Theories On What Happened to Caylee Part #6 (New Smoking Gun Theories for DP)

[The Eunice Burns]

Without getting too deep into the swampy synergy of syllogy, I wanted to ask something about the discussion above.

(snipped)

:floorlaugh:

Great post!

 

[RR0004]

I think you are right on!
I think it did incite KC and her response to Cindy was the Diary of Days


diary of days.

On the worst of days,
Remember the words spoken.

Trust no one,
Only yourself.

With great power,
Comes great consequence.

What is given,
Can be taken away.

Everyone lies.
Everyone dies.

Life will never be easy.

On the worst of days,
Remember the words spoken.

Hold your head high.

Smile.

Love unconditionally.

Tomorrow is a brand new day.


So - IMO - KC is saying in so many wordsI - Look what you made happen Mother!!:furious:

That makes total sense...but still feels to me like a response that could have been written while her child was still alive. How can anyone write that knowing their child is dead? OMG!! I'm giving Casey way too much credit here, I know.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

That makes total sense...but still feels to me like a response that could have been written while her child was still alive. How can anyone write that knowing their child is dead? OMG!! I'm giving Casey way too much credit here, I know.

You know, it almost seems like it could be her "KC's Mantra". Something to say to herself to justify her actions.

 

[RR0004]

You know, it almost seems like it could be her "KC's Mantra". Something to say to herself to justify her actions.

She really is evil.

 

[essies]

That makes total sense...but still feels to me like a response that could have been written while her child was still alive. How can anyone write that knowing their child is dead? OMG!! I'm giving Casey way too much credit here, I know.

KC posted that to her MySpace on 7/7-but she bookmarked it on 7/2. The author on the computer is CMANTHON of Gentiva-but remember KC had Cindy's laptop!
Cindy created her MySpace My Caylee is Missing on 7/3 and went looking for KC and Caylee at Universal!
It's been said before and I think it's more obvious as time goes by that little Caylee became the collateral damage in the power struggle between Cindy and KC!

 

[DotsEyes]

Why did the ME declare homicide? I had to put my thinking cap back on and open some dusty books to understand, and I think I can explain. First, a definition of homicide is in order. This one is from Black's Law Dictionary and serves the purpose. Although the actual language used in each State's statutes may read differently, Black's is universally accepted amongst the legal community in the US as a reference guide but never cited as law. Black's is not law; it is a good dictionary.

Homicide: "(t)he killing of one human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another. The act of a human being taking away the life of another human being. A person is guilty of criminal homicide if he purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another human being. Criminal homicide is murder, manslaughter or negligent manslaughter. (emphasis added)"

Black's further offers: " (h)omicide is not necessarily a crime. It is a necessary ingredient of the crimes of murder and manslaughter, but there are other cases in which homicide may be committed without criminal intent and without criminal consequences, as, where it is done it the lawful execution of a judicial sentences, in self-defense, or as the only possible means of arresting an escaping felon. The term "homicide" is neutral; while it describes the act, it pronounces no judgment on its moral or legal quality.

Black's outlines the classifications of homicide: culpable; excusable; felonious (murder and manslaughter); homicide by misadventure (accidental; with no criminal culpability); homicide by necessity (unavoidable and without will, intention, desire or negligence); justifiable, (executions, self-defense); negligent homicide, (self-explanatory); reckless; and vehicular. I did not post the entire lists of classification examples, but you get the gist.

End.

Now onto the discussion at hand, healthy 3 years olds do not drop dead naturally. Haylee had no known illnesses at anytime and therefore natural causes did not apply. This was one of the ME's limited choices but was ruled out based on the reported health of the child. Whether that information came from family or a physician, or a combination of both, does not matter. It was information that could be verified to allow her to rule out natural causes. It was dismissed as a possible manner of death immediately.

It is a fact that healthy 3 year olds do not die unless there are extenuating circumstances. Circumstances such as negligence on the part of another, intent on the part of another or an act of God. (floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, lightning, typhoons, natural wildfires) Death due to an act of God is usually obvious, was never claimed by the decedent's family and usually families don't hide or lie about acts of God. I am being a little sarcastic here, forgive me. I rule out an "act of God" based on common sense and I suppose the ME did too.

The MOD was determinable by ruling out 'an act of God' and 'natural causes' leaving only one conclusion; homicide.

It is conclusive that Caylee died, by definition, as a result of the act or omission by another; therefore her death was a homicide. However, the ME can't make the call on the classification. She is not judge, jury and executioner and does not have the authority to classify a homicide. The classification of the homicide is reserved to LE, the DA, maybe a judge or jury and based on admissible evidence.

Whew! Got it?

 

[Wudge]

The standard of law is not to eliminate "any chance of this being an accident". The prosecutions burder is beyond a "reasonable" doubt. not beyond any doubt. That "reasonable" often seems to get overlooked, and defense lawyers and talking heads always seem to downplay it.

What level of certainty equates to "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" to you? For example, is 51/49 your "reasonable"" Is 60/40 your "reasonable"? Perhaps it's 80/20?

First, establish the level of certainty that you require "reasonble" to be, then empirically access and measure the reliability of the evidence that is required to support the charges; i.e., premeditated murder. The reliability of the evidence necessary to support the charge is where the problem lies in this case.

 

[Wudge]

Why did the ME declare homicide? I had to put my thinking cap back on and open some dusty books to understand, and I think I can explain. First, a definition of homicide is in order. This one is from Black's Law Dictionary and serves the purpose. Although the actual language used in each State's statutes may read differently, Black's is universally accepted amongst the legal community in the US as a reference guide but never cited as law. Black's is not law; it is a good dictionary.

Homicide: "(t)he killing of one human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another. The act of a human being taking away the life of another human being. A person is guilty of criminal homicide if he purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another human being. Criminal homicide is murder, manslaughter or negligent manslaughter. (emphasis added)"

Black's further offers: " (h)omicide is not necessarily a crime. It is a necessary ingredient of the crimes of murder and manslaughter, but there are other cases in which homicide may be committed without criminal intent and without criminal consequences, as, where it is done it the lawful execution of a judicial sentences, in self-defense, or as the only possible means of arresting an escaping felon. The term "homicide" is neutral; while it describes the act, it pronounces no judgment on its moral or legal quality.

Black's outlines the classifications of homicide: culpable; excusable; felonious (murder and manslaughter); homicide by misadventure (accidental; with no criminal culpability); homicide by necessity (unavoidable and without will, intention, desire or negligence); justifiable, (executions, self-defense); negligent homicide, (self-explanatory); reckless; and vehicular. I did not post the entire lists of classification examples, but you get the gist.

End.

Now onto the discussion at hand, healthy 3 years olds do not drop dead naturally. Haylee had no known illnesses at anytime and therefore natural causes did not apply. This was one of the ME's limited choices but was ruled out based on the reported health of the child. Whether that information came from family or a physician, or a combination of both, does not matter. It was information that could be verified to allow her to rule out natural causes. It was dismissed as a possible manner of death immediately.

It is a fact that healthy 3 year olds do not die unless there are extenuating circumstances. Circumstances such as negligence on the part of another, intent on the part of another or an act of God. (floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, lightning, typhoons, natural wildfires) Death due to an act of God is usually obvious, was never claimed by the decedent's family and usually families don't hide or lie about acts of God. I am being a little sarcastic here, forgive me. I rule out an "act of God" based on common sense and I suppose the ME did too.

The MOD was determinable by ruling out 'an act of God' and 'natural causes' leaving only one conclusion; homicide.

It is conclusive that Caylee died, by definition, as a result of the act or omission by another; therefore her death was a homicide. However, the ME can't make the call on the classification. She is not judge, jury and executioner and does not have the authority to classify a homicide. The classification of the homicide is reserved to LE, the DA, maybe a judge or jury and based on admissible evidence.

Circumstances such as negligence on the part of another, intent on the part of another or an act of God. (floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, lightning, typhoons, natural wildfires) Death due to an act of God is usually obvious, was never claimed by the decedent's family and usually families don't hide or lie about acts of God. I am being a little sarcastic here, forgive me. I rule out an "act of God" based on common sense and I suppose the ME did too."

Whew! Got it?

You said: "It is a fact that healthy 3 year olds do not die unless there are extenuating circumstances. Why is "accident" not in your list of extenuating circumstances? For example, how did you establish that Caylee did not accidently drown?

Moreover, your cited "negligence", which certainly does not equate to a premediated murder. How did you determine that Caylee did not die from negligence?

(BTW, a gold star for your research on "homicide".)

 

[Phumi]

What level of certainty equates to "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" to you? For example, is 51/49 your "reasonable"" Is 60/40 your "reasonable"? Perhaps it's 80/20?

First, establish the level of certainty that you require "reasonble" to be, then empirically access and measure the reliability of the evidence that is required to support the charges; i.e., premeditated murder. The reliability of the evidence necessary to support the charge is where the problem lies in this case.

The jury won't be instructed to create a ratio of certainty. I do not agree that they will see the "problem" you have identified.

 

[SoSueMe]

I keep wondering about the "hair mat" that was talked about in the autopsy. Could it have been a sign of Caylee struggling to breathe with her nose and mouth taped up....her head turning from side to side in a frenzy trying to breathe????? How horrible. DP warranted....

The hair matt was formed after decomposition. If you will refer to the Report of Osteological Analysis that was attached to the autopsy report, page 3, under Opinion, the last sentence states:

"Based on the position of the tape and mandible, it can be inferred that the mandible remained in this position because the tape held it in place prior to the hair forming into a matt on the base of the skull."

 

[Wudge]

The jury won't be instructed to create a ratio of certainty.

SNIP

Correct. Juries are not so instructed. That's a major failing of our judicial system. However, a good foreperson will ensure that there is at least a discussion on what reasonable doubt truly represents. Unfortunately, my experience has taught me that good forepersons are rare.

The failure to properly assess the reliability of required evidence is a key factor in wrongful convictions; e.g., time and time again, DNA evidence has proven that a person was imprisoned based on a wrongful identification by a single eyewitness (direct evidence proven to be unreliable).

 

[Phumi]

Correct. Juries are not so instructed. That's a major failing of our judicial system. However, a good foreperson will ensure that there is at least a discussion on what reasonable doubt truly represents. Unfortunately, my experience has taught me that good forepersons are rare.

The failure to properly assess the reliability of required evidence is a key factor in wrongful convictions; e.g., time and time again, DNA evidence has proven that a person was imprisoned based on a wrongful identification by a single eyewitness (direct evidence proven to be unreliable).

But, our current judicial system with all it's failings is what the jury, judge and attorneys have to work with. A discussion of the ideal system is for another thread. I believe the prosecution does not need a "smoking gun." The totality of the evidence against KC is what will ultimately convict her.

 

[cecybeans]

Correct. Juries are not so instructed. That's a major failing of our judicial system. However, a good foreperson will ensure that there is at least a discussion on what reasonable doubt truly represents. Unfortunately, my experience has taught me that good forepersons are rare.

The failure to properly assess the reliability of required evidence is a key factor in wrongful convictions; e.g., time and time again, DNA evidence has proven that a person was imprisoned based on a wrongful identification by a single eyewitness (direct evidence proven to be unreliable).

(taking a slight OT liberty) - which is why I would love to see a professionally trained (and properly compensated) jury system, similar to those who are chosen serve on grand juries, who often say the length of the term adds to their skill and experience in making good decisions. I know jury consultants may eliminate certain problems in voir dire (and create others), but if I was a defendant I would rather have my fate in the hands of trained professionals who have expertise in objectivity and evidence analysis than in 12 individuals that were basically chosen from a random pool of citizens and narrowed down by a subcontractor using basic marketing principles with the mutual approval of the defense and prosecution. (Didn't Frank Herbert's Dune have a similar system or am I mixing up my sci-fi authors?)

And for those who argue that professional jurors could be bribed, otherwise corrupted or threatened, I say that can and does happen anyway at every level from jurors to judges. JMHO, and I promise to return to topic...

 

[The Eunice Burns]

Correct. Juries are not so instructed. That's a major failing of our judicial system. However, a good foreperson will ensure that there is at least a discussion on what reasonable doubt truly represents. Unfortunately, my experience has taught me that good forepersons are rare.

The failure to properly assess the reliability of required evidence is a key factor in wrongful convictions; e.g., time and time again, DNA evidence has proven that a person was imprisoned based on a wrongful identification by a single eyewitness (direct evidence proven to be unreliable).

Not to offend, but anyone w/ your background would be discarded during voir dire. This will be a jury of reasoning people who won't be concerned w/ the ratios of certainty but will ask the obvious questions: If it was an accident, why invent "Zanny"? Why wait 31 days? Oh that's not right, KC didn't wait, she did nothing at all. Her mother called LE. Why carry on in the manner she did: getting a tattoo, shopping, renting videos, girl on girl dancing, playing "house" w/ TL while her daughter had supposedly been kidnapped? The jury will want an answer to that. They are going to go down the line: motive (KC), means (KC), opportunity (KC). IMO, just based on what we know now, a jury will be able to "properly assess the reliability of required evidence". I have served on jury in a felony case, and your thinly veiled contention that juries are formed from a bunch of dolts, is ridiculous.

 

[Marina2]

And I wonder what the trigger was that caused CA to send LA in search of KC on 3 July. I wonder if she found something in the backyard while gardening that set off some serious alarms?

The impetus for that would be Casey not showing up at Universal with Caylee after Casey made arrangements with CA to meet them there so that CA could see Caylee. CA went to Universal expecting to see KC and Caylee but they were no where to be found. KC did this to get CA out of the house so she could return home without being seen by her parents.

As much as I dislike CA, I empathize with her having high hopes of seeing her granddaughter only to get there and find out it was a ploy to get her out of the house. That would set me off too. It probably triggered the Myspace msg. and sending LA in search of KC.

 

[Gma Kat]

The hair matt was formed after decomposition. If you will refer to the Report of Osteological Analysis that was attached to the autopsy report, page 3, under Opinion, the last sentence states:

"Based on the position of the tape and mandible, it can be inferred that the mandible remained in this position because the tape held it in place prior to the hair forming into a matt on the base of the skull."

Maybe I read this differently than you SoSueMe, I interpreted this to read that the mandible was taped into place before decomp - I don't see how that precludes the possibility of being placed on Caylee before death, therefore the hair matting during a struggle. I hope I am wrong and that you are right.

 

[essies]

Here it is guys---CA's My Space:

She came into my life unexspectedly, just as she has left me. This precious little angel from above gave me strength and unconditional love. Now she is gone and I don’t know why. All I am guilty of is loving her and providing her a safe home. by Jealousy has taken her away. Jealousy from the one person that should be thankfull for all of the love and support given to her. A mother’s love is deep, however there are limits when one is betrayed the one she loved and trusted the most. A daughter comes to her mother for support when she is pregnant, the mother says without hesitation it will be ok. And it was. But then the lies and betrayal began. First it seemed harmless, ah, love is blind. A mother will look for the good in her child and give them a chance to change. This mother gave chance after chance for her daughter to change, but instead more lies more betrayal. What does the mother get for giving her daughter all of these chances? A broken heart. The daughter who stole money, lots of money, leaves without warning and does not let her mother now speak to the baby that her mother raised, fed, clothed, sheltered, paid her medical bills, etc. Instead tells her friends that her mother is controlling her life and she needs her space. No money, no future. Where did she go? Who is now watching out for the little angel?

This was created and posted 1 year ago today! It shows Cindy knows what is the problem with KC. Cindy KNOWS what caused the break between her and KC. We don't know the exact details of what happened the evening of 6/15 cause the A's are trying to portray the evening of 6/15 and the morning of 6/16 as uneventful. But, actions speak louder than the A's "mistruths." KC was avoiding G&C, spinning "mistruths about her and Caylee's whereabouts and the final straw was sending Cindy on a wild goosechase to Universal. How pathetic that Cindy created her MySpace to reach out to KC hoping she would reciprocate by becoming her "freind" and this spoiled brat would bring her grand daughter back into her lfe!
KC must see Cindys desperation-cause she texts JG and tells him not to talk to her family if they try to contact him-something going on that she'll take care of. A year ago today KC gets her tattoo and the beat goes on......
I don't think there is a smoking gun-just the sum total of all the pieces!:waitasec:

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

This will be a jury of reasoning people who won't be concerned w/ the ratios of certainty but will ask the obvious questions: If it was an accident, why invent "Zanny"? Why wait 31 days? Oh that's not right, KC didn't wait, she did nothing at all. Her mother called LE. Why carry on in the manner she did: getting a tattoo, shopping, renting videos, girl on girl dancing, playing "house" w/ TL while her daughter had supposedly been kidnapped? The jury will want an answer to that. They are going to go down the line: motive (KC), means (KC), opportunity (KC). IMO, just based on what we know now, a jury will be able to "properly assess the reliability of required evidence".

SNIP

I hope you're wrong about the jurors not considering the reliability of the evidence. But in a gargantuan high-profile case such as this one, I believe you likely (sadly) to be right.

Even in far more everyday cases, the reliability of evidence is well understood to slip by the everyday lay person. Years ago, a well regarded legal scholar wrote briefly of evidence reliability, the assessment ability of lay jurors and the courts.

(its brevity is simple yet its eloquent, re:link below)

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20010516.html

The rest of your post regards speculation (province of the thread) or questions. A jury can considered neither, because neither are evidence.

(final post ... have a great 4th everyone ... relish liberty)

 

[Gma Kat]

Why did the ME declare homicide? I had to put my thinking cap back on and open some dusty books to understand, and I think I can explain. First, a definition of homicide is in order. This one is from Black's Law Dictionary and serves the purpose. Although the actual language used in each State's statutes may read differently, Black's is universally accepted amongst the legal community in the US as a reference guide but never cited as law. Black's is not law; it is a good dictionary.

Homicide: "(t)he killing of one human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another. The act of a human being taking away the life of another human being. A person is guilty of criminal homicide if he purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another human being. Criminal homicide is murder, manslaughter or negligent manslaughter. (emphasis added)"

Black's further offers: " (h)omicide is not necessarily a crime. It is a necessary ingredient of the crimes of murder and manslaughter, but there are other cases in which homicide may be committed without criminal intent and without criminal consequences, as, where it is done it the lawful execution of a judicial sentences, in self-defense, or as the only possible means of arresting an escaping felon. The term "homicide" is neutral; while it describes the act, it pronounces no judgment on its moral or legal quality.

Black's outlines the classifications of homicide: culpable; excusable; felonious (murder and manslaughter); homicide by misadventure (accidental; with no criminal culpability); homicide by necessity (unavoidable and without will, intention, desire or negligence); justifiable, (executions, self-defense); negligent homicide, (self-explanatory); reckless; and vehicular. I did not post the entire lists of classification examples, but you get the gist. End.
Whew! Got it?

BOLD IS BY ME IN RESPONSE TO WUDGE'S FOLLOWING COMMENT:

You said: "It is a fact that healthy 3 year olds do not die unless there are exteSnuating circumstances. Why is "accident" not in your list of extenuating circumstances? For example, how did you establish that Caylee did not accidently drown?

Moreover, your cited "negligence", which certainly does not equate to a premediated murder. How did you determine that Caylee did not die from negligence?

Perhaps I am confused but -DotsEyes post covered it all with respect to homicide for me unless there is an example you can give me to clarify something I have misundertsood. Thanks!

 

[The Eunice Burns]

I hope you're wrong about the jurors not considering the reliability of the evidence. But in a gargantuan high-profile case such as this one, I believe you likely (sadly) to be right.

Even in far more everyday cases, the reliability of evidence is well understood to slip by the everyday lay person. Years ago, a well regarded legal scholar wrote briefly of evidence reliability, the assessment ability of lay jurors and the courts.

(its brevity is simple yet its eloquent, re:link below)

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20010516.html

The rest of your post regards speculation (province of the thread) or questions. A jury can considered neither, because neither are evidence.

(final post ... have a great 4th everyone ... relish liberty)

Not so fast. In the case I sat on, we found the defendant NOT GUILTY. We "properly assessed the reliability of the evidence" and determined the State did not prove their case. So, it did not "slip by the everyday lay person", in that case. You see, there are some juries that prove your statements wrong. We CAN "properly assess the evidence" (imagine that) and not not let it "slip by" us "everyday" lay people. The evidence was not reliable. In THIS case, I think the SA has plenty of reliable evidence. KC's behavior is not speculative, it IS evidence. Circumstantial, albeit, but evidence all the same.