2010.05.13 Prosecution lists Aggravating Factors

[thedeviledadvocate]

The State never really "dropped" the DP.

It was never "on", and then back "off" again.

The State had just never classified/charged it prior to the one and only time that they did, - after Caylee's bones were found.

http://www.wftv.com/blank/19169222/detail.html


On December 5th they filed a waiver of intent to seek the death penalty, which meant they officially they did not intend to seek the DP in this case. New evidence was found on December 11th, which added to the existing aggravating factors and then they decided to file a Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty. So, yes, that is correct, they did not drop the DP, they just officially filed a waiver that they were not going to pursue it.

 

[Bobbisangel]

you know i was thinking about this today......the defense keeps saying that SA cant prove what killed caylee.....listening to them argue that is needed in a DP case at the last hearing trying to get the the DP dismissed...really got me thinking......

I dont think SA does.....they dont need the form of death.....its the aggravated child abuse is the key.....i think that is what changed the SA minds about the DP.....

we know caylee died

we know caylee had duct tape on her

SA is going to argue face, hair and head.....

Defense knows there is duct tape but they are going to argue it wasnt over her mouth and nose......

all I know since i havent seen the pictures of the skull and duct tape, is that there was duct tape stuck to the skull and hair....

as far as how caylee died....in what caused her death....to me it doesnt matter.....it could of been...

suffocation, choked on vomit, heat, drugs, blunt force, ......even if caylee had some kind of disease and died of natural causes......it doesn't matter....

the fact that she died during the aggravated child abuse is the key......even if the defense can prove some how that the duct tape wasn't over her mouth and face....it doesn't matter........the killer still put duct tape on caylee for whatever reason and that is aggravated child abuse

I think the SA can prove 1-4 no problem at all
number 5 in the mothers care is the only one they need to convince the jury of.....( I think they will)

anyway just my thought for the day.....if this is OT sorry mods.....

When the ME gave her report didn't she say that duct tape was wrapped around Caylee's head and that it covered her nose and mouth? Didn't she also say that it was over her hair while wrapped around her head and that was why her hair was still attached to her scalp? Wasn't the tape the reason why one piece of her face which usually would have dislogded under the circumstances was still attached to the face by the duct tape? I don't see why the defense is even going to try and say there was no duct tape wrapped around her head, nose, and mouth. It was still attached. The ME will get up on the stand and make fools of the defense. These defense attorneys are supposed to be good attorneys...with the acception of Baez...I have my doubts about the whole pasel of them. You can't deny facts folks and that duct tape was exactly where the ME said it was and I would imagine there are pictures to prove it.

 

[Bobbisangel]

Let me check my crystal ball again...:crystal ball:

I predict they will whine that they are unable to understand the reasons for each of these aggravators.

Will the Pros be forced to spell it out for the defense at the hearing?

 

[zoey]

When the ME gave her report didn't she say that duct tape was wrapped around Caylee's head and that it covered her nose and mouth? Didn't she also say that it was over her hair while wrapped around her head and that was why her hair was still attached to her scalp? Wasn't the tape the reason why one piece of her face which usually would have dislogded under the circumstances was still attached to the face by the duct tape? I don't see why the defense is even going to try and say there was no duct tape wrapped around her head, nose, and mouth. It was still attached. The ME will get up on the stand and make fools of the defense. These defense attorneys are supposed to be good attorneys...with the acception of Baez...I have my doubts about the whole pasel of them. You can't deny facts folks and that duct tape was exactly where the ME said it was and I would imagine there are pictures to prove it.

this is just there little "spin" for now...I almost gagged when jb said there wasn't any tape on her ---- (wasn't it jb?)--- I also think perhaps they need to look at SP---there was no cause of death (IIRC:waitasec for Lacy & Connor....and look where he lives now.....

 

[faefrost]

When the ME gave her report didn't she say that duct tape was wrapped around Caylee's head and that it covered her nose and mouth? Didn't she also say that it was over her hair while wrapped around her head and that was why her hair was still attached to her scalp? Wasn't the tape the reason why one piece of her face which usually would have dislogded under the circumstances was still attached to the face by the duct tape? I don't see why the defense is even going to try and say there was no duct tape wrapped around her head, nose, and mouth. It was still attached. The ME will get up on the stand and make fools of the defense. These defense attorneys are supposed to be good attorneys...with the acception of Baez...I have my doubts about the whole pasel of them. You can't deny facts folks and that duct tape was exactly where the ME said it was and I would imagine there are pictures to prove it.

This is the mechanism by which mistruths and BS becomes "Accepted truth" or at least reasonable doubt. If you keep repeating something often enough some people start to subconsciously believe it. Politicians work this way all the time. It is also how OJ managed to get the jury to disbelieve theDNA evidence in that case.

The defense is seeking to plant doubt about the duct tape and other scientific evidence out in the public eye early. This way a certain portion of the general public and by extension jury pool will be less likely to simply take the dry scientific testimony at a given and will think"I already know this one". It's an insidious trick of human behavior and memory, and at its core it is intentionally poisoning the jury pool. This sort of thing is precisely why the defense fought a gag order on the case.

 

[The World According]

When we listen to hearings, we hear both the judge and the SA referring to past cases as precedents, so I believe since this is a Supreme Court appeal case, the SA will quote this trial and decision during their presentation of the evidence facts.

For my friends from Canada, asking if precedents means what they think it means, yes. In general it is prior decided cases, derived I believe from the word precede. I am not a lawyer, so I do not want to over step my role here or quote from a source our lawyers here don't rely on.

By the way, I want to thank all of the lawyers that volunteer here! Your work here is just as much stepping up for this little girl, as the folks who came with their blue jeans, boots, bug spray and water bottles to dig through the woods and swamps for hours and days on end in the Florida heat. You inspire me.

 

[logicalgirl]

For my friends from Canada, asking if precedents means what they think it means, yes. In general it is prior decided cases, derived I believe from the word precede. I am not a lawyer, so I do not want to over step my role here or quote from a source our lawyers here don't rely on.

By the way, I want to thank all of the lawyers that volunteer here! Your work here is just as much stepping up for this little girl, as the folks who came with their blue jeans, boots, bug spray and water bottles to dig through the woods and swamps for hours and days on end in the Florida heat. You inspire me.

Thanks TWA - please would you or anyone else out there- if you see me saying anything at all in the legal sense that is whacko- give me a tap or feel free to educate me. I truly appreciate the obviously well educated legal minds posting on the thread. Clearly my education was no where near the legal field, and if I had to rely on my knowledge to post, I'd be back to being a long time lurker again.

Wait a minute, I don't like the sound of that. Ah well, fools rush in.......:dance:

 

[steadychick]

This is why I don't believe KC and Casey snuggled up in the bed for the night after the fight. I think they either left in a huff after the fight or KC killed Caylee in the bedroom that night.

Do we know what time the fight was? After visiting Grandpa and after swimming, right? But, before dark?

I can't figure though when the tape came in. Was it already in the trunk or on her bedside table?

We have yet to see any direct evidence that there was a fight, only "hearsay" -- Jesse Grund told LE that Lee had told him there was a fight. And IIRC, there was another source, but again, I think it would be hearsay. Neighbors reported hearing a fight, but I don't think they could give an exact day. I'm hoping that LA will tell the truth and debunk Cindy's story about the wonderful evening she, Casey and Caylee spent together on the 15th. Just doesn't even pass the smell test considering what had transpired with Shirley earlier in the day.

And as for the tape, I've changed my mind on this a couple times, but I now think it was placed on Caylee in the house on the 15th after the fight and that it never left the house. If the tape had been in Casey's car, I can't imagine her making the effort to return it. I think she would have either thrown it away or simply left it in the car. I believe the SA also believes this, given LDB's emphasis during the last hearing (3 times) that Caylee was last seen on the 15th. And let's not forget that the tape did subsequently resurface -- on the gas can, holding up posters and the roll itself on a KFN table -- so we can be pretty sure the roll never left the house IMHO. Of course, since George denies noticing anything special about the Henkel tape, and since the roll has now disappeared, I don't know if the State will be able to prove it was all from the same roll. I certainly hope they can, but we'll have to wait and see.

 

[watcher9]

I see your reasoning for the tape being put on at the house.

But, if the roll of tape was left on the front seat, GA would have just picked it up without thinking when he got out of the car.

Wherever it happened, it was still horrendous for KC to have used the tape.

 

[AZlawyer]

When we listen to hearings, we hear both the judge and the SA referring to past cases as precedents, so I believe since this is a Supreme Court appeal case, the SA will quote this trial and decision during their presentation of the evidence facts.

The SA can't quote case law to the jury to prove facts.

Incidentally, what the Huck court was saying was that it was OK for the jury in that case to decide that there was no reasonable doubt that the duct tape was placed for the purpose of killing the victim--not that the jury was required to come to that conclusion. I am certain that the Fla. appellate courts would also say that it would be OK for a jury to decide that there WAS a reasonable doubt about why duct tape was applied. The point is that this is the kind of thing that jurors, not appellate judges, are given the power to decide.

So...if Casey loses the trial, and then appeals based on the argument that the jury was REQUIRED to find a reasonable doubt because the duct tape might have been placed for some other purpose, she will lose because of the Huck opinion. But if the jury ACTUALLY finds reasonable doubt because the duct tape could have been placed to stage a kidnapping or to stem decomp, nothing about Huck would prevent the jury from coming to that conclusion. IOW, they SA is not going to get (and would not ask for) a jury instruction saying, "It is not reasonable to consider that the duct tape was placed for any purpose other than to kill."

 

[marspiter]

I know premeditation was asked about earlier in the thread so I just wanted to toss this out here.

Premeditation:

According to Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instruction 7.1 (2003)

“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.
If a person has a premeditated design to kill one person and in attempting to kill
that person actually kills another person, the killing is premeditated.

*bolded by me*

 

[logicalgirl]

I may be wrong but I don't think the state will be able to quote this trial and the SC's opinion on the duct tape when presenting evidence to the jury. They won't hear it unless one of the jurors already knows about it and educates the rest of them during deliberations.

Huck will be useful if she is convicted and appeals on the same grounds Huck did. Or, in allowing the ME to give her opinion that "within a reasonable degree of probability" Caylee died from asphyxia because of the tape on her nose and mouth. That is, if she can reasonably say that. The victim in the Huck case still had tissue and organs for the ME to examine and rule out disease, trauma, or other causes of death.

Yup - I babble and you have the facts! AZL agrees in the legal thread. :blushing:

 

[Anais]

Muzikman is correct.

For those that have not read the emails, below is the link to the emails from State Attorney LDB to Baez about the Limited Immunity Deal

http://www.wftv.com/download/2008/0829/17335521.pdf


Article
http://cayleeanthony.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/new-information-regarding-immunity-deal/
New information regarding immunity deal

You know that they will not ever get another deal or offer again!

 

[Anais]

This is the mechanism by which mistruths and BS becomes "Accepted truth" or at least reasonable doubt. If you keep repeating something often enough some people start to subconsciously believe it. Politicians work this way all the time. It is also how OJ managed to get the jury to disbelieve theDNA evidence in that case.

The defense is seeking to plant doubt about the duct tape and other scientific evidence out in the public eye early. This way a certain portion of the general public and by extension jury pool will be less likely to simply take the dry scientific testimony at a given and will think"I already know this one". It's an insidious trick of human behavior and memory, and at its core it is intentionally poisoning the jury pool. This sort of thing is precisely why the defense fought a gag order on the case.

Faefrost I do so agree with your theory on how they are attempting to subconsiouly poison the jury pool. I think however in this case that it is going to backfire right on top of them. Once the SA present the picture's of Caylee's remains with the duct tape etc., along with all of the other forensics in this case no juror will buy the fact that there never was any tape on Caylee! JMHO

 

[Marina2]

Yup - I babble and you have the facts! AZL agrees in the legal thread. :blushing:

No worries. I find myself babbling quite often. :blowkiss:

 

[logicalgirl]

No worries. I find myself babbling quite often. :blowkiss:

Thanks - very generous of you. I really appreciate it when a poster such as yourself offers information that differs with an opinion I've posted, and/or corrects it - it's interesting to me and an education at the same time. Please - carry on with it. The last thing I want to do is start a myth that can't be corrected further along because it's been hanging out there too long.

 

[luvmy4brats]

We saw this coming a mile away:

Casey Anthony: Defense wants more detail from state about death penalty
Caylee and Casey Anthony, WESH, WFTV — posted by halboedeker on May, 20 2010 1:37 PM

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...re-detail-from-state-about-death-penalty.html

snipped:

Or as WFTV-Channel 9 anchor Vanessa Echols put it: “A defense motion filed today also claims that prosecutors were not definitive about using all five of the death-penalty aggravators and that they failed to indicate which evidence they planned to use to prove the aggravators.”

 

[logicalgirl]

We saw this coming a mile away:

Went over to read Hal's column and the first comment in the comment section caught my eye.
There is a link provided which I didn't check but will.

The comment is In the United States there are currently 189 women awaiting execution on death row for murdering their children. Umm - Andrea? Why Florida?

 

[zoey]

We saw this coming a mile away:

"cept I was expecting it sooner........:blushing::twocents:

Does the State really have to give them everything?????:banghead::furious:

 

[zoey]

Went over to read Hal's column and the first comment in the comment section caught my eye.
There is a link provided which I didn't check but will.

The comment is In the United States there are currently 189 women awaiting execution on death row for murdering their children. Umm - Andrea? Why Florida?

a little off topic but kinda close...I remember when Ted Bundy was out and about--during one of his little outings or interviews he was told (could be wrong about being told)---about who meant business in the legal arena for death & punishment----he was told Flordia....guess where he went???? (do appologize for bringing him into this---but I used to hang around Lake Sammamish during his time---)