What's missing for Prosecution?

[krisskross]

Guess I was thinking more along the lines of what ColoradoTeacher posted after my post on this thread:
"Circumstantial means that there might not be a direct link, but common sense makes that link.
I actually had jury duty today (I was not ultimately chosen )and part of the instructions said to use common sense when analyzing the evidence. I think the jurors in this trial will too."

Wasn't really saying that I was wondering why she didn't come clean in jail but as a juror I would say to myself WHY didn't she come clean, WHY didn't she try to figure it all out, if it was an accident?? Common sense as a juror would say to me Gee, if it was an accident and Casey had come clean some time in the past three years, the state might have worked something out with her, but instead Casey waited three years in jail, comes clean at the start of the trial through JB's opening statement, all the while still risking the death penalty.

I'm thrilled BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that jurors are told to use common sense, sure helped me to sleep better last night.

I think its safe to say ICA's story has evolved over time and that she consistently lied not only to LE and her family but to her lawyers. I say this because almost 13 months after Caylee was first reported missing and almost 10 months after being endicted for first degree murder, Todd Macaluso stood up in court and claimed the defense had proof of ICA's innocence. We know now he was referring to Laura Buchanan, Joe Jordan and potentially others who could prove the body had been moved. Soon after this announcement, the defense team embarked on a media blitz where Macaluso claimed on nationa tv that this was a case of "stranger abduction". This was soon followed by the defense suggesting Roy Kronk has a penchant for duct tape and should have been a suspect in this case.

We can only guess when the present defense strategy came to be, but given this girl's MO, I'll hazourd a guess it was shortly after the jailhouse letters emerged, wherein she had fuzzy memories of her father molesting her.
With her kidnapping story totally busted and as LDB said during her OS, ICA comes up with a new, bigger and better lie. That's why common sense tells me this was no accident.

 

[Peepers McPeep]

Regarding motive and ICA's hatred of her mother:

I think the prosecution is going to let the DT open whatever doors they want to in the family dynamic issue and then slam them shut. If the prosecution had brought it all up in their CIC it would be more of a double edged sword that would have the jurors thinking "wow, the DT was right, even the prosecutors are saying how dysfunctional the family is".

Since the DT brings it up, the whole theory becomes theirs and theirs alone. The prosecution will then try to show that it paints ICA in a bad light not her parents.

Maybe, maybe not. Thinking about the case has me spinning in circles but I thought this seemed reasonable.

Great post!
I can see LDB dropping the velvet glove with CA during cross.
From the looks of things, tho, it seems CA is back in protective mode.
Vague as all get out today...:banghead:

 

[GeekyGirl]

Guess I was thinking more along the lines of what ColoradoTeacher posted after my post on this thread:
"Circumstantial means that there might not be a direct link, but common sense makes that link.
I actually had jury duty today (I was not ultimately chosen )and part of the instructions said to use common sense when analyzing the evidence. I think the jurors in this trial will too."

Wasn't really saying that I was wondering why she didn't come clean in jail but as a juror I would say to myself WHY didn't she come clean, WHY didn't she try to figure it all out, if it was an accident?? Common sense as a juror would say to me Gee, if it was an accident and Casey had come clean some time in the past three years, the state might have worked something out with her, but instead Casey waited three years in jail, comes clean at the start of the trial through JB's opening statement, all the while still risking the death penalty.

I'm thrilled BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that jurors are told to use common sense, sure helped me to sleep better last night.

Not trying to dispute your thought process, just that if I were juror, I wouldn't see that as evidence that it wasn't an accident. I would tend to believe that Casey knew how guilty all her actions made her look, even if it was an accident and was trying to stick to a story that she thought would get her off. No doubt a lousy plan, but she has a history of lying to get out of difficult situations. Once she'd been charged, revealing the accident scenario to anyone but her defense team wouldn't serve to do anything but give the prosecution more time to build evidence against that theory. not saying I believe it was an accident, just her not saying it to anyone but her lawyer wouldn't be further evidence of guilt to me. Thanks for your thoughts, it's interesting to see how different people interpret the same thing in different ways.

 

[GeekyGirl]

I am kind of surprised to see that some think the prosecution hasn't filled in all of the holes. This was probably the best prosecution I have ever seen in such a case that a COD wasn't determined. Once Dr. G got off the stand, I felt the State should hurry and conclude. I want that in the jury's mind and I believe she single handedly doomed them. That was the one person the defense should have just left alone.

I am ready for the Defense spin team. But ultimately I believe the jury will come back to Dr. G testimony that 100% of accidental drownings are called into 911. Add the duct tape over the mouth, decomposition in her car, Anthony personal items at the scene, her lying, not telling anyone that her daughter was missing for 31 days, avoiding her family, telling her Dad he was a great Dad and Grandfather in jail interviews, will do her in.

I think the prosecution has done a great job with what they have, but as you pointed out, they don't know COD. That's a pretty big hole, as it's hard to prove BARD that the actual homicide meets the elements of first degree murder without knowing how Caylee died. My opinion only of course.

 

[Puzzler]

What about the Henkle Duct tape? I thought it was important to show how rare that tape was, did they present any of that info to the jury?

I agree! I didn't hear anything about the rarity of that tape.

 

[AnnaMouse]

I just wish they had pointed out that the size on the shorts doesn't matter. A 24 month old is wearing diapers which are thicker than either underwear, training pants, and even pull-ups. Many 3 year olds can wear smaller size shorts even if they have grown. The size 24 month really isn't much different than size 3T shorts. There is a bigger difference in slacks/pants but not with shorts.

 

[Melanie]

I don't know about anyone else, but the tatoo guy was a bit of a flat-line for me. Between the salad...err, side bars, I wasn't hearing much. I somehow expected this big ol' burly man to show up, and yet saw a very soft spoken gentleman. I wanted to know how he knew ICA for 7 years, and what did they do? He sounded more like a hairstylist than a tatoo artist (who knows your tattoo guy for 7 years - don't know, never had one).

I wish Mr. George could have devled more into their relationship. I hope this guy sells his story after the case is over so I can find out - LOL.

Oh bother....

MOO

Mel

 

[Curious Me]

Oh, I like the way VinnieP drives home the "Beautiful Life?" when your daughter is rotting out in the woods. Beautiful Life?!? ICA knew her daughter was dead and out in those woods. It was not a pretty site. I wish that connection was made more dramatically by the State.

 

[cecybeans]

I've said it on other threads and I'll say it here again. I wish the state had had the cellpings on there and that guy who was on tv long ago saying that if Caylee had wanted her diaper changed she would have had to have texted her mom.

No matter what kind of "good mother" impression people testified to, I'm sure the sheer volume of her being either on the phone or on line would cause people to think there was no way that girl was being a parent in any sense of the word. She didn't have but a few minutes a day to use both hands to do anything, much less take care of a toddler.

I also really really wish all the photobucket evidence could have come in. If a jury saw half those pix, much less the "Diary of Days" and the drawing of the little girl and the hanging teddy bear, they would have flipped. Not to mention the fact that JG said in a depo he observed she had taken down most of the pix of Caylee from her photobucket during the 31 days. This jury is really getting the "Casey Lite" version of events.

 

[PaulaF513]

Speaking of which, whatever became of the teddy bear that went missing from Cindy's bed? I was sure that was going to come in....as a spiteful gesture that clogged the pipes and required an emergency plumber visit to Hopespring. Guess not.

 

[JusticeSeeker1960]

Let's not panic yet! The SA did enter some other things into evidence today that I'm sure they will use at a later date...which included George & Cindy's timecards to prove when they were at work!

 

[DIXIECAT]

I think her point is that she was given a zillion chances to say it was an accident. They asked her many times, and said, point blank, if she drowned and you are afraid , say so now and we can figure it out.

Her original reason for covering up the accident was because she did not want to tell her mom. Ok, fine, that makes sense. But once it is out that the child is missing, and mom already knows, and the cops are telling you to either fess up to an accident or you will be charged with MURDER---and she still sticks to her big nanny LIE? That makes no sense.

That goes straight to the whole point... I believe you have nailed it! JB's opening statement declared that KC knew Caylee was dead ON JUNE 16th-- so, IMO the SA only needed to prove that Caylee was in KC's custody/care, that KC never did report the death, that KC's subsequent actions (i.e. nanny lies and partying) showed consciousness of guilt and lack of remorse, that Caylee's body was hidden due to manner of disposal, and that "no child should ever have duct tape" on her mouth, per Dr. G. -- Don't y'all think the SA has done a fantastic job of proving this case beyond a reasonable doubt? I do.

 

[DIXIECAT]

Oh, I like the way VinnieP drives home the "Beautiful Life?" when your daughter is rotting out in the woods. Beautiful Life?!? ICA knew her daughter was dead and out in those woods. It was not a pretty site. I wish that connection was made more dramatically by the State.

After the jury was dismissed for the last time today, in open Court Judge Perry and the attorneys discussed bringing a dictionary tomorrow... I believe they will present the jury with the various nuanced definitions of BELLA VITA... Can't wait to see that!!

 

[hpvdr]

I think the prosecution has done a great job with what they have, but as you pointed out, they don't know COD. That's a pretty big hole, as it's hard to prove BARD that the actual homicide meets the elements of first degree murder without knowing how Caylee died. My opinion only of course.

This is taken from the websleuths thread Guilty or Not Guildy started and stated by member Nali87:

HERE ARE THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS:


When there will be instructions on both premeditated and felony murder, the following explanatory paragraph should be read to the jury.
There are two ways in which a person may be convicted of first degree murder. One is known as premeditated murder and the other is known as felony murder.

To prove the crime of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Victim) is dead.

2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).

3. There was a premeditated killing of (victim).

Definitions.
An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.

“Killing with premeditation” is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing.

The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing.



To prove the crime of First Degree Felony Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Victim) is dead.

Give 2a, 2b, or 2c as applicable.
2.
a. [The death occurred as a consequence of and while (defendant) was engaged in the commission of (crime alleged).]

b. [The death occurred as a consequence of and while (defendant) was attempting to commit (crime alleged).]

c. [The death occurred as a consequence of and while (defendant), or an accomplice, was escaping from the immediate scene of (crime alleged).]

Give 3a if defendant actual perpetrator.
3. a. [(Defendant) was the person who actually killed (victim).]


In order to convict of First Degree Felony Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had a premeditated design or intent to kill.


P.S IN THIS CASE: Aggravated child abuse.

http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/...9!OpenDocument​

I do not see where COD is necessary. JMI

 

[strach304]

They haven't even found her clothes yet! In light of the DT bringing up the shorts and the prosecution with the shirt I believe there is something very important about that statement now that we could never figure out.

Statements and demeanor of Casey while out on bail. I'd really like to see Tracy and RD give testimony.

SP and RP. Goes to motive as well. Why she didn't she give Cindy and George custody. MH info about with holding Caylee from them ties into the already spiteful biotch testimony from Lee. Caylee was used by Casey to get her way and what she wanted.

Her chameleon personality. She mimicked Cindy for what she thought a good mother should be, not that she was just like Cindy as Cindy has stated. Cindy was fooled by her sociopath daughter.

The 911 call Casey made about the protesters.

Kio Marie. Nough said. RM sold pics and story so she can go on too. Let the jury decide.

 

[strach304]

This is taken from the websleuths thread Guilty or Not Guildy started and stated by member Nali87:

HERE ARE THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS:


When there will be instructions on both premeditated and felony murder, the following explanatory paragraph should be read to the jury.
There are two ways in which a person may be convicted of first degree murder. One is known as premeditated murder and the other is known as felony murder.

To prove the crime of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Victim) is dead.

2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).

3. There was a premeditated killing of (victim).

Definitions.
An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.

“Killing with premeditation” is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing.

The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing.



To prove the crime of First Degree Felony Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Victim) is dead.

Give 2a, 2b, or 2c as applicable.
2.
a. [The death occurred as a consequence of and while (defendant) was engaged in the commission of (crime alleged).]

b. [The death occurred as a consequence of and while (defendant) was attempting to commit (crime alleged).]

c. [The death occurred as a consequence of and while (defendant), or an accomplice, was escaping from the immediate scene of (crime alleged).]

Give 3a if defendant actual perpetrator.
3. a. [(Defendant) was the person who actually killed (victim).]


In order to convict of First Degree Felony Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had a premeditated design or intent to kill.


P.S IN THIS CASE: Aggravated child abuse.

http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/...9!OpenDocument​

I do not see where COD is necessary. JMI

Thank you so much for posting this! It is great to see this in writing. I believe she is guilty of felony murder and this reassures me that the jury can conclude the same from those definitions. Without proof of her premeditating the crime as clearly as say SP for instance, I was worried about a hung jury.

 

[GeekyGirl]

This is taken from the websleuths thread Guilty or Not Guildy started and stated by member Nali87:

HERE ARE THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS:


When there will be instructions on both premeditated and felony murder, the following explanatory paragraph should be read to the jury.
There are two ways in which a person may be convicted of first degree murder. One is known as premeditated murder and the other is known as felony murder.

To prove the crime of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Victim) is dead.

2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).

3. There was a premeditated killing of (victim).

Definitions.
An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.

“Killing with premeditation” is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing.

The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing.



To prove the crime of First Degree Felony Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Victim) is dead.

Give 2a, 2b, or 2c as applicable.
2.
a. [The death occurred as a consequence of and while (defendant) was engaged in the commission of (crime alleged).]

b. [The death occurred as a consequence of and while (defendant) was attempting to commit (crime alleged).]

c. [The death occurred as a consequence of and while (defendant), or an accomplice, was escaping from the immediate scene of (crime alleged).]

Give 3a if defendant actual perpetrator.
3. a. [(Defendant) was the person who actually killed (victim).]


In order to convict of First Degree Felony Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had a premeditated design or intent to kill.


P.S IN THIS CASE: Aggravated child abuse.

http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/...9!OpenDocument​

I do not see where COD is necessary. JMI

I posted my full explanation in the guilty or not guilty thread, but it's basically this: I agree COD doesn't always have to be proven, but it is required to prove the death is a result of a criminal act vs. an accidental or negligent act. I just don't feel like the state has done that yet. Not saying they won't by the end of the trial, but, for me, I just don't see it based only the evidence given so far.

 

[songline]

WHAT IS MISSING????
IMO everything is missing. Nothing is cohesive.
No direct tie to KC except that she was the last one seen with Caylee. :twocents:

TRUE that she did NOT act right, that is all over the place, but that does not tie her to a murder.

 

[FX Wiz]

I am tired of hearing some talking heads on TV saying that being a liar doesn't mean she's a murderer. It shows an out & out cover-up. Cover-up of what? hmmm, and the SODDI defense is out the window. The crime occured in a 1 block area. Everyone else has an alibi. Process of elimination ... bingo.

 

[cecybeans]

WHAT IS MISSING????
IMO everything is missing. Nothing is cohesive.
No direct tie to KC except that she was the last one seen with Caylee. :twocents:

TRUE that she did NOT act right, that is all over the place, but that does not tie her to a murder.

Cohesiveness will come when the state closes. Circumstantial evidence is about eliminating any other reasonable scenario. Almost all cases are circumstantial in nature; each piece of evidence is incoherent alone and simply corroborated and strengthened by all the others (as someone said "a rope and not a chain") when assembled as a whole. The only thing that could tie her to Caylee any more is if it were caught on film. And any alternative would strain a reasonable mind at this point without evidence. She meets all the criteria for probable guilt and nobody else does, imo. All the other stories are too farfetched to appeal to reason.