Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

[cluciano63]

I am about 3/4 finished reading "Mommy's Little Girl" by D. Fanning, which came out about 2 years ago, and I have to say, if I had read this before the trial, I would be all over the "guilty" train. But so much about Casey and what went on was left out of the trial. From the trial only, not knowing anything before it began except that Casey was charged with killing Caylee and probably had something to do with it, I have not been able to get to first-degree murder. But as I read this book...it is becoming a whole different story and yet the book is very clinical, no hyperbole, just goes through the facts.
There is so much more the jury did not hear, the various postings to FB and MS pages, Casey's statements to various friends over the years prior as well as the month in question (including many friends who were not called by the state) the constant stealing from Cindy and thefts from Grandma, many many more lies than were presented in court,the cell pings in isolated locales as LE believed she searched for a place to dump Caylee, just so much more, especially Casey's growing hatred/resentment of her mother for being so close to Caylee, which is huge and was not made much of at all in court.

I bought this copy used from amazon, just to see what it had, and for anyone who had not followed the case, like me, it is well worth reading, IMO. While I still believe Casey is mentally ill to a terrifying degree, I think she belongs in prison where she can't do any harm to anyone else. Still, I find it sad and frustrating that she did not get help before this all happened; a few times, she even tells friends she is losing it, that she should be in an institution but then blows it off a few days later. And her parents knew she was mad/crazy for a while. But everyone chalked up her behavior to just being Casey, a known liar. The clues were there (IMO) when she constantly talked about how Caylee held her back. It is just one great big tragedy and should end with LWOP at least.

So this is me, changing my mind from unsure about first-degree to certain, just in the past two hours...but as a juror, not at all sure I would come to this place.

 

[Jstc4caylee]

The concept of felony murder is one that I didn't totally get at first either, so I understand where you are coming from.

Bear in mind that "murder" is not an act, it's a legal conclusion that the person convicted of it bears criminal responsibility for an unlawful death and must suffer the greatest consequences set for in the law for an unlawful death. If you see, with your own eyes, person A shoot person B you witness a homicide, it may be an act of murder but there's no way to actually know at the moment.

Murder, again, is a judgement of legal responsibility. If I contract with an assassin for the killing of someone and arrange for the killing to occur in the middle of the business day when I'm sitting in a meeting room with a dozen other people I'm still guilty of murder even though I never laid a hand on the victim, because my actions are what lead to the death of the victim.

What many talk about here is "premeditated" murder, which is a homicide that is planned in advance and carried out to completion past opportunities to stop the actions that result in the death of the victim. This is one of the most heinous acts that one can commit against their fellow man. For this we reserve the punishments of life in prison or execution.

What Casey is charged with is felony murder. This sounds redundant, as murder is a felony charge. What the charge actually means, however, is that a homicide resulted in close connection with ANOTHER felony. The homicide itself or any act intimately connected with the homicide, such as battery, cannot be the felony that qualifies.

Casey's qualifying felony (Florida has 16 possible) is aggravated child abuse. The State does not have to show that a specific act of child abuse resulted in Caylee's death, they need to show that Caylee was being abused as defined by the statute and ended up dead due, in some part, to a result of the abuse.

So if the State can show that Caylee was abused and the abuse lead to her death, then they have proven 1st degree murder. No premeditation is needed and does not have to be shown - she has not been charged that way. The State also does not have to show the precise mechanism of death, the precise time of death, and so forth. Most homicides occur with only the victim and perp present, to require the State to prove things that can only be known by the victim (who cannot speak) and the perp (who cannot be compelled to speak) would mean nobody could ever be convicted of murder if they do a little bit of planning. That's not how it works.

Thank you Thank you Thank you and Thank you...
:goodpost:

 

[Who_What_When]

WWW-Do you have the statue for Agg Chil Abuse in Florida by any chance? TY.

827.03 Abuse, aggravated abuse, and neglect of a child; penalties.--

(1) "Child abuse" means:

(a) Intentional infliction of physical or mental injury upon a child;

(b) An intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child; or

(c) Active encouragement of any person to commit an act that results or could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child.

A person who knowingly or willfully abuses a child without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) "Aggravated child abuse" occurs when a person:

(a) Commits aggravated battery on a child;

(b) Willfully tortures, maliciously punishes, or willfully and unlawfully cages a child; or

(c) Knowingly or willfully abuses a child and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child.

A person who commits aggravated child abuse commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3)(a) "Neglect of a child" means:

1. A caregiver's failure or omission to provide a child with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the child's physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the child; or

2. A caregiver's failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a child from abuse, neglect, or exploitation by another person.

Neglect of a child may be based on repeated conduct or on a single incident or omission that results in, or could reasonably be expected to result in, serious physical or mental injury, or a substantial risk of death, to a child.

(b) A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects a child and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(c) A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects a child without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) For purposes of this section, "maliciously" means wrongfully, intentionally, and without legal justification or excuse. Maliciousness may be established by circumstances from which one could conclude that a reasonable parent would not have engaged in the damaging acts toward the child for any valid reason and that the primary purpose of the acts was to cause the victim unjustifiable pain or injury.

 

[Who_What_When]

http://www.criminaldefenseattorneytampa.com/PracticeAreas/DomesticViolenceBattery/ChildAbuse.aspx

Aggravated Child Abuse (Aggravated Battery) Florida Statutes Section § 827.03
.

(Quote Snipped)

Whoops! I didn't see that you posted this before I answered. Thanks!!!

 

[sappysoul]

I haven't spent a lot of time on all the ups and downs with the case over the last three years. I just did not take a stance on what I heard in particular, other than to take some mental notes that the family was was not riding on all four wheels before all this happened and blew out the rest of the tires.

What bothers me as an "unseated juror" is that the evidence presented reminds me of novels I used to read when I was young that gave the reader a choice to choose what happens next to the character. The character finds it raining heavily and comes upon a house that doesn't look occupied but seems ominous. Character X goes in, turn to page 30. Character X decides it's not worth the risk and goes on their way to find other shelter, turn to page 42. The process continues, leaving you with quite a number of different story lines in the same book with different conclusions. I feel like I'm locked into one of those books.

The state just hasn't laid out a case that allows 12 people to be able to agree on which page to turn to next.

I think the state will use closing to clearly lay out their case. From the evidence presented I would expect them to say that ICA used chloroform to render Caylee unconscious then taped her mouth and nose to kill her. Caylee's body was then put in her trunk where it stayed until she tried to bury her in the back yard. Unable or too lazy to accomplish the burial she threw her in the trashy swamp and went about her life as usual. The evidence is there to support this IMO. Others may disagree and the jurors may disagree. When I look at this evidence in conjunction with the behavioral evidence (partying, lying, not reporting, etc.) it is a strong case.

 

[txsvicki]

I don't think the defense create any reasonable doubt , but instead helped the prosecution by letting Casey admit that she knew Caylee was dead (even saw her body!) and go so far as to blame someone else with yet another crazy lie similar to zanny the nanny. Cindy was proven a liar or at least very forgetful on the stand, so any doubt created about the pool ladder should be discounted. I don't think any doubt was created about any sort of accident at all, and even if there were, the laws cover it and it should still be a felony murder. They didn't even create doubt that Casey would have been afraid to tell her family that Caylee drowned, because they believed all her lies and still supported her. She had them twisted inside out with her lies and manipulations. The jury can see that, hopefully.

 

[Mare10]

Oh my, I'm listening to HLN and LKB and the other woman (who I despise) are going on and on. The other woman said she believes RC and they need to show pictures of the pool and say it was an accident. Did she not hear that no call was made to GA about the pool ladder? What about GA and that whole "LOOK WHAT YOU'VE DONE" blah, blah blah? Did that all of a sudden not happen? What about the molestation? Sheesh, their CIC was horrible, for them that is.

I see no Reasonable doubt at all, I think the SA did a great job. I guess JB is glad I'm not sitting on the jury.

 

[SarahEcho]

(Quote Snipped)

Whoops! I didn't see that you posted this before I answered. Thanks!!!

You were asked, not me, I just didn't see anything posted and went looking and slapped it up there.

 

[aeneas1]

Perimortem still means it could have occurred before IIRC, a lot of the jurors felt that supported a violent criminal death. FWIW I honestly don't know that I could have found SP guilty, based on the trial, but I didn't watch it as closely as this one.

gg, you're making my head spin...

first you said "they were able to determine that there was evidence of antemortem trauma on laci's body", which wasn't accurate. then you said "...but there was still evidence that supported a claim of a violent death."... but you couldn't point me to this information. instead you responded with "perimortem still means it could have occurred before IIRC...".

sure, perimortem indeed means trauma could have occurred before but, as i'm sure you know, it also means that the trauma could have happened after - in other words, perimortem means unable to determine with any certainty if trauma occurred pre or postmortem. which is exactly what the medical examiners in the sp case admitted during testimony, according to court transcripts.

yet perimortem findings resonate with you? at least in the sp case? and you believe these findings were what led jurors to conclude it was a criminal death? seems to me it was the overwhelming circumstantial evidence that swayed the sp jury. but if it was indeed the perimortem findings that swayed you and sp jury, why is it such a leap to believe that the presence of duct tape attached to caylee's hair and skull won't sway the ica jury, regardless if it's uncertain whether it was applied pre or post mortem?

as far as a first degree murder conviction is concerned, i agree that premeditation is not going to be an easy sell to 12 jurors, although i do believe that state did a good job presenting its case and, as such, they have a shot at a first-degree conviction. having said that, it doesn't really matter to me one way or another because i believe the state has enough evidence to convict on second degree, plus additional charges - which means casey isn't going anywhere for decades to come.

 

[katydid23]

gg, you're making my head spin...

first you said "they were able to determine that there was evidence of antemortem trauma on laci's body", which wasn't accurate. then you said "...but there was still evidence that supported a claim of a violent death."... but you couldn't point me to this information. instead you responded with "perimortem still means it could have occurred before IIRC...".

sure, perimortem indeed means trauma could have occurred before but, as i'm sure you know, it also means that the trauma could have happened after - in other words, perimortem means unable to determine with any certainty if trauma occurred pre or postmortem. which is exactly what the medical examiners in the sp case admitted during testimony, according to court transcripts.

yet perimortem findings resonate with you? at least in the sp case? and you believe these findings were what led jurors to conclude it was a criminal death? seems to me it was the overwhelming circumstantial evidence that swayed the sp jury. but if it was indeed the perimortem findings that swayed you and sp jury, why is it such a leap to believe that the presence of duct tape attached to caylee's hair and skull won't sway the ica jury, regardless if it's uncertain whether it was applied pre or post mortem?

as far as a first degree murder conviction is concerned, i agree that premeditation is not going to be an easy sell to 12 jurors, although i do believe that state did a good job presenting its case and, as such, they have a shot at a first-degree conviction. having said that, it doesn't really matter to me one way or another because i believe the state has enough evidence to convict on second degree, plus additional charges - which means casey isn't going anywhere for decades to come.

Here is what convinced me and many others that SP was guilty:

His wife was 8 and 1/2 months pregnant, it was Christmas Eve, and he decides to leave her all alone, to go fishing, with the wrong kind of lures, in the frigid SF bay. I grew up in the Bay Area. NOBODY goes by themselves out in that freezing, choppy water in the middle of the winter. There is no reason anyone would do so, let alone someone with a wife about to give birth, who is sitting home alone, , 2 hours away, on Christmas Eve.
Then he comes home and mops up and does a load of laundry? While she is still missing?
Add Amber Frey to the mix and people were convinced of his guilt. imoo

 

[GeekyGirl]

gg, you're making my head spin...

first you said "they were able to determine that there was evidence of antemortem trauma on laci's body", which wasn't accurate. then you said "...but there was still evidence that supported a claim of a violent death."... but you couldn't point me to this information. instead you responded with "perimortem still means it could have occurred before IIRC...".

sure, perimortem indeed means trauma could have occurred before but, as i'm sure you know, it also means that the trauma could have happened after - in other words, perimortem means unable to determine with any certainty if trauma occurred pre or postmortem. which is exactly what the medical examiners in the sp case admitted during testimony, according to court transcripts.

yet perimortem findings resonate with you? at least in the sp case? and you believe these findings were what led jurors to conclude it was a criminal death? seems to me it was the overwhelming circumstantial evidence that swayed the sp jury. but if it was indeed the perimortem findings that swayed you and sp jury, why is it such a leap to believe that the presence of duct tape attached to caylee's hair and skull won't sway the ica jury, regardless if it's uncertain whether it was applied pre or post mortem?

as far as a first degree murder conviction is concerned, i agree that premeditation is not going to be an easy sell to 12 jurors, although i do believe that state did a good job presenting its case and, as such, they have a shot at a first-degree conviction. having said that, it doesn't really matter to me one way or another because i believe the state has enough evidence to convict on second degree, plus additional charges - which means casey isn't going anywhere for decades to come.

No, they don't. I said that FWIW I'm not sure that I would have been able to find him guilty, I was going off what I read from interviews with jurors in that case, and what they felt to be relevant evidence. Clearly not my finest logical moment and I apologize. I was extremely frustrated and trying to sneak in posts while I was supposed to be helping my BF clean out the garage, and I've learned that isn't the best idea. What did resonate with me about the SP case is that there was a much tighter timeline, and the prosecution in that case laid out a very clear theory of the crime, step by step by step, which I think has been a little lacking in this case because of the bizarre situation, which is why I said (or rather, should have said, instead of being a snarky b****) that even though there were a lot similarities, there was a very different feel to the case, as least for me. It was, in a way, simpler, if that makes any sense. With this case there is so much of the after the crime, and so little of the before of the crime, and the elements that constitute a first degree murder all happen before or during the crime. IMO It's too much and too little, all at the same time.I know that's sort of convoluted, but I don't know how else to describe it. Again, I apologize for making your head spin, you quite unfairly bore the brunt of my frustration, and I'm truly disappointed in myself for letting that happen.

 

[GeekyGirl]

I just have to hijack for one teensy little second and tell you that I absolutely love reading your posts. It doesn't matter what you post about, it always sounds so well written and you have refreshing pov's. Thanks!

Thank you for that I really appreciate being able to post here, since everyone in my RL thinks I'm a little nuts for being so into this case.

 

[aeneas1]

The concept of felony murder is one that I didn't totally get at first either, so I understand where you are coming from.

Bear in mind that "murder" is not an act, it's a legal conclusion that the person convicted of it bears criminal responsibility for an unlawful death and must suffer the greatest consequences set for in the law for an unlawful death. If you see, with your own eyes, person A shoot person B you witness a homicide, it may be an act of murder but there's no way to actually know at the moment.

Murder, again, is a judgement of legal responsibility. If I contract with an assassin for the killing of someone and arrange for the killing to occur in the middle of the business day when I'm sitting in a meeting room with a dozen other people I'm still guilty of murder even though I never laid a hand on the victim, because my actions are what lead to the death of the victim.

What many talk about here is "premeditated" murder, which is a homicide that is planned in advance and carried out to completion past opportunities to stop the actions that result in the death of the victim. This is one of the most heinous acts that one can commit against their fellow man. For this we reserve the punishments of life in prison or execution.

What Casey is charged with is felony murder. This sounds redundant, as murder is a felony charge. What the charge actually means, however, is that a homicide resulted in close connection with ANOTHER felony. The homicide itself or any act intimately connected with the homicide, such as battery, cannot be the felony that qualifies.

Casey's qualifying felony (Florida has 16 possible) is aggravated child abuse. The State does not have to show that a specific act of child abuse resulted in Caylee's death, they need to show that Caylee was being abused as defined by the statute and ended up dead due, in some part, to a result of the abuse.

So if the State can show that Caylee was abused and the abuse lead to her death, then they have proven 1st degree murder. No premeditation is needed and does not have to be shown - she has not been charged that way. The State also does not have to show the precise mechanism of death, the precise time of death, and so forth. Most homicides occur with only the victim and perp present, to require the State to prove things that can only be known by the victim (who cannot speak) and the perp (who cannot be compelled to speak) would mean nobody could ever be convicted of murder if they do a little bit of planning. That's not how it works.

wouldn't the state have only proven a first degree felony, not first-degree murder, in this instance, punishable by up to 30 years in the can? further, isn't aggravated child abuse just one of the seven charges pending against ica, that will be decided regardless if she is or isn't found guilty of first-degree murder? everything i've read seems to make it perfectly clear that premeditation is an absolute requirement for a first-degree murder conviction... of course i'm not an attorney.

 

[sappysoul]

No, they don't. I said that FWIW I'm not sure that I would have been able to find him guilty, I was going off what I read from interviews with jurors in that case, and what they felt to be relevant evidence. Clearly not my finest logical moment and I apologize. I was extremely frustrated and trying to sneak in posts while I was supposed to be helping my BF clean out the garage, and I've learned that isn't the best idea. What did resonate with me about the SP case is that there was a much tighter timeline, and the prosecution in that case laid out a very clear theory of the crime, step by step by step, which I think has been a little lacking in this case because of the bizarre situation, which is why I said (or rather, should have said, instead of being a snarky b****) that even though there were a lot similarities, there was a very different feel to the case, as least for me. It was, in a way, simpler, if that makes any sense. With this case there is so much of the after the crime, and so little of the before of the crime, and the elements that constitute a first degree murder all happen before or during the crime. IMO It's too much and too little, all at the same time.I know that's sort of convoluted, but I don't know how else to describe it. Again, I apologize for making your head spin, you quite unfairly bore the brunt of my frustration, and I'm truly disappointed in myself for letting that happen.

The reason the time line was tighter with SP is he actually reported his wife missing. She wasn't a child under his control, she was pregnant and it was the holiday season. No way he could have lied and kept people away for a month.

 

[Nova24]

My family and friends think I've lost my mind over this case. lol Thank God today was an off day so I could go out to lunch, get some sun, and do some shopping. I made plans for tomorrow night versus day so I could chat here with all of you. The good thing is all of you get it.

 

[GeekyGirl]

The reason the time line was tighter with SP is he actually reported his wife missing. She wasn't a child under his control, she was pregnant and it was the holiday season. No way he could have lied and kept people away for a month.

ITA... Not arguing that LE or the SA did anything wrong, only that it differs from the situation we're presented with in this case.

 

[GeekyGirl]

My family and friends think I've lost my mind over this case. lol Thank God today was an off day so I could go out to lunch, get some sun, and do some shopping. I made plans for tomorrow night versus day so I could chat here with all of you. The good thing is all of you get it.

LOL I know the feeling. Seriously, my boyfriend threatened to hide my phone and iPad from me because I kept sneaking off to check WS when I supposed to be organizing tools Thankfully I made myself leave them at home and enjoyed a wonderful beach bonfire, fireworks and enough food to feed an army. Now he's passed out (no chloroform involved, promise ) and I can post to my heart's content!

 

[Who_What_When]

My family and friends think I've lost my mind over this case. lol Thank God today was an off day so I could go out to lunch, get some sun, and do some shopping. I made plans for tomorrow night versus day so I could chat here with all of you. The good thing is all of you get it.

LOL! I know how you feel. My mom is just as into this as I am so I can call her and we talk about it, but my husband thinks I'm nuts! He and my son know a lot more than they wanted to know about this case. Poor guys! :floorlaugh:

 

[FX Wiz]

Doubt? Of all the people who live in that 1 block area who could it be? Because make no mistake, an adult perpetrated this heinous act on this child and it wasn't Bigfoot. Who could it be... (sounding like the church lady from SNL) hmm? Could it be.... S@t@n!

The only doubts the defense created are not reasonable.

 

[katydid23]

The reason the time line was tighter with SP is he actually reported his wife missing. She wasn't a child under his control, she was pregnant and it was the holiday season. No way he could have lied and kept people away for a month.

And that fact, that she was a grown woman, actually gave him better options in his explanation to LE. She was home on her own, walking the dog, so everyone went first to a stranger or serial killer scenario. She was supposedly in a park where someone was once raped, IIRC, so that gave SP a valid explanation of her whereabouts.

But Caylee, being a toddler, has no reason to be out of her mothers sight. Sure, she might accidentally get hit by a car or drown, or be kidnapped. But any parent would know pretty quickly that a child is missing. The longest head start a perp would have is if they tale a child in the middle of the night. So that is one main reason people were all over ICA so quickly. How could she go 31 days and not ask for help finding her child.