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

[MissJames]

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

It appears from the ME's report that duct tape was across the nose and mouth.If so, it reveals Caylee most likely suffocated.That gave KC time ,while Caylee was dying,to take the tape off.Many minutes to reconsider.
I know you believe it could be reasonbly explained that the tape was put on after death.As a lay person I don't think that will fly.Also,a well respected ME ruled it a homicide.I believe on the stand she will explain why she came to that conclusion and not possible accident.
That's all the evidence we've seen so far.Maybe defense has a resonable explanation,but I don't think so.
My son ,age 15,committed suicide by hanging himself on our stairs.His sister,small brother and a friend were all downstairs.His computer was on a game and he had an open box of cookies next to his chair.Just a couple of hours before he had given my husband a pair of his glasses he needed fixed for school that Monday and a list of fireworks he wanted for that night[New Years Eve].
He probably could have stepped his foot back to a stairtread and stopped everything.We were so confused and sure it was an accident or a cry for help and he was unable to stop it.We even thought maybe it was a prank just to scare his sister and friend. Something must have gone wrong.No one saw it coming. We realized the truth with a tiny bit of evidence...a note found by LE on a stair above him....No explanation,no mention of suicide....just a note giving each friend a heartfelt message and thanking us[his parents]for loving him. That was enough for us to know that our child had impulsively taken his life.But though impulsive he had taken a minute to write a few sentences and get a belt. He meant to go.No thought out plan,obviously[his sister and 5 yr old brother found him],but intended ,nevertheless.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

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.

ITA. And I would add for Wudge's benefit, that an accident defense is not reasonable or plausible. To illustrate.........I live in AZ. Each summer, I dread reading the paper or watching the local news. Last week, an 11 month old baby boy nearly drowned in the family pool. (He is now in serious condition, which is an improvement.) When this tragedy, this accident occured, what is the first thing his parents did as one family member was pulling him from the pool? They called 911. They did not duct tape his mouth, bag him up, and dump his body a stone's throw from their house, and invent a story about entrusting him to a nanny that then took off with him. Why didn't they do that? Because it was an accident, and they did not intentionally harm their child. They did what was innate, instinctive. They called for help. Now, if JB & Co. wants to attempt a risky accident defense, they are going to have a difficult, if not impossible time, explaining to a jury why KC did not act as the parents in my example and countless others have. If it had truly been an accident, KC would not have been capable of all the fun she was able to have. If I go there a little bit w/ the accident defense---OK. She's freaked out, terrified of not watching Caylee carefully enough and doesn't know what to do. Oh my! What to do?! She'd have been in fetal mode, hunkered down somewhere, unable to function. But, that's not how she reacted. She had a grand time: stealing, shopping, clubbing, banging, tatting, and living like "any 22 year old would" (according to CA). Traumatized people don't behave that way.

 

[Wudge]

It appears from the ME's report that duct tape was across the nose and mouth.If so, it reveals Caylee most likely suffocated.That gave KC time ,while Caylee was dying,to take the tape off.Many minutes to reconsider.
I know you believe it could be reasonbly explained that the tape was put on after death.As a lay person I don't think that will fly.Also,a well respected ME ruled it a homicide.I believe on the stand she will explain why she came to that conclusion and not possible accident.
That's all the evidence we've seen so far.Maybe defense has a resonable explanation,but I don't think so.
My son ,age 15,committed suicide by hanging himself on our stairs.His sister,small brother and a friend were all downstairs.His computer was on a game and he had an open box of cookies next to his chair.Just a couple of hours before he had given my husband a pair of his glasses he needed fixed for school that Monday and a list of fireworks he wanted for that night[New Years Eve].
He probably could have stepped his foot back to a stairtread and stopped everything.We were so confused and sure it was an accident or a cry for help and he was unable to stop it.We even thought maybe it was a prank just to scare his sister and friend. Something must have gone wrong.No one saw it coming. We realized the truth with a tiny bit of evidence...a note found by LE on a stair above him....No explanation,no mention of suicide....just a note giving each friend a heartfelt message and thanking us[his parents]for loving him. That was enough for us to know that our child had impulsively taken his life.But though impulsive he had taken a minute to write a few sentences and get a belt. He meant to go.No thought out plan,obviously[his sister and 5 yr old brother found him],but intended ,nevertheless.

I appreciate your response. I have great empathy for you and your family.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

MissJames, I am so sorry for your horrendous loss. My heart goes out to you.

 

[Brini]

It appears from the ME's report that duct tape was across the nose and mouth.If so, it reveals Caylee most likely suffocated.That gave KC time ,while Caylee was dying,to take the tape off.Many minutes to reconsider.
I know you believe it could be reasonbly explained that the tape was put on after death.As a lay person I don't think that will fly.Also,a well respected ME ruled it a homicide.I believe on the stand she will explain why she came to that conclusion and not possible accident.
That's all the evidence we've seen so far.Maybe defense has a resonable explanation,but I don't think so.
My son ,age 15,committed suicide by hanging himself on our stairs.His sister,small brother and a friend were all downstairs.His computer was on a game and he had an open box of cookies next to his chair.Just a couple of hours before he had given my husband a pair of his glasses he needed fixed for school that Monday and a list of fireworks he wanted for that night[New Years Eve].
He probably could have stepped his foot back to a stairtread and stopped everything.We were so confused and sure it was an accident or a cry for help and he was unable to stop it.We even thought maybe it was a prank just to scare his sister and friend. Something must have gone wrong.No one saw it coming. We realized the truth with a tiny bit of evidence...a note found by LE on a stair above him....No explanation,no mention of suicide....just a note giving each friend a heartfelt message and thanking us[his parents]for loving him. That was enough for us to know that our child had impulsively taken his life.But though impulsive he had taken a minute to write a few sentences and get a belt. He meant to go.No thought out plan,obviously[his sister and 5 yr old brother found him],but intended ,nevertheless.

That is an absolute figging nightmare! I am SO terrible, dreadfully sorry!

 

[Brini]

ITA. And I would add for Wudge's benefit, that an accident defense is not reasonable or plausible. To illustrate.........I live in AZ. Each summer, I dread reading the paper or watching the local news. Last week, an 11 month old baby boy nearly drowned in the family pool. (He is now in serious condition, which is an improvement.) When this tragedy, this accident occured, what is the first thing his parents did as one family member was pulling him from the pool? They called 911. They did not duct tape his mouth, bag him up, and dump his body a stone's throw from their house, and invent a story about entrusting him to a nanny that then took off with him. Why didn't they do that? Because it was an accident, and they did not intentionally harm their child. They did what was innate, instinctive. They called for help. Now, if JB & Co. wants to attempt a risky accident defense, they are going to have a difficult, if not impossible time, explaining to a jury why KC did not act as the parents in my example and countless others have. If it had truly been an accident, KC would not have been capable of all the fun she was able to have. If I go there a little bit w/ the accident defense---OK. She's freaked out, terrified of not watching Caylee carefully enough and doesn't know what to do. Oh my! What to do?! She'd have been in fetal mode, hunkered down somewhere, unable to function. But, that's not how she reacted. She had a grand time: stealing, shopping, clubbing, banging, tatting, and living like "any 22 year old would" (according to CA). Traumatized people don't behave that way.

That's it. One can imagine shock paralysis. But, there were no signs or symptoms of this, ever.

 

[Tuffy]

MissJames, I am so sorry for your horrendous loss. My heart goes out to you.

Miss James, I am sorry too. Your post brought tears to my eyes. As a mother, I can only imagine the pain that you have been through. If I could give you, and your whole family hugs, I would.

 

[Brini]

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.

There is the hot car scenario.

However, there is the Dr. G. factor. She is a highly regarded and thorough forensic pathologist. She said "homicide." Her reasoning may blow any accident scenario out of the water.

 

[Muzikman]

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.)

Circles, running in circles...

Howzabout these facts for premeditation:
Cindy was looking to get legal custody of Caylee. Mentioned on the very first 911 call, and said in such a way that it was obvious that Cindy had brought it up to Casey before. Will be verified by witnesses - therapist and any family members willing to state the truth on the stand.

Family fight on the 15th. And last day Caylee is verifiably seen. Will be verified by witnesses - neighbors overhearing it, as well as family members willing to tell the truth on the stand.

Duct tape. Several strips, meaning time to reconsider her actions before finishing.

So we have verifiable facts: Cindy was trying to take Caylee away from Casey; A huge family fight after which Caylee was never seen alive again (unless you believe George, and it still could have happened after that - even more premeditation if so); and she is found dead with several strips of duct tape over her breathing orifices.

The family fight triggered the premeditation. May have been only minutes, maybe hours, but premeditation for the actual murder. Casey had time to consider what she was doing and reverse course, but did not.
What to do with the body? Casey probably did not consider that beforehand - but that does not change the fact that the murder itself was premeditated.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

There is the hot car scenario.

However, there is the Dr. G. factor. She is a highly regarded and thorough forensic pathologist. She said "homicide." Her reasoning may blow any accident scenario out of the water.

BBM. I think this really helps the SA. (Not that they need it, IMO). Dr G. will be likeable on the stand. I know Wudge would not agree w/ this, but likeability of witnesses is a big factor w/ juries, b/c it often goes to credibility. LKB......not likeable. AL's theatrics......bleh. Dr. Lee........I think his history won't work well for the defense if they don't kick him to the curb before the trial. And JB.........I don't think a jury would have the patience for his "um, uh, duh" monologues. MOO

 

[MissJames]

I appreciate your response. I have great empathy for you and your family.

Thank you, but my point is ...all evidence indicated someone who believed he would be alive that night and the following schoolday.Perhaps he had even planned a suicide at some time[as KC possibly planned a murder],but there was no evidence that he had prepared to do it that day.Quite the contrary. He also had spent a good bit of his Christmas and birthday money that week aquireing game systems and DVD moviesets to watch, not giving away his belongings ,which parents are told is a red flag. He obviously had not thought out a good plan or he would never have subjected his siblings to see what they did .BTW I know fluids escape from more than just the nose and mouth because my 5 year old described it to me. Yet what he did WAS premeditated because he got a belt [duct tape?] and committed the act.
He could have stopped any of those few seconds prior and he didn't.

 

[MissJames]

Miss James, I am sorry too. Your post brought tears to my eyes. As a mother, I can only imagine the pain that you have been through. If I could give you, and your whole family hugs, I would.

Thanks,Tuffy,
your avitar makes me smile....and Lexapro helps a lot!

 

[Tuffy]

Thanks,Tuffy,
your avitar makes me smile....and Lexapro helps a lot!

That picture cracks me up too. I'm glad that others might appreciate it too.

I think that your post about your son's suicide really does illustrate the difference between planning and premeditation. Thank you for posting that as it is relevant to this case.

 

[Balthazar]

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.)

This evidence is clearly very problematic for the prosecution.

The ONLY way I can think of that the placement of Caylee's body would evidence premeditation is if there was proof that Casey was setting up a fake kidnapping scenario. The problem with this is that Casey not reporting Caylee missing for 31 days completely dispels the notion that could be what Casey was doing from the begining, because if Casey was setting up a fake kidnapping, she would have reported Caylee missing ASAP. The only other scenario that might work for premeditation - but not on Casey's part - is if Caylee was actually kidnapped and murdered by SOD and was placed off of Suburban to frame Casey.

 

[Balthazar]

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.

I'm in complete agreement with you here. There is no evidence that reliably supports premeditation. There should not have been a Murder 1 charge, IMO.

 

[Balthazar]

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.

Oh, you are right, I didn't mean unplanned murder. I meant the jurors could perceive this as either a crime of passion or accident. And yes, I agree that is what the evidence supports which is why I don't think this should have been a Murder 1 case at all.

 

[trixi491]

KC's first call home when she was arrested:

Kristina: KC, if anything happens to Caylee I'll die (starts to cry)
KC: (in groaning manner) Oh..my...God, I'm sorry but I'm hanging up (or something to that affect)
----
KC: All my family cares about is getting Caylee back, that's all they care about

---------------------
If this doesn't sound like the words of a mother who didn't care that her child was gone, I don't know what does. She may not have spent weeks planning it or where she would bury the body, but she was glad Caylee was dead and this was most likely intentional, even if she didn't "plan so long in advance that she would have had a plan on where to dump the body." I was skeptical on whether or not this was an accident but then I heard this call and am 100% convinced it was premediated, malicious, and she didn't shed one tear for Caylee's death or "disappearance." You can argue "ugly coping" all you want (in terms of the partying) but no one copes by being P/Oed at the fact that people are paying more attention to their missing child than them. This was no accident and now KC is pissed more than ever that Caylee is continuing to steal the spotlight, even after KC got rid of her. IMO all the jury needs to do is hear this chilling phone call and I can almost guarantee she'll get murder 1.

 

[marspiter]

Now I'm not a lawyer and would never claim to have the legal savvy of some of the individuals on this site. However I have spent alot of time sitting in court watching proceedings and giving testimony.

From my experience I can say there is a pretty good litmus test for most of the cases I have seen. That is the actions of the defense. The DA is pretty much always going to play the game the same with a few variations. However most of the defense attorneys I see play different tactics depending on the situation.

For starters if the defense feels strongly that their client is innocent or that they can get their client off they want a trial immediately and will motion for a speedy trial. This gives them the upper hand because the DA will have a minimum amount of time to get ready for the case. This can cause more mistakes by the DA's office and it's the best thing for the defense. That and the client doesn't have to spend undo time in jail when they can get them off. That and if the DA's office feels their case is to weak they will normally push hard for a plea.

On the other hand if the client is clearly guilty and the defense feels their case is pretty much a done deal they will try and get a plea deal. However alot of times clients thinking they are clever or can beat the system won't take it much like Casey. In that case most defense attorneys I've seen stall, stall, stall as much as they can. Then when they finally get to the trial they won't bring forth any evidence to refute the prosecutions claims. All they do is stand back and attack the evidence one piece at a time and use tactics to try and confuse juries. Basically they don't really do anything but back peddle, talk in circles, and try to confuse people with what if scenarios and hypotheticals. That or call on "experts" who work for the highest bidder and who in turn talk in circles and what if's.

In this case you certainly don't see the DA offering plea's (especially after the body was found) in fact they went the opposite way and upped the ante with the DP. The defense in this case is clearly trying to stall and confuse as mentioned above.

I would argue that if the defense truly thought they could win this case or that their client was innocent they would proceed on a much different course then they are.

Some may think why would someone play with their lives and not take a deal. It happens all the time. We just had a case here where the guy was brought up on indecent liberties charges and others. He was given a deal for 8 years. He didn't take it and has been sentenced to 75. :behindbar

 

[Patty G]

Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt here:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86380"]Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[MissJames]

I'm in complete agreement with you here. There is no evidence that reliably supports premeditation. There should not have been a Murder 1 charge, IMO.

How do you know the SA does not have evidence that supports premeditation? That is an assumption.
To date the prosecution has appeared far more competent,professional and prepared than the defense at every hearing.
Judge Strickland has had to hand hold JB through this case.
And remember Todd B.? Now he was problematic and an example of how this defense operates .I don't think the State is in a position to worry.It's the defense that's sweating.
I will support the State and the job they are doing. I think KC is guilty and will get the sentence the State is seeking.