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

[weasel]

I voted yes. I do think LE has enough to convict for first degree, including premeditation. Premeditation can be formed in a matter of seconds. The computer searches, the stench and forensics in the car and the evidence at the crime scene all lead back to Casey. Not to mention her actions during the weeks that Caylee was "missing".

 

[kgeaux]

I don't.

Unless the toxicology reports show massive overdoses of some medication/chloroform, there is not one bit of evidence that proves HOW Caylee died. And you need the HOW to get to first degree murder, don't you?

 

[Chilly Willy]

I don't.

Unless the toxicology reports show massive overdoses of some medication/chloroform, there is not one bit of evidence that proves HOW Caylee died. And you need the HOW to get to first degree murder, don't you?

The HOW was never proven in the Scott Peterson case and he got first degree.

 

[MD MOMMY]

The HOW was never proven in the Scott Peterson case and he got first degree.

True dat..CW!

 

[justbeachy]

I don't.

Unless the toxicology reports show massive overdoses of some medication/chloroform, there is not one bit of evidence that proves HOW Caylee died. And you need the HOW to get to first degree murder, don't you?

I don't believe you do. According to this pdf file (http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2008/sc08-744.pdf) these are the requirements for First Degree murder in Florida:

To prove the crime of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: ​

1. (Victim) is dead.

2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).

3. There was a premeditated killing of (victim).

Definitions.

An "act" includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose. ​

"Killing with premeditation" is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing. ​

The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing.

If a person has a premeditated design to kill one person and in attempting to kill that person actually kills another person, the killing is premeditated. ​

 

[Chilly Willy]

I don't believe you do. According to this pdf file (http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2008/sc08-744.pdf) these are the requirements for First Degree murder in Florida:

To prove the crime of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: ​

1. (Victim) is dead.

2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).

3. There was a premeditated killing of (victim).

Definitions.

An "act" includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose. ​

"Killing with premeditation" is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing. ​

The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing.

If a person has a premeditated design to kill one person and in attempting to kill that person actually kills another person, the killing is premeditated. ​

I recall at least one of the talking heads saying that murder one is also an option in Florida even without premeditation if the victim is a child or under other circumstances that I can't remember....anyone?

 

[LinasK]

I don't.

Unless the toxicology reports show massive overdoses of some medication/chloroform, there is not one bit of evidence that proves HOW Caylee died. And you need the HOW to get to first degree murder, don't you?

No you don't. They never proved exactly how Laci Peterson died, or Nina Reiser-body not located 'till his sentencing.

 

[sarah7855]

I recall at least one of the talking heads saying that murder one is also an option in Florida even without premeditation if the victim is a child or under other circumstances that I can't remember....anyone?

Yes, if the child (IIRC, child 12 & under) dies during an act of neglect or child abuse.

 

[Manny]

I think that it is mostly a circumstantial case, however it is piled up pretty well. It all depends on a good choice for a change of venue. There is no way on God's green earth that she would not be convicted in Orlando.

 

[Amil]

Hiya,

Sorry I haven't read all the posts on this subject, but I'd like to ask something ... or talk out loud for a minute. LOL

OK, so they find that there was a dead body in her trunk .. they may even have enough proof that it was Caylee ... BUT don't they have to prove that KC was the one who actually killed her? Don't the have to connect KC to the murder of Caylee?

And if they can't ... will she walk?

Circumstantial evidence will convict her. Not reporting her missing, telling text friends that the baby is fine and with the nanny, misleading LE are all circumstances leading to mom doing it. Add to that her attorney in court stated that Casey had control of her car and that others did not drive it; the trunk, the heart sticker, etc.
They've got her.

 

[kaRN]

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?

Both questions are answered now Wudge.
Caylees skeletal remains prove she's dead and the presence of her body triple bagged, duct taped and sealed with a heart sticker tend to suggest it wasn't from natural causes.
I know, there's a third question now and that's Casey's role. Decomposition stench, hairs with death bands and a Mother who hasn't cooperated one iota in finding her missing child are enough for me as a juror. What say you as judge? :smiliescale:

 

[snow_walker]

This is rather silly of me, but I am going to pay devils advocate at the moment.. just to explain why I don't feel this is an open and shut cse.. not because I really believe KC is innocent.
Taking just one piece of evidence like 'odour of decomposition of a human body in car trunk' .. If I were the defense, I would explain that as:
KC ran with a rather lively crowd, and spent time in nightclubs frequented by some notorious people (I dunno about that, but the defense could say it was so, be hard to prove otherwise).. some bad person stowed a body in the trunk of her car..she didn't notice it for awhile, and when things got to the point she did notice it, she found it.. notified some bad ppl she knew... they removed it..

You could do the same sort of thing with every piece of evidence brought out so far. Of course we don't know everything they have, far from it, but lawyers seem to be really creative people when it comes to thinking up alternate explanations for everything. It might defy all common sense, but it 'could' be true. Wherther any jury would buy it is another matter, but juries do some odd things. I think this case is far from won. (sigh)

 

[MaryAnn]

I don't.

Unless the toxicology reports show massive overdoses of some medication/chloroform, there is not one bit of evidence that proves HOW Caylee died. And you need the HOW to get to first degree murder, don't you?

We never found out how Laci Peterson died but Scott got the DP. Maybe it's different in California, I don't know.

 

[lin]

This is rather silly of me, but I am going to pay devils advocate at the moment.. just to explain why I don't feel this is an open and shut cse.. not because I really believe KC is innocent.
Taking just one piece of evidence like 'odour of decomposition of a human body in car trunk' .. If I were the defense, I would explain that as:
KC ran with a rather lively crowd, and spent time in nightclubs frequented by some notorious people (I dunno about that, but the defense could say it was so, be hard to prove otherwise).. some bad person stowed a body in the trunk of her car..she didn't notice it for awhile, and when things got to the point she did notice it, she found it.. notified some bad ppl she knew... they removed it..

You could do the same sort of thing with every piece of evidence brought out so far. Of course we don't know everything they have, far from it, but lawyers seem to be really creative people when it comes to thinking up alternate explanations for everything. It might defy all common sense, but it 'could' be true. Wherther any jury would buy it is another matter, but juries do some odd things. I think this case is far from won. (sigh)

How can they prove it? Who will testify to it? They don't want to promise anything in their opening they can't deliver. It will backfire, bigtime.

 

[Chilly Willy]

This is rather silly of me, but I am going to pay devils advocate at the moment.. just to explain why I don't feel this is an open and shut cse.. not because I really believe KC is innocent.
Taking just one piece of evidence like 'odour of decomposition of a human body in car trunk' .. If I were the defense, I would explain that as:
KC ran with a rather lively crowd, and spent time in nightclubs frequented by some notorious people (I dunno about that, but the defense could say it was so, be hard to prove otherwise).. some bad person stowed a body in the trunk of her car..she didn't notice it for awhile, and when things got to the point she did notice it, she found it.. notified some bad ppl she knew... they removed it..

You could do the same sort of thing with every piece of evidence brought out so far. Of course we don't know everything they have, far from it, but lawyers seem to be really creative people when it comes to thinking up alternate explanations for everything. It might defy all common sense, but it 'could' be true. Wherther any jury would buy it is another matter, but juries do some odd things. I think this case is far from won. (sigh)

There were two people shot at Fusion in the last few days, however, Casey has never claimed that someone else's body was in the trunk. Did the bad guys who removed the body also remove all traces of it ever having been there while leaving behind Caylee's hair showing decomposition? Is it just a coincidence that Caylee was killed at the same time that this mysterious dead person was hidden in Casey's trunk? I really don't think the defense will win this case by blaming it all on unnamed 'bad people'.

 

[snow_walker]

oh well.. how about the bad people were threatening her family, and she was afraid to tell anyone all that she knew..or to call in the police when the baby went missing.. more or less what she has been saying...or one of the things she has been saying.
As for Caylees hair... it was just her hair..so one of Caylees hairs was in the trunk.. so what? the decomposition thing about the root of the hair is just 'junk science'..

The same mysterious bad people no doubt were responsible for poor little Caylees death.

 

[nancy botwin]

oh well.. how about the bad people were threatening her family, and she was afraid to tell anyone all that she knew..or to call in the police when the baby went missing.. more or less what she has been saying...or one of the things she has been saying.
As for Caylees hair... it was just her hair..so one of Caylees hairs was in the trunk.. so what? the decomposition thing about the root of the hair is just 'junk science'..

The same mysterious bad people no doubt were responsible for poor little Caylees death.

Once Caylee was found murdered, one would imagine Casey would end her brave silent front and out the "secret bad people" who had in fact killed her child. If she was putting on a brave silent front to protect her baby, there's no need for that anymore. This would perhaps make some form of sense if Casey and her team were more interested in finding the "real killer" than in insulating Casey from unfavorable media coverage.

 

[gitana1]

The HOW was never proven in the Scott Peterson case and he got first degree.

I agree with Chilly Willy. And I think the how can be surmised to be via chloroform. Significant traces in the trunk with the decomp plus searches for how to make it on the internet months before. I think the key is not how she died, but that she did die and that mom made that happen intentionally. I think there is a huge amount of cumulative evidence to prove those elements.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Nope, I do not think they normally would be able to get a conviction with the evidence we think they have.

However, because of the unprecedented release of recordings and interviews, notes, etc. that may have been kept out of a trial - and the ability of potential jurors to read/hear them, they probably will get a conviction. LE, IMHO, have circumvented the judicial system in this case.

 

[coloradoteacher]

Once Caylee was found murdered, one would imagine Casey would end her brave silent front and out the "secret bad people" who had in fact killed her child. If she was putting on a brave silent front to protect her baby, there's no need for that anymore. This would perhaps make some form of sense if Casey and her team were more interested in finding the "real killer" than in insulating Casey from unfavorable media coverage.

I agree wholeheartedly- as a mom, if my child were missing, that would be my one and ONLY priority and I would get all the help I could. I think we sometimes equate involving law enforcement with media coverage and that is not so. If Casey really thought "bad guys" (never mind she told the police it was the nanny for a second) took her daughter, she could have gone to police and they would have handled it in a way that would not compromise the situation. I know I would not have been out in the same bars as the bad guys smiling, drinking, dancing if they were truly bad enough to kidnap a child. She could have easily involved her family in the search if she had no hand in it without attracting attention and she did not- she actually alienated them and would avoid them at all costs. Furthermore, once the body had been found, she should have been screaming from the rooftops (or at least JB would be) the story and trying to catch the real killers- she would not care anymore about the safety of anyone, just the pain she is feeling as a mom.
IMO, anytime you can use the term the "real killers," you've got a pretty darn good case for the prosecution. They are pretty much saying, I know it looks like our client did it, but the real killers...