Evidence That is Incompatible With an Accident Theory

[LambChop]

If the jury sees the poster KC put up on FB with the little girl looking up at the teddy bear in the hangman's noose and the caption: "Why do people kill people who kill people just to prove that killing people....." I think when everything is laid out and put up at significant times the horror will be evident on the jury's faces. I would guess CM already knows what is in store and will try to get KC to take a plea before the start of the trial. And as I said before who plans on holding her down throughout this whole trial. JMO

 

[tragco]

How can the defense put up an accidental death theory if the defendant herself denies an accident occurred? Surely that would make any "on the fencers" in the jury come back with a guilty verdict.

The evidence against KC is overwhelming- and this "accident" theory is just something dreamed up by third parties, right? I have to include myself in that because I cannot fathom a mother killing her child in cold blood. But it does happen!!

My response would be that KC herself denies any accident occured. It's a brutal murder. Either it was an imaginary kidnapper or it was KC.

 

[notthatsmart]

my answers in blue..

Respectfully NTS, AzLawyer was asking you for any perceived evidence that is incompatible with the accident theory and imho you have nothing. :waitasec:..I'm willing to consider anything plausible, because I wish that I could believe that Caylee's death was an accident, but nothing that you have ever stated IMHO even leans towards that. Kinda seems like you are trying very hard to fit a square peg into a round hole and it just won't work. Good luck to ya NTS, it ain't never going to fly..IMHO..

I have stated in many post that I do not believe it was an accident. You are totally confused as to my position here. That list was to show my reasons as to why I do not believe it was an accident. If I misunderstood Az's question, then let her correct me. It seems useless to argue about something we totally agree upon.

Ps, I think everyone here is nice. You are all like family. IMO thanks

 

[JBean]

remember the standard is "reasonable doubt". We the public tend to twell too much on absolute proof orassume that means if any doubts exist the defendant must be aquitted. Not true. while the defense can put up the theory of an accidental death, in this case, much as in the case of Scott Peterson, the defendants subsequant actions can be used to tell the story such that it passes the reasonable doubt test sufficiently for a jury to convict.

Yes, that previous case was pled out because of lack of cause of death. And quite frankly LE and the state put that on the table for KC from the first interviews. But remember that prior case you mention was pled out. The prosecutor made a costs benefits calculation in doing so. and there is a good chance he erred with it in the wrong direction. This is a far cry from getting a similar result from a jury.

If you read my posts I have been consistent that I am not looking for proof positive or an absolute in any way shape or form. I am lookng for the most reasonable scenario and part of that scenario will come for me when I hear Dr.G's expert opinion.

I am looking at this primarily from a "what can the SA prove beyond a resonable doubt" and my expectations are not too high because I think they have a lot of good evidence.

If nothing else is cleared up from many of my posts that are getting a bit tweaked, one thing I would like clarified is that no way am I looking for 100% proof positive of anything nor have I even come close to suggesting it.

Dr.G's expert opinion is the piece I need to feel like we have a reasonable theory on the cause of death. That cause of death theory is the final piece for me in determining what I personally think is the charge she will be found guilty of.

 

[AZlawyer]

Auguts of 09 is what I am talking about. It is in the visitation logs and Jb is present. I will look for a link to the logs. It may be July, but I think its August.

NTS, I believe that visit was when YM and a photographer went to the jail to photograph the "Bella Vita" tattoo.

 

[Pondering Mind]

I absolutely understand your speculation but just one point. Mr. Hornsby is a criminal defense attorney and thinks like a defense attorney.

LOL! I've told NTS on a couple of occasions that he/she missed their calling if he/she is NOT a defense attorney!..

 

[AZlawyer]

I have stated in many post that I do not believe it was an accident. You are totally confused as to my position here. That list was to show my reasons as to why I do not believe it was an accident. If I misunderstood Az's question, then let her correct me. It seems useless to argue about something we totally agree upon.

Ps, I think everyone here is nice. You are all like family. IMO thanks

Yes, I think we are in agreement that this was no accident. Someone intentionally killed Caylee and dumped her body in the woods.

Where I think we disagree is the identity of the perpetrator, which is OT for this thread.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Bolded. I believe this part was taken out of the Medical examiners report. And it says inferred rather than stating it as fact. For instance, most of the ingredients of the body bag were stated as fact, then to get to the duct tape part and say it can be inferred. This raises my hinky meter and allows me to look into it further. Why would a person say it can be inferred if they can state it as fact?

I could say, it could be inferred that the mandible was held in place by the ground. Anyone can say those kind of things to fall short of stating somethings as fact.

I was speculating as to why LKB was going to challenge the placement of the duct tape. I am reading the same docs as you.

When it is stated as fact, it is more believable to me than when it is stated as inferred. I do not know how to explain my interpretation of the docs to you ZZ. I don't assume anything and I don't trust Le anymore than I trust a defense attorney. So I question things that are disputable to make sure they are true. Even in these fine details that seem to mean nothing, I want the whole truth and nothing but the truth for Caylee. IMO

Since you question the placement of the duct tape and don't find the Medical Examiner's report convincing enough...
Here, from Joypath -
"Factoring the issues of temperature in June, the musculature/ligamental decomposition would have been rapid and the mandible should have 'dropped' quickly NO MATTER what position the body was entombed." ( and here's where duct tape comes in) " Thus an external mechanical means provided a support for the internal structures.

I don't understand how LKB can challenge the placement of the duct tape. It was observed to be in the position stated by all the examiners. She may dispute the purpose, but I don't know how she can dispute what is documented and photographed..
I think you misunderstand the use of the word Inferred.
According to my dictionary it is - a deduction or conclusion derived from specific information. It is not guessing.

 

[Pondering Mind]

I have stated in many post that I do not believe it was an accident. You are totally confused as to my position here. That list was to show my reasons as to why I do not believe it was an accident. If I misunderstood Az's question, then let her correct me. It seems useless to argue about something we totally agree upon.

Ps, I think everyone here is nice. You are all like family. IMO thanks

Maybe I am confused NTS, I usually am! What do you believe then? ..that KC is innocent, plain and simple? That SODDI? Help me, please!

 

[LambChop]

Bolded. I believe this part was taken out of the Medical examiners report. And it says inferred rather than stating it as fact. For instance, most of the ingredients of the body bag were stated as fact, then to get to the duct tape part and say it can be inferred. This raises my hinky meter and allows me to look into it further. Why would a person say it can be inferred if they can state it as fact?

I could say, it could be inferred that the mandible was held in place by the ground. Anyone can say those kind of things to fall short of stating somethings as fact.

I was speculating as to why LKB was going to challenge the placement of the duct tape. I am reading the same docs as you.

When it is stated as fact, it is more believable to me than when it is stated as inferred. I do not know how to explain my interpretation of the docs to you ZZ. I don't assume anything and I don't trust Le anymore than I trust a defense attorney. So I question things that are disputable to make sure they are true. Even in these fine details that seem to mean nothing, I want the whole truth and nothing but the truth for Caylee. IMO

My uneducated but common sense tells me the reason the ME states "inferred" is because of a lack of any other reason why it would still be attached. Most of the bones from the body were still in the bag. If animals drug the skull out of the bag before decomposition there would be no tape for surely the animals would have ripped the tape off. Plus RK did report in August that he saw a bag in the water with what looked to him like a skull. Further RK reported that the skull rolled out of the bag or it may have appeared to him to have rolled out of the bag. But JJ said they searched that area and did not see any remains so if the skull (being the largest part) was still underwater in the bag it would not have been visible on the ground.

So without any other reasonable explanation one would expect the ME to assume that this is the reason the jaw was still attached because there is nothing to prove otherwise. That's the way I read it anyway. But since the ME has vastly more experience than I do with examining remains I will trust her judgment that she has no other way to explain it except for the duct tape. Does that make sense?

 

[Pondering Mind]

Completely OT..Sorry JBean :angel:..How many of us are going to be crazy as a bed-bug before this trial even gets here?

gahhh!!! off to bury my head in the sand..:banghead:..:croc:...

 

[sleutherontheside]

Completely OT..Sorry JBean :angel:..How many of us are going to be crazy as a bed-bug before this trial even gets here?

gahhh!!! off to bury my head in the sand..:banghead:..:croc:...

I think once the trial rolls around that even the most patient and sane of people will be entirley frustrated as each day unfolds in court. That's why it's so great to practice our deep breathing and patience here. We are in "training". :dance:

 

[logicalgirl]

I gotta tell you (and it's probably been obvious) I find this thread as frustrating as the next.
But conversely what HAS been interesting is to see how different people process the same piece of information - or what different ways this information is processed.

I have left right dyslexia so if you say turn left, it's right we are going. And I been forced to learn that I learn and process information differently than the larger group. So I'm wondering if this is part of what goes around and around in this thread. I understand concepts, other people think in details and data.

I'm visual and if I can't see it I probably don't have it. (OOT you can imagine what chaos this causes in my day to day wardrobe - some stuff never gets worn or I have duplicates. Thank god I can see my car outside!)

Long OT I apologize, but maybe what we are seeing here is how different people process information before coming to their own conclusions.

 

[cyberborg]

How can the defense put up an accidental death theory if the defendant herself denies an accident occurred? Surely that would make any "on the fencers" in the jury come back with a guilty verdict.

The evidence against KC is overwhelming- and this "accident" theory is just something dreamed up by third parties, right? I have to include myself in that because I cannot fathom a mother killing her child in cold blood. But it does happen!!

My response would be that KC herself denies any accident occured. It's a brutal murder. Either it was an imaginary kidnapper or it was KC.

I do see a challenge with any 'accident' theory in that whether testimony is introduced via a backdoor or not (e.g., KC's letters) that KC would still need to attest to such and testify.

Therein lies the challenge, since there is no harm and in fact an expectation that KC would testify and tell her story about the accident for it to be credible and .... KC will never testify and will never admit to anything.

I don't see a plea deal from KC and I don't see an 'accident' theory -- the best the Defense can do is try to show Caylee was dumped when KC was in jail and thus SODDI.

 

[marspiter]

I'm tossing my :twocents: in here to remind folks that the term homicide means the taking of another's life, that's the sum total of the responsibility of the ME's office in this case!:truce:

Now as JB has aptly stated, it's the issue of WHAT level of the homicide that the perp will be convicted of, if at all! Here's where the delicate balance occurs (at least in the feeble mind of this poster!) because by going for the DP, they've declared that it's murder 1 and doesn't that leave out the jury choosing "lesser and inclusive charges?":banghead:
Of course, they can ALWAYS tag on child abuse and desecration of a corpse right before the case hit the courtroom but what the heck are the punishments for those charges?...WEEKS? (sarcasm inserted).:waitasec:

IF the jury does NOT "BUY" the murder 1 charge, and that's all she's charged with......game over, walk out with CM,JB,AL&LKB and she can begin RVing to her heart's content! (within the state of Fla as she's on parole!)
Okay: probability of occurrence given the FL majority rules you guilty......slim!:woohoo:

Actually if I may clarify. In Florida all LIO's are included with a charge of murder one. So the jury can and more then likely will be instructed on any other LIO such as murder 2 or manslaughter. One interesting thing with this case and Florida is their felony murder laws. Casey is also charged with aggravated child abuse. This could be used as the underlying charge for Felony murder. Felony murder in Florida carries the same punishment as Murder 1. So in essence if the jury doesn't "buy" pre-med murder one they might look at the evidence and determine that yes Casey intended to put Caylee to sleep....not kill her or something to that effect. The SA can ask that the jury to be instructed on Felony murder which is in the standard Florida Jury instructions. So in essence the SA could still get there "murder 1" conviction, but it would be Felony Murder 1.

The DP wouldn't even come into play until the sentencing phase. So just because the SA wants to pursue the DP doesn't mean the Jury is stuck with an all or nothing decision. The jury could for example find sufficient evidence for murder 2 and the DP would never come into play. I personally have my own opinion as to how this is going to play out but I thought I would clarify that a charge of murder 1 is not an all or nothing type of thing as that seemed to but what your post was asking.

 

[marspiter]

I do see a challenge with any 'accident' theory in that whether testimony is introduced via a backdoor or not (e.g., KC's letters) that KC would still need to attest to such and testify.

Therein lies the challenge, since there is no harm and in fact an expectation that KC would testify and tell her story about the accident for it to be credible and .... KC will never testify and will never admit to anything.

I don't see a plea deal from KC and I don't see an 'accident' theory -- the best the Defense can do is try to show Caylee was dumped when KC was in jail and thus SODDI.

Yes to me Casey backed her defense into a corner by making up the Zanny story. I completely agree with Cyberborg on this. They are stuck with an SODDI defense imho because of Casey's actions and testimony. Any type of an accident theory went out the window when Caylee's body was found in trash bags with duct tape covering the nose and mouth imho.

 

[notthatsmart]

NTS, I believe that visit was when YM and a photographer went to the jail to photograph the "Bella Vita" tattoo.

Thank you. Because I was racking my brain trying to figure out why she would talk to Ym. Hope this clears that up.

 

[joypath]

Actually if I may clarify. In Florida all LIO's are included with a charge of murder one. So the jury can and more then likely will be instructed on any other LIO such as murder 2 or manslaughter. One interesting thing with this case and Florida is their felony murder laws. Casey is also charged with aggravated child abuse. This could be used as the underlying charge for Felony murder. Felony murder in Florida carries the same punishment as Murder 1. So in essence if the jury doesn't "buy" pre-med murder one they might look at the evidence and determine that yes Casey intended to put Caylee to sleep....not kill her or something to that effect. The SA can ask that the jury to be instructed on Felony murder which is in the standard Florida Jury instructions. So in essence the SA could still get there "murder 1" conviction, but it would be Felony Murder 1.

The DP wouldn't even come into play until the sentencing phase. So just because the SA wants to pursue the DP doesn't mean the Jury is stuck with an all or nothing decision. The jury could for example find sufficient evidence for murder 2 and the DP would never come into play. I personally have my own opinion as to how this is going to play out but I thought I would clarify that a charge of murder 1 is not an all or nothing type of thing as that seemed to but what your post was asking.

:woohoo:Just the "thanks button" alone just wasn't enough! Go raibh maith agat & merci & gracias & many thanks, 'cause in other jurisdictions 'tis not the same! :furious:

 

[notthatsmart]

Since you question the placement of the duct tape and don't find the Medical Examiner's report convincing enough...
Here, from Joypath -
"Factoring the issues of temperature in June, the musculature/ligamental decomposition would have been rapid and the mandible should have 'dropped' quickly NO MATTER what position the body was entombed." ( and here's where duct tape comes in) " Thus an external mechanical means provided a support for the internal structures.

I don't understand how LKB can challenge the placement of the duct tape. It was observed to be in the position stated by all the examiners. She may dispute the purpose, but I don't know how she can dispute what is documented and photographed..
I think you misunderstand the use of the word Inferred.
According to my dictionary it is - a deduction or conclusion derived from specific information. It is not guessing.

We are getting close to agreement here. I agree as well, what will LKB challenge?

Only problem I see with the above statement is: If the Mandible should have dropped what would it drop to? It was already sitting on the ground. Where would it drop to? How can gravity make it drop if it is already on the ground? Just a simple question I have.

I saw deffering as speculation. I looked it up on dictionary . com and on line 3 it says to guess to speculate.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inferred?&qsrc=

 

[notthatsmart]

My uneducated but common sense tells me the reason the ME states "inferred" is because of a lack of any other reason why it would still be attached. Most of the bones from the body were still in the bag. If animals drug the skull out of the bag before decomposition there would be no tape for surely the animals would have ripped the tape off. Plus RK did report in August that he saw a bag in the water with what looked to him like a skull. Further RK reported that the skull rolled out of the bag or it may have appeared to him to have rolled out of the bag. But JJ said they searched that area and did not see any remains so if the skull (being the largest part) was still underwater in the bag it would not have been visible on the ground.

So without any other reasonable explanation one would expect the ME to assume that this is the reason the jaw was still attached because there is nothing to prove otherwise. That's the way I read it anyway. But since the ME has vastly more experience than I do with examining remains I will trust her judgment that she has no other way to explain it except for the duct tape. Does that make sense?

Yes that makes sense. However if she gets on the stand and someone presents an alternative theory that makes sense, she may agree to it. IMO