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

[claudicici]

.....plus pre meditation could just be a matter of moments....it did not have to be a long thought out plan......i never believed it was premeditated until the duct tape evidence....i do believe if someone puts layers and layers of duct tape on someones mouth,covering the nose,sticking it to the hair then that person wants the victim to be dead,wouldn't that be premeditation....and there's no way i believe she did that after the fact,that does not make sense to me....imo it just screams i want to silence this person and i want to be certain it's done right.

 

[wonders]

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.

Im sorry but I don't buy that for a minute. IMO Casey was just stupid. Casey is all about Casey. She just didn't have time to dump (oh I hate saying that) Caylee, she was too busy doing for Casey so that HER "Beautiful Life" would be fulfilled and I have no clue as to what she would have done with the stinky car around this time but I think that is why she abandoned the car the way she did, I have a feeling that she was planning to blame Nanny for stealing the car too because no one knew yet that Caylee was missing.
Sorry I am sooo not a wordsmith.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

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.

No, I'm trying to say that either you tape the orifices to prevent fluids from leaking after the death of your child (you would have to plan to have the tape handy to do this) or after you accidentally kill your child you put her in a bag. Bags are easier, less planning ~ you can even find loose ones on the street. Duct tape, that's different. It's not handy at all; you have to know you need it. Trunk or no trunk.

It can't be argued both ways: that the fact she was in the trunk so long proves it was unplanned and yet that the tape was used to prevent decomp fluids from leaking (planning for future). Right?

 

[The Eunice Burns]

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)

Nope. Can't raise my hand. I will have to research, I'm in AZ, did not receive any such instruction as Wudge described. If AZlawyer would like to weigh in, perhaps?

 

[The Eunice Burns]

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

BBM Exactly. Driving around w/ her daughter's body in the trunk of her car does not indicate shock or disorientation to me. Just b/c it seems unlike what a carefully thought out, well constructed plan might look like for murdering your own 2 year old child (ugh. hate typing that)-- does not mean SHE didn't plan. It just means that her plan went awry or she had to think it up somewhat as she went along, or maybe she's a stupid criminal and didn't have a good plan at all. Hasn't it been discussed here that premed can be formed in seconds? Shock or disorientation after an accident and *OMG, I don't know what to do! I'm scared! I'm going to be in trouble!* does not play out this way. If she had a prayer of going w/ an accident, she should have called LE and spun a story about an accident, not a phantom Nanny.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

.....plus pre meditation could just be a matter of moments....it did not have to be a long thought out plan......i never believed it was premeditated until the duct tape evidence....i do believe if someone puts layers and layers of duct tape on someones mouth,covering the nose,sticking it to the hair then that person wants the victim to be dead,wouldn't that be premeditation....and there's no way i believe she did that after the fact,that does not make sense to me....imo it just screams i want to silence this person and i want to be certain it's done right.

I agree. Although, I thought before the duct tape evidence came to light that it was premeditated. The duct tape was personal/applied by someone who knew Caylee and was close to her. KC.

 

[RR0004]

How will the defense get that info to the jury without putting KC on the stand?
Do you think the Scott P jury got it wrong?

I was thinking just that. Too many of the defendent's own words/actions will come back to bite her in the butt. IMO, the defense can explain, explain, explain...but without Casey's explanation as to what she REALLY (yeah, right) meant and WHY she behaved the way she did...defense's arguements will fall flat. JMO

 

[Firefly]

Ok, takes off with (parent's) car for 31 days, then can't produce missing daughter because she doesn't seem to have contact information and a vague description of the person she claims she gave her to. Takes LEOs to her "place of work." Steals from close friends/family with no care that everything points back to her....duh!!! Says I can feel the baby is close and then she is. No matter what happened. I say second degree murder charge will be her ticket to the slammer for good. As I have stated before, I wished her family didn't support her and just turned their backs on her. It would have brought a side of this "Mom" that was the true self that did this crime. All these denials and delays only bodes well for her. She is so lucky to have such a loving, supportive family. *wink, wink*

Alas, I must always remember that we are all innocent until proven guilty. There is evidence that we haven't even heard of yet and it will shed light on this dark case.

 

[txsvicki]

Has it even been proven that Casey drove around with the body in the car for days? I thought it was only said that the body that had been in the car had been dead for 2.5 days. Casey's plan may have gone wrong or she didn't follow through right away with the kidnapping plot.

 

[Wudge]

No, I'm trying to say that either you tape the orifices to prevent fluids from leaking after the death of your child (you would have to plan to have the tape handy to do this) or after you accidentally kill your child you put her in a bag. Bags are easier, less planning ~ you can even find loose ones on the street. Duct tape, that's different. It's not handy at all; you have to know you need it. Trunk or no trunk.

It can't be argued both ways: that the fact she was in the trunk so long proves it was unplanned and yet that the tape was used to prevent decomp fluids from leaking (planning for future). Right?

Regarding, either tape or a bag, I don't support your either/or logic.

As for the tape representing a "plan for the future", I don't support that the haphazard use of tape to try and stem body fluid flow would demonstrate a prior plan (premeditation). If in the very loose sense of the word, you mean a post-death "plan" by Casey, a quick post-death reaction would not aid the prosecutors to prove premediation, and I would not say it reliably constitutes a thought out plan.

 

[Jolynna]

No "what if" changes the bottom line...duct tape doesn't stick to moist. No parent, ever, has used duct tape to stop up leaks. I challenge anyone to find an example of when it has happened.

Lots of people, including parents, do use duct tape to gag/or worse living children.

If the choice is between something that happens all the time and an impossibility..?

 

[Tuffy]

No "what if" changes the bottom line...duct tape doesn't stick to moist. No parent, ever, has used duct tape to stop up leaks. I challenge anyone to find an example of when it has happened.

Lots of people, including parents, do use duct tape to gag/or worse living children.

If the choice is between something that happens all the time and an impossibility..?

I hit the 'Thanks' button, but wanted to say, "thanks" for saying this. I am curious too. I have never heard of this in my life. Perhaps I am naive, but I don't think so. I spent the first 10 or so years of my career as a medic, and I think the taping of a dead body to be bizarre.

This case is the only one that I have heard that argument put forth. Immediately it sounded really unlikely to me. Until proven otherwise, I just won't believe that someone would tape up a dead or decomposing body with the intention of preventing or stopping leaking fluid.

 

[AZlawyer]

I hit the 'Thanks' button, but wanted to say, "thanks" for saying this. I am curious too. I have never heard of this in my life. Perhaps I am naive, but I don't think so. I spent the first 10 or so years of my career as a medic, and I think the taping of a dead body to be bizarre.

This case is the only one that I have heard that argument put forth. Immediately it sounded really unlikely to me. Until proven otherwise, I just won't believe that someone would tape up a dead or decomposing body with the intention of preventing or stopping leaking fluid.

Plus I think Jolynna's point is that it wouldn't work anyway. Unless you anticipated the leaking BEFORE it started--which in the hot Florida weather would have to be pretty much right away--and immediately thought of duct tape and had some handy enough to apply, but then only covered 2 of the orifices that would end up leaking--even though you were such a big expert on decomp fluids that that was the first thing you thought of when you saw that your daughter had tragically died in an accident. No panic, no "oh my gosh, maybe I can do CPR," no screaming and losing all sense of reality. Just, "oh my gosh, my precious Caylee is dead because I wasn't paying attention to her, how awful, I'd better get some duct tape right away so her body doesn't leak out of a couple of the spots it will otherwise leak out of." Then this master of pre-planning drives around with the body in her trunk because she hasn't thought that part out well enough? Makes no sense. Which I think was Expecting Unicorn's point.

So if the defense goes with the "big panic after a terrible accident" version of the "reasonable explanation" of the evidence, the application of duct tape PRIOR to decomp fluids starting to leak is in conflict with that explanation, making it unreasonable.

Plus, unless the DP-qualified attorney boxes JB's ears a little, I don't think they are planning to go with that explanation. I think they are planning to go with the "mother of the year" explanation, which is possibly the most unreasonable explanation possible.

 

[Searchfortruth]

I am no lawyer, but I was just thinking that IF Caylee's death was an accident (and no I do not believe it was) then when she was first arrested any lawyer worth anything would have had a pronto talk with the prosecutors explaining this terrible accident. Am I wrong ? Would that not be the job and duty of an attorney ?

I just think it's crazy to entertain the notion that Casey would sit behind bars this long under these very serious charges without screaming out..."It was an accident" ! Even if she was too ashamed to tell LE in the beginning, I can't see 24 hours in jail going by without the admission. When you are charged with the murder of your own child, an accident pales in comparison....no way, she'd sit there all this time and not say anything.

 

[MissJames]

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.

Fluids and other matter flow from all orifices after death,yet we only heard about duct tape over the mouth and nose.

 

[MissJames]

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?

Bumping my own post because I'm very interested in what Wudge thinks of another circumstantial DP case and the legal aspect of the jury's guilty verdict.My original question was edited for mentioning the first name [I think]

 

[The Eunice Burns]

I am no lawyer, but I was just thinking that IF Caylee's death was an accident (and no I do not believe it was) then when she was first arrested any lawyer worth anything would have had a pronto talk with the prosecutors explaining this terrible accident. Am I wrong ? Would that not be the job and duty of an attorney ?

I just think it's crazy to entertain the notion that Casey would sit behind bars this long under these very serious charges without screaming out..."It was an accident" ! Even if she was too ashamed to tell LE in the beginning, I can't see 24 hours in jail going by without the admission. When you are charged with the murder of your own child, an accident pales in comparison....no way, she'd sit there all this time and not say anything.

BBM Right. And instead, didn't we hear from JB that *it does not help my client to tell LE what happened* or something along that line? (Can't remember his exact quote, and don't want to go find it now) If it had been an accident, I would think it would very much be in his client's self interests to fess up to an accident as soon as she was contacted by LE, as you said above, Search.

 

[RR0004]

Bumping my own post because I'm very interested in what Wudge thinks of another circumstantial DP case and the legal aspect of the jury's guilty verdict.My original question was edited for mentioning the first name [I think]

From what I can ascertain by reading elsewhere...there should have been more attention brought to bear on those responsible for the burglary across the street from where the victim lived. (Google is my friend! LOL)

ETA: sorry to go OT...just trying to be helpful.

 

[RR0004]

BBM Right. And instead, didn't we hear from JB that *it does not help my client to tell LE what happened* or something along that line? (Can't remember his exact quote, and don't want to go find it now) If it had been an accident, I would think it would very much be in his client's self interests to fess up to an accident as soon as she was contacted by LE, as you said above, Search.

Yeah, and I'm still waiting for that clear picture JB promised to present...the one that would make us all understand.

 

[Brini]

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.

I'm sure that you con envision that stuff, but most people aren't going to believ that KC was in "shock and disorientation. At NO point did she show any of thwe signs and symptoms of shock OR disorientation. Nor was there any CAUSE of shock and disorientation seem in her life. Especially not one that killing a baby could remedy in any way.

A shocked and disoriented person could not have woven that web of lies and dissimulating with such bravado.

She has never not known who and where she was, and exactly what she was doing, at any time.

It's like insisting that she stole or lied out of shock and disorientation. That's not the case.

That dog don't hunt, and nobody is going to believe other than that every, single action, and every single lie was not a cynical attempt to get away with murder.