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

[DotsEyes]

I know you all like to give old Baez a hard time but honestly I think he has done a remarkable job already. This is not an easy case and KC is not an easy client. Her only defense is to shut up and stay shut and hope the air sniffers and death hair stuff can be scrambled enough that the jury believes there is reasonable doubt that the State proved its claim.

It is SOP for the State to triffle along with documents. Baez had to file motions to get them to comply with the court orders on discovery. Not exactly professional on the part of the SA and it was obvious to me that they were intent on costing him money and time. I pretty much hated the SA's responses as to why she could not produce everything in the time frame, needed an additional $980 in costs before she would release them, sent a few thousand pages of psychic tips when he asked for reports of sightings of Caylee and the like. There is no need for that amongst attorneys. And it was obvious to me that the State was getting away with its shenanigans as the Court failed to reprimand the SA. Baez is not getting a level playing field.

He is definitely the under dog here and I like under dogs.

He has the most hated client in the USA accused of the most aggregious of offenses. Believe me, no one is jumping the gate to take his place. I have to admire anyone who will take such risks. His client is facing life in prison. Houdini himself could not get her out of it, but Baez is willing to go down swinging for his client.

 

[KAITLAND]

I am afraid that while everything does point to Casey they will only get her on many other charges but not murder 1. Even if they have decomposed evidence in the trunk they do not have evidence that tie her to it. And they sure do not have a body that may give more evidence.

The prosecution (and the jurors) will reach the logical conclusion by using deductive reasoning: KC stated the Nanny stole Caylee. LE has proved KC lied...THERE IS NO NANNY. Remove Nanny from the equation, who was the last person with Caylee....it was KC. Who had means, motive, and opportunity....it was KC. Computer search for chloroform/broken neck/
shovel/death.....OVERWHELMING trail of clues. Don't need the body. If it was an accident, she had ample time to SCREAM FOR HELP that's what 911 is for. Most of the jurors will likely be parents. They know exactly what they would do if someone kidnapped their child....the would call 911 long before 31 days, absolutely.

 

[mydailyopinions]

The prosecution (and the jurors) will reach the logical conclusion by using deductive reasoning: KC stated the Nanny stole Caylee. LE has proved KC lied...THERE IS NO NANNY. Remove Nanny from the equation, who was the last person with Caylee....it was KC. Who had means, motive, and opportunity....it was KC. Computer search for chloroform/broken neck/
shovel/death.....OVERWHELMING trail of clues. Don't need the body. If it was an accident, she had ample time to SCREAM FOR HELP that's what 911 is for. Most of the jurors will likely be parents. They know exactly what they would do if someone kidnapped their child....the would call 911 long before 31 days, absolutely.

And honestly, IMO, the bolded section will be all the state needs to secure that conviction.

 

[ThoughtElf]

It's interesting to see that so far over 26% of respondents (more than 1 in 4) in this poll think either that there is not enough evidence for 1st degree murder or are not sure. That's a significant level of 'reasonable doubt' - IMO.

I love stats.

The beauty of presenting statistical analysis is in knowing your audience, and knowing exactly how to market and group them when you present a summary overview. (Outliers be damned!)

You did that very nicely by grouping both the 'No' and the 'Not Sure' results together to support a finding that could be marketed to a specific audience. Kudos for knowing your stuff and your audience.

It is also interesting to note that other analysts might not present the findings in the same way. While the respondents who state 'No' represent a clear 10%+ that have reasonable doubt NOW, based on what they currently have seen verified, documented and validated to a degree that they are confident in their response as an absolute, the other (nearly) 16.5 % of 'Unsure' respondents' votes do not necessarily imply that they'd have 'reasonable doubt' during trial. The poll does not drill into degrees or reasons for uncertainty that would evoke an honest 'Unsure' vote.

Of the 'Unsure' responses, statistics could be cited to show that X number of respondents selected 'unsure' because they haven't read all of the case documentation released publicly to date, or that they chose 'unsure' because they are honest in answering, and recognize that they might be juggling both logical and visceral, emotional feelings.

The question posed for the poll was a bit innocous to begin with, don't you think?

It did not specify whether respondents feel there is enough evidence for a 1st degree conviction based on what they have currently seen/heard/read, or whether they believe LE/SA have enough evidence in total, some of which they might not be privy to. A different poll might have offered these parameters for voting:
1. Unsure - because I have weighed the current validated, released evidence to date and found it lacking
2. Unsure - because I don't know what other validated evidence exists
3. Unsure - because of both 1 & 2 above
4. Unsure - because I haven't followed the case closely enough to feel that I have enough education to make a firm determination
5. Unsure - because my logic battles with my morals and emotions on this one

Stats are like gas - mileage varies. (And can be skewed to suit almost any perception/argument.)

But, I like very much that you put it out there as you did for discussion.

(And aren't you glad I've never posted a poll?) :blowkiss:

 

[Devon]

I love stats.

The beauty of presenting statistical analysis is in knowing your audience, and knowing exactly how to market and group them when you present a summary overview. (Outliers be damned!)

You did that very nicely by grouping both the 'No' and the 'Not Sure' results together to support a finding that could be marketed to a specific audience. Kudos for knowing your stuff and your audience.

It is also interesting to note that other analysts might not present the findings in the same way. While the respondents who state 'No' represent a clear 10%+ that have reasonable doubt NOW, based on what they currently have seen verified, documented and validated to a degree that they are confident in their response as an absolute, the other (nearly) 16.5 % of 'Unsure' respondents' votes do not necessarily imply that they'd have 'reasonable doubt' during trial. The poll does not drill into degrees or reasons for uncertainty that would evoke an honest 'Unsure' vote.

Of the 'Unsure' responses, statistics could be cited to show that X number of respondents selected 'unsure' because they haven't read all of the case documentation released publicly to date, or that they chose 'unsure' because they are honest in answering, and recognize that they might be juggling both logical and visceral, emotional feelings.

The question posed for the poll was a bit innocous to begin with, don't you think?

It did not specify whether respondents feel there is enough evidence for a 1st degree conviction based on what they have currently seen/heard/read, or whether they believe LE/SA have enough evidence in total, some of which they might not be privy to. A different poll might have offered these parameters for voting:
1. Unsure - because I have weighed the current validated, released evidence to date and found it lacking
2. Unsure - because I don't know what other validated evidence exists
3. Unsure - because of both 1 & 2 above
4. Unsure - because I haven't followed the case closely enough to feel that I have enough education to make a firm determination
5. Unsure - because my logic battles with my morals and emotions on this one

Stats are like gas - mileage varies. (And can be skewed to suit almost any perception/argument.)

But, I like very much that you put it out there as you did for discussion.

(And aren't you glad I've never posted a poll?) :blowkiss:

I am certainly no statistician and this was purely a layman's observation but I agree with all that you have said.

I just thought it interesting that even with all the potentially damning evidence we have seen so far, the immense emotional impact of the case, and the sensationalism projected by the media, there are still those who feel unable to make up their mind one way or another.

 

[thelmadawg]

(Large photo of Caylee on Screen)

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury. We are here today, because a child has been callously murdered and discarded like a piece of worn out jewelry. And the person responsbile for that murder is the one person little Caylee Marie Anthony relied upon for nourishment, love, and, indeed her very life -- her mother, Casey Marie Anthony.

Hold on, you say. There is no body, nothing definitive to say little Caylee is dead. But you would be wrong. Caylee cries out to us from the trunk of her mothers car, from her grandparents yard --about her mother's lies, and from her very absense for what is now nearly a year. It is not incumbent upon us to show you the body of this poor child. It is left to the horrors of our imagination. But prove it we must. Justice and Caylee demand it.

What about a terrible accident, you say? Innocent accidents demand action, notification, help. What more anguishing event than to have a precious child suffer a catastrophic event. You call 911. You call the police. You pray to the heavens above that your daughter will be o.k. Did that happen? There was, and is, only a deafening silence from her mother, Casey Marie Anthony.

Through forensics and logic we intend to prove that little Caylee is deceased, and that her mother, Caylee Marie Anthony, the last person to have Caylee in her possession and to see her alive, is responsible for her death.

You will follow the trail of a little toddler here today, gone tomorrow. You will hear for yourself the fantastical, if not fanactical lies of her mother about her whereabouts. You will ask why in God's name, if the mother is to believed, she didn't tell her parents, the police, and those closest to her, the minute she knew her precious child was missing. You will hear her nonsensical answers. You will explore a few of Caylee's last resting places, the trunk of her mother's car, her own backyard, and what science tells us about her death.

We are saddened to be here with you today. We find no joy in this. A beautiful child should be serving pretend tea in her beloved playhouse to her mother and grandparents. But instead, there is a huge vacuum in this courtroom. Caylee is not here. She will never serve pretend tea. And her mother, the least likely in all the world, sits before you accused and GUILTY.

Thank you.

 

[ThoughtElf]

Pretty good opening statement, Thelmadawg.

 

[EgyptNug]

I know you all like to give old Baez a hard time but honestly I think he has done a remarkable job already. This is not an easy case and KC is not an easy client. Her only defense is to shut up and stay shut and hope the air sniffers and death hair stuff can be scrambled enough that the jury believes there is reasonable doubt that the State proved its claim.

<snip>
I have to admire anyone who will take such risks. His client is facing life in prison. Houdini himself could not get her out of it, but Baez is willing to go down swinging for his client.

Well, I think Baez is going down swinging so he gets the name for himself and the publicity. (and that's assuming he hasn't drank the Koolaid and has other motives as well).

Probably one of the only things I agree with the A"s on: he puts himself first.

All that being said, I agree that he has done a remarkable job keeping KC away from everyone, and keeping her quiet. No easy task. I think he should have plea bargained before now, but if they go to trial, keeping her quiet is the only thing that can save her from sinking her own boat, imo.

What about a terrible accident, you say? Innocent accidents demand action, notification, help. What more anguishing event than to have a precious child suffer a catastrophic event. You call 911. You call the police. You pray to the heavens above that your daughter will be o.k. Did that happen? There was, and is, only a deafening silence from her mother, Casey Marie Anthony.

Actually, there was partying, sex, and shopping, not silence, right after.
THAT is the single fact (her activities from June 16-July 16) that convinces me that she is guilty and that there can be no other believable explanation. No matter what theory someone comes up with, her partying while her daughter is missing is just something I cannot fathom.

 

[frankieiiiieee]

don't know if this is the right place to put this but.........does anyone feel that maybe LE has the body? I mean the searches seem to be all over now....i just kinda have this feeling that they may just have the body?

 

[KellioPSL]

yes the prosecution has enough to convict on first degree. Accidental death in the comission of felonious assault is first degree murder. jmho that this applies to this case.

 

[debs]

don't know if this is the right place to put this but.........does anyone feel that maybe LE has the body? I mean the searches seem to be all over now....i just kinda have this feeling that they may just have the body?

Whenever remains are found, LE makes an immediate announcement stating where the remains were found and that the remains have been sent for testing to determine the identity. I do not recall them having made an announcement of this sort, and to imagine them keeping information like this silent would demonstrate a gross utilization of their authority.

I do not think any remains have been found. Of course, I do not speak from certainty, but merely my hope that they would not twist this family by withholding information that would allow them to finally face the truth that their granddaughter is deceased.

 

[shelbar53]

(Large photo of Caylee on Screen)

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury. We are here today, because a child has been callously murdered and discarded like a piece of worn out jewelry. And the person responsbile for that murder is the one person little Caylee Marie Anthony relied upon for nourishment, love, and, indeed her very life -- her mother, Casey Marie Anthony.

Hold on, you say. There is no body, nothing definitive to say little Caylee is dead. But you would be wrong. Caylee cries out to us from the trunk of her mothers car, from her grandparents yard --about her mother's lies, and from her very absense for what is now nearly a year. It is not incumbent upon us to show you the body of this poor child. It is left to the horrors of our imagination. But prove it we must. Justice and Caylee demand it.

What about a terrible accident, you say? Innocent accidents demand action, notification, help. What more anguishing event than to have a precious child suffer a catastrophic event. You call 911. You call the police. You pray to the heavens above that your daughter will be o.k. Did that happen? There was, and is, only a deafening silence from her mother, Casey Marie Anthony.

Through forensics and logic we intend to prove that little Caylee is deceased, and that her mother, Caylee Marie Anthony, the last person to have Caylee in her possession and to see her alive, is responsible for her death.

You will follow the trail of a little toddler here today, gone tomorrow. You will hear for yourself the fantastical, if not fanactical lies of her mother about her whereabouts. You will ask why in God's name, if the mother is to believed, she didn't tell her parents, the police, and those closest to her, the minute she knew her precious child was missing. You will hear her nonsensical answers. You will explore a few of Caylee's last resting places, the trunk of her mother's car, her own backyard, and what science tells us about her death.

We are saddened to be here with you today. We find no joy in this. A beautiful child should be serving pretend tea in her beloved playhouse to her mother and grandparents. But instead, there is a huge vacuum in this courtroom. Caylee is not here. She will never serve pretend tea. And her mother, the least likely in all the world, sits before you accused and GUILTY.

Thank you.

Who discards a piece of worn out jewerly, it usually becomes a family keepsake. I have every piece of jewerly I have ever owned. Sorry but after I read that, I couldnt focus on anything else you said as I was mentally picturing every piece of my jewerly to see what I would throw out. Lets see, my well worn cameo, diamond ring, sapphire ring, gold necklaces, emerald ring, ruby ring, pearl ring, earrings, bracelets, from real to costume like sarah coventary {which are very expensive now}....the list goes on and on. Wrong opening statement to make for me.

 

[MeoW333]

I think she's guilty as sin and is loving all the attention she's getting.

Look at picture #21 she looks like she's smiling

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pb...o=718020&Ref=PH&Profile=1006&Params=Itemnr=21

 

[cuppy199]

I am certainly no statistician and this was purely a layman's observation but I agree with all that you have said.

I just thought it interesting that even with all the potentially damning evidence we have seen so far, the immense emotional impact of the case, and the sensationalism projected by the media, there are still those who feel unable to make up their mind one way or another.

You also have to take in consideration when the poll was taken There has been alot more released sinse this poll was posted Im sure the numbers possibly could be different now

 

[Devon]

You also have to take in consideration when the poll was taken There has been alot more released sinse this poll was posted Im sure the numbers possibly could be different now

I think the poll is still open ( I only voted myself a few days ago - 'unsure') but agree that the ratios may be much different amongst recent respondents than they might have been at the start. I assume the poll was started around 14 Oct. (date of first post) so a fair bit of evidence had already been released by then.

 

[mydailyopinions]

Whenever remains are found, LE makes an immediate announcement stating where the remains were found and that the remains have been sent for testing to determine the identity. I do not recall them having made an announcement of this sort, and to imagine them keeping information like this silent would demonstrate a gross utilization of their authority.

I do not think any remains have been found. Of course, I do not speak from certainty, but merely my hope that they would not twist this family by withholding information that would allow them to finally face the truth that their granddaughter is deceased.

I disagree. Because there is one other child in the same area who has been missing for 2 years, until the remains are identified, I don't think they would say anything. Remember that little Trenton is missing also, and by LE coming out and saying that a child's body was found, and are waiting for results of identification, you have not only one, but two families to contend with until the results come back.
TES states this on their website:
TES would like to thank everyone who was able to help in the search for Caylee Anthony on November 8, 9 and 10th. There are a few TES members that are still there sifting through the finds of the past weekend. We pray something will be of help to the police and other investigators, even if its closure to another case. We will post the contact information for the TES personnel over there as soon as we have it.

 

[packerdog]

Caylee told us what happened to her. She left some of herself in the trunk , she left her hair to show us that she is in heaven. She told us that her mommy killed her. They have enough to put her behind bars for life. Bless her sweet soul.

 

[faefrost]

I agree with you on the defense plan and unless they have at least one juror who buys it, it won't work, but I believe they'll try it anyway ~ prove Caylee's dead. There's enough evidence, imo, for the DA to get the conviction they want. It only takes a second to form premeditation. MOO

That's the only real defense option they have. But there is one huge hole in it. One that no matter how hard you try and work around each specific point of evidence, or law, you just can't make go away.

The victim is a child, not an adult. The child is nowhere to be found. And the defendent is the responsible caregiver for the child.

No matter how much you knock down the forensics. "The air sampling is new or junk science". "The DNA is inconclusive". "The dogs may have hit on something else". They cannot escape the jury looking at their client and asking the most basic question "so where is the child, and why won't you tell us or anyone?"

 

[Wudge]

That's the only real defense option they have. But there is one huge hole in it. One that no matter how hard you try and work around each specific point of evidence, or law, you just can't make go away.

The victim is a child, not an adult. The child is nowhere to be found. And the defendent is the responsible caregiver for the child.

No matter how much you knock down the forensics. "The air sampling is new or junk science". "The DNA is inconclusive". "The dogs may have hit on something else". They cannot escape the jury looking at their client and asking the most basic question "so where is the child, and why won't you tell us or anyone?"

Assuming Casey does not testify (which seems very likely to me), jurors could not speculate on your question of: "Why won't you tell us or anyone?"

Maintain focus on the central charges against which prosecutors must prove two things; i.e., that Caylee is dead and that she died from an unlawful killing. So two questions reign supreme.

First, after the trial Judge rules on what evidence will be admissable, what relevant, material and competent evidence would prove that Caylee is dead?

Second, if prosecutors are able to present evidence that proves Caylee is dead, what is the clear and unyielding inculpatory evidence that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee died either from manslaughter or from a premeditated murder?

 

[natsound]

Assuming Casey does not testify (which seems very likely to me), jurors could not speculate on your question of: "Why won't you tell us or anyone?"

Maintain focus on the central charges against which prosecutors must prove two things; i.e., that Caylee is dead and that she died from an unlawful killing. So two questions reign supreme.

First, after the trial Judge rules on what evidence will be admissable, what relevant, material and competent evidence would prove that Caylee is dead?

Second, if prosecutors are able to present evidence that proves Caylee is dead, what is the clear and unyielding inculpatory evidence that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee died either from manslaughter or from a premeditated murder?

On the "what happened to the bag in Casey's trunk" thread, there's a post that LP is claiming that LE has found the body. Yes, that's right. That would certainly change things, wouldn't it?