Sources: Casey Anthony Intentionally Killed Caylee Pt. 2

[stagehand]

Just as an example, if the duct tape shows signs of Caylee trying to remove it and has Casey's fingerprints in it that would be pretty definitive proof of intent to harm since there is no viable reason in the world to duct tape a 2 year old .... the cause of death would still be undetermined though as you can't determine suffocation from skeletal remains, or chloroform poisoning, or strangulation. Those all need tissue to determine.

That's still asking for a conclusion to be drawn. I don't see how it can be proven the duct tape was there pre or postmortem, or that it had anything at all to do with the COD. I realize I am being a stickler on points, but the report said they had absolute proof, therefore I am holding the source to that standard.

I just don't understand how that statement can be made without a definitive COD.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

Citation?

Found this with just a quick look, but trying to get kids to bed, so here's a start:

Vermont:

Duty to Aid the Endangered Act (Good Samaritan Law)

Title 12, Chapter 23 ;SS 519:

Emergency Medical Care

(a) A person who knows another is exposed to grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the same can be rendered without danger or peril to himself or without interference with important duties owed to others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person unless that assistance or care is being provided by others.

(b) A person who provides reasonable assistance in compliance with subsection (a) of this section shall not be liable in civil damages unless his actions constitute gross negligence or unless he will receive or expects to receive remuneration.Nothing contained in this subsection shall alter existing law with respect to tort liability of a practitioner of the healing arts for acts committed in the ordinary course of his practice.

(c) A person who willfully violates subsection (a) of this section shall be fined not more than $100.00 -- 1967 No. 309(adjourned session) SS 2-4 effective March 22, 1968.

Limited liability of Volunteer EMS Personnel

Title 24, Chapter 71* ;SS 2685:

Civil Liability Limited

Volunteer personnel, whether or not they receive or expect to receive nominal payments and reimbursements for expenses, who render emergency medical treatment shall:

(1) Be afforded the protection of Section 519 of Title 12;

(2) Not be considered practitioners of the healing arts for purposes of Subsection 519 (b) of Title 12; and

(3) Not be liable for civil damages for rendering emergency medical treatment unless their action constitutes gross negligence or willful misconduct.

(Vermont Statutes Annotated (VSA) 24 is the emergency medical services statute, effective July 1, 1984.)

I found that here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law#cite_note-4

 

[Cerenity2u]

Judge Wudge?

ROFLMAO!!! :laugh: This coming from a Chilly Willy...lol And for some reason I had a quick vision of you saying this out loud in Elmer Fudds voice... Chilly and Wudge, I think you are both wonderful...I always enjoy reading posts from the both of you

 

[Marple]

Good Samaratin Laws in every state do protect the person helping from being sued, however, in some cities you must help if you see someone hurt and you are the only person that is within view of the incident and can help them. Those cities/states also have it written into the law that you do NOT have to help directly if it puts you in danger of physical harm but you do have to report it once you are in a safe place.

I do believe the Good Samaritan Law is what got Jerry, Elaine, Kramer and George thrown in the slammer in Seinfeld's series finale.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

I do believe the Good Samaritan Law is what got Jerry, Elaine, Kramer and George thrown in the slammer in Seinfeld's series finale.

As a matter of fact it did!

 

[Wudge]

Found this with just a quick look, but trying to get kids to bed, so here's a start:

Vermont:

Duty to Aid the Endangered Act (Good Samaritan Law)

Title 12, Chapter 23 ;SS 519:

Emergency Medical Care

(a) A person who knows another is exposed to grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the same can be rendered without danger or peril to himself or without interference with important duties owed to others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person unless that assistance or care is being provided by others.

(b) A person who provides reasonable assistance in compliance with subsection (a) of this section shall not be liable in civil damages unless his actions constitute gross negligence or unless he will receive or expects to receive remuneration.Nothing contained in this subsection shall alter existing law with respect to tort liability of a practitioner of the healing arts for acts committed in the ordinary course of his practice.

(c) A person who willfully violates subsection (a) of this section shall be fined not more than $100.00 -- 1967 No. 309(adjourned session) SS 2-4 effective March 22, 1968.

Limited liability of Volunteer EMS Personnel

Title 24, Chapter 71* ;SS 2685:

Civil Liability Limited

Volunteer personnel, whether or not they receive or expect to receive nominal payments and reimbursements for expenses, who render emergency medical treatment shall:

(1) Be afforded the protection of Section 519 of Title 12;

(2) Not be considered practitioners of the healing arts for purposes of Subsection 519 (b) of Title 12; and

(3) Not be liable for civil damages for rendering emergency medical treatment unless their action constitutes gross negligence or willful misconduct.

(Vermont Statutes Annotated (VSA) 24 is the emergency medical services statute, effective July 1, 1984.)

I found that here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law#cite_note-4

Thank you. Though but a misdemeanor and limited to emergency medical care, this 1968 statute appears to be all encompassing.

The EMS section covers EMS personnel only.

I would be interested in any cases brought against a lay person for failure to render medical assisstance.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

Thank you. Though but a misdemeanor and limited to emergency medical care, this 1968 statute appears to be all encompassing.

The EMS section covers EMS personnel only.

I would be interested in any cases brought against a lay person for failure to render medical assisstance.

Most of the times I have heard about these laws, they were city level laws, and not state level, however in the footnotes on that wiki page, there was an article about 5 states trying to enact them on a state level. I can't imagine being the only person around and not helping if I could. And based on the scenario that started this, there should be criminal laws for not helping in a case like that. It is illegal, which I have mentioned a million times now to not report a crime if you know for fact it happened. That is from coast to coast! Rarely enforced tho.

 

[Chilly Willy]

ROFLMAO!!! :laugh: This coming from a Chilly Willy...lol And for some reason I had a quick vision of you saying this out loud in Elmer Fudds voice... Chilly and Wudge, I think you are both wonderful...I always enjoy reading posts from the both of you

LOL...well, this is one post I won't argue with :crazy:

Thank you.

 

[Wudge]

Most of the times I have heard about these laws, they were city level laws, and not state level, however in the footnotes on that wiki page, there was an article about 5 states trying to enact them on a state level. I can't imagine being the only person around and not helping if I could. And based on the scenario that started this, there should be criminal laws for not helping in a case like that. It is illegal, which I have mentioned a million times now to not report a crime if you know for fact it happened. That is from coast to coast! Rarely enforced tho.

Moral versus legal dilemmas. Things can get very muddy.

Hypo: At a medical convention, a doctor's wife is hiking with her 5 year old daughter and nine year old son. Her daughter slips along the trail and slides over the ledge of a steep cliff. The daughter's belt catches on the limb of a small tree that is rooted precariously on the side of the cliff. The Mother has her son hold her leg as she stretches out on the ground and tries to reach her daughter's hand, but she cannot reach it.

A tall doctor out for a hike comes along the scene and phones into the ranger station. The ranger says that a rescue team will be there shortly with rope and climbing gear. The Mother is hysterical and screams at him that he is a doctor and that the tree is giving way and pleads with him to try and save her daughter. But he says they should wait for the rescue team.

She keeps repeating over and over that "you can't let my daughter die you coward". She pledges she will hold onto his ankle and not let him fall. The doctor finally stretches out on the ground with the Mother holding his ankle. He is fully stretched out and within an inch of the girl's hand when the rocks under him give way and he falls to his death as the Mother was not strong enough to prevent him from going over.

Rescuers soon come and save the girl.

The wife of the dead doctor sues the Mother and her family for 50 million dollars claiming she was the proximate cause of his death and broke her fiduciary promise after putting her husband in grave danger.

The Court should hold?

 

[cocoamom]

Thank you everyone for contributing your interesting thoughts.

I’ll just finish my scenario.

When Joe’s body is found I still don’t confess to any involvement. I shut right up, and claim I’m not guilty. I thought Joe was in Barbados all this time!

I am charged with murder and prosecutors argue that I INTENTIONALLY pushed Joe down that cliff and the reason I didn’t report the accident and lied about his whereabouts was because I was covering up the fact I murdered him. There is strong evidence to tie me to the scene. The jury listens to the case put forth and nod their heads in unison. I’m guilty of murder - regardless of Joe had an accident or not. Forget whether I didn’t seek medical intervention or not - no one cares because it is believed I was PLANNING TO KILL HIM!

OR....

What if at the 11th hour I cry “okay, okay, I admit I went for that walk with Joe. But I didn’t push him! Honest! He tripped over a tree root and stumbled!” But I’ve already lied through and through. No one had a gun to my head - I just lied. The jury believed I lied because I was guilty, so I was convicted. (And maybe I did push Joe over the cliff - no one knows but me!)

But I suppose my lawyer could plea bargain with the state, to save the cost of the trial or whatever. I really don’t have much to bargain on.... Conviction of Leaving the Scene of an Accident can substantial if death is involved. I don’t know about the State of Florida. Add in the charges that Theonly1 and others have mentioned, more regarding dead body disposal, and dozens of counts of misleading. I’m willing to bet the charges would total as much or more than a guilty plea to a murder rap.

*****
Casey has no bargaining position if she were to confess at this 11th hour either. IMO The state would throw the book at her for all the time and energy she has cost them and that’s the way it should be. Since she's NEVER claimed she was involved in Caylee's death in any way, or that it was accidental, she will be prosecuted on the basis the death was INTENTIONAL.

I think JB has no choice but to defend Casey on murder charges - regardless of what really happened, with the hope he could get her off on some technicality. Can’t see that he has any other option. The open window for truth is gone....

Hope I’m making sense.

I love your "Joe" view! Makes it easy to see it from an "outside" point of view. Question though (ready for this? LOL)....
How did Joe's hair and a stain get in your trunk? Gotcha :crazy:

 

[Fridawolf]

She is certainly someone I would never point to as a good role model.

BTW did she ever offer a public apology to the Duke lacrosse team?

I've been wondering this too. She was perfectly awful with that whole situation. It seems like that would have "done her in."

 

[purplekat]

What ever happen to "just the facts ma'am, just the facts".

Unfortunately in this day and age, 'just the facts' doesn't seem to sell newspapers and magazines, or raise ratings. This case (as others before it, like the Ramseys, and Laci Peterson) has touched a nerve throughout the country, and media personnel recognize the chance to improve their own reputations by being a part of the circus, instead of backing off and waiting for the trial, and/or holding out for factual, proven information.

I personally hold in higher regard the (admittedly few) publications who haven't jumped on the sensationalizing bandwagon, and as much as I clamor for truthful information in regards to this case, I'd much rather see the local and national media pull back a bit, let the family (and, also, the nation at large, who've been transfixed by this story and this precious little girl) grieve, and regroup to cover the looming trial in a way that would honor Caylee's memory instead of always looking for their next scandalous headline, regardless of how true it is or isn't.

 

[Chilly Willy]

Moral versus legal dilemmas. Things can get very muddy.

Hypo: At a medical convention, a doctor's wife is hiking with her 5 year old daughter and nine year old son. Her daughter slips along the trail and slides over the ledge of a steep cliff. The daughter's belt catches on the limb of a small tree that is rooted precariously on the side of the cliff. The Mother has her son hold her leg as she stretches out on the ground and tries to reach her daughter's hand, but she cannot reach it.

A tall doctor out for a hike comes along the scene and phones into the ranger station. The ranger says that a rescue team will be there shortly with rope and climbing gear. The Mother is hysterical and screams at him that he is a doctor and that the tree is giving way and pleads with him to try and save her daughter. But he says they should wait for the rescue team.

She keeps repeating over and over that "you can't let my daughter die you coward". She pledges she will hold onto his ankle and not let him fall. The doctor finally stretches out on the ground with the Mother holding his ankle. He is fully stretched out and within an inch of the girl's hand when the rocks under him give way and he falls to his death as the Mother was not strong enough to prevent him from going over.

Rescuers soon come and save the girl.

The wife of the dead doctor sues the Mother and her family for 50 million dollars claiming she was the proximate cause of his death and broke her fiduciary promise after putting her husband in grave danger.

The Court should hold?

The Court should hold a fundraiser for the wife of the brave man who voluntarily, albeit with a bit of prodding, attempted to save the woman's child.

 

[PaddieAB]

Thank you. Though but a misdemeanor and limited to emergency medical care, this 1968 statute appears to be all encompassing.

The EMS section covers EMS personnel only.

I would be interested in any cases brought against a lay person for failure to render medical assisstance.

Remember though, Casey hasn't confessed.

IMO Since she hasn't confessed, the prosecution has to believe the reason she didn't report the death (including all these month she's been safely locked up in jail) was because the death was intentional.

 

[PaddieAB]

I love your "Joe" view! Makes it easy to see it from an "outside" point of view. Question though (ready for this? LOL)....
How did Joe's hair and a stain get in your trunk? Gotcha :crazy:

Thank you. I really did try to get at the stain but my Toyota trunk wasn't big enough to fit Joe's body. (The best I could do to implicate me to the crime was through the note.)

 

[PaddieAB]

Wudge your example is interesting. But just to say that I'm in no way suggesting I would expect Casey to have performed any lie-saving measures as she clearly wasn't qualified. If Caylee had an accident wouldn't have she called 911. My heavens the girl certainly knew how to use a phone!

Because she didn't call 911, that has to suggest Caylee's death was intentional. Add to that all the lies she told everyone to hide Caylee's death. It's been seven months now and she hasn't even confessed to even an accidental death. Not to say she could call 911 seven months later.."oh I forgot to call"...

What I mean is I think she's lost the opportunity to claim it was an accident (if it was) because it's too late now.

 

[Jr_Detective]

That's still asking for a conclusion to be drawn. I don't see how it can be proven the duct tape was there pre or postmortem, or that it had anything at all to do with the COD. I realize I am being a stickler on points, but the report said they had absolute proof, therefore I am holding the source to that standard.

I just don't understand how that statement can be made without a definitive COD.

If it's true that the duct tape was wrapped around the child's head, then it would have been impossible to avoid her hair. If that's the case, then it is very possible the duct tape may have hair that indicate both pre and postmortem. Further, IMO if the duct tape only has KC's finger prints then it can be concluded that KC was somehow responsible for her death. IF all those speculations are true, then it will be very difficult for the defense to explain why KC would place the duct tape on Caylee's mouth at all. Just my opinion.

 

[ecs5298]

Please provide the states when you return.

(salute)

Sorry it took so long to reply, Wudge. Been a very busy night, lots of crashes due to the snow storm.

Ok. 8 states now have laws making it mandatory to render aid. It varies from state to state as to what's required but all of them have at least the minimum that the person should activate 911.

Florida
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Ohio
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin

California and Nevada are considering adding this legislation as well. In addition to that. There are people who by nature of their role to the person needing help are required to seek and/or render assistance.
Instead of copying it. Read more about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

Always a pleasure, Wudge!

 

[ecs5298]

Wudge your example is interesting. But just to say that I'm in no way suggesting I would expect Casey to have performed any lie-saving measures as she clearly wasn't qualified. If Caylee had an accident wouldn't have she called 911. My heavens the girl certainly knew how to use a phone!

Because she didn't call 911, that has to suggest Caylee's death was intentional. Add to that all the lies she told everyone to hide Caylee's death. It's been seven months now and she hasn't even confessed to even an accidental death. Not to say she could call 911 seven months later.."oh I forgot to call"...

What I mean is I think she's lost the opportunity to claim it was an accident (if it was) because it's too late now.

Parents are required by law to seek assistance for their children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

Read the part under "United States Common Law"

 

[PaddieAB]

Parents are required by law to seek assistance for their children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

Read the part under "United States Common Law"

Thank you for the link. Parents certainly are required to seek assistance (and protect) their children. If Casey cared about laws perhaps her child might be alive today.