Reasonable doubt-Jury instructions and More #2

[Brini]

I think you may still be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that a rage killing mitigates murder, I'm saying that a murder in those circumstances (i.e a sudden loss of control) would not be premeditated murder, but rather 2nd or 3rd degree murder - most likely 2nd degree under Florida's statutes:

(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

As regards an accidental death, neither Kiki nor I are suggesting that Caylee may have died from a tragic accident for which no blame could be attached to another. Perhaps a better term for what we're describing might be an 'unintended death' for which KC bears at least some degree of blame, ranging perhaps from simply not providing adequate supervision and care to a definitive act of negligence.

Don't forget the aggravated circumstance that is added, when the child is that young, and dies at the hands of an adult.

Sorry, but I can't get past the duct tape, on this one.

I agree with the two legal precidents already cited-- there is no reason for layering a corpse with duct tape.

IMHO, if Caylee died as the result of an accident, KC would be out, even now.

Another thing... say KC accidently killed Caylee, or just let her die.

How would she know Caylee was dead, if she did not call 911? She is not able to read vital signs. And, unresponsive children can often (more often than adults) be resuscitated. According to my friend, a peds hospice nurse, children can go MUCH longer than adults, without breathing, before cerebral anoxia sets it.

 

[Devon]

Don't forget the aggravated circumstance that is added, when the child is that young, and dies at the hands of an adult.

Sorry, but I can't get past the duct tape, on this one.

I agree with the two legal precidents already cited-- there is no reason for layering a corpse with duct tape.

IMHO, if Caylee died as the result of an accident, KC would be out, even now.

Another thing... say KC accidently killed Caylee, or just let her die.

How would she know Caylee was dead, if she did not call 911? She is not able to read vital signs. And, unresponsive children can often (more often than adults) be resuscitated. According to my friend, a peds hospice nurse, children can go MUCH longer than adults, without breathing, before cerebral anoxia sets it.

Bolded by me.

If I'm not mistaken, the 'aggravating factor' I think you're referring to is a consideration for the jury at the death penalty phase, but if the conviction was for 2nd degree murder then it would not be applicable.

Of course most adults would behave as you are saying if faced with a sudden accident, but I think we have to remember all we've learnt of KC's character. She is an immature, deceitful, cowardly manipulator who has been lying her way out of even the most insignificant of problems and unwanted situations for years. She doesn't appear to have faced up to responsibility for any of her adult life, so what makes you think that she would have suddenly grown a backbone when faced with the worst situation in her entire miserable existence? Even if she hadn't been negligent to any legally culpable degree, she may still have felt that she HAD murdered Caylee simply by not watching her properly, and therefore in her world there would have been every reason to deal with it in the way she knows best - lie, lie, lie!!

 

[Brini]

Bolded by me.

If I'm not mistaken, the 'aggravating factor' I think you're referring to is a consideration for the jury at the death penalty phase, but if the conviction was for 2nd degree murder then it would not be applicable.

Of course most adults would behave as you are saying if faced with a sudden accident, but I think we have to remember all we've learnt of KC's character. She is an immature, deceitful, cowardly manipulator who has been lying her way out of even the most insignificant of problems and unwanted situations for years. She doesn't appear to have faced up to responsibility for any of her adult life, so what makes you think that she would have suddenly grown a backbone when faced with the worst situation in her entire miserable existence? Even if she hadn't been negligent to any legally culpable degree, she may still have felt that she HAD murdered Caylee simply by not watching her properly, and therefore in her world there would have been every reason to deal with it in the way she knows best - lie, lie, lie!!

Well, you sure have her character (or the lack, thereof) nailed!

 

[lin]

I think you may still be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that a rage killing mitigates murder, I'm saying that a murder in those circumstances (i.e a sudden loss of control) would not be premeditated murder, but rather 2nd or 3rd degree murder - most likely 2nd degree under Florida's statutes:

(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

As regards an accidental death, neither Kiki nor I are suggesting that Caylee may have died from a tragic accident for which no blame could be attached to another. Perhaps a better term for what we're describing might be an 'unintended death' for which KC bears at least some degree of blame, ranging perhaps from simply not providing adequate supervision and care to a definitive act of negligence.

Thanks for trying to clarify but I still don't understand.

KC is charged with murder 1 and you're suggesting that if a rage was part of the killing that may cause the charges to lessen to murder 2 or 3. That's what I meant by mitigating; lessening the charge. So maybe we're heading in the same direction on this, just taking different routes. Angry, in a rage or not, if it was premeditated, it's premeditated and would remain murder 1.

Where we part ways, I think, is that a rage at her parents can translate to a "sudden loss of control." If she had been enraged by her parents and murdered one of them, perhaps she could claim a "sudden loss of control." But to turn around and target that rage at someone else isn't "sudden" in my mind, nor is it a "loss of control." It's deliberately redirecting that rage to someone that can't fight back, imo.

I understand you're not excusing KC's actions, regardless of what they were. The child in her care died and you're just exploring the degree of KC's culpability; her guilt. What I haven't seen is a theory that is based solely on the evidence available and includes explanations for evidence that to my mind excludes any type of accident.

With no disrespect intended to anyone but just as an extreme example, we could come up with a theory that SONDI did it. But the evidence doesn't support it and there is evidence that contradicts that theory that must be explained for it to be a credible theory.

 

[lin]

Don't forget the aggravated circumstance that is added, when the child is that young, and dies at the hands of an adult.

Sorry, but I can't get past the duct tape, on this one.

I agree with the two legal precidents already cited-- there is no reason for layering a corpse with duct tape.

IMHO, if Caylee died as the result of an accident, KC would be out, even now.

Another thing... say KC accidently killed Caylee, or just let her die.

How would she know Caylee was dead, if she did not call 911? She is not able to read vital signs. And, unresponsive children can often (more often than adults) be resuscitated. According to my friend, a peds hospice nurse, children can go MUCH longer than adults, without breathing, before cerebral anoxia sets it.

I'm with you and the others who have posted that have actually been there, such as our dear MissJames. One doesn't look at a child and just throw in the towel. Oh well. One fights as hard as one can to save that child even after others are willing to give up. It just doesn't make rational sense to me.

An unplanned accident is by definition a surprise. So we're talking automatic or kneejerk reactions. I think anyone's reaction to seeing another human being, whether or not a child and whether or not someone close, is not to rush for the duct tape but instead to call for help. To expand on a hypothetical I've used before:

A nosy, ill tempered neighbor that you dislike intensely comes over to complain about something else and promptly dies at your home. You've discussed this neighbor with others in the most unflattering terms in the past. So you immediately fear you'll be held responsible and reflexively rush for the duct tape...

No, doesn't make sense to me. And this wasn't a disliked neighbor. This was a baby; her baby.

 

[MissJames]

Can someone please explain to me....if KC told LE she left the child with the nanny,ZFG,and that was the last KC has said,how would the defense be able to go to trial with an accident defense? How would they get their side "told" ,so to speak,when nothing KC ,or anyone ,has said leads to an accident.I'm sure there's a way,I'm just not clear on how they would do it.

 

[lin]

Bolded by me.

If I'm not mistaken, the 'aggravating factor' I think you're referring to is a consideration for the jury at the death penalty phase, but if the conviction was for 2nd degree murder then it would not be applicable.

Of course most adults would behave as you are saying if faced with a sudden accident, but I think we have to remember all we've learnt of KC's character. She is an immature, deceitful, cowardly manipulator who has been lying her way out of even the most insignificant of problems and unwanted situations for years. She doesn't appear to have faced up to responsibility for any of her adult life, so what makes you think that she would have suddenly grown a backbone when faced with the worst situation in her entire miserable existence? Even if she hadn't been negligent to any legally culpable degree, she may still have felt that she HAD murdered Caylee simply by not watching her properly, and therefore in her world there would have been every reason to deal with it in the way she knows best - lie, lie, lie!!

You're assuming she's taking any responsibility and considering all of this prior to calling for help, from my reading of your post. I'm focusing on the word "sudden" and considering what one's initial response would be. I don't think it's as you suggest, even for KC. KC's response to fear of protesters was to call LE. If this were an accident, I agree with you that KC would have done all she could to shift blame; it was GA's fault for leaving ladder down, etc. I highly, very highly doubt the improbable, imo, assertion that she immediately accepted blame and began covering up.

Remember, this is the girl that thought she could tell LE that the baby was at the nanny's sleeping and they'd have to accept it. I think you're giving her way too much credit for foresight and intelligence. It's not KC's assumption that she will ever be blamed with anything or that she can't talk her way out of it. That's not the pattern we've seen with her brazenly stealing money from accounts of family and friends; taking her parents a doctored deposit slip and on and on. This does not fit the pattern of the girl taking LE to her office at Universal. And so on and so on; all imho, of course.

Her behavior is much more consistent, imo, with a cold, planned murder, not a sudden 'surprise' accidental death. If you are correct, and we'll likely never know the truth as a certainty, then woe is her for taking such actions, making such statements and refusing to cooperate while the only possible proof that could have saved her deteriorated in the swamp where she discarded her baby.

 

[RR0004]

I'm with you and the others who have posted that have actually been there, such as our dear MissJames. One doesn't look at a child and just throw in the towel. Oh well. One fights as hard as one can to save that child even after others are willing to give up. It just doesn't make rational sense to me.

An unplanned accident is by definition a surprise. So we're talking automatic or kneejerk reactions. I think anyone's reaction to seeing another human being, whether or not a child and whether or not someone close, is not to rush for the duct tape but instead to call for help. To expand on a hypothetical I've used before:

A nosy, ill tempered neighbor that you dislike intensely comes over to complain about something else and promptly dies at your home. You've discussed this neighbor with others in the most unflattering terms in the past. So you immediately fear you'll be held responsible and reflexively rush for the duct tape...

No, doesn't make sense to me. And this wasn't a disliked neighbor. This was a baby; her baby.

...and add to that all the lies that were "consciously" spoken...long after the "alleged" incident...long after the initial shock had worn off...boggles the mind. It's one thing to perpetrate lies to cover-up the fact...it's another to keep them going. JMO

 

[lin]

Well, you sure have her character (or the lack, thereof) nailed!

Ditto; Devon nailed her lack of character; I just disagree with the application.

 

[RR0004]

Can someone please explain to me....if KC told LE she left the child with the nanny,ZFG,and that was the last KC has said,how would the defense be able to go to trial with an accident defense? How would they get their side "told" ,so to speak,when nothing KC ,or anyone ,has said leads to an accident.I'm sure there's a way,I'm just not clear on how they would do it.

I guess one way would be to go after the medical examiner's testimony.

 

[lin]

Can someone please explain to me....if KC told LE she left the child with the nanny,ZFG,and that was the last KC has said,how would the defense be able to go to trial with an accident defense? How would they get their side "told" ,so to speak,when nothing KC ,or anyone ,has said leads to an accident.I'm sure there's a way,I'm just not clear on how they would do it.

I agree; that's why I keep repeating that KC, the sole witness, has given a sworn statement excluding an accident.

 

[lin]

...and add to that all the lies that were "consciously" spoken...long after the "alleged" incident...long after the initial shock had worn off...boggles the mind. It's one thing to perpetrate lies to cover-up the fact...it's another to keep them going. JMO

I very, very strongly disagree with your assertion that it's "JMO" as in only yours. It's an opinion I heartily share, so it's mine too. :blowkiss:

 

[Brini]

I'm with you and the others who have posted that have actually been there, such as our dear MissJames. One doesn't look at a child and just throw in the towel. Oh well. One fights as hard as one can to save that child even after others are willing to give up. It just doesn't make rational sense to me.

An unplanned accident is by definition a surprise. So we're talking automatic or kneejerk reactions. I think anyone's reaction to seeing another human being, whether or not a child and whether or not someone close, is not to rush for the duct tape but instead to call for help. To expand on a hypothetical I've used before:

A nosy, ill tempered neighbor that you dislike intensely comes over to complain about something else and promptly dies at your home. You've discussed this neighbor with others in the most unflattering terms in the past. So you immediately fear you'll be held responsible and reflexively rush for the duct tape...

No, doesn't make sense to me. And this wasn't a disliked neighbor. This was a baby; her baby.

Or, let's say that KC is one of those people that just freeze. Deer in the headlights. Can't think of what to do, so they hold the baby and cry.

That kind of person doesn't go out and rent movie with the boy du jour. They don't go out an party.

They usually remain in shock, for days, weeks, or months. They stay in bed and cry, or just stay in bed in deep depression.

One never saw any shock, from KC.

 

[Brini]

I know SODDI. What's SONDI?

 

[lin]

I guess one way would be to go after the medical examiner's testimony.

Sure, they could ask "Is it possible?" But I think her answer would be "But unlikely." And depending on the type of accident suggested there may be forensic evidence that contradicts either by its presence or its absence.

See, they can ask all the experts 'Is it possible' but I don't see how they get around KC, the only witness, saying it wasn't so, without putting her on the stand. Of course, I'm no expert so may be wrong about that. One thing I am sure of, however, is that KC on the stand would be suicide by jury.

 

[lin]

Or, let's say that KC is one of those people that just freeze. Deer in the headlights. Can't think of what to do, so they hold the baby and cry.

That kind of person doesn't go out and rent movie with the boy du jour. They don't go out an party.

They usually remain in shock, for days, weeks, or months. They stay in bed and cry, or just stay in bed in deep depression.

One never saw any shock, from KC.

Excellent example of the long list of behavior that contradicts an unplanned event. One doesn't take a death in stride; especially of a child. Look how all of us have been affected by the loss of this baby and we're not her mother; most if not all of us never even met Caylee. I'd bet few of us were out renting movies on December 11, much less the titles she chose.

 

[lin]

I know SODDI. What's SONDI?

Some Other Nanny Did It

 

[RR0004]

I agree; that's why I keep repeating that KC, the sole witness, has given a sworn statement excluding an accident.

Could they claim that she wrote/signed the statement under duress?

 

[RR0004]

Ya know, I have to say that even now I don't think Casey takes responsibility for what happened...regardless of HOW it happened. So I don't get how she "felt" guilt. I replay in my mind some of the things she said/did...telling her mother she was going back to TL's after she was found, believing she was arrested on a "whim", chastising Christina in her first phone call. I don't see "responsibility" or "guilt" in her behavior. Wouldn't you feel guilty if you thought you were responsible? No, from what we know I don't see this as a cover-up for an accident.

 

[lin]

Marina2 -- Wanted to thank you publicly too. Your input and opinion is very much appreciated.