What Would PROVE KC Did It? POLL ADDED

[MyTinkieGirl]

Although there is a ton of circumstantial evidence, and LE most likely believes they can convict on that, I would bet my last dollar they are diligently looking for a piece or pieces of direct evidence that links KC, and ONLY KC to Caylee's homicide.

So far it seems to me we have:

Decomp in the car
The Duct Tape (Possible fingerprints) or match to gas cans
The Garbage Bag containing Caylee's remains
The Laundry Bag containing Caylee's remains?

What else haven't we thought of -- for instance, why the strong interest in those CD's and DVD's?

OK...if I'm gettin what the thread is actually asking for....the pool chemicals and pesticide containers taken from the back yard, right after the crime scene was released. They must have found something at the scene to pique their interest in these things....as opposed to taking them earlier in the investigation

 

[sharpar]

it would have to come down to KC's transference at the crime scene -

finding evidence of her presence seals the deal - other things dont

prove the timeline and since they are related and live together makes

it much more difficult

I believe that she is guilty and SA is going to prove it beyond a shadow

of a doubt .

I think there several things that cant be explained away and

will show jury and everyone else she put Caylee in the hamper and

then disposed of her body .

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

You are speculating that the tape was applied whilst Caylee was alive, but we don't know if that's the case or not.

Hmmmm...been tryin hard to figure that one out.....only thing I can come up with is bite marks or folds from "pulling" at it, would show done before death. Again...only pure speculation at this point.

 

[susan1215]

I think the only real evidence is going to be Caseys fingerprints on the duct tape/and or trash bag. I hope they find some. The decomp hasn't been DNA linked to Caylee has it? There is no tape showing Casey placing Caylee in the trunk. Blanket and toys could have been with Caylee at "nannys". Caylee missing without being reported, Casey partying could be child abuse and neglect. I sound like her defense attorney.

 

[natsound]

Dirt residue on KC's shoes that were found in the car, matching dirt from the dumping ground. I know it doesn't prove she killed Caylee, but along with everything else, that should do it for the jury. I'm not sure we are ever going to have direct evidence that she killed her, only that she dumped the body.

I agree.. dirt from crime scene on KC's shoes would put here there. I think fingerprints on the duct tape and the decomp in the trunk would be the most direct evidence that she killed her.

 

[Lili]

I am "on the fence" about the tape being applied before or after death.

I tend to think that the tape was applied post-mortem. My reasoning being that perhaps KC had the baby wrapped in a blanket then discovered the decomposition taking place and KC used the duct tape to keep Caylee's tongue in and her mouth closed.

I don't think KC was prepared for the decomp stage after the death. I don't think she had any plans of what she would do with the body and when she discovered what was happening she just quickly did what she had to do and dumped the body so as not to get caught.

But then again, I could be very, very wrong. I just can't bring myself to think anyone would put duct tape over the mouth of a loved one, especially a small child who is supposed to trust you. Just can't do it.

 

[wanetta]

IMO, there is no evidence as yet that proves KC deliberately murdered her child. There is much evidence that very strongly suggests that she knew all along that Caylee was dead, actually hid her body and then covered up and lied to everyone, acting as if everything was fine and dandy. But nothing that I have seen yet proves how and why Caylee died, or whether it was a deliberate killing, the result of a sudden loss of control or the result of some form of negligence by KC - e.g. not watching Caylee properly around the home/yard, leaving her sleeping in an inadequately ventilated car or giving her too much medication to get her to sleep.

Her behaviour after the event appears to be that of someone who just doesn't give a damn, but it could just as easily be that of a cowardly, weak and immature girl, who believed that her lies would once again get her out of trouble. The reason that she isn't talking is because she knows it is her fault that Caylee is dead, but whether that 'fault' is actually a deliberate act or some degree of negligence remains to be seen. I think it's all the same to her - Caylee died through either her act or omission, and whichever it was, she would rather lie than tell the truth.

So, what evidence proves she intentionally murdered Caylee? IMO, if there is some, we haven't seen it yet. Even the duct tape proves nothing, unless it can be shown that it was applied whilst Caylee was alive, and that it contributed to her death.

I think you're right on. If the evidence exists, we haven't been shown it yet.

 

[Lexington]

Yep, CA asks "why SHE didn't pick it up" (the car) in one of the jail visits....
& gets no answer. (I think @ sometime KC told CA, 'Zanny" abandoned the car, maybe outside Tonys apt.??)

Very early on IIRC, CA talking about the 'good mother', also said something like....."KC even carries extra car keys, just in case".

Thanks Dot for checking the she as opposed to you statement. You saved me the trouble of going back and finding it today. Yes, I remember the extra car keys statement but don't remember the Zanny abandoning the car outside Tony's.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I think the only real evidence is going to be Caseys fingerprints on the duct tape/and or trash bag. I hope they find some. The decomp hasn't been DNA linked to Caylee has it? There is no tape showing Casey placing Caylee in the trunk. Blanket and toys could have been with Caylee at "nannys". Caylee missing without being reported, Casey partying could be child abuse and neglect. I sound like her defense attorney.

I agree.

 

[Kat]

Thanks Dot for checking the she as opposed to you statement. You saved me the trouble of going back and finding it today. Yes, I remember the extra car keys statement but don't remember the Zanny abandoning the car outside Tony's.

Thanks Lexington and Dot. We haven't heard what the defense will propose and I was curious if they are going with the Zanny defense. Zanny took Caylee, Zanny had the car...etc...

 

[Tuba]

It is true that the criminal defendant has no burden to establish an alibi or alternative defendant but where she does raise the existence of another perpetrator (an extrinsic defense not rising from the facts of the case or res gestae) there is the obvious and logical obligation to demonstrate that this other perpetrator exists. A logical burden: defendant is posing an extrinsic figure not inherent to the matter and not demonstrated by what is before the jury.

If the cook is found dead on the kitchen floor of my home at dawn and upon investigation of the death I claim my brother killed the cook, I had best have a brother. If there is no evidence my brother ever existed, many questions are raised but my claim falls. I would better have said nothing and allowed suspicion to form that a burglar/intruder may have killed the cook.

 

[thelmadawg]

It is true that the criminal defendant has no burden to establish an alibi or alternative defendant but where she does raise the existence of another perpetrator (an extrinsic defense not rising from the facts of the case or res gestae) there is the obvious and logical obligation to demonstrate that this other perpetrator exists. A logical burden: defendant is posing an extrinsic figure not inherent to the matter and not demonstrated by what is before the jury.

If the cook is found dead on the kitchen floor of my home at dawn and upon investigation of the death I claim my brother killed the cook, I had best have a brother. If there is no evidence my brother ever existed, many questions are raised but my claim falls. I would better have said nothing and allowed suspicion to form that a burglar/intruder may have killed the cook.

:blowkiss:

 

[fuzzykpd]

That just gave me a light bulb moment, I wonder if she kept pieces of tape on the gas can and used them over again on Caylee. Like she would store them there until she wanted to use them again?

I hadnt seen this mentioned but will do so here. Have you ever started to use duct tape but the end was uneven or your first attempt to tear it resulted in a less than pefect or undersized piece of tape? Usually, we tear that first section off and toss it or stick it to something nearby and tear off a new piece to fit that has better edges. Perhaps that gas can tape is such a cast off. KC wasnt very thourough and didnt clean up much, as evidenced by trash in her car so its likely she just left it there where she stuck it on the can. If so, it would be the proverbial smoking gun.

 

[Jay D]

Lab results from tests of stains found by ultra light on KC's clothes. (Even after they had been washed)

 

[Skully]

IMO, there is no evidence as yet that proves KC deliberately murdered her child. There is much evidence that very strongly suggests that she knew all along that Caylee was dead, actually hid her body and then covered up and lied to everyone, acting as if everything was fine and dandy. But nothing that I have seen yet proves how and why Caylee died, or whether it was a deliberate killing, the result of a sudden loss of control or the result of some form of negligence by KC - e.g. not watching Caylee properly around the home/yard, leaving her sleeping in an inadequately ventilated car or giving her too much medication to get her to sleep.

Her behaviour after the event appears to be that of someone who just doesn't give a damn, but it could just as easily be that of a cowardly, weak and immature girl, who believed that her lies would once again get her out of trouble. The reason that she isn't talking is because she knows it is her fault that Caylee is dead, but whether that 'fault' is actually a deliberate act or some degree of negligence remains to be seen. I think it's all the same to her - Caylee died through either her act or omission, and whichever it was, she would rather lie than tell the truth.

So, what evidence proves she intentionally murdered Caylee? IMO, if there is some, we haven't seen it yet. Even the duct tape proves nothing, unless it can be shown that it was applied whilst Caylee was alive, and that it contributed to her death.

You said what I was unable to say. :clap:

 

[fuzzykpd]

You said what I was unable to say. :clap:

This says it best IMHO

 

[ndrew]

Her fingerprints or dna on the duct tape. IF her fingerprints or dna were found on the duct tape at what point would this be disclosed to the defense - is this part of that whole discovery thing that is given to the defense before trial? Or will there be a Perry Mason moment at trial? Any of our experts know the answer?

 

[Devon]

I tend to think that the tape was applied post-mortem. My reasoning being that perhaps KC had the baby wrapped in a blanket then discovered the decomposition taking place and KC used the duct tape to keep Caylee's tongue in and her mouth closed.

I don't think KC was prepared for the decomp stage after the death. I don't think she had any plans of what she would do with the body and when she discovered what was happening she just quickly did what she had to do and dumped the body so as not to get caught.

This is also what I believe. It's possible that for at least the first 24 hours or so, KC did not want to look at or deal with the body, and it's also likely that Caylee was only wrapped in the blanket to begin with. The tongue often swells and protrudes after death and some leakage from the mouth may start.. If KC saw Caylee's face when she did start to move or over-wrap her, she may have applied the tape for a number of reasons - to keep the tongue in/mouth closed/ decomp. fluid in/ bugs out. The heart may have been applied as a sort of 'apologetic gesture' for having to use the duct tape in such a fashion.

 

[Devon]

It is true that the criminal defendant has no burden to establish an alibi or alternative defendant but where she does raise the existence of another perpetrator (an extrinsic defense not rising from the facts of the case or res gestae) there is the obvious and logical obligation to demonstrate that this other perpetrator exists. A logical burden: defendant is posing an extrinsic figure not inherent to the matter and not demonstrated by what is before the jury.

If the cook is found dead on the kitchen floor of my home at dawn and upon investigation of the death I claim my brother killed the cook, I had best have a brother. If there is no evidence my brother ever existed, many questions are raised but my claim falls. I would better have said nothing and allowed suspicion to form that a burglar/intruder may have killed the cook.

That is true, but this defendant has not yet indicated what her defence at trial will be, if anything. The kidnapping story she gave to LE was before she was ever accused of murder, and she has so far said nothing by way of defence to the current charges against her.

 

[Tinsel]

You are speculating that the tape was applied whilst Caylee was alive, but we don't know if that's the case or not.

No, I am speculating that the tape was never meant to be removed.

It was used as a murder weapon--the tape, I mean.

Because you wouldn't put it on a child that could live to talk about it.

And you wouldn't use it to stage a kidnapping, and include all the other items with the remains.

:chicken: