Reasonable doubt-Jury instructions and More #2

[Brini]

I never suggested that chlorinated water is sufficiently concentrated to produce a high level of chlorine in the trunk, neither did I refer to chlorine levels in human decomp.

I was referring to a possibility that in a case where a human corpse may have been immersed in chlorinated water prior to death, and where the water may have been ingested, and where the corpse may have been subsequently wrapped up still dressed in clothing that had also been immersed, this may have had an effect on the amount of chloroform found in the trunk, which is a natural product of human decomp. especially in the early stages. The level of chloroform found, although described as being present in 'high' levels, was only actually 'high' in terms of what is 'normally' expected in early stage decomp.

Do you know of any forensic evidence that shows that where a body is decomposing in such circumstances there could not be a higher level of chloroform produced than is 'normal'?

P.S. Please don't call me 'honey' - whether or not it is intended to be, I personally find the context in which it was used to be condescending.

No condescemtion intended, but will do.

I don't believe the report qualified the level of chloroform, in quite that way. IIRC.

I believe it just said "high."


Yep! Just reviewed. No, the finding of high degree of chloroform was treated as separate from the finding of chemicals of human decomp, in the repot. And, there was no such qualification.

Specifically, certain chemicals were cited, AND ALSO the trunk contained a high level of chloroform.

Thanks!

Any chloroform in early human decomp would be trace, BTW.

 

[MissJames]

(respectfully snipped) I do have children--four--and am a grandmother as well. No one suggested neatly folded and Devon's theory has both a ring of familiarity and is entirely plausible from my experience w toddlers. This is the same age as a granddaughter of mine currently, and close to the age of my youngest daughter at the time. I can easily envision this scenario (ie partially undressing, removing shoes etc) it makes as much sense as anything.

Yes consciousness of guilt on some level but of what? There is more than one level of culpability. Because you or I could muster courage to confess to a lesser act of negligence does not mean that KC, raised the way she was in that present state of fear, panic and/or defensiveness, possessed the composure to admit a lesser degree of responsibility. It may not have been the State, but the detection and prosecution of her own mother which posed the greatest threat to KC's narcissistic, underdeveloped and immature conscience. And in order to deny any responsibility whatsoever, it may have become necessary in her mind, her twisted psyche, to deflect even the blame for negligence. Anyone who does not comprehend this possibility has never known a desperate, self-preserving, blameshifting young "adult" (using loosely here) with their back against the wall. I have known such a person. She is 21 years old with a three year-old. We just didn't have a pool in our backyard eg, nor an enabling or excusing parent... but had the same circumstances occurred I can not honestly say how she would've reacted. I want to believe the grace in her life could permit her to own up to an act of negligence and spare her the "need" to cover up or stage something so elaborate. Permissiveness--which only increases license-- is not the same thing as grace, which holds a child accountable but does not shame or condemn.

Devon and Wudge are the only ones NOT making a truckload of assumptions here. KC's statements belie reality... but conflict no less and no more or are equally contradictory to the kidnapping story as to an accidental scenario.

Jbean c'mon admit it, you know you've missed me lolol :floorlaugh:
:blowkiss:
arrot:

In reading back over CA's FBI interview I noticed she stated two things about KC ,while she hoped Caylee was still alive. Sha said that if there had been an accident KC would have cracked by now and told the truth.She said KC wouldn't put the family through this.
Another thing CA said was that KC would not protect anyone else if they were responsible for Caylee's death.
As a mother myself,and a parent who lost a child suddenly ,I just can't wrap my mind around someone not trying to get help or putting duct tape over their dead child's mouth. Then carrying on for a month as though nothing was wrong! No way.
Luckily it makes no sense to the FL Supreme Court,either.In case you missed it KIKi,they ruled in the Huck case that there was no reasonable explanation for putting duct tape over a person's mouth after their death [thanks again,Jolynna!]
If you play out the scenario in your head,does it really make sense?I mean,really,consider all the actions one would have to take,while at the same time dealing with a sudden ,unexpected death of a beloved child. Let me put this duct tape on first,then get her in the trunk.Now out for a movie run with TonE. Oh wow,my precious little girl is starting to smell.I better bag her up .Whew,that was difficult,but now I'll go shower and hop on down to Fusions.
When you are faced with a sudden,unexpected death of your child [which is what an accidental death would be] there is also a physical reaction.You go into shock,shake,have difficulty thinking and forming cohesive thoughts.You simply can't pull yourself together and act like nothing happened,not if you loved your child.I know everyone is different,but there is a universal reaction so to speak. Taping up your child ,putting her in garbage bags and throwing her away is not one of them.That's someone that was glad to be rid of a child and could carry on because they were happy,not grieving.
Would KC sit in jail on a DP charge if she could explain an accident?

ETA another thought. The way Casey disposed of Caylee is very telling.If there had been an accident you would think KC would at least try to find a better place for her child,maybe bury her or take her to a special place.Casey showed no love for Caylee,even in death.She bagged her up and left her to rot in the woods.

 

[MissJames]

Assume you are correct and a 2 year old was left with unfettered access to an above ground pool with the ladder installed and no barrier or fencing. She therefore lacked adult supervision that would violate the ordinary standard of care. Since she was solely in KC's custody at that time, KC, as mother and sole custodian, would be the one criminally responsible. It would not be an excusable homicide since that requires the defendant to have met the ordinary standard of care. No reasonable person leaves a 2 year old unattended with unfettered access to a swimming pool period.

It wouldn't get her the Death Penalty,either.C'mon .Drownings happen every day in this country.I don't think KC would sit in jail if she could explain an accident.

 

[Themis]

It wouldn't get her the Death Penalty,either.C'mon .Drownings happen every day in this country.I don't think KC would sit in jail if she could explain an accident.

I agree with you, Miss James. The quoted part just discusses Devon's theory of ACCIDENTAL drowning; as if it would be free from criminal prosecution.

It is possible for a drowning to be premeditated murder. If they could prove that leaving a 2 year old with unsupervised access to the pool WITH THE INTENTION that drowning would be the means chosen to kill the 2 year old, then it COULD be premeditated murder. Generally, evidence of that kind of intent is hard to come by.

Sadly, children drowning in pools does happen with some frequency. So do murders. Prosecutors do have prosecutorial discretion. Sometimes, the parents or person responsible is so grief stricken that more prosecution and punishment would be counter productive for the parents/custodian, family and community. Even when they do charge criminal charges for such drownings it is more along the lines of a homicide that doesn't require specific intent to kill, like negligent manslaughter. Those charges are not subject to the death penalty.

 

[Themis]

I never suggested that such a situation would be excusable homicide, just as I never suggested that a killing during a rage episode would be. If a child drowned or met with some other accident whilst in the care of a person deemed to have a duty to protect then the question would be one of legal culpability. If culpable negligence was proved then a conviction for manslaughter could follow.

As for killing in a rage, isn't that what the charges of 2nd or 3rd degree murder are supposed to cover?

As to your second paragraph's question. Yes. As to your first, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I agree with what you said here.

 

[Themis]

No it does not. My notes in bold:

EXCUSABLE HOMICIDE § 782.03, Fla.Stat. The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:

1. When the 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 Duct taping your child is neither an accident nor misfortune during a lawful act. Does not qualify.

2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or Again applying duct tape is not an accident and a toddler tantrum or lack of a babysitter is not going to rise to the level of sudden and sufficient provocation. Does not qualify.


3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner. She didn't find herself in sudden combat with a 2 year old, and the killing was cruel and unusual. Does not qualify.

Examples of excusable homicide in Florida: An attempt is made to car jack a driver. Deceased had a pellet gun and took $15. Driver pursues the deceased and runs the man over. Jury accepted circumstances as heat of the moment and that they believed he only meant to knock the man to the ground, not kill him.

Most recently the fight in the McDonald's parking lot where the deceased was the aggressor, the defendant was military trained and put the deceased in a chokehold to subdue him and killed him. State ruled it excusable.

In both of the examples in paragraph 3, the jury used excusable homicide as a way to let a defendant off the hook when that defendant had been the victim. The second example is more like self defense, which is clearly excusable. The first one hinged on an intent issue, more like the finding of a lover in bed with another -- the "heat of passion" or "heat of the moment" was what followed the victimization of the person in the first place. These are consistent. Being angry with a 2 year old would not give rise to the same legal issue and result.

 

[kiki the parrot]

Sorry.. anyone who can callously rob her disabled grandfather's account to buy herself goodies, then lie and scream obscenities back at her parents when confronted is not a timid broken blossom.

KC has never lost touch with reality. She is, and was, oriented to person, place, time, and situation. That she is "afraid." is belied by the fact that she has taken on both GA and CA, head to head, on several situations. Remember GA and his "f---ing gas cans." And, CA challenging hjer for answers, then backing down (at the jail).

KC has certainly not been confused by fear or panic in the many instances where she has robbed friends and family, then constructed a complex of lies. CA has had to pillage her 401K account to pay off KC's victims.

KC is a common-as-dirt sociopath. Hard as nails, manipulative and mendacious. She is very dangerous, because she could have another baby. She could also have a husband with a fat life insurance policy, when she needs cash.

She has never shown any signs/symptoms of shock or disorientation. Only anger, when her will is blocked.

I DO agree that she was overindulged. However, adults still have to choose to grow up, or not. She knew and knows what the penalties are for murder. She would happily and easily throw innocents under the bus for her crime.

IMHO, they only thing she has ever feared was getting caught.

The issue here is that a two-year old baby died at the hands of her mother. There is a mountain of evidence that will prove that. That baby was helpless, and entirely dependent on the one who took her life. There is also the danger that is she gets off, she could do it, again.

And, if KC deserves sympathy, why not SP? Why not all others who kill their kids? Their spouses?

No sympathy here.

I never said KC was timid, only lacking in character.

I never said KC herself wasn't in touch w reality or disoriented, I was simply pointing out that KC's entire "story," all her statements "belied" or weren't based in reality.

I never said KC was not a sociopath. In fact I have posted extensively to the opposite effect and (in my unprofessional opinion) undoubtedly has severe narcissistic traits at the least.

I never said she deserved sympathy. Nor did I ever once suggest her actions should continue being excused--I am quite familiar with the history of this case and have repeatedly stated that was the problem all along. Nor certainly did I ever say she should "walk free!"

And the last thing you will ever hear from ME--fierce child's and victim's advocate--is that any victim should not receive the full of the justice system nor that ANY perp should fail to be held accountable Even this implication is offensive.




arrot:

 

[kiki the parrot]

In reading back over CA's FBI interview I noticed she stated two things about KC ,while she hoped Caylee was still alive. Sha said that if there had been an accident KC would have cracked by now and told the truth.She said KC wouldn't put the family through this.
Another thing CA said was that KC would not protect anyone else if they were responsible for Caylee's death.
As a mother myself,and a parent who lost a child suddenly ,I just can't wrap my mind around someone not trying to get help or putting duct tape over their dead child's mouth. Then carrying on for a month as though nothing was wrong! No way.
Luckily it makes no sense to the FL Supreme Court,either.In case you missed it KIKi,they ruled in the Huck case that there was no reasonable explanation for putting duct tape over a person's mouth after their death [thanks again,Jolynna!]
If you play out the scenario in your head,does it really make sense?I mean,really,consider all the actions one would have to take,while at the same time dealing with a sudden ,unexpected death of a beloved child. Let me put this duct tape on first,then get her in the trunk.Now out for a movie run with TonE. Oh wow,my precious little girl is starting to smell.I better bag her up .Whew,that was difficult,but now I'll go shower and hop on down to Fusions.
When you are faced with a sudden,unexpected death of your child [which is what an accidental death would be] there is also a physical reaction.You go into shock,shake,have difficulty thinking and forming cohesive thoughts.You simply can't pull yourself together and act like nothing happened,not if you loved your child.I know everyone is different,but there is a universal reaction so to speak. Taping up your child ,putting her in garbage bags and throwing her away is not one of them.That's someone that was glad to be rid of a child and could carry on because they were happy,not grieving.
Would KC sit in jail on a DP charge if she could explain an accident?

ETA another thought. The way Casey disposed of Caylee is very telling.If there had been an accident you would think KC would at least try to find a better place for her child,maybe bury her or take her to a special place.Casey showed no love for Caylee,even in death.She bagged her up and left her to rot in the woods.

(bbm) First I am sorry to hear of your heartbreaking loss. I have never lost a child, however my mother has and I lost a brother. I'm happy to respond to your post--and to anyone else's that is thoughtful--and respectful-- and will not blast or browbeat me for having another opinion

CA has been denying and excusing all of KC's behavior from Day One so it should come as no surprise she took up for her during the interview you mention, and "normalized' what KC's reaction might be to a hypothetical act of KC's negligence. In truth, that oblivion by CA toward KC--toward her stealing, pregnancy, everything we've learned about--was her trademark denial. Of course she would say this while trying to promote her daughter's total innocence of culpability on any level whatsoever.

The normal grief you experienced, the heartbreak you describe, is presumably where there was no responsibility, or culpability whatsoever. That is far from the circumstances which either Devon or I have been entertaining. IF there were a death by negligence; and IF it was a death by means of which CA had incessantly warned KC eg; and IF she realized in that instant there was nothing that could restore Caylee or bring her back... but plotted from that point merely to save HERSELF (not much of a stretch for any of us) then it DOES make sense to me that she would stage something to distance herself from it ENTIRELY, ie w the appearance of something of which she would appear INCAPABLE.

I think it's also clear from everything we know and have heard testimony of that KC is one of those individuals who will take something to it's farthest point--as when leading detectives down the hallway to an office she knew she didn't have. Therefore it should also come as no surprise that KC would take all her staging efforts to their uttermost possible limits including making it look like a brutal kidnapper stranger-perpetrated crime in hopes of avoiding the association or suggestion of acquaintance, or family. (Tucking her in w Mama, in her favorite blanket, would hardly deflect attention from herself or support her claims of stranger abduction.) Or that she would now walk her story on past the guards, down the hallway to the extreme Eleventh Hour... and perhaps even to Death Row.

This is admittedly one of the most gruesome set of facts the way in which poor Caylee was disposed. You will get positively no argument from me there. And I think we'd both be accurate in saying she would never sacrifice her freedom for anyone but KC. I only am here on this thread because of it's title: and there IS reasonable doubt imo because the only thing any of us can say for certain with what facts we have at this point is that the cover-up was heinous. We do not know the exact cause or circumstance of her actual death.

Again, I am sorry for your own personal loss. :hug:

arrot:

 

[RR0004]

(respectfully snipped) I do have children--four--and am a grandmother as well. No one suggested neatly folded and Devon's theory has both a ring of familiarity and is entirely plausible from my experience w toddlers. This is the same age as a granddaughter of mine currently, and close to the age of my youngest daughter at the time. I can easily envision this scenario (ie partially undressing, removing shoes etc) it makes as much sense as anything.

Yes consciousness of guilt on some level but of what? There is more than one level of culpability. Because you or I could muster courage to confess to a lesser act of negligence does not mean that KC, raised the way she was in that present state of fear, panic and/or defensiveness, possessed the composure to admit a lesser degree of responsibility. It may not have been the State, but the detection and prosecution of her own mother which posed the greatest threat to KC's narcissistic, underdeveloped and immature conscience. And in order to deny any responsibility whatsoever, it may have become necessary in her mind, her twisted psyche, to deflect even the blame for negligence. Anyone who does not comprehend this possibility has never known a desperate, self-preserving, blameshifting young "adult" (using loosely here) with their back against the wall. I have known such a person. She is 21 years old with a three year-old. We just didn't have a pool in our backyard eg, nor an enabling or excusing parent... but had the same circumstances occurred I can not honestly say how she would've reacted. I want to believe the grace in her life could permit her to own up to an act of negligence and spare her the "need" to cover up or stage something so elaborate. Permissiveness--which only increases license-- is not the same thing as grace, which holds a child accountable but does not shame or condemn.

Devon and Wudge are the only ones NOT making a truckload of assumptions here. KC's statements belie reality... but conflict no less and no more or are equally contradictory to the kidnapping story as to an accidental scenario.

Jbean c'mon admit it, you know you've missed me lolol :floorlaugh:
:blowkiss:
arrot:

Would she really be willing to put her own life on the line? Because that's what it has come down to. I see her as being way too selfish to sacrifice herself.

 

[lin]

(respectfully snipped) I do have children--four--and am a grandmother as well. No one suggested neatly folded and Devon's theory has both a ring of familiarity and is entirely plausible from my experience w toddlers. This is the same age as a granddaughter of mine currently, and close to the age of my youngest daughter at the time. I can easily envision this scenario (ie partially undressing, removing shoes etc) it makes as much sense as anything.

Yes consciousness of guilt on some level but of what? There is more than one level of culpability. Because you or I could muster courage to confess to a lesser act of negligence does not mean that KC, raised the way she was in that present state of fear, panic and/or defensiveness, possessed the composure to admit a lesser degree of responsibility. It may not have been the State, but the detection and prosecution of her own mother which posed the greatest threat to KC's narcissistic, underdeveloped and immature conscience. And in order to deny any responsibility whatsoever, it may have become necessary in her mind, her twisted psyche, to deflect even the blame for negligence. Anyone who does not comprehend this possibility has never known a desperate, self-preserving, blameshifting young "adult" (using loosely here) with their back against the wall. I have known such a person. She is 21 years old with a three year-old. We just didn't have a pool in our backyard eg, nor an enabling or excusing parent... but had the same circumstances occurred I can not honestly say how she would've reacted. I want to believe the grace in her life could permit her to own up to an act of negligence and spare her the "need" to cover up or stage something so elaborate. Permissiveness--which only increases license-- is not the same thing as grace, which holds a child accountable but does not shame or condemn.

Devon and Wudge are the only ones NOT making a truckload of assumptions here. KC's statements belie reality... but conflict no less and no more or are equally contradictory to the kidnapping story as to an accidental scenario.

Jbean c'mon admit it, you know you've missed me lolol :floorlaugh:
:blowkiss:
arrot:

Although I really think these accidental death arguments would be more appropriate on the accidental death thread, I'll continue to play along and ask you to please show how anyone, including the named posters, can posit an accident theory based on the evidence we have and "NOT" make assumptions, with all due respect to you and to them. If you're correct, I certainly missed it and hope you'll explain. If I'm misunderstanding your meaning, I do hope you'll rephrase/amend so as not to insult the rest of us. I strongly suggest you read the [ame=http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80908]'no accident' thread[/ame] and submit this entire thread as part of my argument against the possibility of an accidental death of any kind.

I fully agree with you that Devon did not state the clothes were neatly folded. Although you also quoted it, I've repeated that part of my post here so there is no misunderstanding my intent by others:

“(I know you didn't imply that but that's kind of the picture that comes to my mind.) “

You wrote you can envision the partial undressing, but would you please clarify whether or not you have actually seen such a circumstance? We have a pool as do others in our family and circle and so have had the opportunity to observe 2 years olds around swimming pools both above and inground many, many times over throughout the years, including within the last week, and have never seen such a thing. Even if I'm the only one on earth that hasn't observed such behavior, it's still quite a leap to make the assumption that's what happened and that it supports an accidental death theory, from the evidence we have imo.

There is quite a bit of evidence to contradict the accidental drowning theory. Again, given the nature of this thread, I'm speaking of legal standards which do not include “mere possibility” such as a pool ladder being down, if it was actually down. I assume there were some toxic substances in the home that she could have consumed but have no evidence to support this and therefore, legally, must discount it as a 'mere possibility' that doesn't come close to meeting the standard of reasonable doubt. Based on what we know now, which is all we can use without speculating or assuming facts not in evidence, what evidence could be presented to support this theory? There is no witness other than KC and KC has specifically denied the possibility of an accident. There is no report of chlorine or pool chemical traces found with the remains or any of the items found with/near the remains as far as I know

For that matter, where is your evidence to support your assumption that KC was in a panic, scared or any of the other characterizations ascribed to her? Because it may be normal for you or I? But you've already discounted what may apply to you or I as being applicable to KC.

If you choose to share an accidental drowning theory please include your interpretation/explanation for the following from my earlier post:

"IF we accept the premise of an accidental drowning initially, it is belied by the false exculpatory and other statements to avoid detection/prosecution that may be used to show consciousness of guilt. It is belied by placing the duct tape [over] the airways of the child prior to decomposition. It is belied by KC's behavior both before and after the alleged drowning. It is belied by KC sitting in jail for going on a year without speaking up about it. Perhaps to no one but me, but it is strongly, very, very strongly belied by failing to place the 'mama' doll with Caylee's remains.
The accidental drowning theory fails from the onset as in total contradiction to the sworn statement of the only known person who was there -- KC herself. "

(emphasis added)

ETA: correct word last paragraph; [over]

 

[lin]

I never suggested that such a situation would be excusable homicide, just as I never suggested that a killing during a rage episode would be. If a child drowned or met with some other accident whilst in the care of a person deemed to have a duty to protect then the question would be one of legal culpability. If culpable negligence was proved then a conviction for manslaughter could follow.

As for killing in a rage, isn't that what the charges of 2nd or 3rd degree murder are supposed to cover?

One of us has misunderstood Themis, imo. I don't think she's suggesting that you did; I think she's explaining to us the 'what if' your theory is proven to be correct, the next steps in the process.

Do you have any authorities to support rage as mitigation? Not being snarky but don't want to just guess. Not based on law, (yet), but on logic, I don't see how anger at one's parents could be used as mitigation to a charge of murdering a 2 year old.

 

[lin]

In reading back over CA's FBI interview I noticed she stated two things about KC ,while she hoped Caylee was still alive. Sha said that if there had been an accident KC would have cracked by now and told the truth.She said KC wouldn't put the family through this.
Another thing CA said was that KC would not protect anyone else if they were responsible for Caylee's death.
As a mother myself,and a parent who lost a child suddenly ,I just can't wrap my mind around someone not trying to get help or putting duct tape over their dead child's mouth. Then carrying on for a month as though nothing was wrong! No way.
Luckily it makes no sense to the FL Supreme Court,either.In case you missed it KIKi,they ruled in the Huck case that there was no reasonable explanation for putting duct tape over a person's mouth after their death [thanks again,Jolynna!]
If you play out the scenario in your head,does it really make sense?I mean,really,consider all the actions one would have to take,while at the same time dealing with a sudden ,unexpected death of a beloved child. Let me put this duct tape on first,then get her in the trunk.Now out for a movie run with TonE. Oh wow,my precious little girl is starting to smell.I better bag her up .Whew,that was difficult,but now I'll go shower and hop on down to Fusions.
When you are faced with a sudden,unexpected death of your child [which is what an accidental death would be] there is also a physical reaction.You go into shock,shake,have difficulty thinking and forming cohesive thoughts.You simply can't pull yourself together and act like nothing happened,not if you loved your child.I know everyone is different,but there is a universal reaction so to speak. Taping up your child ,putting her in garbage bags and throwing her away is not one of them.That's someone that was glad to be rid of a child and could carry on because they were happy,not grieving.
Would KC sit in jail on a DP charge if she could explain an accident?

ETA another thought. The way Casey disposed of Caylee is very telling.If there had been an accident you would think KC would at least try to find a better place for her child,maybe bury her or take her to a special place.Casey showed no love for Caylee,even in death.She bagged her up and left her to rot in the woods.

That'll teach me to take a few days off... Look at what I miss!

 

[lin]

I never said KC was timid, only lacking in character.

I never said KC herself wasn't in touch w reality or disoriented, I was simply pointing out that KC's entire "story," all her statements "belied" or weren't based in reality.

I never said KC was not a sociopath. In fact I have posted extensively to the opposite effect and (in my unprofessional opinion) undoubtedly has severe narcissistic traits at the least.

I never said she deserved sympathy. Nor did I ever once suggest her actions should continue being excused--I am quite familiar with the history of this case and have repeatedly stated that was the problem all along. Nor certainly did I ever say she should "walk free!"

And the last thing you will ever hear from ME--fierce child's and victim's advocate--is that any victim should not receive the full of the justice system nor that ANY perp should fail to be held accountable Even this implication is offensive.




arrot:

Thanks for clarifying because I also misunderstood.

 

[lin]

(bbm) First I am sorry to hear of your heartbreaking loss. I have never lost a child, however my mother has and I lost a brother. I'm happy to respond to your post--and to anyone else's that is thoughtful--and respectful-- and will not blast or browbeat me for having another opinion

CA has been denying and excusing all of KC's behavior from Day One so it should come as no surprise she took up for her during the interview you mention, and "normalized' what KC's reaction might be to a hypothetical act of KC's negligence. In truth, that oblivion by CA toward KC--toward her stealing, pregnancy, everything we've learned about--was her trademark denial. Of course she would say this while trying to promote her daughter's total innocence of culpability on any level whatsoever.

The normal grief you experienced, the heartbreak you describe, is presumably where there was no responsibility, or culpability whatsoever. That is far from the circumstances which either Devon or I have been entertaining. IF there were a death by negligence; and IF it was a death by means of which CA had incessantly warned KC eg; and IF she realized in that instant there was nothing that could restore Caylee or bring her back... but plotted from that point merely to save HERSELF (not much of a stretch for any of us) then it DOES make sense to me that she would stage something to distance herself from it ENTIRELY, ie w the appearance of something of which she would appear INCAPABLE.

I think it's also clear from everything we know and have heard testimony of that KC is one of those individuals who will take something to it's farthest point--as when leading detectives down the hallway to an office she knew she didn't have. Therefore it should also come as no surprise that KC would take all her staging efforts to their uttermost possible limits including making it look like a brutal kidnapper stranger-perpetrated crime in hopes of avoiding the association or suggestion of acquaintance, or family. (Tucking her in w Mama, in her favorite blanket, would hardly deflect attention from herself or support her claims of stranger abduction.) Or that she would now walk her story on past the guards, down the hallway to the extreme Eleventh Hour... and perhaps even to Death Row.

This is admittedly one of the most gruesome set of facts the way in which poor Caylee was disposed. You will get positively no argument from me there. And I think we'd both be accurate in saying she would never sacrifice her freedom for anyone but KC. I only am here on this thread because of it's title: and there IS reasonable doubt imo because the only thing any of us can say for certain with what facts we have at this point is that the cover-up was heinous. We do not know the exact cause or circumstance of her actual death.

Again, I am sorry for your own personal loss. :hug:

arrot:

Thanks for your thoughtful post further clarifying your thoughts. I disagree with your conclusion and request again that you expand further to explain the evidence that seems to me to be incompatible with an accidental death scenario. If the defense fails to overcome evidence that excludes an accident, my understanding is that the jury will not or cannot accept their theory.

You seem to be suggesting a "staging" after an accidental death and I fail to see how the evidence supports it. Please expand. For my part, I don't care how long your post is; I'm just interested in reading your reasoning.

 

[MissJames]

I agree with you, Miss James. The quoted part just discusses Devon's theory of ACCIDENTAL drowning; as if it would be free from criminal prosecution.

It is possible for a drowning to be premeditated murder. If they could prove that leaving a 2 year old with unsupervised access to the pool WITH THE INTENTION that drowning would be the means chosen to kill the 2 year old, then it COULD be premeditated murder. Generally, evidence of that kind of intent is hard to come by.

Sadly, children drowning in pools does happen with some frequency. So do murders. Prosecutors do have prosecutorial discretion. Sometimes, the parents or person responsible is so grief stricken that more prosecution and punishment would be counter productive for the parents/custodian, family and community. Even when they do charge criminal charges for such drownings it is more along the lines of a homicide that doesn't require specific intent to kill, like negligent manslaughter. Those charges are not subject to the death penalty.

OOPs,Sorry Themis :blowkiss:
My bad! I was intending to quote Devon. I was responding to those who still believe it could have been an accident. It's a year later.If there had been an accident we wouldn't all be here IMO.and KC wouldn't be sitting in jail.

 

[MissJames]

(bbm) First I am sorry to hear of your heartbreaking loss. I have never lost a child, however my mother has and I lost a brother. I'm happy to respond to your post--and to anyone else's that is thoughtful--and respectful-- and will not blast or browbeat me for having another opinion

CA has been denying and excusing all of KC's behavior from Day One so it should come as no surprise she took up for her during the interview you mention, and "normalized' what KC's reaction might be to a hypothetical act of KC's negligence. In truth, that oblivion by CA toward KC--toward her stealing, pregnancy, everything we've learned about--was her trademark denial. Of course she would say this while trying to promote her daughter's total innocence of culpability on any level whatsoever.

The normal grief you experienced, the heartbreak you describe, is presumably where there was no responsibility, or culpability whatsoever. That is far from the circumstances which either Devon or I have been entertaining. IF there were a death by negligence; and IF it was a death by means of which CA had incessantly warned KC eg; and IF she realized in that instant there was nothing that could restore Caylee or bring her back... but plotted from that point merely to save HERSELF (not much of a stretch for any of us) then it DOES make sense to me that she would stage something to distance herself from it ENTIRELY, ie w the appearance of something of which she would appear INCAPABLE.

I think it's also clear from everything we know and have heard testimony of that KC is one of those individuals who will take something to it's farthest point--as when leading detectives down the hallway to an office she knew she didn't have. Therefore it should also come as no surprise that KC would take all her staging efforts to their uttermost possible limits including making it look like a brutal kidnapper stranger-perpetrated crime in hopes of avoiding the association or suggestion of acquaintance, or family. (Tucking her in w Mama, in her favorite blanket, would hardly deflect attention from herself or support her claims of stranger abduction.) Or that she would now walk her story on past the guards, down the hallway to the extreme Eleventh Hour... and perhaps even to Death Row.

This is admittedly one of the most gruesome set of facts the way in which poor Caylee was disposed. You will get positively no argument from me there. And I think we'd both be accurate in saying she would never sacrifice her freedom for anyone but KC. I only am here on this thread because of it's title: and there IS reasonable doubt imo because the only thing any of us can say for certain with what facts we have at this point is that the cover-up was heinous. We do not know the exact cause or circumstance of her actual death.

Again, I am sorry for your own personal loss. :hug:

arrot:

Thank you,Kiki,
We will agree to disagree.
I've always admitted some of my beliefs about this case come from my own experiences.My 15 yr old son hung himself in our home,so we experienced guilt,denial and shock,as well as debilitating grief.We endured the stigma and we also experienced working with the coronor ,detctives and CSI. I adored my child ,but I never saw this coming. no one did.
I was also a young mom ,many moons ago.Just a week from turning 19 when I had my first child,so I get the immaturity,but even young moms know to call 911.
The last straw for me is the duct tape.I believe that's why the DP is back on the table.
And if you have a chance please read the Huck case on this thread and give us your feedback. I would love to hear your thoughts.

 

[JBean]

Please,can you guys just knock it off in here? If you do not know what I am talking about, then this message does not apply to you.
But if you have an idea as to what I am referring and one or more of your posts was removed, then please stop.
Some of you may have only replied to offcolor remarks with a non argumentative post but your remarks were still removed so as not to open the door for rebuttal.
Please just scroll past insults and attacking posts and report them.



This isn't about us or who is right or wrong, it is about the truth as it pertains to Caylee.

thanks everyone.

 

[Brini]

Thank you,Kiki,
We will agree to disagree.
I've always admitted some of my beliefs about this case come from my own experiences.My 15 yr old son hung himself in our home,so we experienced guilt,denial and shock,as well as debilitating grief.We endured the stigma and we also experienced working with the coronor ,detctives and CSI. I adored my child ,but I never saw this coming. no one did.
I was also a young mom ,many moons ago.Just a week from turning 19 when I had my first child,so I get the immaturity,but even young moms know to call 911.
The last straw for me is the duct tape.I believe that's why the DP is back on the table.
And if you have a chance please read the Huck case on this thread and give us your feedback. I would love to hear your thoughts.

Exactly! Even eight-year old children often call 911! You read about it all the time. A five-year -old once got a community heroics award for giving Heimlich to a two-year old who was choking on a candy.

Spoiled though KC undoubtledly was, she was certainly able to call 911 when the protestors were annoying her family.

 

[Brini]

I never said KC was timid, only lacking in character.

I never said KC herself wasn't in touch w reality or disoriented, I was simply pointing out that KC's entire "story," all her statements "belied" or weren't based in reality.

I never said KC was not a sociopath. In fact I have posted extensively to the opposite effect and (in my unprofessional opinion) undoubtedly has severe narcissistic traits at the least.

I never said she deserved sympathy. Nor did I ever once suggest her actions should continue being excused--I am quite familiar with the history of this case and have repeatedly stated that was the problem all along. Nor certainly did I ever say she should "walk free!"

And the last thing you will ever hear from ME--fierce child's and victim's advocate--is that any victim should not receive the full of the justice system nor that ANY perp should fail to be held accountable Even this implication is offensive.




arrot:

I see. Thanks for the clarification!

I deeply apologize, if I misunderstood you.

 

[Devon]

One of us has misunderstood Themis, imo. I don't think she's suggesting that you did; I think she's explaining to us the 'what if' your theory is proven to be correct, the next steps in the process.

Do you have any authorities to support rage as mitigation? Not being snarky but don't want to just guess. Not based on law, (yet), but on logic, I don't see how anger at one's parents could be used as mitigation to a charge of murdering a 2 year old.

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.