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

[MarleneM]

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)

"Lay jurors and the courts"? As opposed to what?

 

[countzero]

I firmly believe and trust that the prosecutors in this case will lay out a foundation that a 16 year old can understand and follow. JB&crew will try their dangest to muddle the outline and throughout HUGE technical terms to attempt to baffle the jury.

It won't work; the prosecutors will use simple terms because when it boils down to the essence of this case it is very simple and doesn't need to be made complex to present to the jury.

JB&crew will use every bit of technical mumbo jumbo about the forensic evidence, the Autopsy Report to confuse the jury but Dr G will guide them through with gentle, understandable explanations.

The only two people who won't understand any of the evidence will be KC and CA. Even GA will be able to follow, know and acknowledge KCs guilt.

 

[Gma Kat]

I'm afraid the Caylee was crying wanting CA and KC couldn't stand it, and the more Caylee cried for CA, the more tape KC put on there until she couldn't cry for CA any more.

Wow, this sounds way to plausible. She shut her up for crying for her mommy, I mean grandma.... this would encompass the rage that most of us agree was going on at the time the tape was applied. I just really want to hang on to the possibility that Caylee was sound asleep and never knew what was happening. Regardless of whether she was asleep or awake, the taping indicates a rage and symbolic/actual silencing of Caylee. I'm praying there are in fact fingerprints on the tape of the person who did this to this precious child. If, as I believe it is, her mother, then I pray the jury to be wise and do their job accordingly. JMO.

 

[DotsEyes]

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?

Answer. The accidental death of a healthy 3 year mandates that another person was negligent in the care of the child. An act of omission, by definition, that causes the death of another is a homicide. Had there been an accidental drowning, it would mean that someone was unattentive - an omission of a duty, the failure to act.

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

Answer. As stated in my post, I am discussing the ME's finding of homicide as the MOD. The pronouncement of the classification of homicide is for LE, the DA, a judge or jury. A death cause by the negligence of another is a homicide. Premeditation, as you know, may be found in some state statutes as an element required in some criminal homicide cases, but not in all cases of homicide and not in all states.

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

Answer: You are welcome!

 

[autumnlover]

I firmly believe and trust that the prosecutors in this case will lay out a foundation that a 16 year old can understand and follow. JB&crew will try their dangest to muddle the outline and throughout HUGE technical terms to attempt to baffle the jury.

It won't work; the prosecutors will use simple terms because when it boils down to the essence of this case it is very simple and doesn't need to be made complex to present to the jury.

JB&crew will use every bit of technical mumbo jumbo about the forensic evidence, the Autopsy Report to confuse the jury but Dr G will guide them through with gentle, understandable explanations.

The only two people who won't understand any of the evidence will be KC and CA. Even GA will be able to follow, know and acknowledge KCs guilt.

ITA. At the end of the day, no matter how the defense team tries to muddy the waters, the evidence is crystal clear: Caylee was missing for 31 days before she was reported missing, her mother partied like crazy during that time and she got a tattoo that said "the beautiful life." All the rest of the forensic evidence is icing on the cake. The fact that the cadaver dogs alerted on the trunk of the car, GA's recognition of the smell of decomposition, etc. is all additional, strong evidence but when when you put this case in front of plain folks on the jury who have regular, normal values and ethics, they will not be able to look past the fact that KC did not report her child missing, IMHO. However, I still think there is a smoking gun and it is regarding the duct tape. Either KC's fingerprints are on it or there are dog hairs that conclusively link back to the two Yorkies.

 

[DotsEyes]

(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...

I can't think of anything worse than a 'professional' jury. In fact, we chose the random jury of 12 peers, ordinary citizens, to avoid same. They stand between us and tyranny in the court room. Thnink about this one some more, ok?

 

[Gma Kat]

ITA. At the end of the day, no matter how the defense team tries to muddy the waters, the evidence is crystal clear: Caylee was missing for 31 days before she was reported missing, her mother partied like crazy during that time and she got a tattoo that said "the beautiful life." All the rest of the forensic evidence is icing on the cake. The fact that the cadaver dogs alerted on the trunk of the car, GA's recognition of the smell of decomposition, etc. is all additional, strong evidence but when when you put this case in front of plain folks on the jury who have regular, normal values and ethics, they will not be able to look past the fact that KC did not report her child missing, IMHO. However, I still think there is a smoking gun and it is regarding the duct tape. Either KC's fingerprints are on it or there are dog hairs that conclusively link back to the two Yorkies.

bbm: CA wouldn't dare blame her yorkies like KC blamed the squirrels....j/k....this is a great observation too. What if those dogs' hair is on the tape? That would be huge! Wouldn't the reports we have recieved so far have given some indication that there was animal hair found? Or could there be more yet to come? i.e., KC's prints on the tape?

 

[Gma Kat]

(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...

RE BBM: ITA. In California we have the choice between a Court trial (where the judge is the jury) and a standard jury trial. So technically you have your choice of a well-trained legal mind or 12-peers (which is very subjective in itself) - so in a sense this scenario exists already.

 

[Brini]

I can't think of anything worse than a 'professional' jury. In fact, we chose the random jury of 12 peers, ordinary citizens, to avoid same. They stand between us and tyranny in the court room. Thnink about this one some more, ok?

Think: Star Chamber.

 

[cecybeans]

I can't think of anything worse than a 'professional' jury. In fact, we chose the random jury of 12 peers, ordinary citizens, to avoid same. They stand between us and tyranny in the court room. Thnink about this one some more, ok?

Please don't assume I have not thought this through simply because we have different opinions; I've thought long and hard about it for over 40 years (starting as a teenager when I began to question why people took for granted the status quo of a two-party system, saying that if it had been around long enough, it meant it could not possibly be improved) .

I know that the idea of a random jury of peers and ordinary citizens was crafted, in theory, to avoid the privileged class ruling against the disadvantaged, or those with personal prejudices and agendas ignoring the rules. When this country was founded that was an important and novel addition to the idea of jurisprudence. Despite that, and in the couple of hundred years since its introduction into our judicial system, we apparently need professional jury consultants to help weed out people who, while they may technically fall into the term "peer", are nevertheless subject to being swayed by either prejudice or ignorance, bribery, or a host of other pitfalls such as simply being subject to the eloquence of a case presented by a better attorney.

Given the numbers of innocent people who are convicted (not ones through evidence problems or tampering), and conversely, the guilty ones who are let go because they could somehow afford better counsel, I don't see that preparing a group of people who have been psychologically tested for the ability to remain objective and have a dependable record of a relative lack of prejudice, and are professionally trained to make decisions based on the evidence and the finer points of what constitutes "reason" and other areas of the law - instead of falling prey to fine oratory or being vulnerable to obfuscation of reason by expensive scientific experts, could do any worse than the system we have now.

If that is somehow deemed more objectionable than the process we have now, I would like to see all jurors go through a period of juror training that is at least as rigorous as the expensive voir dire jury consultant process we currently employ, which I see sometimes as less about choosing a group of "peers" and more about choosing people the defense or prosecution see as being more vulnerable or amenable to their own agendas due to demographic considerations or general value that would favor their own case. In addition, I'd like to see a method of compensation that is equitable; many companies reimburse their employees little or nothing to serve on a jury, which can cause financial hardship to some people who serve on long cases - serving your country as a juror should not be more expensive to some people than to others, or cause actual financial hardship (which is one reason many people go to great lengths to avoid serving jury duty to begin with).

I think the founding fathers of the US were trying to avoid the pitfalls of class, wealth and hierarchy having undue influence on the outcome of court cases, as had often happened during their age in Europe. When this country first started, becoming an attorney wasn't even a process that required a specific education or degree or even passing a test. A lot of things have changed, including the levels of certification and ethics we require on paper for those in the legal world to adhere to.

We live in a world now in which people are largely seen, treated and have learned to behave like consumers, whose citizens increasingly make important decisions, like who they choose to govern their country, much less from doing their own research and thinking and more by what political party has better advertising or marketing techniques, much more by emotion and less by reason in many cases. I just happen to think that many people are subconsciously swayed by the theatrics of courtroom presentation, because we have learned to make many lifestyle decisions based on how advertising and marketing appeal to our emotions - and I feel that preparing a group of people to become better immune to that - just like we supposedly train and certify other legal professionals could not be any worse than the system we have now.

In other words, I believe there are many ways to be "tyrannized", many of which are more subtle and have less accountability or checks and balances potentially built in than one in which citizens of any demographic or background would be chosen for the talent of being able to function as a true jury of "peers" should ,in objectively and professionally reviewing the evidence in a case to determine its outcome. I don't see that happening as often as it should today, despite the intentions of the founding fathers. We all carry out past and prejudices with us but some are either better naturally, or better trained to leave them at the door when making important decisions; and least they could be made professionally accountable if they were unable to execute their duties within those parameters.

I hope we can respectfully disagree and realize you most likely have your own well considered reasons for your own opinion; my point here is please don't assume I have not or lack the ability to have thought this through.

 

[RR0004]

"Lay jurors and the courts"? As opposed to what?

Good thing to know that Dorf is now teaching constitutional law (he may always have been- he's gotten around this past decade)...IMO he'd be one who'd trumpet our system...warts and all.

 

[RR0004]

Think: Star Chamber.

Even if we had "professional jurors" there'd be issues. It's the nature of the beast that is our system. I just don't think we're giving "ordinary" folks their due here. I trust in our system 100%. Is it infallible...absolutely not. What in life can we ascertain to be 100% foolproof? (sorry, slightly OT)

 

[SleuthyMama]

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:

BBM

I'm wondering if Cindy might have also wanted to shame or embarass Casey into producing Caylee by putting that up on myspace. Maybe she was thinking Casey's friends would see it and someone would give Casey grief about keeping Caylee away from Cindy and George?

Because I don't see Cindy as the type who wants to make nice nice with her daughter on myspace...I see her more as the type who would pull a passive aggressive stunt like that to make Casey look bad in the eyes of her friends.

 

[Searchfortruth]

BBM

I'm wondering if Cindy might have also wanted to shame or embarass Casey into producing Caylee by putting that up on myspace. Maybe she was thinking Casey's friends would see it and someone would give Casey grief about keeping Caylee away from Cindy and George?

Because I don't see Cindy as the type who wants to make nice nice with her daughter on myspace...I see her more as the type who would pull a passive aggressive stunt like that to make Casey look bad in the eyes of her friends.

I think you are right Sleuthy Mama...this type of manipulation would fall right in line with what we know now about Cindy.

 

[LLH]

For those of you who have sat for days and days fitting each piece of a puzzle together...Caylees murder is so similar. There was mystery at the beginning- but it all came together last December. The last piece was set firmly in place. I agree that there is probably no smoking gun. I had to take a break from WS because of the enormity of emotions that I felt for Caylee, still do and always will. The glaring reality of what happened will long be remembered and talked about, not just because a life was taken, but because of the stark coldness of the victims family, the lies, the betrayal to Caylee. She deserved love and honor. I believe the duct tape was the last piece of this puzzle. No loving parent would place duct tape over their childs mouth, in life OR death, without ill intent and malice.

God Bless the Children.

 

[MarleneM]

For those of you who have sat for days and days fitting each piece of a puzzle together...Caylees murder is so similar. There was mystery at the beginning- but it all came together last December. The last piece was set firmly in place. I agree that there is probably no smoking gun. I had to take a break from WS because of the enormity of emotions that I felt for Caylee, still do and always will. The glaring reality of what happened will long be remembered and talked about, not just because a life was taken, but because of the stark coldness of the victims family, the lies, the betrayal to Caylee. She deserved love and honor. I believe the duct tape was the last piece of this puzzle. No loving parent would place duct tape over their childs mouth, in life OR death, without ill intent and malice.

God Bless the Children.

BBM.

Thank you LLH. I believe your statement here is worthy of entry into the Prosecution's closing argument.

 

[Bittiness39]

My guess as to the smoking gun, if there is one, would be Caylee's prints/fingernails/mucas on the original layer of the tape. No parent who cares about their kid (despite what they are going through) duct tapes their kid's mouth shut. Sorry, AL, but if I were for the DP, I would advocate that the same be done to your client, KC. Boo hoo.

 

[Brini]

My guess as to the smoking gun, if there is one, would be Caylee's prints/fingernails/mucas on the original layer of the tape. No parent who cares about their kid (despite what they are going through) duct tapes their kid's mouth shut. Sorry, AL, but if I were for the DP, I would advocate that the same be done to your client, KC. Boo hoo.

I think the 31 days, the dog hits,the decomp , and the tape are the biggest, smokiest guns.

No innocent explanation for any of that.

 

[impatientredhead]

I think the 31 days, the dog hits,the decomp , and the tape are the biggest, smokiest guns.

No innocent explanation for any of that.

Yep, to me not reporting your child missing says it all.

The only person who would not report a toddler missing is one that doesn't want her found.

The only person who does not want to find a dead toddler's body before the evidence disintergrates is the person responsible for the crime.

There is no other explanation. And any flimsy one you could come up with blows up in her face with her myspace entries, fusian promoting, hot body contests and a stream of friends that say she was happy go lucky that month.

 

[butwhatif?]

BBM

I'm wondering if Cindy might have also wanted to shame or embarass Casey into producing Caylee by putting that up on myspace. Maybe she was thinking Casey's friends would see it and someone would give Casey grief about keeping Caylee away from Cindy and George?

Because I don't see Cindy as the type who wants to make nice nice with her daughter on myspace...I see her more as the type who would pull a passive aggressive stunt like that to make Casey look bad in the eyes of her friends.

I'm thinking that CA was playing nice with KC, so that she would be able to see Caylee. At that point I believe CA thought KC was keeping Caylee from her just to make her suffer. So she had to kiss KC's *advertiser censored** in order to see her Caylee again.
There was more than one effort on CA's part to contact KC through MS, although I dont believe we have seen the content of those other messages yet.

I've been in a similar situation, and you have to work really hard to not push the parent further away who has legal custody of the child, if you want to be able to see, and protect that child.
CA should have filed for custody when she knew that KC was not being the kind of parent she needed to be. She gave KC too many chances, and she is living with the consequences of that every single day.
JMO