only one who is a true trial lawyer is the new one and he is a civil lawyer where the rules of evidence are much different.

I think they are STUPID for using LEE. He is the laughing stock now in his field and is known for evidence tampering. This will ruin any chance they had of disputing the evidence.

 

[accordn2me]

Circumstantial evidence includes EVERY type of DNA evidence. The only other type of evidence in a court of law is direct evidence. This might be a confession, a video of the actual crime, or an eyewitness to the ACTUAL crime. Seeing Johnny flee the crime scene would be CE if you didn't see him commit the deed.

So, CE is actually preferred to DE and it's silly to ever say this is only a CE case.
<snip>

(some)Defense attorneys throw around the term CE like it's a dirty word....like the case is WEAK because the evidence is circumstantial.

Heck, with all the eyewitnesses that have recanted or been wrong over the years, it's a wonder that anyone is believed when they testify in court these days. However, I just read about a case where a man had friends who corroborated his aliby, yet a jury convicted him because of ONE eyewitness, who was later proved wrong. IMO, eyewitness should be in a class all by themselves.

 

[Schmerty_Jones]

So true with Henry Lee. Think of the Phil Spector case & his running off to hide in Hong Kong!

 

[Baxter]

I agree with all the other posters who said that there is more evidence against KC than against Scott Peterson. To this day, I still don't know exactly how he killed Laci, and that drives me crazy. IMO, it is obvious that he is the one who killed her and the baby.

In this case, I think there are several reasons why the death penalty is not currently "on the table". Perhaps one is that the state feels that it wants direct evidence (an eyewitness to the actual murder) before it seeks to jump through all the many hoops required for it to get a capital conviction. I don't know that the state feels that way; I am just surmising.

But there is another reason why the state may be leaving the death penalty "off the table". I read Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.112. It sets out the standards for attorney representation in capital cases. It says that in Florida, an attorney (whether retained, or appointed, or from the Public Defender's office) is to have 5 or more years of active criminal trial practice in order to be lead counsel on a capital case, and 3 or more years of same in order to be co-counsel on a capital case.

I keep hearing that JB has been practicing for less than 5 years. Anyone know exactly how long he's been a licensed attorney? If he is under 5 years--and I think he is--the state knows that he might become disqualified to represent KC in this case if it is a capital case. And, frankly, I think the state wants JB to be their opponent in this. So I think the state wants to keep this murder case at a level in which JB will stay on it and not be removed due to lack of years of experience.

The state knows that Baez has been practicing for 3 years. When the GJ indicted Casey on 1st degree murder charges,Baez firm hired a DP certified lawyer Terrence L. He wrote a letter to the state stating why Casey should not get the DP. He was taken off the case when the dp was taken off the table.

 

[chefmom]

The way I look at it, KC got pregnant by accident, was extremely immature and irresponsible, couldn't afford to raise a child, referred to herself as an "unfit mother," and had constant fights and jealousy issues with her mother regarding Caylee. Add to the fact that she was able to party, smile, rent horror movies with her bf, and get a "bella vita" tattoo days after her daughter gets "kidnapped," and I'm sure the jury will definitely not look at her as your normal, typical mother. Remember, Susan Smith killed her two children b/c the guy she was in love with didn't want kids. If she's capable of it, why not KC?

ITA! The only thing that worries me is that with SS there was the boyfriend who didn't want kids, with SP there was the mistress he had been lying to for a while, but with KC we do not have that clincher for motive! I understand that she is a sociapathic, narcisistic, "spiteful b^tch" who wanted to party and chase every guy that looked her way, but it concerns me that the defense may be able to sway just one juror and get her off! I really hope that SA can prove that the infamous diary entry was from '08 and not '03. If they can, this would be as good as any motive that they could come up with as it would show a total lack of concern and complete disregard for that precious little girl. IMO, of course.