Reasonable doubt-Jury instructions and More #2

[Hollys G-mom]

Fact...Casey didn't report her daughter missing or call for help because of an accident.
Fact...Casey was the last person seen with Caylee alive.
Fact...Decomposing head hair of Caylee's was found in the trunk of Casey's car the exact day that Casey told the police that she had "spoken with" Caylee.
Fact...Caylee was found dead, and their were three layers of Henkle brand duct tape over her mouth and nose.
Fact...The Henkle tape would cause death to a anyone when applied in the manner it was found , thereby it IS what caused Caylee's death.
Fact...That particular tape found over Caylee's mouth and nose, came from the same source as the Henkle tape used at Casey's house.
NOW, the totality of THAT evidence tell me all I need to know.

Therefore, I conclude beyond any reasonable doubt, that while CASEY was putting the Henkle brand duct tape over the mouth AND nose of her daughter Caylee, she had the time to reflect that this MAY kill her daughter and chose to apply, both the second and third layers!

Is that what you are looking for Wudge, because, I think the three layers of duct tape prove pre-meditation in the application. Therefore, MURDER in the first degree, premeditated.

BBM Please link to document that proves that the duct tape from Caylee's remains was from the exact same source as roll found in the As home. The three layers of tape may prove pre-mediatation, however, it does not prove that Casey was the perpetrator.

 

[tweety933]

BBM Please link to document that proves that the duct tape from Caylee's remains was from the exact same source as roll found in the As home. The three layers of tape may prove pre-mediatation, however, it does not prove that Casey was the perpetrator.

pages 3793,3794,and 3795 of the discovery, in the FBI report. I found it at this link, and it's like the very last few pages of the document.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/4351078/Casey-Anthony-Documents-Released-Feb-18-2009

Hope that helps! I agree that it doesn't prove Casey put the duct tape there, but we have other evidence to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, IMO.

 

[Marina2]

I have really been thinking about what can be used to offer evidence that this was premedidated aside from what has been said so far.
Didn't Casey tell George that day, per his statements, that Zanny was watching Caylee that night and they wouldn't be home? If so, that was prior to her death and seems to show intent to do away with her, considering there is no Nanny and evidently she didn't arrange for George or Cindy to sit.
Otherwise she would have had to cancel her plans with Tony right? Tony has not said specifics about their plans that night, so depends on what he says too.


Maybe I'm just tired but think small picture here in terms of actual testimony used for evidentiary purposes.

GA's testimony as to when he last saw Caylee will come into the trial. Each juror will decide what evidentiary value his testimony holds. Do you find him to be a credible witness? Do you think he has a reason to lie about the last time he saw Caylee? Could he be mistaking the 16th for another day? Will any evidence be introduced that casts doubt on or disproves his version of events? Is it possible he only saw Casey on that day? If you have no reasonable doubt that his testimony is true then it holds that Caylee was alive at 12:50 on the 16th and that KC made that statement to him. Now, consider the statement. Has KC ever told her parents that her and Caylee will be staying at ZG's overnight? If yes, how often and for what reasons? Did she actually stay at ZG's on these occasions? Are there any reasons other than a plan to murder her child KC might tell her father not to expect her and Caylee home that night? Is it possible Caylee was already dead and the statement was postmeditation? If, after careful consideration, you decide that her statement can be used to infer intent to commit murder, will you stand by that decision during deliberation? Is your reasoning such that you can effectively argue your point to fellow jurors who don't share your view?

If it were me, I could not make that inference. It's interesting speculation now or something to think about if it's proven that KC murdered Caylee shortly after making a statement like that. But, for making an inference that KC is guilty of premeditated murder, it's useless to me.

 

[Wudge]

Major premise: KC had time for reflection in the moments it took to kill the baby.

Minor premise: The baby is dead.

Conclusion: KC is guilty of premeditated murder.

Dot, that represents improvement in form and some improvement in your premises. Unfortunately, it still contains a logical fallacy. This time, the logical fallacy is known as "begging the question", which means you are assuming what you wish to prove.

Your major premise is an assumption. It's not necessarily true.

Now, your minor premise is true. Work on getting your major premise to be both true and logically sufficient to validly and reliably force your desired conclusion; i.e., that Casey committed a premeditated murder.

(waving adieu)

 

[JBean]

The defense will definitely have to come up with an alternate theory to explain the duct tape. It will have to be reasonable. It isn't required that it's as reasonable as the prosecution's and there must be no evidence that excludes their theory. It will have to show no intent to kill or that KC wasn't the one who placed it.

If there's evidence that shows there was no intent to kill that will be presented by the defense. We aren't privy to that information yet.

ETA: So far, the alternate theories we've come up with don't seem to be very reasonable. We need to hear what the defense says.

I think they are going to go with KC wasn't the one that placed it. I think the defense is going to be KC wasn't there and didn't do it. jmho of course.

 

[FORDANIEL]

You may be right JBean,however I do feel that over a year in jail is about the same as 31 days! If you know or suspect SODDI,why would you allow your client to be imprisoned,EVERY opportunity has been presented for presenting the truth in this case,and it just has not happened.Are there huge amounts of money to be made for not coming forward?? Maybe.....

 

[Mystic]

I think they are going to go with KC wasn't the one that placed it. I think the defense is going to be KC wasn't there and didn't do it. jmho of course.

Yes, I'm thinking the defense is going to attempt to invalidate every piece of evidence and 'infer' numerous possible soddi's without clearly naming one positively. In an attempt to at least getting a hung jury. jmo If they had a bombshell story as JB seemed to allude to, they would have saturated the media with it for sure by now.

 

[lin]

I have really been thinking about what can be used to offer evidence that this was premedidated aside from what has been said so far.
Didn't Casey tell George that day, per his statements, that Zanny was watching Caylee that night and they wouldn't be home? If so, that was prior to her death and seems to show intent to do away with her, considering there is no Nanny and evidently she didn't arrange for George or Cindy to sit.
Otherwise she would have had to cancel her plans with Tony right? Tony has not said specifics about their plans that night, so depends on what he says too.


Maybe I'm just tired but think small picture here in terms of actual testimony used for evidentiary purposes.

Please allow me to think more big picture and 'think out loud' for a bit. I think it's likely the state will argue this as premeditation along with web searches showing she may have been thinking along these lines for months. It will be up to the jury to determine the weight they give it or how credible this is. Even JB, on cross, would know to ask if KC told him many times they were staying the night at Z's and GA, whether true or not, would likely answer in the affirmative. And on those other occasions, Caylee came back home. As a juror, I wouldn't find GA very credible in general and wouldn't give this particular testimony much weight toward premeditation even if I did. BUT, right or wrong, when taken in totality with the other evidence, it may actually start to gain weight, as if fed a daily diet of the most decadent chocolate cake throughout the trial.

[ame=http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3986925&postcount=739]Tuba described it best in the old thread, here.[/ame]


See, at first we can pick it apart, as above. But when such testimony is followed up with the Blockbuster video it seems a lot more incriminating. Oh but she was at the nanny's... Except the nanny doesn't exist. So where was she? KC had plans when she left her home, that much can be inferred from GA's testimony. And her plans could have been as before, with Caylee in Ricardo's bed or sleeping on a couch during a raucous party. But the video shows that her plan wasn't as before. Her plan was to be with TonE at Blockbuster.

But wait! Maybe she was going to Ricardo's and then TonE called; we can't know what her plan was when she left the house! Maybe when she left the house, she intended it to be like the other times but then the plan changed to include TonE and to NOT include Caylee. We know the Blockbuster video didn't include Caylee and no reasonable explanation has been given for her whereabouts. We know that Caylee was in the sole care, custody and control of her mother. (Washington)

Unless and until the defense can show anything to indicate SODDI or SONDI did it, or had the opportunity to do it, then the logical inference that will be drawn by 12 reasonable people, just using their common sense, will be that KC is the only one with the opportunity and the only one who could have done it.

Then they have to figure out what the "it" is in this case.

There is, to date, to my knowledge, absolutely zero evidence of an accident and there is evidence inconsistent with an accident. Sure, the duct tape could have been placed after death, but is it reasonable? I don't think so and repeat again that the Huck court agrees with me as do numerous reasonable people on this forum. In context with the totality of the evidence, (see the evidence thread where I totally stole your ideas and posts; starting at post #256 here), I think an accident will be ruled out, even if one is "possible." Just like a neighbor could have stolen a cookie through the window in JBean's instructive story, based on what we know now, it's not reasonable to infer this.

Ruling out an accident for the sake of argument so I don't have to quote the entire thread, what is left? Negligence? There is zero proof that Caylee died through her mother's negligence and the duct tape, again, among other things causes this to fail. One would have to go way out on a limb and make all sorts of excuses for accident/negligence to be accepted. And one can. But is it reasonable? No more reasonable than the possibility the neighbor came through the window, imo, when taken in context with the totality of the evidence which is what the jury must consider.

There is no cause of death. That may make it harder at first but I think when the state lays out all the circumstantial evidence, all will become clear. This lack necessarily means there is no evidence of accidental drowning, heat related death, etc. Other than KC's testimony, how on earth will the defense be able to introduce evidence of same and will they? Yes, they can ask questions of the state's witnesses, 'Is it possible Caylee drowned?' but do we expect the witness to merely state 'yes' without adding 'but based on the evidence it's unlikely?' Or that the state wouldn't redirect on any such testimony to clarify? A mere possibility that an accident befell Caylee does not equate reasonable doubt under the law.

Based on what we know right now, I think they're going with SONDI. And that's going to fail. How will they explain her "ugly coping?" And how will they explain 31 days of not reporting her child missing? Perhaps most importantly, how will they explain KC's written sworn statements that Caylee was in the custody of someone who does not exist? I can think of no defense theory that isn't excluded by some evidence or another. And remember all those cases posted on the last thread about false exculpatory statements (SONDI) may be used to infer consciousness of guilt as can her statements to evade investigation and prosecution. (She's sleeping at the Nanny's right now; they're at the beach; etc. etc.) I think 'consciousness of guilt' is overwhelmingly proven. I also think what that guilt is, is also overwhelmingly proven.

Again, based on the totality of the evidence and the lack of any theory or evidence from the defense, based on what we know right now, I believe 12 reasonable people will be left with no reasonable doubt that Caylee was murdered at the hands of her mother.

JMCO (Just My Considered Opinion) based on all of the evidence to which we have been privy to thusfar and subject to change if contradictory or other reasonable theories are presented. I'm looking forward to reading same from other posters. Maybe there is evidence I haven't considered.

Sorry for such a long post but your post really got me to thinking, Imbackon. (And we all know how dangerous that is!)

 

[lin]

BBM Please link to document that proves that the duct tape from Caylee's remains was from the exact same source as roll found in the As home. The three layers of tape may prove pre-mediatation, however, it does not prove that Casey was the perpetrator.

Not alone but as part of the totality of the evidence, imo.

 

[lin]

GA's testimony as to when he last saw Caylee will come into the trial. Each juror will decide what evidentiary value his testimony holds. Do you find him to be a credible witness? Do you think he has a reason to lie about the last time he saw Caylee? Could he be mistaking the 16th for another day? Will any evidence be introduced that casts doubt on or disproves his version of events? Is it possible he only saw Casey on that day? If you have no reasonable doubt that his testimony is true then it holds that Caylee was alive at 12:50 on the 16th and that KC made that statement to him. Now, consider the statement. Has KC ever told her parents that her and Caylee will be staying at ZG's overnight? If yes, how often and for what reasons? Did she actually stay at ZG's on these occasions? Are there any reasons other than a plan to murder her child KC might tell her father not to expect her and Caylee home that night? Is it possible Caylee was already dead and the statement was postmeditation? If, after careful consideration, you decide that her statement can be used to infer intent to commit murder, will you stand by that decision during deliberation? Is your reasoning such that you can effectively argue your point to fellow jurors who don't share your view?

If it were me, I could not make that inference. It's interesting speculation now or something to think about if it's proven that KC murdered Caylee shortly after making a statement like that. But, for making an inference that KC is guilty of premeditated murder, it's useless to me.

Nice job, thanks. I'd really appreciate your feedback on the book I wrote, above.

 

[lin]

I think they are going to go with KC wasn't the one that placed it. I think the defense is going to be KC wasn't there and didn't do it. jmho of course.

So far they've indicated nothing else.

 

[lin]

Yes, I'm thinking the defense is going to attempt to invalidate every piece of evidence and 'infer' numerous possible soddi's without clearly naming one positively. In an attempt to at least getting a hung jury. jmo If they had a bombshell story as JB seemed to allude to, they would have saturated the media with it for sure by now.

With a 2 year old, though, it's going to be very, very difficult to show opportunity for any SODDI theory.

 

[Brini]

With a 2 year old, though, it's going to be very, very difficult to show opportunity for any SODDI theory.

Exactly!

If Caylee was taken away from her mother, her mother knows by whom, when, and how.

And adult can disappear in the parking lot of a supermarket. A two-year-old is constantly supervised.

 

[Devon]

The difference is that KC had approximately three minutes to remove the duct tape after having placed it. Your aggressive kicker could be in a rage during the kicking and not reflecting on his actions until it's too late to undo the last fatal kick.

Assuming for a minute that KC applied the duct tape to an alive Caylee, what evidence shows that she could not have been in a rage both when applying it and for several minutes afterwards, until it was too late?

 

[lin]

Assuming for a minute that KC applied the duct tape to an alive Caylee, what evidence shows that she could not have been in a rage both when applying it and for several minutes afterwards, until it was too late?

Unfortunately for her, there is likewise no evidence to show she was in a rage (again, what did the 34 month old do to provoke her mother?) but there is evidence to exclude it, imo.

 

[Brini]

Yes, I'm thinking the defense is going to attempt to invalidate every piece of evidence and 'infer' numerous possible soddi's without clearly naming one positively. In an attempt to at least getting a hung jury. jmo If they had a bombshell story as JB seemed to allude to, they would have saturated the media with it for sure by now.

Sounds like SP's attempt at a defense-- the gypsies, the hippies, the satanists.

Or, what's his name? Jeffrey MacDonald.

 

[lin]

I was unable to find any reference specifically to "rage" as an affirmative defense to murder under FL law, so if you know where to find it, please advise. I did, however find "heat of passion" (same as rage in this context, imo) as an affirmative defense to attempted murder. Even if it can be used, I would assume it would be similar to the attempted murder instruction:

EXCUSABLE ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE

The attempted killing of a human being is excusable and therefore lawful under any one of the three following circumstances:
1. When the attempted killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
2. When the attempted killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
3. When the attempted killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the attempted killing is not done in a cruel and unusual manner.

Florida Standar Jury Instructions pdf file

 

[Shear22]

Unfortunately for her, there is likewise no evidence to show she was in a rage (again, what did the 34 month old do to provoke her mother?) but there is evidence to exclude it, imo.

Plus, applying duct tape is not the type of action someone undertakes when in a rage. I associate rage with kicking, punching, stabbing, shaking, etc. but not with pulling out a strip of duct tape, ripping or cutting it off, applying it to the face, pulling another strip off, etc. A rage is kind of like an adult version of a child's tantrum. You lash out without really thinking about what you're doing. Applying duct tape during a rage is like a toddler applying stickers to someone during a tantrum.

And as a more specific answer to Devon's question, assuming somehow that the three pieces of duct tape were applied during a rage (which I don't buy because of what I just said in the other paragraph) what was KC doing in those next 2-3 minutes to continue her rage? It's not like she taped her up and then bashed her head against the floor because we would have evidence of that.

 

[lin]

Plus, applying duct tape is not the type of action someone undertakes when in a rage. I associate rage with kicking, punching, stabbing, shaking, etc. but not with pulling out a strip of duct tape, ripping or cutting it off, applying it to the face, pulling another strip off, etc. A rage is kind of like an adult version of a child's tantrum. You lash out without really thinking about what you're doing. Applying duct tape during a rage is like a toddler applying stickers to someone during a tantrum.
And as a more specific answer to Devon's question, assuming somehow that the three pieces of duct tape were applied during a rage (which I don't buy because of what I just said in the other paragraph) what was KC doing in those next 2-3 minutes to continue her rage? It's not like she taped her up and then bashed her head against the floor because we would have evidence of that.

Perfect line bbm

ITA -- there is too much that contradicts a rage murder, imo, and whatever her rage, if it existed, was based on wouldn't fall under the provisions of Florida law. 34 month old Caylee provoked (to a legal standard) her own mother into a murderous rage?

 

[Devon]

There is, to date, to my knowledge, absolutely zero evidence of an accident and there is evidence inconsistent with an accident. Sure, the duct tape could have been placed after death, but is it reasonable? I don't think so and repeat again that the Huck court agrees with me as do numerous reasonable people on this forum. In context with the totality of the evidence, (see the evidence thread where I totally stole your ideas and posts; starting at post #256 here), I think an accident will be ruled out, even if one is "possible." Just like a neighbor could have stolen a cookie through the window in JBean's instructive story, based on what we know now, it's not reasonable to infer this.

Ruling out an accident for the sake of argument so I don't have to quote the entire thread, what is left? Negligence? There is zero proof that Caylee died through her mother's negligence and the duct tape, again, among other things causes this to fail. One would have to go way out on a limb and make all sorts of excuses for accident/negligence to be accepted. And one can. But is it reasonable? No more reasonable than the possibility the neighbor came through the window, imo, when taken in context with the totality of the evidence which is what the jury must consider.

There is no cause of death. That may make it harder at first but I think when the state lays out all the circumstantial evidence, all will become clear. This lack necessarily means there is no evidence of accidental drowning, heat related death, etc. Other than KC's testimony, how on earth will the defense be able to introduce evidence of same and will they? Yes, they can ask questions of the state's witnesses, 'Is it possible Caylee drowned?' but do we expect the witness to merely state 'yes' without adding 'but based on the evidence it's unlikely?' Or that the state wouldn't redirect on any such testimony to clarify? A mere possibility that an accident befell Caylee does not equate reasonable doubt under the law.

Snipped
Some evidence that supports accidental drowning (not necessarily exhaustive):

1)The high levels of chloroform found in the trunk. It's possible that this was the result of early stage decomposition in very oxygen-deprived conditions (enclosed car trunk plus trash bags) combined with ingestion of, and saturation in, chlorinated water.

2)The hair mat. This may have been the result of wet, chlorine soaked hair drying in a clump under the skull after the body was wrapped and laid down in the trunk.

3)No shoes or socks found in the car or with the body.

4)The T shirt. This appears to have completely rotted away, except for some 'stitching' and a label. Some fragments of a 'light coloured' fabric were found adhered to the shoulder blade and arm bone. I think it possible that a chlorine soaked pink cotton T shirt might well fade to a 'light' colour, stick to and remain present in some form on areas of the body that are pressing down/lying on it (shoulder/upper arm), but completely disintegrate otherwise. The lettering may have survived because it was a different and tougher fabric weave/structure. Chlorinated water rots fabrics - Fact. (Just see what happens to your swimwear if you don't ever rinse the chlorine out!). Most garments/fabrics would not disintegrate to this extent after just 6 months, even if they'd been subject to adverse weather conditions.

5) The shorts - The trunk bones and upper leg bones were found in a different location from the shorts. This suggests to me that the shorts were not on the body, otherwise I think it more probable that they would have been dragged to the same location with these body parts. The report suggests that this movement by animal activity must have occurred when there was sufficient soft tissue present to hold the trunk and upper limbs together, so it's reasonable to assume that if the shorts were on the body they would have been moved with it. The shorts were also in fairly good condition - unlike the T shirt.

If a small child wanted to get into a pool by themselves, they would most probably take off their shorts/trousers/skirt and socks and shoes. If they are used to wearing a diaper in the pool this would probably be left on. A T shirt on the other hand is not always an easy garment for a toddler to wriggle out of, plus they may be used to keeping one on sometimes for added sun protection.

6)The fatty acids found on the paper towels. These acids appear not to be from the 'decomp fluid' that caused the stain on the trunk carpet, so it's likely that the towels were not used to try and clean that up. The acids are from body fat and suggest the presence of adipocere (grave wax). This substance is normally present in bodies that have either been buried in cool soil or kept in wet or moist conditions. Apparently bodies kept in plastic bags may be more prone to the formation of this substance, but I have seen another article that suggests that it doesn't appear in very warm conditions, so it's possible that although the bags kept the body warm (so limiting formation) the contents of the bag were wet (so creating the conditions for formation).

7) The evidence that the yard gate was found left open on 17 June and the pool ladder left in situ. This evidence carries some weight because CA's work colleague has testified that CA told her about it just days after it was apparently discovered - i.e. several weeks before anyone knew that Caylee was not with KC.