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

[Baxter]

By definition, trial judges approve the instuctions they deliver to the jury. Moreover, the "reasonal explanation instruction" does exist and is most certainty used across the nation.

Prior to Judge Delucchi delivering jury instructions in Scott Peterson's trial, I recall going through this exact debate with other disbelievers, naysayers and/or doubters. However, when Judge Delucchi finally instructed the jury, the "reasonable explanation instruction" was included. Specifically, it was covered in instruction #39, which read: "If the circumstantial evidence as to any particular count permits two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the defendant's guilt and the other to his innocence, you must adopt that interpretation that points to the defendant's innocence and reject that interpretation that points to his guilt."

Well it didn't help SP did it?

 

[Brini]

By definition, trial judges approve the instuctions they deliver to the jury. Moreover, the "reasonal explanation instruction" does exist and is most certainty used across the nation.

Prior to Judge Delucchi delivering jury instructions in Scott Peterson's trial, I recall going through this exact debate with other disbelievers, naysayers and/or doubters. However, when Judge Delucchi finally instructed the jury, the "reasonable explanation instruction" was included. Specifically, it was covered in instruction #39, which read: "If the circumstantial evidence as to any particular count permits two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the defendant's guilt and the other to his innocence, you must adopt that interpretation that points to the defendant's innocence and reject that interpretation that points to his guilt."

Sorry, hon. An Invisinanny defense is not reasonable by any definition of the word.

 

[Brini]

Well it didn't help SP did it?

Great point! His was the gypsys, hippies, satanists coulda done it, right?

That's MORE believable than the Invisinanny.

 

[Brini]

No.

The purpose of my hypo in post #554 was to explain why jurors are instructed that they must exclude "evidence" when the defense offers a reasonable explanation for an item of circumstantial evidence -- jurors cannot use that evidence to support a guilty verdict.

In other words, the instruction mandates jurors to "exclude" such evidence from deliberation when they measure whether the State's remaining evidence meets the burden of proof (proof beyond a reasonable doubt).

HTH

I've never received such an instruction. I guess FL and CA courts are really, really REALLY different.

 

[Jolynna]

No.

The purpose of my hypo in post #554 was to explain why jurors are instructed that they must exclude "evidence" when the defense offers a reasonable explanation for an item of circumstantial evidence -- jurors cannot use that evidence to support a guilty verdict.

In other words, the instruction mandates jurors to "exclude" such evidence from deliberation when they measure whether the State's remaining evidence meets the burden of proof (proof beyond a reasonable doubt).

HTH

I accept that. It is why the state is asking for the DP.

Nobody has come up with an explanation for putting duct tape over half of a baby's face that I think even could have happened. I challenge anyone to try to come up of a single instance where a parent has done it to stop fluid leakage after death. Duct tape doesn't even stick to damp or greasy surfaces.

Under all of your definitions putting multiple strips of duct tape over a living child's mouth and nose is enough to earn the DP. It was cruel. More than one strip gave KC time to reconsider.

JMO

 

[Wudge]

I accept that. It is why the state is asking for the DP.

Nobody has come up with an explanation for putting duct tape over half of a baby's face that I think even could have happened. I challenge anyone to try to come up of a single instance where a parent has done it to stop fluid leakage after death. Duct tape doesn't even stick to damp or greasy surfaces.

Under all of your definitions putting multiple strips of duct tape over a living child's mouth and nose is enough to earn the DP. It was cruel. More than one strip gave KC time to reconsider.

JMO

As regards the tape, we don't yet know what either the State or the defense will claim. And I haven't read that there is dispositive evidence that proves Caylee was alive at the time that the tape was used.

Moreover, if testing shows that chloroform was present in the trunk, look for the defense to provide an explanation that they will hold to be entirely reasonable.

 

[Wudge]

Well it didn't help SP did it?

When two reasonable explanations are put forth for an item of circumstantial evidence, the purpose of the instruction is to try and prevent juries from not adopting the reasonable explanation put forth by the defense (fallacious logic -- jury error).

 

[Brini]

When two reasonable explanations are put forth for an item of circumstantial evidence, the purpose of the instruction is to try and prevent juries from not adopting the reasonable explanation put forth by the defense (fallacious logic -- jury error).

Well, so far, the defendant's sories do not come under the heading of "35% reasonable." They come under the heading of "outlandish."

JB is gonna have to do a LOT better.

And another thing-- I think you are carrying the presumption of innocence way too far.

All who have received a juror instruction to weigh the defendant's evidence more heavily than the State's please raise hands.

(crickets)

 

[ecs5298]

Well, so far, the defendant's sories do not come under the heading of "35% reasonable." They come under the heading of "outlandish."

JB is gonna have to do a LOT better.

Amen, Brini!

So far I think the defendants explanations could be classified as "insulting to anyone with an IQ higher than that of a garden slug"

 

[MissJames]

As regards the tape, we don't yet know what either the State or the defense will claim. And I haven't read that there is dispositive evidence that proves Caylee was alive at the time that the tape was used.

Moreover, if testing shows that chloroform was present in the trunk, look for the defense to provide an explanation that they will hold to be entirely reasonable.

How will the defense get that info to the jury without putting KC on the stand?
Hi Wudge,
I was edited for mentioning a name in another trial ,so I'll ask this way
In another trial that was DP,had missing family member who's body was later found ,with no evidence of how she died,the defendent was found guilty and sits on Death row.There were other theories that the defense thought were reasonable,such as abduction and murder by unknowns.
The jury found the defendent guilty.
Do believe the jury got it wrong?From a legal standpoint.Do you think the defense didn't put forth enough reasonable alternate theories?

 

[MAMABEAR]

As regards the tape, we don't yet know what either the State or the defense will claim. And I haven't read that there is dispositive evidence that proves Caylee was alive at the time that the tape was used.

Moreover, if testing shows that chloroform was present in the trunk, look for the defense to provide an explanation that they will hold to be entirely reasonable.

If I was on the jury---old JB would really have to do some pretty high steppin for me to believe him on any defense he can muster---cuz when I see that duct tape on baby's breathing passages---there would be no way I would think it was put there afterward---esp with all the partying/stealing/hiding/throwing the baby off the side of the road in "trash bags"---nope---no way, would I not send her sweet little butt to prison for the rest of her life. Just those thangs right there would be enough for me. Then you have all the report thangies.

I would be sittin there---watchin her ever move all thru the trial and what I have seen is what she will do at trial. She can't pull off an "Innocent" appearance during this trial.

 

[essies]

If I was on the jury---old JB would really have to do some pretty high steppin for me to believe him on any defense he can muster---cuz when I see that duct tape on baby's breathing passages---there would be no way I would think it was put there afterward---esp with all the partying/stealing/hiding/throwing the baby off the side of the road in "trash bags"---nope---no way, would I not send her sweet little butt to prison for the rest of her life. Just those thangs right there would be enough for me. Then you have all the report thangies.

I would be sittin there---watchin her ever move all thru the trial and what I have seen is what she will do at trial. She can't pull off an "Innocent" appearance during this trial.

ITA MAMABEAR She can't pull off that "innocent" look during trial or at any other time. She looks like an alien trying to imitate a human! And not doing a very good job at that!!:doh:

 

[wonders]

As regards the tape, we don't yet know what either the State or the defense will claim. And I haven't read that there is dispositive evidence that proves Caylee was alive at the time that the tape was used.
Moreover, if testing shows that chloroform was present in the trunk, look for the defense to provide an explanation that they will hold to be entirely reasonable.

Could you tell me WHY someone would put duct tape on a DEAD body's mouth other then to stop decomp fluid from spilling out as I don't buy into that theory at all anyway. I think it was placed there to shut the child up or to hold the chloroform rag or whatever it was in place. JMHO.

 

[wonders]

ITA MAMABEAR She can't pull off that "innocent" look during trial or at any other time. She looks like an alien trying to imitate a human! And not doing a very good job at that!!:doh:

Nope she sure can't.
I hate seeing her at court appearences as she fiddles with her clothes and messes with her hair as though she is about to be called to go on stage to be auctioned off. She turns my stomach, I'd like to smack her and tell her to get over herself.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

MOO, of course, but I believe this to be premeditated. CA was using Caylee as a pawn between her and kc. CA was threatening to take Caylee away. I believe kc killed Caylee for two reasons --

1. To take Caylee away before CA could

2. Because Caylee is what made CA happy and, as kc said, "she's a spiteful b*tch"

kc could have easily handed Caylee over to her parents and went on with her "beautiful life", but then they'd win.

I have no doubt that all the computer searches will prove premeditation

 

[Jolynna]

By definition, trial judges approve the instuctions they deliver to the jury. Moreover, the "reasonal explanation instruction" does exist and is most certainty used across the nation.

Prior to Judge Delucchi delivering jury instructions in Scott Peterson's trial, I recall going through this exact debate with other disbelievers, naysayers and/or doubters. However, when Judge Delucchi finally instructed the jury, the "reasonable explanation instruction" was included. Specifically, it was covered in instruction #39, which read: "If the circumstantial evidence as to any particular count permits two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the defendant's guilt and the other to his innocence, you must adopt that interpretation that points to the defendant's innocence and reject that interpretation that points to his guilt."

That doesn't mean jurors are supposed to throw common sense out the door.

There has to be an alternative to the prosecutor's theory that "could" have happened. I haven't heard one yet for the duct tape.

And it isn't like KC can deny knowing Caylee was dead. KC was borrowing a shovel the day after the last time Caylee was ever seen. Then KC was texting to Amy about her smelly car that coincidently has a big stain in the trunk. There's the used paper towel used to wipe up cadaver remains in trash that came from Tony's apartment. There's the car that got ditched right before KC was supposed to take Tony to the airport that KC didn't file any stolen car report about. There's the heart sticker like the ones in KC's room and like the ones KC plastered all over pictures of Caylee. There's the skeleton pictures KC downloaded after Caylee's death. The beautiful life tattoo. The "Everyone lies, Everyone dies" poem left on KC's myspace for Cindy.

And then when confronted by her mother, KC doesn't claim there was an evil kidnapper. She says a loving nanny is taking good care of Caylee. She'd talked to Caylee that very day and Caylee was just fine..."Lets not upset the baby...she's napping. Give me one more day."

During the first bond hearing Yuri testifies on the stand that KC didn't tell even HIM there was a kidnapper at first. He said KC said Caylee was with her nanny. KC'd even talked to Caylee that day and Caylee was fine. Only then Caylee's was found and she hasn't been fine since the last day George saw her, And that peskily impeaches KC's story about Caylee calling on July 15.

I don't think KC's obvious lies to mislead LE are going to sit well with jurors.

KC had motive---there are friends that will say she complained about her mother duties.Casey's new boyfriend just wanted boys. And instead of dumping the Tony Casey instant messaged her friend that Tony was worth any pain or sacrifice because what was there could be so great. There was alsothe rivalry for control over Caylee between Cindy and Casey. The one KC couldn't let her mother win.

KC had opportunity--The last time Caylee was seen she was with KC. JC's pings show she spent the afternoon at her parent's house with easy access to the Pooh blanket, the trash bags, duct tape, heart stickers and the Anthony laundry bags. By the time KC left her parent's home and headed for Tony's on June 16, Caylee was gone.

Maybe there isn't a video of Casey doing it or a confession, but I think the evidence in this case is powerful. Before Casey's trial is over, with her phone pings and the pictures of KC out searching and doing her stakeouts at Fusian the prosecutors case will become as clear to the jury as if they'd been watching a high definition movie on a plasma tv.

JMO

 

[Wudge]

Could you tell me WHY someone would put duct tape on a DEAD body's mouth other then to stop decomp fluid from spilling out as I don't buy into that theory at all anyway. I think it was placed there to shut the child up or to hold the chloroform rag or whatever it was in place. JMHO.

To me, driving around with a dead body in the trunk of your car would not only indicate the lack of a plan, it would suggest shock and/or disorientation. I can envision post-death fluids leaking and tape being used to try and stem fluid flow inside the trunk and onto the carpet.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

To me, driving around with a dead body in the trunk of your car would not only indicate the lack of a plan, it would suggest shock and/or disorientation. I can envision post-death fluids leaking and tape being used to try and stem fluid flow inside the trunk and onto the carpet.

Bagging, which she eventually did, imo, would have been a reasonable response to the problem. If it were preplanned she would have thought out the problem of decomp fluids leaking out and had the duct tape handy. This argues against premeditation, doesn't it?

 

[Wudge]

Bagging, which she eventually did, imo, would have been a reasonable response to the problem. If it were preplanned she would have thought out the problem of decomp fluids leaking out and had the duct tape handy. This argues against premeditation, doesn't it?

I agree. I have long held that allegedly driving around for days with a body in the trunk of your car works strongly against premeditation.

 

[Jolynna]

To me, driving around with a dead body in the trunk of your car would not only indicate the lack of a plan, it would suggest shock and/or disorientation. I can envision post-death fluids leaking and tape being used to try and stem fluid flow inside the trunk and onto the carpet.

Driving around with a body might indicate lack of plan or it might indicate a *failed* plan. Like a hole that was harder to dig than expected. I vote for the failed plan. I don't think KC expected digging to be so...well physical. So she had to come up with something else. Whenever.

Find one case where a parent duct taped up half of their dead child's face because of fluid leaking. I don't think it has ever happened. I don't see it as a possibility either. Duct tape doesn't stick to moist surfaces.

Killers and trained medics, bag. Just like Casey did. When there was more leaking, she got more bags.I don't believe she looked at, touched or even had the desire to see or touch Caylee after the deed was done. Just the opposite.

As for KC's disorientation, KC was aware enough to keep people away from her car. She was aware enough to tell convincing stories about Caylee having fun at theme parks. She wasn't in shock, she was careful to check in with Cindy every day to feel out how suspicious they were and to pacify them with lies to keep them off her back. She kept her multiple stories to multiple people straight. That doesn't sound disoriented or in shock to me. She was functioning as well as ever. Shoot probably better than ever. She probably never washed Cindy's, George's or even Caylee's clothes, cleaned her parent's house or cooked them dinner every night the way she did for Tony and his roommates.

JMO