Trial Analysis

[Sharai]

Yeah but we kind of did hear people say otherwise. Some of the same people who said she was a 'good mother' also said she brought her child to parties, left her child alone on an apartment balcony while she was back in another room with her boyfriend, and allowed her little girl to sleep in bed with ICA's lover. I think her friends didn't have much of a frame of reference for what a good mother in ICA's circumstances might look like, and ICA's family wanted desperately to see a good mother in her (at times). Even still, CA reportedly said that she'd take Caylee away from KC, or that KC wasn't being a good mother because of the partying, etc.

FWIW, I was also a very young unmarried mother, and at least in my experience my friends just didn't "get" that I could no longer be the person I was before, socially. They understood I had a baby, they understood the baby required a lot of care and was in theory a 'life changer', but those two things didn't add up in their heads to a realistic view of what was appropriate or not in my life. So they would still ask me if they could have the annual "cherry bomb" party at my house, or if some particularly sleazy couple could crash on my couch, or if I could take off for a 3 day party boat cruise with them. When I would say no to these things they were annoyed, completely not thinking (because they didn't have to) about life from a parenting perspective.

So I think about that when I listen to ICA's friends say she was a good mother, but then also freely volunteer things she did with Caylee that pretty much anyone would agree is bad parenting. And I get why that is, since I saw my own friends sorta understand (but completely not understand) what parenting entailed.

I agree with you, Sherri, understanding the reality, responsibility, and joy of being a parent is difficult for those who are not. Their frame of reference, as you stated, is definitely not in line with the actual day to day experience. Casey brought Caylee along with her but it sounds like she often abandoned her in the process. Welcome to the Websleuth. I'm a newbie, too.

 

[Friday]

I'm sure the psychologists did give Casey a mental health disorder diagnosis. What they didn't do is diagnose her as" insane." Which means if she is found to be guilty she, by law will be held accountable for her own behavior. She clearly has the ability to distinquish between right and wrong and thus is not insane, just mentally disturbed.

I think if she was to be diagnosed using the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) available May 2013 she would most likely be diagnosed as: Antisocial/Psychopatic Type. This diagnosis will include the following explanation:

Individuals who resemble this personality disorder type seek power over others and will manipulate, exploit, deceive, con, or otherwise take advantage, in order to inflict harm or to achieve their goals. An arrogant, self-centered, and entitled attitude is pervasive, along with callousness and little empathy for others’ needs or feelings. Rights, property, or safety of others is disregarded, with little or no remorse or guilt if others are harmed. Emotional expression is mostly limited to irritability, anger, and hostility; acknowledgement and articulation of other emotions, such as love or anxiety, are rare. There is little insight into motivations and an impaired ability to consider alternative interpretations of experience.

Temperamental aggression and a high threshold for pleasurable excitement are typically associated with this type, linked to reckless sensation-seeking behaviors, impulsivity without regard for consequences, and a sense of invulnerability. Unlawful or unethical behavior is often pursued, including substance abuse and physical violence. Aggressive or sadistic acts are common in pursuit of personal agendas, and sometimes pleasure or satisfaction is derived from humiliating, demeaning, dominating, or hurting others. Superficial charm and ingratiation may be employed to achieve certain ends, and there is disregard for conventional moral principles. General irresponsibility about work obligations or financial commitments is commonly present, as well as problems with authority figures.

I think this is an apt diagnosis for Casey. Just my humble opinion.

Wow, this is seems to describe Casey to a shocking "tee," except maybe for her rather constant use of superficial charm and ingratiation around others--such as her "cheerleader" routine, and "mother hen" routine.

Anyway, Wow. Just Wow.

 

[RANCH]

I agree, and I know that I am of the minority here, but I think JB did a decent job on Dr. Vass and also with the FBI chemist. I was not impressed with the testimony of Dr. Vass, I was expecting more. I don't think the prosecution is proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt. I have followed this case from the beginning,watching all of the news shows and lurking on this site. I do think she is guilty, but when I objectively look at the case as presented by the SA, I don't think they have proven it enough yet for the jury. I think if I was sitting on the Jury and only used the evidence presented in trial so far, I would have to find her not guilty. I would think it is a strange and bizarre case and probably a homicide, but I would need more evidence to even send someone away for life. (I also have a paralegal background, and I know experts are bought - it is done all the time unfortunately - you only use the experts that will support your case- they are in my opinion almost always biased -
so maybe I am not putting enough emphasis on the expert testimony in my decision). Can't wait to see what they have this week.

Goldenlover, the defense will have a chance to put their experts on the stand also. That way both sides have a fair chance to state their case.This is a death penalty case so it's much more than sending someone away for life. Although I believe that the jury can recomend LWOP if they chose.

 

[Friday]

I love your picture of Hawk. My Dad's last dog was a Doberman. She was a great dog.

Dobermans are phenonemal dogs--brilliant, devoted, elegant and loving--and my Hawk was the best of the best. I lost him 18 months ago, only three months after the first sign of heart disease appeared and I rushed him to the vet. I will miss him forever.

I'll post the rest of this message over on your personal page so I don't get us in trouble for being off topic.

 

[goldenlover]

I know the defense will have a chance too, however the defense does not have to "prove" anything. The State does. In my opinion, the state has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was premeditated murder. That is what I am saying. I was expecting the state to have a better case. I think JB has done a pretty good job at casting doubt to a lot of what the state and their experts have testified to. I know this is a death penalty case. What I said was if I were on the jury I would have to find her not guilty if I looked objectively at the evidence only presented in this trial. (I think she is guilty, but only because I have been following the case since the beginning) I am talking about the what I have seen in the trial so far. If found guilty, the jury can give her the death penalty or LWOP. If I were a juror I could not even give her LWOP let alone the death penalty with the case the SA has been presenting. I don't think they are doing a very good job.

 

[goldenlover]

They have absolutely NO EVIDENCE that proves this was premeditated. Think about it. What do you come up with? I am talking evidence that has been presented at trial so far.

 

[xin]

Who does everybody think the state will put on this week? Especially the last few witnesses? Guesses?

 

[xin]

They have absolutely NO EVIDENCE that proves this was premeditated. Think about it. What do you come up with? I am talking evidence that has been presented at trial so far.

The duct tape being put on prior to death is a pretty strong opinion from an expert or two.

 

[SpriteGal]

They have absolutely NO EVIDENCE that proves this was premeditated. Think about it. What do you come up with? I am talking evidence that has been presented at trial so far.

The duct tape. Premeditation in regards to the law can take a split second. It doesn't have to be thought days, or weeks in advance. IMO

 

[goldenlover]

The duct tape. Premeditation in regards to the law can take a split second. It doesn't have to be thought days, or weeks in advance. IMO

They have no proof the duct tape was put on prior to death. Even the States expert said the hair and roots possibly could have held the mandible on the skull. They have not proven the duct tape was the cause of death...they do not know the cause of death and their expert, Dr. G even testified that they do not know how the Caylee died. The defense has an expert that is going to say the body was tampered with and that the duct tape was post-mortem. There was no DNA on the duct tape, not even Caylee's.

 

[Miaa]

They have absolutely NO EVIDENCE that proves this was premeditated. Think about it. What do you come up with? I am talking evidence that has been presented at trial so far.

goldenlover,
I believe the murder was premeditated. That's why imo ica did the searches on the internet. She found out how to make or obtain chlorform,, she found out how to break a neck if that didn't work (sorry )
and she had duct tape in her possession.

 

[Miaa]

They have no proof the duct tape was put on prior to death. Even the States expert said the hair and roots possibly could have held the mandible on the skull. They have not proven the duct tape was the cause of death...they do not know the cause of death and their expert, Dr. G even testified that they do not know how the Caylee died. The defense has an expert that is going to say the body was tampered with and that the duct tape was post-mortem. There was no DNA on the duct tape, not even Caylee's.

I'm sorry but didn't Dr. G and one of the other experts say the duct tape was deefinitely applied BEFORE death?

Isn't that why the lower mandible was intact?
tia

 

[LinasK]

They have no proof the duct tape was put on prior to death. Even the States expert said the hair and roots possibly could have held the mandible on the skull. They have not proven the duct tape was the cause of death...they do not know the cause of death and their expert, Dr. G even testified that they do not know how the Caylee died. The defense has an expert that is going to say the body was tampered with and that the duct tape was post-mortem. There was no DNA on the duct tape, not even Caylee's.

The reason they cannot get even Caylee's DNA off the duct tape is because of the length of time it was under water. I personally spoke directly with a criminalist recently, and asked him that question. He told me that water is a very destructive force. That doesn't exonerate Casey from being the murderer!

 

[miss plum]

Unless the jury swallows the abuse/KC learning to live in coverup mode/GA having complete control over her explanation, which I personally never could, the complete absence of grief and/or remorse is also a very strong indicator of premeditated murder. Only a murderer wouldn't mind their child dying, everyone else would be devastated.

 

[goldenlover]

Don't get me wrong, I, too believe she is guilty, but I have heard and read a lot more than just the trial, like you all have - the Jurors have not (or shouldn't have as they had to reveal what they knew before being selected) I am just afraid the prosecution is not proving this very well...that is all I am saying. My sister and her neighbor who have not followed the case very much previously, but are not watching the trial do not believe she is guilty of premedited murder. They are pretty much buying the defense story.

When I start thinking about just the trial and have a more objective opinion and use only the trial evidence, I just think the evidence is lacking for premeditation. Dr. G did say the duct tape was prior to death, but when questioned by the defense she admitted she could not prove it and it was speculation because there would be no reason to put it on after death...that is not proof it was the murder weapon or cause of death, she could not determine the means of death.

 

[LinasK]

Don't get me wrong, I, too believe she is guilty, but I have heard and read a lot more than just the trial, like you all have - the Jurors have not (or shouldn't have as they had to reveal what they knew before being selected) I am just afraid the prosecution is not proving this very well...that is all I am saying. My sister and her neighbor who have not followed the case very much previously, but are not watching the trial do not believe she is guilty of premedited murder. They are pretty much buying the defense story.

When I start thinking about just the trial and have a more objective opinion and use only the trial evidence, I just think the evidence is lacking for premeditation. Dr. G did say the duct tape was prior to death, but when questioned by the defense she admitted she could not prove it and it was speculation because there would be no reason to put it on after death...that is not proof it was the murder weapon or cause of death, she could not determine the means of death.

It's not necessary for the prosecution to prove manner of death. They know it was suffocation, not drowning. Obviously, it was homicide, not suicide. Casey was the last known person to see Caylee alive, and was responsible for her care. She had the means, motive, and opportunity to commit this crime! I think the state is doing a fine job of proving it's case, I have no worries that Casey will get a 1st degree murder conviction, unless juror #4 (who "can't judge") causes a hung jury...

 

[LinasK]

They have no proof the duct tape was put on prior to death. Even the States expert said the hair and roots possibly could have held the mandible on the skull. :waitasec:They have not proven the duct tape was the cause of death...they do not know the cause of death and their expert, Dr. G even testified that they do not know how the Caylee died. The defense has an expert that is going to say the body was tampered with and that the duct tape was post-mortem. There was no DNA on the duct tape, not even Caylee's.

Do you mean hair roots or plant roots???

 

[Friday]

Wasn't sure where to put this but it is trial analysis...

JB and the DT are obviously on a low end budget...and possibly...acting more like that than they really are...

Easel
Pictures

As opposed to the states high tech presentation....

I haven't been too worried about a conviction up until this morning...as I was sitting here thinking about it....if we have some jurors that have an issue with big government spending and feeling for the little guy that can't afford anything...

Does that make sense?

What do you all think...
Is the SA is coming off as very sophisticated and high tech...or just big government with lots of money?

Is the DT coming off as a bumbling lot of clowns that need to go back to school ...or...is the jury going to feel for them because they had limited funds?

This problem hadn't occurred to me before now, and it worried me a little, but I don't think it will be a problem for two reasons: ICA has three lawyers with her at all times, so her team certainly won't appear to be hopelessly outnumbered by the SAs.

Secondly (and I think hilariously) the jury learned on Saturday (thanks to Dr. Haskell) that JB can depose the very same experts the SA is using...only JB stiffs them by not paying their bills, and what's worse, he then lies to the expert in front of the judge and jury by claiming he never received a bill.

That brings to mind a big question about who would actually pay the bill that Dr. Haskell sent to JB for Dr. H's time used during JB's deposition. I'll post that somewhere else for an official answer.

 

[zoey]

This problem hadn't occurred to me before now, and it worried me a little, but I don't think it will be a problem for two reasons: ICA has three lawyers with her at all times, so her team certainly won't appear to be hopelessly outnumbered by the SAs.

Secondly (and I think hilariously) the jury learned on Saturday (thanks to Dr. Haskell) that JB can depose the very same experts the SA is using...only JB stiffs them by not paying their bills, and what's worse, he then lies to the expert in front of the judge and jury by claiming he never received a bill.

That brings to mind a big question about who would actually pay the bill that Dr. Haskell sent to JB for Dr. H's time used during JB's deposition. I'll post that somewhere else for an official answer.

he has to submit it to JAC then they make payment...

 

[Donjeta]

Wasn't sure where to put this but it is trial analysis...

JB and the DT are obviously on a low end budget...and possibly...acting more like that than they really are...

Easel
Pictures

As opposed to the states high tech presentation....

I haven't been too worried about a conviction up until this morning...as I was sitting here thinking about it....if we have some jurors that have an issue with big government spending and feeling for the little guy that can't afford anything...

Does that make sense?

What do you all think...
Is the SA is coming off as very sophisticated and high tech...or just big government with lots of money?

Is the DT coming off as a bumbling lot of clowns that need to go back to school ...or...is the jury going to feel for them because they had limited funds?

If you ask me they may be too lazy to bother being properly prepared but they also come across as if they WANT us to think that the poor lil' defense team is short of money and resources and the big bad government is sparing no costs trying to convict their client.

Like the witness who was asked how much money he made from his depositions and he replied that he hadn't got his check from the defense. It was a bit of an embarrassing moment there IMO but then I got to thinking, surely Baez must have known if they'd paid him or not? Was he hoping that the jury would get the impression that the state had the funds to get the witness statement they wanted to and the defendant didn't?

Lack of money is not a reason not to use the technology provided by the courthouse IMO. They also have several laptops with which to create presentations so they can do without the wrinkly pad IMO.