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

[Wudge]

SNIP

The state will go for intent formed in an instant, or maybe an hour, and relay on other evidence.

If so, then the question becomes: what's the reliable evidence that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged premeditation was formed in a short period of time (re: "instant or maybe an hour").


(No matter when premeditation might be alleged to have been formed, the need for reliable evidence is paramount. )

 

[Wudge]

Some people could see it that way.

Others could see it as KC being lazy, or taking the easiest action, as usual.

Or, as KC wanting to "keep an eye on things." Like calling the house frequently, to see if anyone's home, so she can sneak in.

Are you alleging this to be reliable evidence?

 

[marspiter]

Lets also not forget the chloroform. I know the evidence we have on it right now is kind of inconclusive and they can't prove with the evidence as it is right now that it was the murder weapon or why its in the car. However if it was used an they (DA's office) are holding back that info til the last possible moment that would explain the jump to the death penalty and is pretty much an automatic murder one. I know North Carolina specifically mentions poisoning in the elements of murder one because of the premeditation involved in using poison.

Once again though you don't have to be a criminal genius and plan out every single detail of your crime for months on end for it to be considered premeditated.

The simple act of reflecting upon your actions no matter how brief before the actually act of killing is enough for premeditation.

I believe Casey was tossing the idea around of killing Caylee many times. Every time she fought with Cindy, every time having Caylee got in the way of her plans, and so on and so forth. i think she thought to herself well if I did do it what would I do and as things got worse between her and Cindy those ideas became more frequent.

Then she got into her last fight with Cindy and bam found herself doing what she has been thinking about over the last several months or year because she had enough and she was gonna show Cindy just how spiteful she could be.

That's when she started piecing together her cover stories. She had already been using ZFG as a cover for leaving Caylee places or doing who knows what while she partied. So that seemed in her mind as a possible answer. It wasn't that she sat down and thought this whole thing out for months. It all finally culminated into her finally acting on her ideas and then the cover up was piecemealed from ideas and stories concocted in her head. She was and is flying by the seat of her pants. She knew her destination, but didn't exactly plan out her itinerary in every detail.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

The question remains: how does Caylee's body placement reasonably evidence premeditation?

(I consider the body placement to be still more evidence that works strongly against premeditation.)

I disagree. The placement of the body indicates to me someone very familiar w/ the area. As has been pointed out, KC was, and had used it in the past for a different type of burial ground. I think some are giving KC too much credit, in the sense of questioning why someone who premeditated this murder would put the body so close to her home. It's stupid that she did, really. When you consider her other options, her choice is of the *stupid criminals variety*. But, that doesn't make it unreasonable that KC did precisely that. Don't some who kill place bodies in places that are close to home, whether b/c it's familiar to them or b/c they can "keep tabs" on things? I also don't think she's a "mastermind" type who thought out every detail and dotted all her *I*s and crossed all her *T*s. She made some stunningly stupid moves, if you're thinking about not wanting to be caught. I also think that another element that's going to come into play and may work against her are her parents and DC. He was searching at the site for a reason, and at someone's behest. I think there is evidence that will come out about that that will demonstrate KC put the body there and her parents knew it was there. We have not seen all there is to see about that little stunt. So, there may be more that hits the fan in the coming months that is going to tie her more securely to the spot she put Caylee's body.

 

[Brini]

Lets also not forget the chloroform. I know the evidence we have on it right now is kind of inconclusive and they can't prove with the evidence as it is right now that it was the murder weapon or why its in the car. However if it was used an they (DA's office) are holding back that info til the last possible moment that would explain the jump to the death penalty and is pretty much an automatic murder one. I know North Carolina specifically mentions poisoning in the elements of murder one because of the premeditation involved in using poison.

Once again though you don't have to be a criminal genius and plan out every single detail of your crime for months on end for it to be considered premeditated.

The simple act of reflecting upon your actions no matter how brief before the actually act of killing is enough for premeditation.

I believe Casey was tossing the idea around of killing Caylee many times. Every time she fought with Cindy, every time having Caylee got in the way of her plans, and so on and so forth. i think she thought to herself well if I did do it what would I do and as things got worse between her and Cindy those ideas became more frequent.

Then she got into her last fight with Cindy and bam found herself doing what she has been thinking about over the last several months or year because she had enough and she was gonna show Cindy just how spiteful she could be.

That's when she started piecing together her cover stories. She had already been using ZFG as a cover for leaving Caylee places or doing who knows what while she partied. So that seemed in her mind as a possible answer. It wasn't that she sat down and thought this whole thing out for months. It all finally culminated into her finally acting on her ideas and then the cover up was piecemealed from ideas and stories concocted in her head. She was and is flying by the seat of her pants. She knew her destination, but didn't exactly plan out her itinerary in every detail.

Like the time she decided not to come home, for the night. She had told her mom that she was in another city working on an event. She called back later, and told her mom she was on her way home, ZG got into an auto accident, and she was two cars behind. Then, there was a story about going to the hospital. Later, there was a story about impending d/c from the ER, and the medical staff suddenly finding another injury that compelled ZG's admission...

KC can't make a plan that would make sense to most people. She does not think things through. She thinks in ten minute increments. She frequently steals, with no plan to cover the crime. She just tries to lie or bluster her way out of it.

The murder and disposal in the neighborhood are well within KC's usual behavior.

 

[Wudge]

I disagree. The placement of the body indicates to me someone very familiar w/ the area. As has been pointed out, KC was, and had used it in the past for a different type of burial ground. I think some are giving KC too much credit, in the sense of questioning why someone who premeditated this murder would put the body so close to her home. It's stupid that she did, really. When you consider her other options, her choice is of the *stupid criminals variety*. But, that doesn't make it unreasonable that KC did precisely that. Don't some who kill place bodies in places that are close to home, whether b/c it's familiar to them or b/c they can "keep tabs" on things? I also don't think she's a "mastermind" type who thought out every detail and dotted all her *I*s and crossed all her *T*s. She made some stunningly stupid moves, if you're thinking about not wanting to be caught. I also think that another element that's going to come into play and may work against her are her parents and DC. He was searching at the site for a reason, and at someone's behest. I think there is evidence that will come out about that that will demonstrate KC put the body there and her parents knew it was there. We have not seen all there is to see about that little stunt. So, there may be more that hits the fan in the coming months that is going to tie her more securely to the spot she put Caylee's body.

Why would being familiar with an area that is very close to home support the charge of a premeditated murder versus, say, an accident?

 

[Brini]

If so, then the question becomes: what's the reliable evidence that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged premeditation was formed in a short period of time (re: "instant or maybe an hour").


(No matter when premeditation might be alleged to have been formed, the need for reliable evidence is paramount. )

Absolutely! And, to avoid going in circles.. I refer you to earlier discussions, on this thread re: this point.

You disagree. That's fine.

 

[Brini]

Why would being familiar with an area that is very close to home support the charge of a premeditated murder versus, say, an accident?

Oh, I think she would have tossed the baby there in either event.

Being KC, she would just use the easiest way.

Now, what on EARTH is stopping KC and her lawyer from claiming accident? That's her best chance, true or not.

 

[Wudge]

I see a several possible scenarios when this case goes to trial. It's going to depend on which pieces of evidence are given the most importance by the jury.

On the one hand, Casey asked the neighbor BB to borrow a shovel on June 18 or 19. Someone had searched for shovels on the Anthony home computer sometime prior to this. Yet, there was no access to a shovel for Casey on June 18 or 19 except via the neighbor BB who normally was not home during the day. In court, these pieces of the puzzle could be used to argue both for and against planning.

However, since Caylee's body was kept in the trunk of Casey's car which indicates a lack of planning as to what to do with the body and then dumped in an unorganized fashion without apparent thought of concealment, I am afraid that jurors could perceive this as an unplanned murder. It could be tough for the prosecution to prove that anyone who has committed a murder and had at least 2.6 days (per decomp odor signature) to consider how to dispose of the body (if she had planned the murder but not the disposal) would just toss the body by the roadside where it could be found by any passersby. I think this could be perceived by the jury as a panicked disposal, which IMO damages the prosecutions case that this is Murder 1.

If the Defense can somehow credibly bring forth a SODDI defense, then the disposal will be seen as a clear means to incriminate Casey.

In either case, the jury will go for a lesser charge than Murder 1, IMO.

I appreciate much of your thought process and largely agree, but I don't understand why you say "I am afraid that jurors could perceive this as an unplanned murder".

If Caylee's death was a homicide, I think an "unplanned" killing is what the evidence supports.

 

[marspiter]

Wudge just like proof beyond reasonable doubt (not beyond shadow of doubt) you keep hammering away at premeditation.

Premeditation does not require that some one sit there planning out every detail of their crime like some sort of fictitious comic book criminal mastermind. They do not have to spend years/months/weeks/days/hours planning said crime (murder).

Florida law says that premeditation does not have a specific length of time. The only specific it gives is that the person must reflect upon the action a moment before the action takes place. I think there is plenty of evidence to show that Casey indeed planned on killing Caylee or that the idea had been in her head, to be a spiteful witch as she puts its. That and pretty much anyway she used to kill Caylee would have required a brief moment of "this will kill her". Caylee sure didn't die by natural causes and it certainly wasn't aliens from Mars.

There is no legally required length of time or forethought for premeditation.

 

[Wudge]

Absolutely! And, to avoid going in circles.. I refer you to earlier discussions, on this thread re: this point.

You disagree. That's fine.

I still do not know what you consider to be the reliable evidence that proves premeditation.

 

[Wudge]

Wudge just like proof beyond reasonable doubt (not beyond shadow of doubt) you keep hammering away at premeditation.

Premeditation does not require that some one sit there planning out every detail of their crime like some sort of fictitious comic book criminal mastermind. They do not have to spend years/months/weeks/days/hours planning said crime (murder).

Florida law says that premeditation does not have a specific length of time. The only specific it gives is that the person must reflect upon the action a moment before the action takes place. I think there is plenty of evidence to show that Casey indeed planned on killing Caylee or that the idea had been in her head, to be a spiteful witch as she puts its. That and pretty much anyway she used to kill Caylee would have required a brief moment of "this will kill her". Caylee sure didn't die by natural causes and it certainly wasn't aliens from Mars.

There is no legally required length of time or forethought for premeditation.

I've asked if the evidence reliably proves premeditation. And if so, what is that reliable evidence?

 

[Brini]

A lack of evidence to support the charge is certainly not a technicality.

My primary reflection on the evidence is whether it reliably supports the premediated murder charge. By my measures, the evidence does not reliably support premediation. I don't see it to even be a close call.

Well, SOMEBODY does, because the D.A. went for it.

 

[ecs5298]

I still do not know what you consider to be the reliable evidence that proves premeditation.

As much as I don't want to, I'm going to have to agree with Wudge on this one. We have seen no conclusive evidence that the murder was premeditated. I think what most are seeing is that since, by KC's own admission, that this was not an accident, that there was an intent to kill Caylee however brief it may have been. The problem is coming up with the proof to prove that intent, especially without an exact cause of death.

I still don't think that this is going to be a problem for the jury. They're going to look at KC's actions and demeanor and the 31 days are going to seal the deal.

 

[Themis]

"It was an accident" is not a complete defense to homicide. Without intent, it could have been involuntary manslaughter.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Manslaughter

Manslaughter can be a lesser included offense of premeditated murder under Florida law.

 

[tweety933]

I've asked if the evidence reliably proves premeditation. And if so, what is that reliable evidence?

Duct Tape

 

[Brini]

I still do not know what you consider to be the reliable evidence that proves premeditation.

I'm sure you don't, honey. But. re-reading the thread will give you a good idea of what factors we all consider to be evidence of same

I am not up to circling back, this morning, I'm afraid. Yet, this morning, anyway.

 

[marspiter]

What would the accident be? She drowned in the pool out back? Ok then why was she found with clothes and not a swim suit? Could Caylee have drank a house cleaner that contained large amounts of chloroform? Then where is the evidence of such. Why was no call made to poison control?

Yes healthy 2 year olds die all the time from accidents but an accident is not a reasonable explanation in this case. There is no evidence that can even begin to explain the death of this poor child other then murder.

Lets face it the jury is going to want to know what happened to a healthy 2 year child. The prosecution is going to present its case which is going to be more then reasonable to any reasonably minded juror. The defense is going to ummm call the imaginanny to the stand? Yes there is a presumption of innocence but that does not mean the jury must suspend all reason especially once they hear the evidence.

Personally I would argue that eyewitness testimony is one of the worst types of evidence. People are convicted all the time on circumstantial evidence only and I would personally like to see in the law where it shows otherwise. I'll stick with People v Scott for my argument on circumstantial evidence.

The devil is in the details of this case. Yes not one piece of circumstantial evidence is going to convict her on its own as that's the nature of circumstantial evidence. Yes you can stand back and pick every little piece of evidence apart as a single stand allow piece. However the evidence once placed altogether prints a pretty clear picture no matter how much you try and play devil's advocate. Its the entirety of the evidence that will be in the jurors minds.

 

[Wudge]

"It was an accident" is not a complete defense to homicide. Without intent, it could have been involuntary manslaughter.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Manslaughter

Manslaughter can be a lesser included offense of premeditated murder under Florida law.

Correct.

Please understand that my focus is on whether the evidence reliably supports the premeditated murder charge. And if so, what is the reliable evidence.

(The poll numbers reflect that a large majority thinks so. Obviously, they're important questions.)

 

[Wudge]

As much as I don't want to, I'm going to have to agree with Wudge on this one. We have seen no conclusive evidence that the murder was premeditated. I think what most are seeing is that since, by KC's own admission, that this was not an accident, that there was an intent to kill Caylee however brief it may have been. The problem is coming up with the proof to prove that intent, especially without an exact cause of death.

I still don't think that this is going to be a problem for the jury. They're going to look at KC's actions and demeanor and the 31 days are going to seal the deal.

It sounds as if you expect the jury will find Casey guilty on the premeditated murder charge. But your assessment is that the evidence is not sufficient to support such a conviction.