P.I. Says He Videotaped Area Where Caylee Was Later Found

[Chezhire]

Then each one could pipe up and say, "Yes, I did" then proceed to claim to have killed Caylee in various ways. This would leave the SA in a precarious position, wouldn't it?

:waitasec: well, the united front ("we don't know which bullet from which shooter's gun killed'm, but somebody done it") has worked for an acquittal before, but can you really imagine George, Cindy and Lee all agreeing to do such a thing? (I can't)

 

[magic-cat]

I believe that LE has already covered the ground of whom made those searches on the computer-who was at work, who had access, etc. They have it well in hand I am sure. Perhaps they even HOPE one of them will LIE and say they did the search so they can squelch THAT with the evidence that they have gathered. If I were any one of the Anthony family I would think LONG and HARD about perjuring myself on the stand at this stage. They have asked for immunity-so I doubt they will be willing to take the fall and say they did the searches.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

:waitasec: well, the united front ("we don't know which bullet from which shooter's gun killed'm, but somebody done it") has worked for an acquittal before, but can you really imagine George, Cindy and Lee all agreeing to do such a thing? (I can't)

LOL I would put nothing past this defense team OR the A fam. (I am not saying it would work either!!)

 

[TxRose]

So let's try this again. Let's say the story is that the child was chloroformed and she died. The state presents evidence or testimony that Casey searched for chloroform on the computer several months before Caylee's death.

So if the killing is found to be intentional and premeditated...it is first degree murder. But in Florida, even of not premeditated, if it is found that the use of chloroform on the child is "child abuse", and a death occured as a result of that abuse...that is still murder one.
If it was just reckless behavior that cause the death, no premeditation to kill or intent to kill, no child abuse, just really stupid idiotic reckless behavior that led to the death...that would be aggravated manslaughter.
Is that right?

edit> So the issue would either be premeditation - or alternatively - whether the behavior was child abuse.

 

[MaedchenX]

Then each one could pipe up and say, "Yes, I did" then proceed to claim to have killed Caylee in various ways. This would leave the SA in a precarious position, wouldn't it?

That would all be very "I am Spartacus". While I hope not to see any of the As fall on their swords to save KC from her fate, it certainly seems like that is what they have been working toward.

 

[Wudge]

So let's try this again. Let's say the story is that the child was chloroformed and she died. The state presents evidence or testimony that Casey searched for chloroform on the computer several months before Caylee's death.

So if the killing is found to be intentional and premeditated...it is first degree murder. But in Florida, even of not premeditated, if it is found that the use of chloroform on the child is "child abuse", and a death occured as a result of that abuse...that is still murder one.
If it was just reckless behavior that cause the death, no premeditation to kill or intent to kill, no child abuse, just really stupid idiotic reckless behavior that led to the death...that would be aggravated manslaughter.
Is that right?

In that scenario, the absolute key would be solid evidence that Caylee died from chloroform. As best we know, that evidence is not something that prosecutors have, and I would not bet a plug nickle that they are keeping any such evidence a secret.

 

[TxRose]

In that scenario, the absolute key would be solid evidence that Caylee died from chloroform. As best we know, that evidence is not something that prosecutors have, and I would not bet a plug nickle that they are keeping any such evidence a secret.

No I understand that. They would have to present something that supported the storyline that she was chloroformed and that's how she died. (I agree I am not thinking they have alot of that) But let's just assume they had that...or what they had was accepted as proof by the jury...are my conclusions correct then?

Then alternatively...what if they could show proof that she searched for chloroform...but ended up killing her by wrapping duct tape around her head? Couldn't premeditation be formed even if the ultimate means differed? I think it could. I am not saying that is their plan...just wondering.

 

[DotsEyes]

Here is what I can not understand. MR calls LE about his "find" but didn't stay in the area to show LE what he found. He calls again and stays this time, but even he can't point to where the "find" is? A round white thing, a board, a cut or downed tree, a gray bag - he is all over the place in his description of the thing and wants to remain anonymous, and is worried that if it is a dead body, his anonymity will be over.

He found it but could not actually find it or lead anyone to it. Come on. What is wrong with all of this? Let's put our caps on here.

Someone was talking to someone. Who was it?

 

[TxRose]

Here is what I can not understand. MR calls LE about his "find" but didn't stay in the area to show LE what he found. He calls again and stays this time, but even he can't point to where the "find" is? A round white thing, a board, a cut or downed tree, a gray bag - he is all over the place in his description of the thing and wants to remain anonymous, and is worried that if it is a dead body, his anonymity will be over.

He found it but could not actually find it or lead anyone to it. Come on. What is wrong with all of this? Let's put our caps on here.

Someone was talking to someone. Who was it?

Is that what happened? I thought that he wasn't able to stay either of the first two times. I thought the first responder couldn't even determine where the area was he was calling from. Then the second responder found the general area...but couldn't pinpoint what he had talked about so he left. Didn't he call the third time and say that he was told to call back when he could stay and wait for an officer? So that time he stayed and they checked it out together and it was "trash" (or a snake scare them away or whatever....)? That's what I understood.

 

[Wudge]

No I understand that. They would have to present something that supported the storyline that she was chloroformed and that's how she died. (I agree I am not thinking they have alot of that) But let's just assume they had that...or what they had was accepted as proof by the jury...are my conclusions correct then?

Then alternatively...what if they could show proof that she searched for chloroform...but ended up killing her by wrapping duct tape around her head? Couldn't premeditation be formed even if the ultimate means differed? I think it could. I am not saying that is their plan...just wondering.

If they could prove that she died from chloroform, then prosecutors could reasonably charge Casey with either premeditation or felony murder. However, I do not think the facts of this case lend themselves to supporting a scenario where the Court would allow prosecutors to try Casey on both of those charges. So, again, I think prosecutors would need to pick but one storyline based on the evidence.

Moreover, if I were an unscrupulous prosecutor, I would go with felony murder, because that would allow me to reap a murder one charge without having to prove intent.

As regards a premeditated murder, prosecutors need to prove the specific elements of: intent (wilful), planning, deliberation and malice aforethought. Even if they had evidence that Caylee died from chloroform, I do not see them proving that beyond a reasonable doubt, for too many things argue against it being a premeditated murder.

 

[mydailyopinions]

If they could prove that she died from chloroform, then prosecutors could reasonably charge Casey with either premeditation or felony murder. However, I do not think the facts of this case lend themselves to supporting a scenario where the Court would allow prosecutors to try Casey on both of those charges. So, again, I think prosecutors would need to pick but one storyline based on the evidence.

Moreover, if I were an unscrupulous prosecutor, I would go with felony murder, because that would allow me to reap a murder one charge without having to prove intent.

As regards a premediatated murder, prosecutors need to prove the specific elements of: intent (wilful), planning, deliberation and malice aforethought. Even if they had evidence that Caylee died from chloroform, I do not see them proving that beyond a reasonable doubt, for too many things argue against it being a premediated murder.

Wudge, I agree with you to a point..what we don't know is what they are holding close to their vests...I think that alone will decide it all.

 

[Wudge]

Here is what I can not understand. MR calls LE about his "find" but didn't stay in the area to show LE what he found. He calls again and stays this time, but even he can't point to where the "find" is? A round white thing, a board, a cut or downed tree, a gray bag - he is all over the place in his description of the thing and wants to remain anonymous, and is worried that if it is a dead body, his anonymity will be over.

He found it but could not actually find it or lead anyone to it. Come on. What is wrong with all of this? Let's put our caps on here.

Someone was talking to someone. Who was it?

I thought that the meter man's calls were more location specific than anything else. To me, that suggested he was acting (phoning in) on a tip.

In recent nights on Nancy Grace's show, I heard another attorney say they thought the same thing.

 

[Wudge]

Wudge, I agree with you to a point..what we don't know is what they are holding close to their vests...I think that alone will decide it all.

The prosecutors have tried this case in the media from day one. They recently took on a huge public embarassment problem with the meter man's story and also cut the death penalty out of the charges.

If they have received new and highly significant evidence (fingerprints, toxicology tests, etc.), my experience has taught me that prosecutors would have gone back to the well that has so far served them so favorably. In other words, they would have quickly had any such evidence made known in the court of public opinion.

 

[TxRose]

If they could prove that she died from chloroform, then prosecutors could reasonably charge Casey with either premeditation or felony murder. However, I do not think the facts of this case lend themselves to supporting a scenario where the Court would allow prosecutors to try Casey on both of those charges. So, again, I think prosecutors would need to pick but one storyline based on the evidence.

Moreover, if I were an unscrupulous prosecutor, I would go with felony murder, because that would allow me to reap a murder one charge without having to prove intent.

As regards a premeditated murder, prosecutors need to prove the specific elements of: intent (wilful), planning, deliberation and malice aforethought. Even if they had evidence that Caylee died from chloroform, I do not see them proving that beyond a reasonable doubt, for too many things argue against it being a premeditated murder.

Oh ok....ding. I get what you are saying. You have to make a choice as to whether you argue a premeditated outright murder...or whether you argue it was just child abuse that resulted in death. The difference is really intent.

I am not sure I still agree with you that they couldn't present enough evidence for a jury to find premeditation..but I agree it is a much harder case to prove. If the ultimate verdict and sentencing is the same - it would seem easier to prove child abuse resulting in death (again assuming you have evidence to present).

I guess if you felt the actions were not child abuse, but that death did result as a consequence of the reckless actions, you could find a verdict of aggravated manslaughter.

(Thank you Wudge for your patience...I am trying to understand your positions! :blowkiss

 

[TxRose]

The prosecutors have tried this case in the media from day one. They recently took on a huge public embarassment problem with the meter man's story and also cut the death penalty out of the charges.

If they have received new and highly significant evidence (fingerprints, toxicology tests, etc.), my experience has taught me that prosecutors would have gone back to the well that has so far served them so favorably. In other words, they would have quickly had any such evidence made known in the court of public opinion.

But if they feel the crime scene was the Anthony home...and that the A's are less than 100% cooperative...they might be afraid to divulge too much until they are confident any corroborating evidence has been gathered and isn't destroyed. There has been alot of talk about obstruction lately. I personally think reports are trickling in...because it seems odd they keep going back to the A's. Something must be keying them to the fact they need something else.

I also think they are wanting to stall as long as possible on these forensics so the defense doesn't get the results any sooner than they have to. Now that the "dream team" is assembled and ready to pounce on anything they found.

 

[Wudge]

Oh ok....ding. I get what you are saying. You have to make a choice as to whether you argue a premeditated outright murder...or whether you argue it was just child abuse that resulted in death. The difference is really intent.

I am not sure I still agree with you that they couldn't present enough evidence for a jury to find premeditation..but I agree it is a much harder case to prove. If the ultimate verdict and sentencing is the same - it would seem easier to prove child abuse resulting in death (again assuming you have evidence to present).

I guess if you felt the actions were not child abuse, but that death did result as a consequence of the reckless actions, you could find a verdict of aggravated manslaughter.

(Thank you Wudge for your patience...I am trying to understand your positions! :blowkiss

You're welcome. Online, I try to address points one at a time. I've found that approach lends itself more to clarity than to try and take on multiple issues that cross over and/or compound themselves.

As for my basic position, no matter what the case is, all I do is assess the facts and evidence against the charges. After all, that's what trials all distill down to; i.e., does the evidence prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Since that's the deliverable, that's my constant focus.

(I will now take leave. I wish all a happy and prosperous new year.)

 

[Diamond]

~snip~As regards a premeditated murder, prosecutors need to prove the specific elements of: intent (wilful), planning, deliberation and malice aforethought. Even if they had evidence that Caylee died from chloroform, I do not see them proving that beyond a reasonable doubt, for too many things argue against it being a premeditated murder.

Here's some info I found:

"To prove first degree premeditated murder the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim is dead, that the death was caused by the criminal act of the defendant, and that there was a premeditated killing of the victim. For purposes of the jury instructions the court defined "killing with premeditation" as killing after consciously deciding to do so. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. While the law does not set a particular amount of time that must pass between the premeditated intent to kill and the killing but enough time must pass for reflection by the defendant. The question of whether or not premeditation existed at the time of the killing is a question of fact to be determined by a jury. The jury instructions further clarify that if during the premeditated attempted murder of one person the defendant actually kills another person that killing is also to be considered as premeditated.

To prove the crime of first degree felony murder the state of Florida must prove (1) that the victim is dead; (2) that the death occurred as a consequence of and while the defendant was engaged in the commission of a crime, or that the death occurred as a consequence of and while the defendant was attempting to commit another crime, or that the death occurred as a consequence of and while the defendant or an accomplice as escaping from the immediate scene of another crime; and (3) that the defendant was the person who actually killed the victim or that the victim was killed by a person other than the defendant but both the defendant and the person who killed the victim were principals in the commission of another time. However, under this slightly different charge it is not necessary for the state of Florida to prove that the defendant had a premeditated design or intent to kill."

http://www.jeffreyfeiler.com/murder.html

 

[TxRose]

You're welcome. Online, I try to address points one at a time. I've found that approach lends itself more to clarity than to try and take on multiple issues that cross over and/or compound themselves.

As for my basic position, no matter what the case is, all I do is assess the facts and evidence against the charges. After all, that's what trials all distill down to; i.e., does the evidence prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Since that's the deliverable, that's my constant focus.

(I will now take leave. I wish all a happy and prosperous new year.)

Bye Wudge. Thanks for the discourse.

 

[Reannan]

As far as premeditation goes.... if someone is manufacturing chlorform to pour onto a rag and "put someone to sleep", they have to be manufacturing it and storing it in some sort of container(s). If LE has evidence this effect, and the evidence has KC's fingerprints or DNA on them, then she is toast. Right? Just wishful thinking???

 

[TxRose]

As far as premeditation goes.... if someone is manufacturing chlorform to pour onto a rag and "put someone to sleep", they have to be manufacturing it and storing it in some sort of container(s). If LE has evidence this effect, and the evidence has KC's fingerprints or DNA on them, then she is toast. Right? Just wishful thinking???

LOL. I think you would have to have some evidence to support that it was her intent to use the chloroform to "put her to sleep"...not to be used for cleaning, etc. Just having chlroform may not be enough. However, paired with the other searches on her computer regarding neck breaking, deadly household chemicals or whatever...that might accomplish that. Assuming you can also show it was her that performed the computer searches. Even better would be if you could show she had drugged Caylee in the past...either with chloroform or with Xanax or something like that.