"G (Guilty)" vs "NG (Not Guilty)" Where do you stand? #3

[RR0004]

The State has charged Casey with both murder one and manslaughter but not murder two. Obviously, that was done intentionally.

Ya know...it really would be simple if someone just put in a phone call.

 

[QB.]

I realize this may sound crazy but I think the defense will change tactics and say it was an accident. Casey would have to take the stand and put on an academy award winning performance but I think it's her only shot at getting a sentence less than LWOP or the DP. The duct tape will be the hardest to explain. I can't see a jury analyzing ALL the evidence and voting NG if the defense sticks with zanny the nanny kidnapped/killed her. The jury will have to look at pictures of Caylee's remains, pictures of Casey grinning from ear to ear at Fusion, buying beer, bras, clothes, tattoo, and a bunch of other stuff.

The jury will need counseling when this trial is over.

IMO

BBM

Or maybe they will go the route of what Terrence L. had suggested.

 

[RR0004]

Caylee's, and LE certainly did not serve Caylee very well. I think if they would have been nice, perhaps they could have found out other things over the next couple of weeks to help them to perform a top notch investigation. Since they have been guessing now for a year, it does not surprise me that the reports are not panning out in their favor. This is another good reason for me to come to the NG side, is that LE could have done a much better job from the beginning.

...so in other words, you honestly believe that Casey would have come clean over those weeks. How can you believe that and the "nanny did it"? Or do you just believe that the nanny is the one most likely to have committed the crime because, obviously, it couldn't be anyone else?

 

[AutomaticAuttie]

Wudge posting this again because I think you missed it. You have said before you don't see every post.

Florida Jury Instruction:

7.1 INTRODUCTION TO HOMICIDE

Read in all murder and manslaughter cases.
In this case (defendant) is accused of (crime charged).

Give degrees as applicable.
Murder in the First Degree includes the lesser crimes of Murder in the Second Degree, Murder in the Third Degree, and Manslaughter, all of which are unlawful.

A killing that is excusable or was committed by the use of justifiable deadly force is lawful.

If you find (victim) was killed by (defendant), you will then consider the circumstances surrounding the killing in deciding if the killing was (crime charged) or was [Murder in the Second Degree] [Murder in the Third Degree] [Manslaughter], or whether the killing was excusable or resulted from justifiable use of deadly force.

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
§ 782.02, Fla.Stat.

The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon the defendant, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which the defendant was at the time of the killing.

EXCUSABLE HOMICIDE
§ 782.03, Fla.Stat.

The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:

1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or

2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or

3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

Definition.
"Dangerous weapon" is any weapon that, taking into account the manner in which it is used, is likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

I now instruct you on the circumstances that must be proved before (defendant) may be found guilty of (crime charged) or any lesser included crime.

Comment

For complete instructions on self-defense, if in issue, see 3.6(f), (g).

This instruction was amended in 1990 [573 So. 2d 306], 1992 [603 So. 2d 1175], and 1994 [639 So. 2d 602].

For some reason this line above "Give degrees as applicable" keeps throwing me off.

 

[LambChop]

There is no reason to think that if an accident did happen there would be any purpose served to put the duct tape across Caylee's mouth unless in a moment of panic KC thought I can blame this on the nanny. In which case the jury would have to decide is KC credible. Then the lies come in, all of them. There goes her case right down the hopper, I would imagine. That would be KC's doing, not LE, not SA, not any invisible nanny. She truly stands alone on this one.

 

[jon_burrows]

For ME the lying, partying, telling nobody and 31 days of waiting rules out an accident. Perhaps that's not enough for you or for a jury but it is enough for ME.

It's enough for me too---the duct tape also rules out an accident. Actually, the 31 days of waiting would have turned into 32, 33, 34, and on if Cindy hadn't tracked her down at Tony's apt. IMO

OT but OLG, your posts have taught me so much. :blowkiss:

 

[Wudge]

So your "fact" that the jury is not going to be able to consider murder 2 is based on conjecture.

You have yet to provide any real evidence that negates the statements found in the jury instructions.

As it stands in the instructions the jury can consider murder 2.

You have yet to address 'unilateral decision'.

 

[marspiter]

Your patience is admirable. Murder Two and other red herrings aside, I was interested to find out that a FL judge can jury override a DP sentence if s/he feels it is not called for (and vice versa), which is a unilateral "check and balance" of sorts.

I try to get my medical advice from doctors and my vehicle advice from mechanics. When I need a lecture about the law; I have some very smart real attorneys I can turn to who will beat me about the head and shoulders. But I have noticed that Ysatters-Kajsa types tend to disappear when they arrive.

LOL

It's not patience but die hard terrier tenacity. :banghead:

Yes I remember you posting that about the DP override and thought that interesting as well.

 

[2goldfish]

Well in this case in particular, a lot of witnesses change their story in the second interview. The police can't find a body that is an obvious place. There are a lot of things in this case that just don't make sense.

When things don't make a whole lot of sense, there is someone else involved. Have seen it all my life.

First I would not rule out a predator. There was one caught within 4 miles of the Anthony's home early this year.. Yes it is possible that a predator took Caylee from the nanny and the nanny high tailed it out of there.

Other than a predator, I would agree the list would be small.

:biglaugh: oh I thank you for that post, I dont think I have laughed that hard in a month.


ETA I did take that to mean you meant predator in the 4 legged sense until I read more posts responding. but still.

 

[magnolia]

I guess that's why they are cops and you are not. I don't much like the way cops go about their thing either but there are these pesky things called laws and as long as they don't break 'em they are free to question people any way they choose.. using any tactic they choose.

I have gone into this before (and made several people a tad frushtrated for voicing these opinions) and will only touch on it very quickly again so you know where my mind-set is coming from. I began getting arrested at age 15, I am a convicted felon several times over (to be honest I don't even know how many times over- sad), lost my right to vote before I was even old enough to vote. I do not trust LE just because they are LE, as a matter of fact I trust 'em less because they are LE. I used to think it was because I was one of their victims but have grown up enough to realize it's because they know what they are doing and often get people to talk because of their tactics.

The LE in this case simply did what has been proven effective.. we are not required to like it and can cry victim all we want, it doesn't make it so. They don't have to prove anything to us- that's what a trial is for.

Thank-you OneLostGirl

 

[cecybeans]

Ya know...it really would be simple if someone just put in a phone call.

Not really necessary; lin in particular did some excellent work on LIO's (lesser included offenses) and posted it on The Charges - Statutes, What Must Be Proven thread as well as the Premeditated Murder #972 thread. Also included in FL jury instruction handbook.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73200"]The Charges, Statutes - What Must Be Proven - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[marspiter]

You have yet to address 'unilateral decision'.

Now if you would like to provide evidence that negates the jury instructions I would be happy to discuss this further.

As its stands I think the point has been made. It's right there in black and white in the jury instructions.

Water is indeed wet.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

I still have not heard any information regarding evidence that shows KC as being innocent on this thread as yet. I see alot of statements regarding how some feel the evidence in their opinion does not prove guilt but that is based on their opinion only. Have not seen anyone's opinion who feels KC was guilty changed by the NG opinions posted here. The only thing I have noticed is how passionate the guilty posters feel compared to the somewhat detached postings of some of, but not all, of the NG postings. Almost like some of my college professors. Maybe I am wrong, just my opinion.

Is it possible that there are some NG sluethers out there that are not posting simply because they do not want to feel the passionate response of the majority? Is it possible that some NG sluethers may feel the response they get to their posts might be disrespectful, and might even feel if they post with passion their NG opinions, they will be met with a barrage of passionate G replies? Is it possible the NG opinions are based on what their opinion of the evidence is, and they choose to leave out the emotionally laden media spin on their findings? Is it possible that some NG posters do not post because they feel their feelings may be hurt if a G poster replies harshly? If any of these questions can be answered yes, then as a group we all lose out on the input these shy posters have. It's a lose lose situation. Polite, respectful posts when replying to others is what has drawn and kept me here in WS. I feel that some posters NG or G might not post because sometimes emotions run high and replies could be a bit more civil. I think we should all think about what we post and reread it before we post because when our emotions get too high we are apt to say something we may regret later. Once we hit submit, it's too late. I would urge anyone lurking out there to come in and join us. I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I promise to be respectful and polite.

 

[jon_burrows]

BBM

Or maybe they will go the route of what Terrence L. had suggested.

Who is Terrence and what did he suggest?

 

[Wudge]

Now if you would like to provide evidence that negates the jury instructions I would be happy to discuss this further.

As its stands I think the point has been made. It's right there in black and white in the jury instructions.

Water is indeed wet.

It's trial procedure. Inter alia (amongst other things) trial judges rule on motions -- such as for a directed verdict or to amend the charges -- they do not motion themselves and then rule on their own motion.

HTH

 

[RR0004]

Not really necessary; lin in particular did some excellent work on LIO's (lesser included offenses) and posted it on The Charges - Statutes, What Must Be Proven thread as well as the Premeditated Murder #972 thread. Also included in FL jury instruction handbook.

The Charges, Statutes - What Must Be Proven - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Yeah...I know that...but obviously if reading it isn't doing the trick...perhaps hearing it would?

Maybe not...

 

[RR0004]

Who is Terrence and what did he suggest?

The first DP attorney...intimated all kinds of stuff. There's a thread here somewhere.

 

[QB.]

Who is Terrence and what did he suggest?

TL was on the defense team when the dp was on the table , I think the first time. When it was dropped, before the remains were found, he was no longer required to be on the defense team since he is the dp qualified attorney.

He made a statement on NG much later in reference to the case and the defense. I am going to look for a link now and add it here so you can hear his statement.

http://www.wftv.com/video/19448983/index.html 1:44 mark

 

[cecybeans]

The saddest thing to me about all of this is that, even though an overwhelming majority of us believe KC is absolutely guilty, CA and GA would have had our total support and sympathy for what they had to endure if they had been honest and forthcoming - and sided with the rights of their poor granddaughter - instead of imitating the sneaky, mendacious, whiny, obstinate and uncooperative behavior of their daughter during the investigation. We would have seen it as incredibly brave and true to the memory of Caylee if they had stood up for her rights to grow up and live a happy and productive life. I doubt they would have been stumping for the rights of any other suspect or defendant, which is a hypocrisy that the public finds reprehensible and self-serving.

Recently someone posted a software ad in which they morphed a picture of Caylee into that of a young woman. It may have been a tacky and opportunistic stunt, but it took my breath away to see her as she might look as a teenager, as someone who would someday be an adult and deserved a rich and happy future. It stopped me from romanticizing Caylee as some cute little baby, and made me realize she has all of the rights to justice of any adult, regardless of any age difference. Perhaps if Caylee's grandparents could have envisioned their daughter and Caylee side by side, as two adults, they would have made the choice to support the one who needed it most instead of settling for the one who robbed Caylee of her future, just because she was not eliminated from the picture.

It doesn't matter in the least to me what charges this trial brings - that girl is either guilty of neglecting her child to death by not reporting an accident and giving aid (just like a hit and run driver is accused of murder if a victim dies) or of premeditated murder. It doesn't much matter to Caylee's legacy which one it was either, her future was purposely stolen by either result.

 

[marspiter]

For some reason this line above "Give degrees as applicable" keeps throwing me off.

It means the jury gives a degree that is applicable to the case based on the evidence they have been privy too.

Thus why a jury can select any of the following if the original charge was Murder 1.

The way I'm reading it.