Premeditated Murder #972

[LambChop]

I think what will capture the jury's attention is the fact that KC had the child at 1pm, or after 4pm if witness is correct and SA has proof of KC being in Walmart that day and the fact that she shows up at Tony's after 5pm with no child. Calls to anyone she could have passed the child off to for babysitting purposes all go unanswered. But she shows up at Tony's on time and stays there all night. Where was her child? Who did she leave the child with? Grave wax found on the papertowel in the trash from her trunk. Dogs hitting on trunk. No direct evidence she did it right, but also no, none, nada evidence that someone else had even a remote motive to kill this child. Mommy dearest was late for a very important date.

The fact that she made the mistake of making up the nanny story and when she could not find nanny ASSUMED her child had been kidnapped big problem. Then KC says the only two people she told was JH and JL who knew ZFG personally, and they never called the police to report the crime. Neither one of them. What kind of friends are those. So why, they don't exist, that's why there was no report to the police? A lie, like her stories, every single one of them.

 

[Brini]

I've stated my position often and clearly; i.e., the evidence we know of is insufficient to support a finding of premeditated murder. The reason being that there is no direct evidence and the rest of the evidence does not provide for highly reliable premises to be formed that would reach the certainty level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

HTH

Yes, that is your opinion.

Mine is that you will likely be very surprised at the verdict. ;-)

Thanks!

 

[Rlaub44]

I've stated my position often and clearly; i.e., the evidence we know of is insufficient to support a finding of premeditated murder. The reason being that there is no direct evidence and the rest of the evidence does not provide for highly reliable premises to be formed that would reach the certainty level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

HTH

Oh, I know your position on that. But we were discussing your opinion that it is illogical to believe that SA has worthy evidence because they reinstated the DP, while you simultaneously argued that the withdrawal of DP earlier was proof they had nothing.

You are entitled to your well-documented opinion about insufficient evidence. You should not be able to call another poster's opinion "frightful and absurd" when you utilize the same "illogical" reasoning to state that "obviously, prosecutors did not have something big in the way of evidence when they first dropped the death penalty." If my position "does not follow", than neither does this statement.

 

[Wudge]

Oh, I know your position on that. But we were discussing your opinion that it is illogical to believe that SA has worthy evidence because they reinstated the DP, while you simultaneously argued that the withdrawal of DP earlier was proof they had nothing.

You are entitled to your well-documented opinion about insufficient evidence. You should not be able to call another poster's opinion "frightful and absurd" when you utilize the same "illogical" reasoning to state that "obviously, prosecutors did not have something big in the way of evidence when they first dropped the death penalty." If my position "does not follow", than neither does this statement.

My post that you've quoted was not directed to you. So you're post ("I know your position on that.") it is out of context.

I will net this matter as best as I can: a charge by a prosecutor does not = big evidence (the post I originally responded to). Once again, please reread.

 

[lizzysf]

I hope to see LDB give the jury a demonstration of the duct taping process of a face... 3 pieces.. preparing it, applying it, ripping another piece...
If it was applied before she was died, it will illustrate premeditation well...if she applied it after death..it will surely imprint just as a disgusting picture. I fully believe she will be found guilty of 1st degree....but not given the DP. (They'll despise Cindy so much by the end they will have some pity for Casey...) There is more than enough circumstantial evidence to work with here...and I hope the SA's pull out all the stops.. knocking the 'dream team' from the stage finally. Meh. The jury will be fine without a 'smoking gun'....

 

[Brini]

I hope to see LDB give the jury a demonstration of the duct taping process of a face... 3 pieces.. preparing it, applying it, ripping another piece...
If it was applied before she was died, it will illustrate premeditation well...if she applied it after death..it will surely imprint just as a disgusting picture. I fully believe she will be found guilty of 1st degree....but not given the DP. (They'll despise Cindy so much by the end they will have some pity for Casey...) There is more than enough circumstantial evidence to work with here...and I hope the SA's pull out all the stops.. knocking the 'dream team' from the stage finally. Meh. The jury will be fine without a 'smoking gun'....

Yes, I also think she'll get LWOP. Just the demographics will likely r/o the DP.

 

[lizzysf]

Yes, I also think she'll get LWOP. Just the demographics will likely r/o the DP.

I agree.. the demographics are in her favor.

 

[celticthyme]

The effect is the same. Sunshine laws simply legalize the poisoning of jury pools. As I said elsewhere, Sunshine laws are not written by defense attorneys.

In my opinion, it is unfortunate that all States do not have the luxury of the Sunshine laws out there for jury pools. Facts are facts, evidence is evidence, and truth is truth. It is absolute. It is what it is.

If there is a photo, a fingerprint,, computer usage , phone pings, physical or forensic evidence . . . it can serve the prosecution or the defense, but jurors can decide for themselves to BELIEVE, TRUST AND DEFEND these facts, and come to a decision. How can there ever be too much information with which a jury can come to a conclusion??

Stories, impressions, feelings, rememberences, statements can change, collide, differ and can either be true or not true. Again, the Jury decides. That is our system of justice.

 

[JBean]

In my opinion, it is unfortunate that all States do not have the luxury of the Sunshine laws out there for jury pools. Facts are facts, evidence is evidence, and truth is truth. It is what is it, it can not be influenced, mutated, changed. If there is a photo, a fingerprint, a forensic result . . . it can serve the prosecution or the defense, but jurors can decide for themselves if the BELIEVE, TRUST AND DEFEND these facts, and come to a decision. How can there ever be too much information for which a jury can come to a conclusion??

Stories, impressions, feelings, rememberences can change, collide, differ and can either be true or not true. Again, the Jury decides. That is our system of justice.

I disagree. I think there is some manipulation as far as timing in the release of the information by the state or it would all come out at once. The media cannot request what has not been turned over and the SA controls to a degree what is turned over. That is where it is somewhat manipulated,imo.
Further I think it invades the privacy of many innocent bystanders and that is in and of itself an injustice. I understand the theory of transparency in government, but I don't think this is the way to do it.
Moreover revealing this to the jury pool prior is also poor form imo. We need an impartial jury and this doesn't lend itself to that.

But we have a whole thread on that topic and it seems we just cannot stay on the premeditation topic in here LOL.

So what about premeditation anyway?

 

[Wudge]

In my opinion, it is unfortunate that all States do not have the luxury of the Sunshine laws out there for jury pools. Facts are facts, evidence is evidence, and truth is truth. It is absolute. It is what it is.

If there is a photo, a fingerprint,, computer usage , phone pings, physical or forensic evidence . . . it can serve the prosecution or the defense, but jurors can decide for themselves to BELIEVE, TRUST AND DEFEND these facts, and come to a decision. How can there ever be too much information with which a jury can come to a conclusion??

Stories, impressions, feelings, rememberences, statements can change, collide, differ and can either be true or not true. Again, the Jury decides. That is our system of justice.

The problem is that a jury is supposed to be impartial (objective), but releasing alleged circumstantial evidence that allows crimetainment knuckleheads to continually demonize a defendant and poison minds of the jury pool. That creates stealth jurors, and stealth jurors are not easy to spot.

Please recognize that a trial provides the defendant with a defense team or at least an attorney who is responsible for presenting a side to the evidence that our media largely ignores. The media ignores it, because "guilty" improves ratings, whereas not guilty and/or a wrongful conviction is not a crowd pleaser. At best, they're channel changers.

 

[celticthyme]

I disagree. I think there is some manipulation as far as timing in the release of the information by the state or it would all come out at once. The media cannot request what has not been turned over and the SA controls to a degree what is turned over. That is where it is somewhat manipulated,imo.
Further I think it invades the privacy of many innocent bystanders and that is in and of itself an injustice. I understand the theory of transparency in government, but I don't think this is the way to do it.
Moreover revealing this to the jury pool prior is also poor form imo. We need an impartial jury and this doesn't lend itself to that.

But we have a whole thread on that topic and it seems we just cannot stay on the premeditation topic in here LOL.

So what about premeditation anyway?

Sorry it was OT, but just replying to infor on sunshine law. I agree there is manipulation in terms of when information is released, but it does not change the fact that fact is fact & evidence is evidence. The invasion of privacy in this circumstance was dragging every single person in Casey Anthony's sphere into the limelight, costing them not only loss of privacy, but imagine the emotional and financial impact it has on these young people. I have 3 kids ages 19, 22 and 24, and I keep thinking about them and how it would affect their lives if anyone like Casey Anthony happened to cross their path. A nightmare. None of them deserve this. ( OK, my rant is over)
As for premeditation, I agree wiht all of the comments above. Tearing off 3 pieces of duct tape an applying them one at a time over the mouth and nose of a child is premeditation. Done deal. MHO

 

[Wudge]

I disagree. I think there is some manipulation as far as timing in the release of the information by the state or it would all come out at once. The media cannot request what has not been turned over and the SA controls to a degree what is turned over. That is where it is somewhat manipulated,imo.
Further I think it invades the privacy of many innocent bystanders and that is in and of itself an injustice. I understand the theory of transparency in government, but I don't think this is the way to do it.
Moreover revealing this to the jury pool prior is also poor form imo. We need an impartial jury and this doesn't lend itself to that.

But we have a whole thread on that topic and it seems we just cannot stay on the premeditation topic in here LOL.

So what about premeditation anyway?

Excellent post Jill.

As for premeditation, the evidence that we know of requires too much in the way of guesswork to equate to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Relevant and highly reliable premises cannot be forged from the evidence that, in turn, would allow for a highly reliable conclusion of guilt on the premeditated murder count. And I'm not of the mind that this same evidence can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the aggravated child abuse charge or the manslaughter charge either. The circumstances surrounding Caylee's death are not at all clear.

 

[celticthyme]

The problem is that a jury is supposed to be impartial (objective), but releasing alleged circumstantial evidence that allows crimetainment knuckleheads to continually demonize a defendant and poison minds of the jury pool. That creates stealth jurors, and stealth jurors are not easy to spot.

Please recognize that a trial provides the defendant with a defense team or at least an attorney who is responsible for presenting a side to the evidence that our media largely ignores. The media ignores it, because "guilty" improves ratings, whereas not guilty and/or a wrongful conviction is not a crowd pleaser. At best, they're channel changers.

,
I am not talking about circumstance, I am talking about fact. For example, Casey's cell phone records, cell phone ping maps, give us concrete information about when & where Casey was at a given time. It is concrete, it is fact. It neither benefits defense or prosecution. Her car was found at the Amscot, she claimed she was in Tampa /stp at the time, but her cell phone and computer usage show otherwise . . it is concrete and whether that information comes out before the trial or during the trial, it does not change the information. Either side can try to spin the information, but again, the Jury gets to decide for itself the conclusion they will draw from those facts.

 

[LambChop]

Parenting 101: Never put duct tape on your child, in particular wrapping around to the back of their head and placing three layers to cover both the mouth and nasal areas. This can cause your child to stop breathing.

Maybe KC missed that class, so of course we can only conclude it was not premeditated.

Understanding what you are saying but jurors are not going to get past the 31 days and the duct tape. Sorry but computers will not be judging her, humans will. Whether defense attorneys think it is fair or not everyone wants the right person to be tried for this crime. KC has burned so many bridges, there is no way for her to get back.

Something else that is obvious and defense better fix it before trial is the body language. There seemed to be some very uncomfortable interactions between JB and KC at the hearing. That would not go unnoticed in the court room during the trial.

 

[Rlaub44]

My post that you've quoted was not directed to you. So you're post ("I know your position on that.") it is out of context.

I will net this matter as best as I can: a charge by a prosecutor does not = big evidence (the post I originally responded to). Once again, please reread.

Tsk tsk... I still know your position, & your response was to marspiter, who had responded to me, not you, in the first place.

I will likewise sum up my issue: DP removed does not automatically = lack of big evidence. missmybaby's statement cannot be illogical if yours is logical.

We are never going to agree on this, so for the good of the thread I will drop it there. I will continue to maintain that all opinions are valid here; none are absurd. I hope you will allow that. :truce:

 

[Brini]

I think what will capture the jury's attention is the fact that KC had the child at 1pm, or after 4pm if witness is correct and SA has proof of KC being in Walmart that day and the fact that she shows up at Tony's after 5pm with no child. Calls to anyone she could have passed the child off to for babysitting purposes all go unanswered. But she shows up at Tony's on time and stays there all night. Where was her child? Who did she leave the child with? Grave wax found on the papertowel in the trash from her trunk. Dogs hitting on trunk. No direct evidence she did it right, but also no, none, nada evidence that someone else had even a remote motive to kill this child. Mommy dearest was late for a very important date.

The fact that she made the mistake of making up the nanny story and when she could not find nanny ASSUMED her child had been kidnapped big problem. Then KC says the only two people she told was JH and JL who knew ZFG personally, and they never called the police to report the crime. Neither one of them. What kind of friends are those. So why, they don't exist, that's why there was no report to the police? A lie, like her stories, every single one of them.

Yes! This is a woman who cannot or will not explain what she did with her child-- who ended up DEAD within about a two-hour window of time.

This is also a woman who carried said dead child in her car, for days.

Even without going into the forensics, I can tell you EXACTLY what the jurors will think, right now.

And, THAT'S before we even TOUCH the forensics, or the other circumstantial.

 

[Wudge]

,
I am not talking about circumstance, I am talking about fact. For example, Casey's cell phone records, cell phone ping maps, give us concrete information about when & where Casey was at a given time. It is concrete, it is fact. It neither benefits defense or prosecution. Her car was found at the Amscot, she claimed she was in Tampa /stp at the time, but her cell phone and computer usage show otherwise . . it is concrete and whether that information comes out before the trial or during the trial, it does not change the information. Either side can try to spin the information, but again, the Jury gets to decide for itself the conclusion they will draw from those facts.

The cell phone records might be probative evidence of something, but I have no idea what they prove that relates to the major charges. We don't know when or how Caylee died or what the circumstances surrounding her death were. These are huge gaps in highly relevant and important evidence against the major charges.

What do the cell phone records prove?

 

[Brini]

The problem is that a jury is supposed to be impartial (objective), but releasing alleged circumstantial evidence that allows crimetainment knuckleheads to continually demonize a defendant and poison minds of the jury pool. That creates stealth jurors, and stealth jurors are not easy to spot.

Please recognize that a trial provides the defendant with a defense team or at least an attorney who is responsible for presenting a side to the evidence that our media largely ignores. The media ignores it, because "guilty" improves ratings, whereas not guilty and/or a wrongful conviction is not a crowd pleaser. At best, they're channel changers.

Good law, bad law, it's the law of the sovereign state of Florida.

One may like it or dislike it. It's gonna stay put, unless the citizens decide that it should be changed.

It's not going anyplace before this trial. That's what we are dealing with.

 

[JBean]

Sorry it was OT, but just replying to infor on sunshine law. I agree there is manipulation in terms of when information is released, but it does not change the fact that fact is fact & evidence is evidence. The invasion of privacy in this circumstance was dragging every single person in Casey Anthony's sphere into the limelight, costing them not only loss of privacy, but imagine the emotional and financial impact it has on these young people. I have 3 kids ages 19, 22 and 24, and I keep thinking about them and how it would affect their lives if anyone like Casey Anthony happened to cross their path. A nightmare. None of them deserve this. ( OK, my rant is over)
As for premeditation, I agree wiht all of the comments above. Tearing off 3 pieces of duct tape an applying them one at a time over the mouth and nose of a child is premeditation. Done deal. MHO

But presenting facts when the other side cannot present their argument at the same time is contrary to our judicial system.
I know if I were on trial for a serious crime I would want all the facts and my rebut released at trial;otherwise it is prejudicial imo.
How much time have we had to pour over KC's defense? none because we don't have it yet. we can see her statements and actions and draw some conclusions but as we all know things are not always as they appear.
Enter my favorite point making youtube #3 is my favorite.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOixDP-SdKw"]YouTube - Funny Ameriquest Commercials[/ame]

Point is I'd like to see what the defense has to say.

I appreciate transparency in proceedings and I would want to make sure everything was available at the right time to anyone that wants to review specifics of a case. but the almost gossip like mentality of how this thing goes down is positively frightening to me.
There just has to be a better way to put the information out there but save the innocent people and lend to an impartial jury. Our 24/7 news fix can just be over the top.

Ok now that I have gone so far off topic I am going to give myself a time out.
a long time out.

 

[Brini]

Excellent post Jill.

As for premeditation, the evidence that we know of requires too much in the way of guesswork to equate to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Relevant and highly reliable premises cannot be forged from the evidence that, in turn, would allow for a highly reliable conclusion of guilt on the premeditated murder count. And I'm not of the mind that this same evidence can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the aggravated child abuse charge or the manslaughter charge either. The circumstances surrounding Caylee's death are not at all clear.

Some are dead clear.

KC had the baby. The baby died, while in her care. If she put the tape on the living baby's face, and the baby died of it, that's Murder I, pre-med or not.

My guess is that the state thinks they can prove death 2nd to aggravated child abuse. No pre-med needed. End of KC's story.