Premeditation

[Brini]

Well,since they are never going to be able to show how it was applied due to not having any body tissue and the elements wreaking havoc, then I guess you would not vote for the DP.
I don't even know why we keep going back and forth on this premeditation point anyway, because I think I have read she can get the DP by virtue of Caylee's young age.

I am not a big fan of the DP anyway, as I don't think it is applied evenly enough, so for me it does not matter what they convict her of, just so long as they convict her and she gets hardtime for a LOOOOONNNNG time.

I don't really have a dog in that fight, either. LWOP is fine.

 

[Nore]

The medical examiner's autopsy report states "This duct tape was clearly placed prior to decomposition."

-----------------------------------------
It also states the tape was placed over Caylees mouth and nasal passages. (not her exact words).There is no real question and the jurors, having brains, will surely see that. I watch Dr. G. always,I'm sure she took pictures. It will be sad for the jurors.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

In discussing premeditation here, I think there's more than just the duct tape. Of course, I'm no lawyer, but . . .

1. Lying to friends and family about the whereabouts of your child
2. Computer searches for chloroform, household weapons, (what else?)
3. Computer search for the episode of "One Tree Hill" in which the nanny snatches the child
4. The made up nanny that some are saying they'd heard about for quite awhile
5. Computer searches for ZFG

 

[Brini]

We can argue all day about whether or not you like the Sunshine law, but it is the law, and prosecutors have no choice when media or citizens request the info.

On another matter, I just had a thought: In the Jon Benet case, investigators could tell that the duct tape was applied to her mouth while she was no longer conscious, due to the perfect lip prints that indicated no struggle against the tape.

Although it's horrible to think about, could the tape over Caylee's mouth have showed signs of movement underneath, thereby demonstrating to Dr. G that it was applied prior to death?

Dunno.. but it was applied over her nose, as well.

Now, that's no prob, if she was already dead. But, it's gonna be a real biotch to explain to the jury. Especially with the Buck legal precident.

 

[darnudes]

When you find a child's skull with the mouth and nose taped over with duct tape, a reasonable inference is that the death was the result of criminal agency. Knowledge of the actual cause of death doesn't have to be known to establish corpus delecti (the fact of the crime having been committed).

There is more than enough here for the case to go before a jury.
imo

I acknowledge all you are saying. No one here has stated there is not enough evidence for the case to go to trial.

What I am saying is, I think the defence is either going to have to cop a plea or it has no choice but to come up with an alternative story. To my mind, "another person did this" is just not going to wash.

So that leaves not much else but accident then cover up.

All I am trying to do is look at all sides then try to imagine how JB will play this out irespective of what I think really happened.

 

[ThoughtElf]

HI Thoughtelf. I am only responding to the notion that the duct tape proves premeditation, which has been presented in the OP and subsequent posts.

Yes, sorry - that wasn't directed at you Bean. I was thinking out loud that I don't need necessarily to know COD in order to consider premeditation. I was hoping to float some discussion about the definition of premeditation - I think.

On that note, I just dug this up as a reminder of the FL laws:

The following are the circumstances that must be proved before [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic](defendant)[/FONT]
may be found guilty of First Degree Premeditated Murder or any lesser included crime.1
Florida Statute 782.04(1)(a) defines First Degree Premeditated Murder. Before
you can find the defendant guilty of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the government must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic](Victim) [/FONT]is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic](defendant)[/FONT].
3. There was a premeditated killing of [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic](victim)[/FONT].
An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant
to a single design or purpose.

2Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instruction 7.2 (2003)
“Killing with premeditation” is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The
decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing.
The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from
the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing.
If a person has a premeditated design to kill one person and in attempting to kill
that person actually kills another person, the killing is premeditated.

 

[JBean]

I know this may sound harsh, but to be honest, I don't see a lot of difference between the horrible person who's child "accidentally" died, and then threw away their body, and went on to party and torture their family NOT KNOWING WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CHILD, then a parent who due to lack of sleep or whatever reason, throws their child to the ground in a rage, killing them.

No argument from me.
But the charges should be different in those 2 scenarios,imo.

 

[cecybeans]

hey bean sistah
I don't necessarily disagree with anything you have posted. But it does not prove premeditation,imo.
Caylee cries, KC puts tape over her mouth to make her quiet. Puts her in the trunk. Drives to another location to take her out and she is dead.
Is that premeditated murder? or just murder? Homicide? yes. Premeditation? Don't know.

To be clear, I have no preconceived notion on this aspect of the case. I am just looking at facts and trying to make a determination on premeditation.

If I understand the FL statutes, felony manslaughter is when a child under 12 dies in the commission of a felony, whether intentional or not. The act of putting duct tape, for whatever reason, on a child and placing her in a trunk, are themselves evidence of premeditation I'd think, in that they are a felony regardless of intent. I may be reacting to NG's definition of premeditation as an act being deliberate enough, or taking enough time for the person committing the act to know it is wrong (as long as they are mentally sound) and doing it despite that fact, or failing to undo it once they realize it's wrong. Since putting duct tape on a child's mouth to quiet it is a very deliberate act (unlike the reflexive act of putting a hand over her mouth temporarily) that requires several steps, and one that would appear, if not permanent, is at least designed to last for a period of time. If, after duct taping a child's mouth, the child were put into a hot trunk while she was still alive, even if the intent was not to kill, since the premeditated acts of stifling the child and placing them in a closed trunk automatically constitute a felony, one might draw the conclusion that, since the act itself could be seen as premeditated and callously negligent or without concern, then whatever results, however unintended would be murder.

I'd think her subsequent refusal to report the death, elaborate cover-up of lies and obstructing an investigation with lying to LE when the crime was discovered, would point to a state of mind of sufficient continued careless disregard and lack of remorse to make the death of the child (during a premeditated felony of duct tape application and being placed alive in the trunk of a car) sufficient to presume intent for murder.

I'm not sure either of ANYTHING, but I'm trying to envision why the SA was so adamant it was murder that they made it a DP case prior to even finding the body. It makes me think they had enough evidence to feel they could convince a jury of the fact without much trouble.

(jmho, bean to bean)

 

[Rlaub44]

Dunno.. but it was applied over her nose, as well.

Now, that's no prob, if she was already dead. But, it's gonna be a real biotch to explain to the jury.

Right, and if the tape were shown to be applied over her mouth and nose while she were still alive, anyone could conclude that death would be a result, thereby demonstrating premeditation.

 

[Jolynna]

hey bean sistah
I don't necessarily disagree with anything you have posted. But it does not prove premeditation,imo.
Caylee cries, KC puts tape over her mouth to make her quiet. Puts her in the trunk. Drives to another location to take her out and she is dead.
Is that premeditated murder? or just murder? Homicide? yes. Premeditation? Don't know.

To be clear, I have no preconceived notion on this aspect of the case. I am just looking at facts and trying to make a determination on premeditation.

BBM

When you put the super strong tape, used by contractors and the automotive industry, over a child's mouth AND nose, it is premeditated murder. It wouldn't be reasonable to expect the victim to live. 3 strips of tape equals time to reconsider. IMO

It doesn't help KC's case that she had a hot date waiting that wouldn't let her baby stay over. The videotape of KC showing her demeanor the day Caylee died does not help her,either.

Even when the actual cause of death is unknown, if the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt based on the circumstantial evidence, then corpus delicti is sufficiently established. There doesn't even have to be a body.

There's a LOT of circumstantial evidence here that defies rational explanation. Not that KC has even weighed in with one. IMO.

 

[Snaz]

And, voted in by the people.

Brini, you took the words right off of my fingertips!!!!

Thank you!

 

[Dear Prudence]

Accordingly, there should be no unknown (unleaked) smoking gun.

TY

I think you are right because I believe the prosecution when they say the pages released today are the last of the 10,439 of discovery they have received to date.

That doesn't mean they won't receive more reports from the FBI in the future that will eventually become discovery. After today's release it looks like we have seen all FBI's hair and fiber reports, but we haven't seen much on DNA testing yet.

 

[darnudes]

Yes, sorry - that wasn't directed at you Bean. I was thinking out loud that I don't need necessarily to know COD in order to consider premeditation. I was hoping to float some discusison about the definition of premeditation - I think.

I would certainly be interested in some knowledgeable discussion on the definitions of premeditation as I know next to nothing on those.

 

[Brini]

Nighties, folks! You'uns done drained my brain. ;-)

Seeya manana!

ooooooooooooxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[Moe]

Combine KC's computer searches and the duct tape. Premeditation big time.

 

[Wudge]

BBM -- The only poisoning of the jury pool we've seen is by JB and the A's. CA even admitted it recently. They go on tv and whine saying kc is being tried in the public court of opinion and then turn around and spew their made up "evidence" bs.

Yeah. The release of the videotapes inside the jail (Sunshine law) really helped Casey's defense team.

 

[JBean]

If I understand the FL statutes, felony manslaughter is when a child under 12 dies in the commission of a felony, whether intentional or not. The act of putting duct tape, for whatever reason, on a child and placing her in a trunk, are themselves evidence of premeditation I'd think, in that they are a felony regardless of intent. I may be reacting to NG's definition of premeditation as an act being deliberate enough, or taking enough time for the person committing the act to know it is wrong (as long as they are mentally sound) and doing it despite that fact, or failing to undo it once they realize it's wrong. Since putting duct tape on a child's mouth to quiet it is a very deliberate act (unlike the reflexive act of putting a hand over her mouth temporarily) that requires several steps, and one that would appear, if not permanent, is at least designed to last for a period of time. If, after duct taping a child's mouth, the child were put into a hot trunk while she was still alive, even if the intent was not to kill, since the premeditated acts of stifling the child and placing them in a closed trunk automatically constitute a felony, one might draw the conclusion that, since the act itself could be seen as premeditated and callously negligent or without concern, then whatever results, however unintended would be murder.

I'd think her subsequent refusal to report the death, elaborate cover-up of lies and obstructing an investigation with lying to LE when the crime was discovered, would point to a state of mind of sufficient continued careless disregard and lack of remorse to make the death of the child (during a premeditated felony of duct tape application and being placed alive in the trunk of a car) sufficient to presume intent for murder.

I'm not sure either of ANYTHING, but I'm trying to envision why the SA was so adamant it was murder that they made it a DP case prior to even finding the body. It makes me think they had enough evidence to feel they could convince a jury of the fact without much trouble.

(jmho, bean to bean)

I don't disagree that premeditation shouldn't be argued, and most likely my example was a bad one. Premed Murder can perhaps be charged for being that negligent even without intent.
But what I am only saying is that the tape is not sufficient for me to form an opinion on premeditation at this time.
There may be other factors that point to it though.

as an aside, felony murder is not the same thing as Murder 1 I do not believe.

 

[Wudge]

I would certainly be interested in some knowledgeable discussion on the definitions of premeditation as I know next to nothing on those.

Typically, premediation equates to planning and deliberation (consideration). Add intent (willful) and malice aforethought (depraved mind), and you have the definition of 1st degree murder that most states use (not necessarily Florida).

 

[YellowSubmarine]

Yeah. The release of the videotapes inside the jail (Sunshine law) really helped Casey's defense team.

Right, it is the LAW. They are not doing media blitzes blah blahing about the case. JB and the A's are doing their best to poison the jury pool, no doubt about it. It's not the SA's fault if the evidence they have to release by law is damaging to her case. Maybe she should've thought about that on June 14, 2008 . . . .

 

[ThoughtElf]

I would certainly be interested in some knowledgeable discussion on the definitions of premeditation as I know next to nothing on those.

Two oldies, but goodies for you:

The following are the circumstances that must be proved before [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic](defendant)
[/FONT]may be found guilty of First Degree Premeditated Murder or any lesser included crime.1
Florida Statute 782.04(1)(a) defines First Degree Premeditated Murder. Before
you can find the defendant guilty of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the government must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic](Victim) [/FONT]is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic](defendant)[/FONT].
3. There was a premeditated killing of [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic](victim)[/FONT].
An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant
to a single design or purpose.
2Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instruction 7.2 (2003)
“Killing with premeditation” is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The
decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing.
The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from
the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing.
If a person has a premeditated design to kill one person and in attempting to kill
that person actually kills another person, the killing is premeditated.

---------------------------------


Premeditation vs. Accident

This is a myth. The legal principle of premeditation does not have an opposite of "accident." That argument is more of a push-pull between intended death or unintended death. Premeditation involves an intent to do an act (or not do an act that the person has a legal duty to perform). Premeditation does not require that the person intended that the result be death.
When we hear discussions about accident vs. premeditation it is like comparing apples to grapefruit. Premeditation is a legal term. Accident is a non-professional term to describe lack of a bad heart and possibly a perpetrator's surprise at the outcome. They didn't mean to do it. This has no bearing on whether or not there has been a crime. It might have a little bit of impact on whether or not a case is prosecuted because it may have some bearing on whether or society needs some retribution or punishment to curb that person's behavior. Premeditation with respect to the element of intent required to support findings of guilty as to a criminal act and the lay person's concept of an accident are two very VERY different concepts.