Casey Now Referred To By LE As A Suspect! Discuss!

[cyberborg]

[snip]

It seems a person is no longer simply POI and becomes a "suspect" once they have begun preparing an actual case against them, which would require a working theory. Also the list they have compiled seems to include more than just the names of people needed to prove simply false statements and neglect.

Two court trials for the price of one?

I don't see a homicide case being included in the currently planned trial, a rush to justice? I see the recent LE announcements, that there are no new charges on the horizon but that KC 'would be' [is] a suspect interesting.

I feel that the LE needs to calm expectations down, both those of the public, media and, JB. Everyone is expecting a murder charge soon but with the right to a speedy trial -- LE needs to take their time and are alluding to this.

I see these recent announcements as an attempt to focus everyone on the child neglect trial in Nov. [very very soon] since the LE/prosecutor cannot focus on both a strong case for child neglect as well as an on-going homicide at the same time [stretched too thin?]. I see this as being split into two separate tracks and sets of discovery and evidence.

Even JB is preparing more for a murder trial, hiring a defense team such as Kobi for forensics. I don't see the LE charging KC with homicide in the next week or two and being ready in Nov to go to trial. Note that there is some discovery release and some retained. Why use the forensics now when there is plenty to prove neglect and leave the fate of Caylee till later?

I see the LE preparing everything that is necessary for the child neglect and theft and taking that to trial while being patient on the ongoing homicide investigation. Dilemma?

It derails JB because he is expecting homicide, it enables a soft ball trial to get KC on some foundation charges and place her in prison [3-5+ years actual?].

I know that this has to be done 'right' so that it does not jeopardize a murder or manslaughter charge next year but I think they will do that. Get KC locked up and then nail down the follow-on case.

Otherwise, if they charge KC for homicide in the next few weeks based on strong circumstantial evidence (no body) can they drop or postpone the child neglect case to give them sufficient time to prepare a very complex case?

I just see these recent events as a media level-set to focus everyone on a child neglect / theft trial and . . . defer the homicide as an ongoing pending investigation that they want to focus time, do it right and, there is no rush since there is no statute. Slow down.

Thoughts?

 

[Brini]

This could be true. But being called a suspect doesn't guarantee that charges will be filed. And a person doesn't need to be designated as a suspect in order for LE to file charges. The term is not a legal prerequisite to anything. LE does not acquire any greater rights by naming someone as a suspect. That's why, in the technical sense, the term means nothing.

I suppose that LE might be signalling that their case against Casey got stronger, and that this is one way to send that signal without necessarily revealing their actual hand. But the term itself has no legal effect whatsoever.

That's what I think. LE is sending a signal.

 

[cfromcanada]

Okay, not to be redundant but here's the thing...I heard that LE said they thought it was probable that Caylee was deceased but I didn't hear that she had been declared dead. As I understand it, for the declaration of the ME the DNA would need to be pretty solid and it would end any further fu on sightings of "alive" Caylee// I am a little confused

 

[one_hooah_wife]

I believe that the term POI came about as a way around the 1966 Miranda ruling and subsequent cases where that ruling was upheld and further clarified and refined, such as Dickerson v. US. One needs to only look at the language of the ruling, "police are required to inform all criminal suspects of their rights to remain silent and to be represented by an attorney during all questioning." In addition to the interpretation of the 5th amendment, it is the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 6th amendment that is the reason that they go to great lengths on tape to make certain it is clear to Casey and others being questioned that they are free to leave, the door is unlocked, etc, .... at any time and are not in custody. Because any detention by police can be argued by a good defense attorney as "custody" thereby requiring full Miranda. Even though they took these precautions ... I imagine it will be a cornerstone of the defense that Casey's constitutional rights were violated. Since Casey is lawyered up now ... there is really no reason to hold off on labeling her a suspect IMO

 

[Brini]

Big Bertha's BFF has an even better ring to it.

You read my mind! I was JUST thinking Big Bertha!

Bertha drove a 16-wheeler,on the outside, She can drive ANYTHING. ;-)

 

[Brini]

Does anyone thing KC will eventually be a suicide risk when she discovers that the net is closing in on her? What do you think she might do to avoid prison and the limitation of her freedom? To what lengths will she go to hurt even those that have stood by her and believed her BS? Or does she love herself way too much to kill herself?

Narcissists don't off themselves, that often.

She may try to throw her parents under the bus, though.

 

[Brini]

Casey loves herself too much to top herself.

I think she believes she will be found innocent of any impending charges.

I think she now thinks of herself as a bit of a celebrity.

JMO of course.

She thinks all she has to do is tell the REAL story. The one about Zanny the Space Alien.

 

[Brini]

I agree. What we are seeing is the natural progression of a homicide case. Just sit back, take a few breaths, and wait folks...this is going to be one he!! of a trainwreck very soon, imo. :behindbar

I think we need to start stocking up on popcorn!

 

[Brini]

Huh? They are moving at a turtle's pace as it is.

But, it CAN'T be KC! That would mean they raised a monster!

I think that's how they rationalize it.

 

[Brini]

If you want to know the truth, I think they considered her a suspect right off the bat, but didn't want to say it publicly, to avoid any problems down the road.

Yeah, they did.

But, I think Willy's right on the way KC's thinking.

 

[Brini]

Okay, not to be redundant but here's the thing...I heard that LE said they thought it was probable that Caylee was deceased but I didn't hear that she had been declared dead. As I understand it, for the declaration of the ME the DNA would need to be pretty solid and it would end any further fu on sightings of "alive" Caylee// I am a little confused

They said they placed her decomposed DNA in the trunk. They said they are "no longer looking for a missing person." They said very probably that Caylee is deceased (which is what they say, if they know, but they don't have a body).

The "sightings" are gonna continue while this case is hot, and a few may continue forever. Like sightings of Elvis.

"What the mind seeks, the eye finds."

 

[kiki the parrot]

Quote: I see the LE preparing everything that is necessary for the child neglect and theft and taking that to trial while being patient on the ongoing homicide investigation. Dilemma?

It derails JB because he is expecting homicide, it enables a soft ball trial to get KC on some foundation charges and place her in prison [3-5+ years actual?].

I know that this has to be done 'right' so that it does not jeopardize a murder or manslaughter charge next year but I think they will do that. Get KC locked up and then nail down the follow-on case.

Otherwise, if they charge KC for homicide in the next few weeks based on strong circumstantial evidence (no body) can they drop or postpone the child neglect case to give them sufficient time to prepare a very complex case?

I just see these recent events as a media level-set to focus everyone on a child neglect / theft trial and . . . defer the homicide as an ongoing pending investigation that they want to focus time, do it right and, there is no rush since there is no statute. Slow down.

Cyber-Was this to me? I'm in no rush--and neither I believe is LE. Here is the concern, (and the only reason I was puzzled by a list of witnesses involved w more than KC's economic and/or false statement charges). It was my understanding if neglect (eg) is involved in a death, should they happen to be first found innocent on the neglect, there would be a problem with going back later and charging them with a murder related to the neglect. While not likely IMO to get off on neglect, if this is true, is it worth the risk for LE to proceed with neglect alone at this time if they are as we know preparing a more serious, and related, charge? Btw I don't think I am the one who needs to slow down... IMO... lol.

Quote: Does anyone thing KC will eventually be a suicide risk when she discovers that the net is closing in on her? What do you think she might do to avoid prison and the limitation of her freedom? To what lengths will she go to hurt even those that have stood by her and believed her BS? Or does she love herself way too much to kill herself?
Quote: Narcissists don't off themselves, that often.

I worked in Suicide Prevention, have lost both brother, and cousin, to suicide. Anyway, recently began studying about narcissism. This is accurate, but not for the reason we always imagine--that they simply think too highly of themselves. I read it may actually be because on the inside many essentially already feel "dead."

 

[athy]

i'm not sure where to post this as i found it in the updated thread and there isn't any discussion there.

Thursday, Casey's attorney said it's not in her best interest to tell what she knows about where Caylee is."It does her no good to show her cards to give the prosecution any advantage they have to put her away for life," Jose Baez said. taken from here http://www.wftv.com/news/17610344/detail.html

seeing Baez say this leads me to think they're agreeing casey did do something to caylee and they're not going to tell anything because that would put her away for life.

if she were innocent and they told LE the truth, yeah she might go away for a bit for neglect but surely not for a lifetime.

 

[pizmex]

That's what I think. LE is sending a signal.

Yeah. Except that the Associated Press is reporting today that Orlando LE has no new evidence against Casey. That's why the term "suspect" is meaningless.

It's all about the evidence, not the namecalling. And also, if LE can withhold or even lie about information to the public, how can anyone ever make true meaning from their public statements?

 

[pizmex]

I believe that the term POI came about as a way around the 1966 Miranda ruling and subsequent cases where that ruling was upheld and further clarified and refined, such as Dickerson v. US. One needs to only look at the language of the ruling, "police are required to inform all criminal suspects of their rights to remain silent

Miranda Warnings have absolutely nothing to do with whether a person has been designated as a suspect. Miranda warnings are triggered by custody, and custody alone. There is an entire thread on this. It's even possible for a person who is not a suspect to be entitled to Miranda warnings under the right circumstances.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70481&highlight=miranda

 

[cyberborg]

Cyber-Was this to me? I'm in no rush--and neither I believe is LE. Here is the concern, (and the only reason I was puzzled by a list of witnesses involved w more than KC's economic and/or false statement charges). It was my understanding if neglect (eg) is involved in a death, should they happen to be first found innocent on the neglect, there would be a problem with going back later and charging them with a murder related to the neglect. While not likely IMO to get off on neglect, if this is true, is it worth the risk for LE to proceed with neglect alone at this time if they are as we know preparing a more serious, and related, charge? Btw I don't think I am the one who needs to slow down... IMO... lol.

Kiki -- no, my comments were not directed at anyone. I just selected your comment on the all-inclusive witness list as a quote to respond to everyone.

I just saw many folks seeming to tie a near-term (?) homicide charge and the upcoming trial as one and to me, it is a stretch to make this trial into a homicide trial.

LE has a STRONG case for neglect but I do think, per my waffling that there is a dilemma -- does LE proceed with this case? Drop it for a more severe charge/trial later? -- or -- Get this one in the bag since the evidence may not be there [enough] to tie KC to the demise of Caylee -- thus a bird in the hand...

:behindbar

 

[Tuba]

Miranda Warnings have absolutely nothing to do with whether a person has been designated as a suspect. Miranda warnings are triggered by custody, and custody alone. There is an entire thread on this. It's even possible for a person who is not a suspect to be entitled to Miranda warnings under the right circumstances.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?
t=70481&highlight=miranda

That's true. The term "person of interest" grew out of the defamation Richard Jewell suffered during the investigation of the park bombing in Atlanta. Being named a suspect and targeted for speculation regarding his involvement amid a variety of suspicions and aspersions discussed in public ruined his young life. He was cleared but couldn't find the emporium to get his reputation back. Far from being guilty, he had tried to give assistance the night of the bombing. To avoid media getting hold of a freighted term like suspect & running with it, the term is avoided when there is doubt. LE has no doubt about their suspect at this time, claiming she is the only suspect in the disappearance of her daughter.

 

[kiki the parrot]

Cyber: LE has a STRONG case for neglect but I do think, per my waffling that there is a dilemma--does LE proceed with this case? Drop it for a more severe charge/trial later?-- or--Get this one in the bag since the evidence may not be there [enough] to tie KC to the demise of Caylee--thus a bird in the hand...

I know what you mean! W/out knowing the evidence we can only speculate, but I would think it's prudent not to proceed w neglect (and only economics crimes) until such time as they are prepared to pursue any further, more serious neglect-related charges (ie manslaughter, negligent homicide or homicide). In which case I can't see why they'd need half these witnesses yet. Maybe all these people are needed to disprove her lies and proceed w "false statements" charges...

 

[ArtichokeHeart]

Ok, how he said it is not correct grammar... he should have said IS both times. If I say something "would be" correct, I am saying it IS correct.
Or to put it in a different way. Someone comes in asks "who ate all the cookies?" and I say, "that would be me." That means it was me.
Do you see what I'm saying? He is confirming that Casey IS now officially a suspect.

I don't agree. "Would be" implies an 'if', as in : that would be me if I hadn't had a better upbringing...

'that would be me' as who ate the cookies ...is speaking in a detached overview of self and it is still open to question...taken literally on paper because it leaves room for a 'but' or 'except' or 'because'.

It just has that tinge of 'iffyness'.

But from what I understand forensics has enough evidence to even deliniate the position of Caylee while in the trunk.

 

[ArtichokeHeart]

I just watched the video and the reporter asked, so is Casey now a suspect. The Captain didn't say yes. He said with all the evidence yada yada granted she WOULD BE a suspect. So he never said IS a suspect even once. I understand he is insinuating that she is but he didn't say Yes or she IS.
I want Casey to be arrested and tried for this case just like most of us here. I just can't figure out why the Capt. would respond the way he did if in fact her status or title or whatever has been changed to suspect from POI. Was he allowing the media to spin his response or maybe he isn't speaking grammatically correct as suggested above.

Did he mean: she 'would be' a suspect at the trial? Although he could have said 'will be'.