REVISIT Does LE have enough evidence to Convict Casey on 1st Degree Murder?

[magnolia]

I have maintained that exact position as well.
IMO, that is what drives her to deny any responsibility, more so than the legal ramifications. First and foremost she would not want to have to admit to her mother that she was right about KC's own inability to properly protect the child from harm on any level. I think KC would rather hang than have to let her mom be right and have that over her.
You didn't offend me at all, we were just talking about 2 completely different things.

I think possibly KC convinced C & GA that Caylee died as a result of an accident. She put CA on a guilt trip by placing partial blame on her for not coming forward.

 

[JBean]

You know what people, we have strayed way off topic and I am a part of that. Let's get back to the evidence and whether it is enough for a charge.
thanks

 

[LinasK]

How many think like I do?

I do not think they have a case if a body is not found and I do NOT think the body will be found...so

I think she will walk free!

Free and RICH from book and movie deals!

Most definitely she can and will be convicted without a body, she's no OJ. Hans Reiser and the guy who killed Tom & Jackie Hawks were convicted without bodies, it happens all the time, and their is no disputing the hair with the death bands is Caylee's, it certainly can't be Caseys! Besides, she's going to do a lot of time for the fraud charges anyhow, they've got her on tape writing bad checks at Target and cashing bogus checks at B of A.

 

[Wudge]

Most definitely she can and will be convicted without a body, she's no OJ. Hans Reiser and the guy who killed Tom & Jackie Hawks were convicted without bodies, it happens all the time, and their is no disputing the hair with the death bands is Caylee's, it certainly can't be Caseys! Besides, she's going to do a lot of time for the fraud charges anyhow, they've got her on tape writing bad checks at Target and cashing bogus checks at B of A.

What evidence proves premeditation?

 

[magnolia]

What evidence proves premeditation?

Wudge, Your question is a bit premature,IMO.

 

[FloridaKatz]

I think they have enough evidence to convict her of a felony, whether it's for murder or the fraud and check writing charges, and she cannot profit from her "story" if she's convicted of a felony, so...... no book or movie deals for KC. (unfortunately, her family, attorneys & PR people are another story).

 

[MsMacGyver]

I think as a lay person with no law enforcement background and a reasonably good mind if I were sitting on the jury I would want the defense to explain to me why the cadaver dogs from two different LE locations got hits in the A's backyard and KC's car. It would be unlikely I would be expected to believe that both dogs were mistaken and if KC's kidnap theory was to be believed how this evidence could factor into the kidnapping. "Assuming" we had results from the trunk and backyard that the dirt contained decomp would only add to my suspicion.

 

[Indigo]

Correct me, if I am wrong, but premeditation can happen in an instant. If you think about it and then do it, it is premeditation. Like I said, correct me if I'm wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.

I believe that KC left the house in a fit of rage on June 15th. While she was in that red hot haze of anger and not thinking clearly, she decided to kill the person who meant the most to CA. Caylee.

Do I think that KC may have been using chloroform to make Caylee go to sleep? Absolutely. But I think that it only took a moment for KC to go over the edge and decide to kill her.

Premeditation can happen at different points, too. Hannah Overton was convincted because she chose (for up to 3 hrs) not to seek medical attention for her child when she saw the harm she had caused him. This could apply to Casey if chloroform was the cause of Caylee's death.

 

[Wudge]

Wudge, Your question is a bit premature,IMO.

My question is based on the title of this thread. Therefore, if my question is premature, then so are 76% of the people who responded that there is enough evidence to prove premeditation.

 

[Wudge]

Premeditation can happen at different points, too. Hannah Overton was convincted because she chose (for up to 3 hrs) not to seek medical attention for her child when she saw the harm she had caused him. This could apply to Casey if chloroform was the cause of Caylee's death.

What evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that chloroform caused Caylee's alleged death.

 

[Indigo]

What evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that chloroform caused Caylee's alleged death.

Good question, Wudge. That's why I used the words "could" and "if." Dates and specifics of the computer searches and dispersal pattern of the chloroform will probably tell a clearer story of how and why it was used.

 

[txsvicki]

I think there's enough evidence for premeditation going back some months. Chloroform and missing child searches online. Chloroform and evidence of death in the trunk plus a concocted plan to blame Mexican women.

 

[kiki the parrot]

Premeditation can happen at different points, too. Hannah Overton was convincted because she chose (for up to 3 hrs) not to seek medical attention for her child when she saw the harm she had caused him. This could apply to Casey if chloroform was the cause of Caylee's death.

In Overton case, in which certain facts were not in dispute, she stood accused anyway of having inflicted cruel, intentional harm upon her foster child according to prosecutors, as a form of extreme discipline. If evidence in this case can not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that KC used chloroform on her child as opposed to her trunk eg; and if the evidence can not further establish that Caylee's death resulted from any intentional act (vs the result of an accidental drowning eg), then the comparison would on the face be invalid. In last instance, the case would I believe at that point hinge upon whether any negligence proven was found culpable and would then further turn on whether KC sought to at least render aid (of which there are no reports--and should she ever admit to this she would of course be culpable for failing to report Caylee's death, additional false statements, obstructing an investigation, abuse of corpse, destruction of evidence etc). But w/out a body if chloroform can not be linked to Caylee by some other means, it will be difficult to establish manner or cause of death. [Btw in Overton case, her defense maintains it was not her neglect or failure to render timely aid (the boy was taken to the hospital w/in two hours of becoming ill), but rather the subsequent misdiagnosis, and malpractice, by medical personnel which in turn ultimately cost this little four year-old his life. Obviously, jurors disagreed.] JMHUO

 

[magnolia]

My question is based on the title of this thread. Therefore, if my question is premature, then so are 76% of the people who responded that there is enough evidence to prove premeditation.

Wudge, allow me to rephrase. I cannot provide an answer because IMO, your question(What evidence proves premeditation) is premature.

After hearing evidence from the State, the GJ handed down an indictment for 1st degree murder.

In regards to the title of this thread--Yes, based on the State's success before the GJ,I trust LE has sufficient evidence to support this charge. On these facts alone, I voted "Yes" in the poll.

I cannot, however, answer your question, because I was not privy to the evidence presented to the GJ.

There will be another search starting Nov.08. If found, the body may hold the answer to many questions.

We don't know the details on the computer research/chloroform.

So Yes, IMO, the question--"What evidence proves premeditation", is a bit premature.

 

[Indigo]

In Overton case, in which certain facts were not in dispute, she stood accused anyway of having inflicted cruel, intentional harm upon her foster child according to prosecutors, as a form of extreme discipline. If evidence in this case can not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that KC used chloroform on her child as opposed to her trunk eg; and if the evidence can not further establish that Caylee's death resulted from any intentional act (vs the result of an accidental drowning eg), then the comparison would on the face be invalid. In last instance, the case would I believe at that point hinge upon whether any negligence proven was found culpable and would then further turn on whether KC sought to at least render aid (of which there are no reports--and should she ever admit to this she would of course be culpable for failing to report Caylee's death, additional false statements, obstructing an investigation, abuse of corpse, destruction of evidence etc). But w/out a body if chloroform can not be linked to Caylee by some other means, it will be difficult to establish manner or cause of death. [Btw in Overton case, her defense maintains it was not her neglect or failure to render timely aid (the boy was taken to the hospital w/in two hours of becoming ill), but rather the subsequent misdiagnosis, and malpractice, by medical personnel which in turn ultimately cost this little four year-old his life. Obviously, jurors disagreed.] JMHUO

I agree, Kiki.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

I think as a lay person with no law enforcement background and a reasonably good mind if I were sitting on the jury I would want the defense to explain to me why the cadaver dogs from two different LE locations got hits in the A's backyard and KC's car. It would be unlikely I would be expected to believe that both dogs were mistaken and if KC's kidnap theory was to be believed how this evidence could factor into the kidnapping. "Assuming" we had results from the trunk and backyard that the dirt contained decomp would only add to my suspicion.

We have yet to find out results from FDLE labs. I have a feeling that they have a lot of the biological test results.

Watching ID Discovery last night, I saw a case where a man got convicted of 1st degree murder. The ONLY forensic evidence was when cadaver dogs alerted to the odor of decomposition in his shower. No DNA, no air samples, etc., etc.

It was mainly circumstantial... in this case, the circumstances plus the forensics will carry the day.

 

[Bev]

No, I don't believe that the evidence supports the definition of first degree murder in the state of Florida, it does however, supports the definition of first degree felony murder - "first degree felony murder is the unlawful killing of a human being when committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate any of the list of enumerated felony offenses" which in this case would be aggravated child abuse. The defendent can be sentenced to the death penalty with the following aggravating circumstances - "the capital felony was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel" or "the capital felony was a homicide and was committed in a cold calculated and premeditated manner without any pretense of moral or legal justification."

The mitigating circumstances that must be considered in a case like this are "the age of the defendent" and the lack of a previous record of felonies.

Imo, this case does not fall under the proscribed statutes for the death penalty and those that might apply are mitigated by her age and lack of a previous criminal record. There is no way that the prosecutors can prove premeditation, no matter what they think she might have planned, there is no way to prove that her actions were such that the only outcome to her actions was death.

 

[Wudge]

No, I don't believe that the evidence supports the definition of first degree murder in the state of Florida, it does however, supports the definition of first degree felony murder - "first degree felony murder is the unlawful killing of a human being when committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate any of the list of enumerated felony offenses" which in this case would be aggravated child abuse. The defendent can be sentenced to the death penalty with the following aggravating circumstances - "the capital felony was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel" or "the capital felony was a homicide and was committed in a cold calculated and premeditated manner without any pretense of moral or legal justification."

The mitigating circumstances that must be considered in a case like this are "the age of the defendent" and the lack of a previous record of felonies.

Imo, this case does not fall under the proscribed statutes for the death penalty and those that might apply are mitigated by her age and lack of a previous criminal record. There is no way that the prosecutors can prove premeditation, no matter what they think she might have planned, there is no way to prove that her actions were such that the only outcome to her actions was death.

What is the clear and unyielding evidence that proves murder?

 

[Bev]

Nothing Wudge, I am just speculating.

 

[Chilly Willy]

What is the clear and unyielding evidence that proves murder?

Caylee didn't commit suicide. No accident or fatal illness was reported. She didn't die from old age. What's left?