Reasonable doubt-Jury instructions and More #2

[lin]

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

Again, just in case somehow someone missed any of the zillion times I've posted that I'm not an expert --- I'm not an expert. I knew almost zero about criminal law before starting to research it in these threads.

That being said, imo fwiw, that could be said but I don't see how anyone but KC could say it, kwim?

 

[lin]

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.

That's exactly the point I was trying (unsuccessfully) to make. You wrote it beautifully, thanks.

I don't think KC takes responsibility for anything. It doesn't fit her behavior pattern or personality, imo, to suggest that she took responsibility for Caylee's death even in her own mind. To my mind, her auto response would have been to blame others and demand retribution. KC seems to be adept at taking advantage of people and circumstances. I think she'd have immediately felt anger at whomever caused this and held it over everyone's head for the rest of their lives. That seems more in keeping with what an auto response from her would have been, imo.

Also keep in mind GA's "stroke" or "heart attack" or whatever it was. I think KC relished in the attention she garnered from the fake illnesses of herself and others. I can't see her not trying to capitalize on Caylee's injury or death in the same way, unless she knew there was no way to pass it off as an accident. Think of the KC we know; even in jail she immediately demanded TonE's number, expecting sympathy and comfort from him. What better way to ensnare him into her drama that to lean on him for sympathy, comfort, support when her child had a near death experience or actually died from accidental injuries. Can you imagine the dramatic scenes she'd have played out in her mind and attempted to gain his cooperation with?

 

[RR0004]

Again, just in case somehow someone missed any of the zillion times I've posted that I'm not an expert --- I'm not an expert. I knew almost zero about criminal law before starting to research it in these threads.

That being said, imo fwiw, that could be said but I don't see how anyone but KC could say it, kwim?

...I know you're not an expert...still value your opinion!

And why does that hotel commercial come to mind?

 

[MissJames]

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.

I keep trying to post my thanks and the dang thing disappears! LOL
I think you have it nailed.

 

[RR0004]

That's exactly the point I was trying (unsuccessfully) to make. You wrote it beautifully, thanks.

I don't think KC takes responsibility for anything. It doesn't fit her behavior pattern or personality, imo, to suggest that she took responsibility for Caylee's death even in her own mind. To my mind, her auto response would have been to blame others and demand retribution. KC seems to be adept at taking advantage of people and circumstances. I think she'd have immediately felt anger at whomever caused this and held it over everyone's head for the rest of their lives. That seems more in keeping with what an auto response from her would have been, imo.

Also keep in mind GA's "stroke" or "heart attack" or whatever it was. I think KC relished in the attention she garnered from the fake illnesses of herself and others. I can't see her not trying to capitalize on Caylee's injury or death in the same way, unless she knew there was no way to pass it off as an accident. Think of the KC we know; even in jail she immediately demanded TonE's number, expecting sympathy and comfort from him. What better way to ensnare him into her drama that to lean on him for sympathy, comfort, support when her child had a near death experience or actually died from accidental injuries. Can you imagine the dramatic scenes she'd have played out in her mind and attempted to gain his cooperation with?

She would have had better luck with that @31 days earlier.

I think the defense will try REAL hard to paint a better picture of Casey, but as a sympathetic figure...nah, too much there to discount it.

 

[RR0004]

Again, just in case somehow someone missed any of the zillion times I've posted that I'm not an expert --- I'm not an expert. I knew almost zero about criminal law before starting to research it in these threads.

That being said, imo fwiw, that could be said but I don't see how anyone but KC could say it, kwim?

...I know you're not an expert...still value your opinion!

And why does that hotel commercial come to mind?

 

[lin]

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.

I just wanted to thank for going through the pain of reliving this most tragic, heartbreaking, horrific event in order to share with us the actual experience. I can't imagine your pain as you write these words and wouldn't dare try but want you to know that it's appreciated and helpful.

 

[MissJames]

I just wanted to thank for going through the pain of reliving this most tragic, heartbreaking, horrific event in order to share with us the actual experience. I can't imagine your pain as you write these words and wouldn't dare try but want you to know that it's appreciated and helpful.

Thanks Lin,
It really is one of those things that,until you have lived it,you don't really get all the things that come at you.You might think you understand,but you can't .It's emotional,physical,mental. The death of your child is not like the death of a parent or any other family member.It's even more piercing.I'm not trying to "one up" anyone else in the grief department.It's well documented that the death of a child is the most difficult to deal with [suicide compounds it as does an accident where the parent was in part responsible.]
My only reason to point it out is that I just don't believe KC could have acted normally for the entire 31 days ,starting just hours after it happened. Not if it was an accident.

 

[indicat]

Some Other Nanny Did It

I love your posts and if your not an expert you should be

I have a question that might sound stupid, if this is about reasonable doubt and what that would mean in KC's defense what's with all the accident theories? From what I have seen the defense is not going to claim any such thing, so what reasonable explanation could there be that SONDI? I don't see one.

 

[Brini]

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

Nope! She was cool, calm, and joking w/ LE, when she signed.

They gave her a couple of opportunities to change her statement, as well.

 

[indicat]

Nope! She was cool, calm, and joking w/ LE, when she signed.

They gave her a couple of opportunities to change her statement, as well.

No kidding! No way she can get out of her statements.

 

[Brini]

I love your posts and if your not an expert you should be

I have a question that might sound stupid, if this is about reasonable doubt and what that would mean in KC's defense what's with all the accident theories? From what I have seen the defense is not going to claim any such thing, so what reasonable explanation could there be that SONDI? I don't see one.

I think they will: 1) Try to throw JG under the bus. That won't work, and 2) try to impeach the forensics. That won't work, either.

I doubt that they have any other defense.

 

[indicat]

I think they will: 1) Try to throw JG under the bus. That won't work, and 2) try to impeach the forensics. That won't work, either.

I doubt that they have any other defense.

ahhh, and that is why I think she is sunk, obviously there is alot more to chew on for the jury with the accidental theories.

 

[MissJames]

I love your posts and if your not an expert you should be

I have a question that might sound stupid, if this is about reasonable doubt and what that would mean in KC's defense what's with all the accident theories? From what I have seen the defense is not going to claim any such thing, so what reasonable explanation could there be that SONDI? I don't see one.

There are posters that still feel it could have been an accident ,therefore reasonable doubt that it was premeditated murder.Even if they don't actually believe it was an accident they feel there is not enough evidence to rule it out or to prove premeditated murder.
The first DP attorney [Lemar?] included a possible accident scenario while trying to show this was not a capital case,so the defense has brought it up.This was before Caylee was found.

 

[indicat]

There are posters that still feel it could have been an accident ,therefore reasonable doubt that it was premeditated murder.Even if they don't actually believe it was an accident they feel there is not enough evidence to rule it out or to prove premeditated murder.
The first DP attorney [Lemar?] included a possible accident scenario while trying to show this was not a capital case,so the defense has brought it up.This was before Caylee was found.

But if the defense does not bring up an accident theory can the jury consider one of their own? That's why I think they are screwed. The first DP attorney is no longer on the team and from what I've seen of Baez, no way will they even consider anything but KC had nothing to do with it. So after reading this thread and what constitutes reasonable doubt I don't see how the jury should even be able to consider it as an accident.

 

[lin]

...I know you're not an expert...still value your opinion!

And why does that hotel commercial come to mind?

And I yours. Thanks.

 

[lin]

Thanks Lin,
It really is one of those things that,until you have lived it,you don't really get all the things that come at you.You might think you understand,but you can't .It's emotional,physical,mental. The death of your child is not like the death of a parent or any other family member.It's even more piercing.I'm not trying to "one up" anyone else in the grief department.It's well documented that the death of a child is the most difficult to deal with [suicide compounds it as does an accident where the parent was in part responsible.]
My only reason to point it out is that I just don't believe KC could have acted normally for the entire 31 days ,starting just hours after it happened. Not if it was an accident.

Exactly. Not if it was an unplanned event.

 

[lin]

I love your posts and if your not an expert you should be

I have a question that might sound stupid, if this is about reasonable doubt and what that would mean in KC's defense what's with all the accident theories? From what I have seen the defense is not going to claim any such thing, so what reasonable explanation could there be that SONDI? I don't see one.

Thank you. I'm very flattered especially because I enjoy your posts too! My only complaint is I don't run across you often enough.

I certainly don't think it's a bad question and it's one I've been suggesting, as recently as this morning. Accident theories would be better developed on the accident thread, imo. I quoted substantially from that thread and referenced it multiple times. It just seems kind of unfair to go over the ground that's been well tilled in that thread. But at least I don't have to work too hard; it's already done.

I've also posted that I've seen no indication from the defense they have any intention of going with an accidental death defense. MissJames corrected me that accidental death was suggested as a possibility in the opposition to the death penalty written by TL.

Even so, I've seen nothing from the current defense team to indicate they're going for anything other than complete exoneration. They've been very vocal in proclaiming their client "innocent" and with all the hyperbole attached it seems to me they'd lose some credibility with a jury to change their tactics at trial. That is assuming they can't find 12 that haven't heard their loud and frequent proclamations over the last year or so. Of course, they've been quieter lately so maybe they're rethinking that but I don't think so. I think their reticence now is because of 1. AL as lead counsel demands JB and LKB shut up and 2. that they're seeking a change of venue.

The defense hasn't been forthcoming about their theory, imo, because they don't know what it is yet. They just know that KC won't admit to anything or accept any defense theory that doesn't lead to her being on the beach very soon. It's not a 'let's see where the evidence leads and then come to a conclusion.' It's more like starting with the conclusion and desperately seeking a theory to support it. Ain't gonna happen, imo.

Anyway, enough of the rambling (see why it's dangerous to flatter me??) and back to your question. I think the accident theories started on this thread as exploring the applicable law and rules to see how they may be introduced and the level of proof needed at trial. But since I have been more in the business of debunking them than presenting them, that's just a guess.

 

[lin]

I love your posts and if your not an expert you should be

I have a question that might sound stupid, if this is about reasonable doubt and what that would mean in KC's defense what's with all the accident theories? From what I have seen the defense is not going to claim any such thing, so what reasonable explanation could there be that SONDI? I don't see one.

eek! I got so into pontificating I didn't answer your other question: My best guess based on what we've seen so far is that the defense is going to stick with SONDI and either a) say that LE focused on KC from jump and refused to find the "real" ZFG or b) follow CA's lead and allude to ZFG being an alter-ego of whomever they decide will most easily fit under a bus.

Both will fail, imo because:

a) KC cannot produce anything to show this woman ever existed, not even a fuzzy half in shadow ZFG in the distant background of some other pic much less any contact info or address for this woman that supposedly she had known for four years. No wait, it was six years. No wait, it was... nevermind. Her own conflicts in describing this woman will prove she never existed. The defense will not, imo, be able to overcome this unless they can produce something to show that she existed outside of KC's fevered imagination.

b) see above and there's that pesky little fact that no one other than KC had access to the child. If she doesn't name a name of anyone else who had access then she can't easily throw anyone else under the bus, kwim?

I expect the defense has rejected an accidental or death due to negligence based on the reasoning outlined in the no accident thread and probably more reasons than even we've thought of. There is just too much to exclude this theory. So they're kind of stuck with the imaginanny defense much to their chagrin, I'm sure. Be assured the state will introduce KC's statements about the imaginanny unless by some miracle they're excluded. So how can they get out of the sworn statements of the only witness without putting her on the stand? And again, just cos I think it's a clever phrase, (not that I thought of it), putting her on the stand would be suicide by jury, imo.

 

[lin]

or c) What Brini said; just try to poke holes where they think they can and hope they can convince the jury the state didn't prove the case to a legal standard.

And like Brini said, there's too much; it ain't gonna happen.