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

[LeLe1953]

(salute) LTNS.

I hope you and yours are well.

Obviously, this case is a media ratings bonanza in the vein of the JonBenet case and the Elizabeth Smart case and the Madeline McCann case and the baby Sabrina case et al.

As best we know, no one other than Casey knows what happened. Moreover, if Caylee is dead, no one knows how she died. Further, there is no body. Nor is there clear and unyielding inculpatory evidence to support premeditation. Yet, the vast majority hold for premeditation.

One defense theme almost assuredly will be insufficiency of evidence to support the charge.

I am reminded of the immortal words of Pogo. "We have met the enemy and it is us."

How do you know they don't have her body or part of it? Bones can show stabbing, gun shot, beating, burning. I say the state will prove beyond ANY doubt Casey killed her child, dumped the body and it was premediated. The needle is to kind for her, I say fry baby fry:behindbar

 

[LeLe1953]

Well LeLe:blowkiss:

I too am awaiting this revelation of evidence because to form an opinion as to the probative value of the evidence without knowing what it all is seems a little premature to me but that's just me and as always just my humbleo.

Miracle
When you mentioned jurors using common sense for the basis of reasonable doubt, I think you hit it dead on. I would have to ask: WHO WHAT WHEN AND WHERE for the question of kidnapping. While we have not seen all of evidence on either side, what we have seen and even what we have heard out of the Anthony's do not support a kidnapp theroy. It is hard for me, as a grandma, to imagine Cindy nor George having the sitters name & number, esp since they all lived together. All of us who have had kids in day care or with sitters normally list a couple other numbers of those we trust that can inquire about or pick the child. When we do that we normally tell the person who we have listed that we have done so & would provide that person with not only the name & phone number of child care provider but also where they are located in case our emergency ctc had to go get the child. Is it logical or does it make any sense they had no clue about Zannie? Nothing in this case makes any sense & nothing has been logical. I have seen nothing that would make the average, normal person have ANY doubt let alone reasonable doubt. FRY BABY FRY :behindbar:behindbar

 

[curiositycat]

I do think they have enough to get her on the 1st degree murder charge. I think they have some information from other people that we don't have a clue about. I look at it this way it only took the GJ 30-40 minutes to come back with this. That's reallly something to think long and hard about.
Especially when I can think of the SP case where the GJ still has not come back with an indictment.
When we assume that all they have is high tech forensics we sell them short. I just believe that there are one or two people that know more then they have told anyone else but LE!

 

[FSU_Girl]

Until we know what the state has there is no way for us to speculate what her sentence will be.

I 100% believe it was premeditated and but that is just my opinion.

 

[LeLe1953]

Premeditation must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That requires clear and unyielding inculpatory evidence. What is that evidence?

If I took a baseball bat to your head, if I raised a gun to your head, if I stabbed you in the chest, if I put poison in your food or if I did a number of other things, there is no doubt I meant to kill you. If after I kill you & dump you, I continue to sleep with anything that walks, rub it on the stripper pole, go on shopping sprees with stolen checks, does it REALLY look like I gave a ? I don't think so & I don't think most people will either. I realize most low lifes in prison shout " I DIDNT DO IT" but ah, most of the time they did. Casey is NOT smarter than the police or FBI. I doubt she is even as smart as the dead squirrel in the "frame" of her no frame car. Just common sense, ya know. FRY BABY FRY:behindbar:behindbar:behindbar

 

[LeLe1953]

They have enough evidence to send her to trial and ask for life....they will offer her a plea in exchange for the chance of parole in 25 years, JMO.

Nope, I think they have more than enough for the DP. The ONLY choice given to Casey should be A: tell us where the body is & u get the needle or B: stay quiet about it and you fry.
Casey is a waste, a total waste of the air she breaths. She is not even worth the water it takes to flush her poo down the crapper. :behindbar

 

[Chanler]

I do think they have enough to get her on the 1st degree murder charge. I think they have some information from other people that we don't have a clue about. I look at it this way it only took the GJ 30-40 minutes to come back with this. That's reallly something to think long and hard about.
Especially when I can think of the SP case where the GJ still has not come back with an indictment.
When we assume that all they have is high tech forensics we sell them short. I just believe that there are one or two people that know more then they have told anyone else but LE!

Hi, CuriosityCat, you might be right, but grand juries frequently don't need much to ask for charges. (And, of course, prosecutors don't want to tip their hands any more than they have to.) Your example of the Scott Peterson grand jury is pertinent, but of course, there are no exact parallels.

Personally, I'm hypothesizing that LE doesn't have a bundle more than we already know or they would have made major charges earlier, rather than waiting until now. But you can change my "hypopthesizing" to "guessing" and I won't disagree. In any case, we will see!

 

[Wudge]

If I took a baseball bat to your head, if I raised a gun to your head, if I stabbed you in the chest, if I put poison in your food or if I did a number of other things, there is no doubt I meant to kill you. If after I kill you & dump you, I continue to sleep with anything that walks, rub it on the stripper pole, go on shopping sprees with stolen checks, does it REALLY look like I gave a ? I don't think so & I don't think most people will either. I realize most low lifes in prison shout " I DIDNT DO IT" but ah, most of the time they did. Casey is NOT smarter than the police or FBI. I doubt she is even as smart as the dead squirrel in the "frame" of her no frame car. Just common sense, ya know. FRY BABY FRY:behindbar:behindbar:behindbar

There's no body. There's no cause of death. There's no mechanics of death. There's no time of death. There's no place of death. There's no crime scene. There's no confession. There's no eyewitness.

The inculpatory evidence that proves Caylee is dead and that she died from an unlawful killing versus an accident is what? The inculpatory evidence that proves premeditation is what?

 

[mysteriew]

With what they have released so far, I don't think they have enough. I believe they can prove her death, but so far we haven't seen a cause of death or a 'smoking gun'. IOW they haven't shown that Caylee's death was at KC's hands. But I do trust that LE has much more evidence that has not been released, and I am trusting in that for a conviction.

 

[Wudge]

Hi, CuriosityCat, you might be right, but grand juries frequently don't need much to ask for charges. (And, of course, prosecutors don't want to tip their hands any more than they have to.) Your example of the Scott Peterson grand jury is pertinent, but of course, there are no exact parallels.

Personally, I'm hypothesizing that LE doesn't have a bundle more than we already know or they would have made major charges earlier, rather than waiting until now. But you can change my "hypopthesizing" to "guessing" and I won't disagree. In any case, we will see!

Scott Peterson was indicted via a preliminary hearing. He was not indicted by a Grand Jury.

HTH

 

[LeLe1953]

There's no body. There's no cause of death. There's no mechanics of death. There's no time of death. There's no place of death. There's no crime scene. There's no confession. There's no eyewitness.

The inculpatory evidence that proves Caylee is dead and that she died from an unlawful killing versus an accident is what? The inculpatory evidence that proves premeditation is what?

You don't know that to be fact. None of us know all the facts. Just as you say they have NO body, I say they DO. Let's say they do have bones & those bones show a beating, that's not an accident? If they show a stabbing, that's not an accident..........we will just wait and see. I have 100 % in LE. Then again, I have an uncle from CA who is retired FBI, another 2 uncles who are retired cops & a grand dad who retired as a sheriff. So yeah, I am very pro LE. Beats the heck out of being pro criminal. It will be an interesting trial to watch & then to come back and compare notes. Have a grand weekend. :behindbar

 

[Wudge]

Just as you say they have NO body, I say they DO.

SNIP

Novel.

 

[elfie]

I am reminded of the immortal words of Pogo. "We have met the enemy and it is us."

Love this quote, will we or will we not make it to a Type I Civilization? Hope so...

 

[gitana1]

Hi Wudge! Inculpatory evidence is that which shows or tends to show a person's involvment in an act, or, simply is evidence that establishes a person's guilt. Corroborating evidence is that which tends to support a theory already supported by other evidence. In some jurisdictions, any evidence must be backed up by at least one other piece of evidence. Corroborative evidence may be either circumstantial or direct. Both are considered inculpatory evidence:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/corroborating+evidence

www.tjpc.state.tx.us/publications/reviews/07/07-3-15.htm

http://crime.about.com/od/g_criminal/g/corevdnc.htm

I have not found anything that states corroborative evidence in jury instructions cannot by itself prove guilt. In fact, I found the opposite:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=appunpub\0311\opc022229-1118&invol=1

http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/part4/4.5-9.htm
"The truth or falsity of the defendant's testimony cannot be proved solely on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, even if you find that witness's testimony credible. Rather, it requires corroborated proof through independent and material facts and circumstances supplementing the testimony of the single witness. The corroborative testimony must be of such a character that, when taken in connection with all the other testimony, the falsity of the testimony is established beyond a reasonable doubt."

With utmost respect, it appears to me that you may be confusing circumstantial with corroborating/corroborative. I do agree with you, however, that jury intsructions often call for the jury to apportion weight to different types of evidence, or which give the jury leeway to apportion such weight. But, I'm to lazy to look that up. Nevertheless, respectfully, I must disagree with MiraclesHappen that all we give here are our opinions and that nothing we state here can be fact. Rules of law regarding evidence are not opinions. They are facts. If you could give support via actual Florida law or past jury instructions regarding how jurors are to consider different types of evidence when deliberating, that may help to show that you are not espousing a mere "opinion" but rather a act. Facts stated on this site include things such as casey was indicted on murder one. That is not an opinion. It's a fact. Thus, if Wudge is making accurate statements about the consideration of evidence, those statements would constitute fact and not opinion.
As far as what inculpatory evidence exists to support pre-meditation? I believe the following would/does, if such evidence actually exists, and I have no reason to doubt LE's contention that it does exist:
1. Computer searches on casey's computer of chloroform, in the months leading up to Caylee's disappearance.
2. Significant traces of choloroform in the trunk of the car casey was driving.
3. Computer searches on casey's computer of "missing children" sites in the months leading up to Caylee's disappearance.
4. Statements by casey on the internet and/or in text messages that she was troubled by having a child.
5. casey's refusal to report Caylee missing, ever.
6. casey lying to LE and taking them on a wild goose chase when LE began investigating the disappearance.
7. casey's statements to witnesses about the source of a smell coming from her car.
8. No 911 calls by casey regarding any accident and/or kidnapping involving her baby.
9. casey failing to bring any clothes and limited supplies for Caylee when she left on the last day anyone saw Caylee alive, as supported by witness statements, including CA, and the physical evidence found in the car she drove and brought back by the boyfriends and friends she hung out with when she left the house with Caylee on or about June 15/16, 2008.
10. casey's demeanor in the weeks after Caylee disappeared,during the investigation and after her inital arrest. She showed no panic, no fear, no sadness no guilt regarding the disappearance of her daughter, much as many would in the event of an accident or involuntary manslaughter type incident. Instead, casey showed apathy about her baby's welfare, relief after Caylee disappeared and some measure of happiness.
While I am aware that much of the above is circusmtantial, the computer searches, if proven to be likely done by casey, are not circumstantial, IMO. And all of the above consists of inculpatory evidence, or evidence that may point to casey's guilt in the pre-mediatated killing of her little girl.

 

[jon_burrows]

Do you really need a statute or case precedent to tell you whether or not this was child abuse?

Common sense?

You said: "should be". I queried for your basis, which appears to be your "common sense".

The next step is evidence that proves your "common sense" beyond a reasonable doubt.

I didn't say "should be", I was quoting another poster, although I agree with them.

I didn't say "my common sense" either so please don't twist my words. I simply said common sense, as in any reasonable person with common sense would conclude it was child abuse. I hope jurors apply common sense when looking at evidence.

Just to be clear. I feel any reasonable person with common sense would conclude it is child abuse to lose a child for 31 days and not contact authorities.

 

[gitana1]

There's no body. There's no cause of death. There's no mechanics of death. There's no time of death. There's no place of death. There's no crime scene. There's no confession. There's no eyewitness.

The inculpatory evidence that proves Caylee is dead and that she died from an unlawful killing versus an accident is what? The inculpatory evidence that proves premeditation is what?

The evidence I cited above, as it may prove that casey murdered Caylee intentionally, likewise may prove that Caylee is dead via an unlawful killing. Which, by the way, can include manlsaughter (not pre-meditated), which resulted from negligence: http://www.tampabay-criminaldefense.com/topics/homicide.html
"Manslaughter Charge in Florida:

Florida law defines manslaughter as:
The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification..."

Further evidence that Caylee is dead would be the hair samples which apparently show banding indicative of decomp of a corpse, air samples that apparently show decomp in the trunk of casey's car and DNA from a stain in the car showing decmp and that it was from little Caylee's body.

 

[Brini]

Hi Wudge! Inculpatory evidence is that which shows or tends to show a person's involvment in an act, or, simply is evidence that establishes a person's guilt. Corroborating evidence is that which tends to support a theory already supported by other evidence. In some jurisdictions, any evidence must be backed up by at least one other piece of evidence. Corroborative evidence may be either circumstantial or direct. Both are considered inculpatory evidence:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/corroborating+evidence

www.tjpc.state.tx.us/publications/reviews/07/07-3-15.htm

http://crime.about.com/od/g_criminal/g/corevdnc.htm

I have not found anything that states corroborative evidence in jury instructions cannot by itself prove guilt. In fact, I found the opposite:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=appunpub\0311\opc022229-1118&invol=1

http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/part4/4.5-9.htm
"The truth or falsity of the defendant's testimony cannot be proved solely on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, even if you find that witness's testimony credible. Rather, it requires corroborated proof through independent and material facts and circumstances supplementing the testimony of the single witness. The corroborative testimony must be of such a character that, when taken in connection with all the other testimony, the falsity of the testimony is established beyond a reasonable doubt."

With utmost respect, it appears to me that you may be confusing circumstantial with corroborating/corroborative. I do agree with you, however, that jury intsructions often call for the jury to apportion weight to different types of evidence, or which give the jury leeway to apportion such weight. But, I'm to lazy to look that up. Nevertheless, respectfully, I must disagree with MiraclesHappen that all we give here are our opinions and that nothing we state here can be fact. Rules of law regarding evidence are not opinions. They are facts. If you could give support via actual Florida law or past jury instructions regarding how jurors are to consider different types of evidence when deliberating, that may help to show that you are not espousing a mere "opinion" but rather a act. Facts stated on this site include things such as casey was indicted on murder one. That is not an opinion. It's a fact. Thus, if Wudge is making accurate statements about the consideration of evidence, those statements would constitute fact and not opinion.
As far as what inculpatory evidence exists to support pre-meditation? I believe the following would/does, if such evidence actually exists, and I have no reason to doubt LE's contention that it does exist:
1. Computer searches on casey's computer of chloroform, in the months leading up to Caylee's disappearance.
2. Significant traces of choloroform in the trunk of the car casey was driving.
3. Computer searches on casey's computer of "missing children" sites in the months leading up to Caylee's disappearance.
4. Statements by casey on the internet and/or in text messages that she was troubled by having a child.
5. casey's refusal to report Caylee missing, ever.
6. casey lying to LE and taking them on a wild goose chase when LE began investigating the disappearance.
7. casey's statements to witnesses about the source of a smell coming from her car.
8. No 911 calls by casey regarding any accident and/or kidnapping involving her baby.
9. casey failing to bring any clothes and limited supplies for Caylee when she left on the last day anyone saw Caylee alive, as supported by witness statements, including CA, and the physical evidence found in the car she drove and brought back by the boyfriends and friends she hung out with when she left the house with Caylee on or about June 15/16, 2008.
10. casey's demeanor in the weeks after Caylee disappeared,during the investigation and after her inital arrest. She showed no panic, no fear, no sadness no guilt regarding the disappearance of her daughter, much as many would in the event of an accident or involuntary manslaughter type incident. Instead, casey showed apathy about her baby's welfare, relief after Caylee disappeared and some measure of happiness.
While I am aware that much of the above is circusmtantial, the computer searches, if proven to be likely done by casey, are not circumstantial, IMO. And all of the above consists of inculpatory evidence, or evidence that may point to casey's guilt in the pre-mediatated killing of her little girl.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[Wudge]

Hi Wudge! Inculpatory evidence is that which shows or tends to show a person's involvment in an act, or, simply is evidence that establishes a person's guilt. Corroborating evidence is that which tends to support a theory already supported by other evidence. In some jurisdictions, any evidence must be backed up by at least one other piece of evidence. Corroborative evidence may be either circumstantial or direct. Both are considered inculpatory evidence:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/corroborating+evidence

www.tjpc.state.tx.us/publications/reviews/07/07-3-15.htm

http://crime.about.com/od/g_criminal/g/corevdnc.htm

I have not found anything that states corroborative evidence in jury instructions cannot by itself prove guilt. In fact, I found the opposite:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=appunpub\0311\opc022229-1118&invol=1

http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/part4/4.5-9.htm
"The truth or falsity of the defendant's testimony cannot be proved solely on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, even if you find that witness's testimony credible. Rather, it requires corroborated proof through independent and material facts and circumstances supplementing the testimony of the single witness. The corroborative testimony must be of such a character that, when taken in connection with all the other testimony, the falsity of the testimony is established beyond a reasonable doubt."

With utmost respect, it appears to me that you may be confusing circumstantial with corroborating/corroborative. I do agree with you, however, that jury intsructions often call for the jury to apportion weight to different types of evidence, or which give the jury leeway to apportion such weight. But, I'm to lazy to look that up. Nevertheless, respectfully, I must disagree with MiraclesHappen that all we give here are our opinions and that nothing we state here can be fact. Rules of law regarding evidence are not opinions. They are facts. If you could give support via actual Florida law or past jury instructions regarding how jurors are to consider different types of evidence when deliberating, that may help to show that you are not espousing a mere "opinion" but rather a act. Facts stated on this site include things such as casey was indicted on murder one. That is not an opinion. It's a fact. Thus, if Wudge is making accurate statements about the consideration of evidence, those statements would constitute fact and not opinion.
As far as what inculpatory evidence exists to support pre-meditation? I believe the following would/does, if such evidence actually exists, and I have no reason to doubt LE's contention that it does exist:
1. Computer searches on casey's computer of chloroform, in the months leading up to Caylee's disappearance.
2. Significant traces of choloroform in the trunk of the car casey was driving.
3. Computer searches on casey's computer of "missing children" sites in the months leading up to Caylee's disappearance.
4. Statements by casey on the internet and/or in text messages that she was troubled by having a child.
5. casey's refusal to report Caylee missing, ever.
6. casey lying to LE and taking them on a wild goose chase when LE began investigating the disappearance.
7. casey's statements to witnesses about the source of a smell coming from her car.
8. No 911 calls by casey regarding any accident and/or kidnapping involving her baby.
9. casey failing to bring any clothes and limited supplies for Caylee when she left on the last day anyone saw Caylee alive, as supported by witness statements, including CA, and the physical evidence found in the car she drove and brought back by the boyfriends and friends she hung out with when she left the house with Caylee on or about June 15/16, 2008.
10. casey's demeanor in the weeks after Caylee disappeared,during the investigation and after her inital arrest. She showed no panic, no fear, no sadness no guilt regarding the disappearance of her daughter, much as many would in the event of an accident or involuntary manslaughter type incident. Instead, casey showed apathy about her baby's welfare, relief after Caylee disappeared and some measure of happiness.
While I am aware that much of the above is circusmtantial, the computer searches, if proven to be likely done by casey, are not circumstantial, IMO. And all of the above consists of inculpatory evidence, or evidence that may point to casey's guilt in the pre-mediatated killing of her little girl.

By itself, inculpatory evidence is sufficient to support the charge against a defendant. This is not true of corroborating evidence. This distinction represents the legal strength of evidence. Jurors are so advised when they receive jury instructions.

 

[Susanlee]

I WANT them to get her on 1st degree murder, but I voted unsure. I think they will get her for killing her, but worry it will be a lesser charge, i.e., manslaughter (sp? sorry!). Personally, I am becoming drained. On the top of my list is to find her little body and give her a proper burial. Poor little thing. Okay. Now my Mom/Grandmother is showing through.

 

[gitana1]

By itself, inculpatory evidence is sufficient to support the charge against a defendant. This is not true of corroborating evidence. This distinction represents the legal strength of evidence. Jurors are so advised when they receive jury instructions.

Thanks for the response Wudge. But, I am confused. As I stated, corroborating evidence, unless I'm completely out of left field, is inculpatory evidence. Inculpatory evidence is merely that which shows or tends to show a person's guilt. This is as opposed to exculpatory evidence which tends to shows a person's innocence of the crime charged. Corroborating evidence is evidence that supports other evidence or a theory of guilt. It is a type of inculpatory evidence. Could you explain why you think it is not a type of inculpatory evidence? Please cite, if possible. I am a lawyer. I have practiced since 2002. I went to a pretty good law school and passed the bar on the first try. I do not practice criminal law but I am familiar with the rules of evidence and so I don't understand your characterization. Can you help me out here? Thank you!