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

[kiki the parrot]

I posed this question before, on another thread I think, but received no response. More than saving her own skin, I believe it's her mother whom KC's lies are intended to protect. For this reason I continue believing she would in fact, rather face the full force of the State of FL whatever it may bring, than to admit negligence--and face her mother's wrath. We shall see what else the State prosecution has but with or without Caylee's body, the one thing it must have in order to proceed with the charge of murder is a working theory. For KC to effectively deny or defend against charges that Caylee's death was intentional and pre-meditated would seem to require ultimately an admission of guilt to nearly every other charge she presumably will face--including but not limited to the neglect and false statements w which she's already charged but obstruction, tampering or destruction of evidence, abuse of a corpse et al. Which is itself a HUGE gamble but has me wondering how many years she would be facing in FL just on these charges? Who knows what else the State has or what it may feel can possibly prove this or another premeditation scenario. But it all brings me to this: IF it was instead initially a drowning negligence scenario, covered up by KC--what would charges have been, if any? Please just bear with me and someone kindly explain, usually are charges brought against the parent(s) of a toddler who wanders into a pool while poorly supervised, eg? (It may prove to be a moot point, but I'm curious because I believe I have heard of situations in which parents, who report, are never even charged.) Which, were it the case (ie chloroform search postdates Caylee's presumed date of death etc) Casey may never have been held legally culpable--had she never in turn concealed, lied, tampered (nor in turn gone on stealing binges). And because, in this scenario, she also likely destroyed the only evidence which could have ever proven this. JMHO

 

[kiki the parrot]

Incidentally, the son of singer Steven Curtis Chapman eg, who this year tragically backed up his SUV over his baby sister, killing her, was never charged by LE. Not only did this scene likely occur with witnesses present but the young man in this case was raised with both accountability, and support from his family and found the strength and courage to face his responsibility. While no charges were ever filed, he will live with the consequences of his negligence (some would say reckless endangerment) and it's impact on the rest of his family, for the rest of his life. Those who have been taught the discipline, courage, honesty and responsibility to step forward and acknowledge rather than hide the truth about true accidents or mistakes regardless of how grievous in some cases require no further punishment. But not everyone has. JMHO

 

[JBean]

I posed this question before, on another thread I think, but received no response. More than saving her own skin, I believe it's her mother whom KC's lies are intended to protect. For this reason I continue believing she would in fact, rather face the full force of the State of FL whatever it may bring, than to admit negligence--and face her mother's wrath.

Kiki I have posted something similar and I totally agree. I actually think this is the foundation of the entire episode. In my mind i see Cindy constantly warning KC to take care of Caylee with regards to her safety and everything else.I would suspect CA told KC she was negligent plenty of times; and we already know the dynamics between the two. Cindy probably made remarks about KC's parenting and clearly thought that she herself was a better parent and made sure KC knew it.
I think when whatever happened to caylee happened, KC knew she could never tell her mother.."you were right I screwed up." can't do it won;t happen. She would rather be put to death than say her mother had her pegged. She is never going to give her that.


jmho of course

 

[LeLe1953]

:blowkiss:

You might want to check the difference between a required finding of guilty and a JNOV as it is my opinion you are obscuring the lines between the 2.

When I need assistance in seeking precedent, I will be the first to ask.
Jury instructions are NOT the precedent I seek.
I am not seeking precedent.
As for Jury Instructions per se, I have quoted Florida Jury instructions in this thread relative to Casey Anthony. You have not.
I have quoted the Florida Supreme Court. You have not.

Appreciate your precedent though.

HTH

:clap::clap: Miracle, if I ever need advise I am asking you! Your knowledge is so appreciate & will really be helpful when this goes to court.
I DO have a question, let me see if I understand this. IF they only evidence pointing to guilt was one thing, such as the internet search, the jury would be advised they can't just consider that one piece of evidence but must consider all the facts in the case? Simple I know for someone like you but hey, I am a simple gal. Thanks

 

[kiki the parrot]

Kiki I have posted something similar and I totally agree. I actually think this is the foundation of the entire episode. In my mind i see Cindy constantly warning KC to take care of Caylee with regards to her safety and everything else.I would suspect CA told KC she was negligent plenty of times; and we already know the dynamics between the two. Cindy probably made remarks about KC's parenting and clearly thought that she herself was a better parent and made sure KC knew it.
I think when whatever happened to caylee happened, KC knew she could never tell her mother.."you were right I screwed up." can't do it won;t happen. She would rather be put to death than say her mother had her pegged. She is never going to give her that.


jmho of course

TY! At least there is someone else here willing to entertain that--whether out of fear, or pride and self-preservation--it is CA and not LE that KC's been more concerned about. Am still not getting much feedback here re negligence question but I'm anxiously awaiting the details and disclosure of FL's theory and on what grounds they included manslaughter eg. Just believe in my heart and in my gut, having raised four children--one of whom is a 20 year-old daughter, who is mother of my own two year-old granddaughter--that it was a negligence scenario. People would rather believe it was a coldblooded premeditated homicide, I think, because we want to "split" or divide the world neatly into good, and evil... we want to put a face on evil, and see it coming... So it is easier to believe the absolute worst, and call her a monster. But neither do I think it should be dismissed as just an "accident." Personally IMO I think there is a large spectrum between the two and many lessons to be learned from this heartbreaking tragedy. JMO

 

[krimekat]

Incidentally, the son of singer Steven Curtis Chapman eg, who this year tragically backed up his SUV over his baby sister, killing her, was never charged by LE. Not only did this scene likely occur with witnesses present but the young man in this case was raised with both accountability, and support from his family and found the strength and courage to face his responsibility. While no charges were ever filed, he will live with the consequences of his negligence (some would say reckless endangerment) and it's impact on the rest of his family, for the rest of his life. Those who have been taught the discipline, courage, honesty and responsibility to step forward and acknowledge rather than hide the truth about true accidents or mistakes regardless of how grievous in some cases require no further punishment. But not everyone has. JMHO

Accountability & responsibility -- family traits foreign to the As

 

[kiki the parrot]

Yes have posted ad infinitum in psych threads re parenting. In the end, in a sick way even KC's self-centeredness, all of this goes back to or appears the ultimate consequence and exhorbitant price of raising a child to be so fiercely dependent upon her mother's approval; never allowing her to suffer, and experience the rewards of discipline; rather modeling, and rewarding, deception. JMHO

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

For KC to effectively deny or defend against charges that Caylee's death was intentional and pre-meditated would seem to require ultimately an admission of guilt to nearly every other charge she presumably will face--including but not limited to the neglect and false statements w which she's already charged but obstruction, tampering or destruction of evidence, abuse of a corpse et al.

SNIP

The defense needs do nothing at all. The State bears the full brunt of proving its case to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury pool has been severely poisoned. The favorable prejudice the defendant is entitled to cannot be reasonably expected to exist at the start of the trial.

As regards the charge of premeditated murder (murder one), the case will almost assuredly be won or lost based on motions-in-limine and the jury instructions as regards the materiality, relevance, competence, reliability and admissibility of the People's evidence and the inference limits placed upon that evidence by the Judge via jury instructions.

 

[kiki the parrot]

I see what you're saying Wudge, but as I said STILL wondering: IF it was instead a drowning negligence scenario, covered up by KC--what would charges have been, if any (ie are charges usually brought against the parent of a toddler who wanders into a pool while poorly supervised, eg? It may prove to be a moot point but I'm curious since I believe I've heard of situations in which parents--who report--are never even charged.) Which, were it the case (ie chloroform search postdates Caylee's presumed date of death etc) Casey may never have been held legally culpable, had she never in turn concealed, lied, tampered (nor in turn gone on stealing binges). And because, in this scenario, she also has likely destroyed the only evidence which could have ever proven this. Care to shed any light on this?

 

[Wudge]

I see what you're saying Wudge, but as I said STILL wondering: IF it was instead a drowning negligence scenario, covered up by KC--what would charges have been, if any (ie are charges usually brought against the parent of a toddler who wanders into a pool while poorly supervised, eg? It may prove to be a moot point but I'm curious since I believe I've heard of situations in which parents--who report--are never even charged.) Which, were it the case (ie chloroform search postdates Caylee's presumed date of death etc) Casey may never have been held legally culpable, had she never in turn concealed, lied, tampered (nor in turn gone on stealing binges). And because, in this scenario, she also has likely destroyed the only evidence which could have ever proven this. Care to shed any light on this?

First, you ask an excellent question. The truthful answer is we will never know. However, for what its worth, if the prosecutor thought they could reasonably prove Caylee died from parental negligence -- drowning or otherwise -- my experience would tell me to expect to hear a greater charge against the parent in the hope that the greater charge would result in the parent accepting a plea deal to negligence.

Second, you cited an important point (alleged fact) as regards the chloroform search or searches. Any such web searches that took place after Caylee disappeared are far more likely to have their inference value limited by the Judge. Whereas, as regards the element of premeditation, a pre-disappearance web search for chloroform might well be considered inculpatory evidence, a post disappearance web search for chloroform would more likely be limited to corroborative evidence.

Good post.

 

[Brini]

After watching NG tonight and hearing about the body fluids on the trashbag - I think they have what they need.

Salem

Yeah, that pizza, out into the trunk with the body, on the 19th, is KEY, IMHO.

 

[Brini]

I think they have enough to press and get a conviction on 1st degree murder. However I do not think they have enough to outright horrify a jury sufficiently to get them to sentance a young girl to death.

Unless they consider what the "young girl" did to the helpless baby.

 

[Brini]

First, you ask an excellent question. The truthful answer is we will never know. However, for what its worth, if the prosecutor thought they could reasonably prove Caylee died from parental negligence -- drowning or otherwise -- my experience would tell me to expect to hear a greater charge against the parent in the hope that the greater charge would result in the parent accepting a plea deal to negligence.

Second, you cited an important point (alleged fact) as regards the chloroform search or searches. Any such web searches that took place after Caylee disappeared are far more likely to have their inference value limited by the Judge. Whereas, as regards the element of premeditation, a pre-disappearance web search for chloroform might well be considered inculpatory evidence, a post disappearance web search for chloroform would more likely be limited to corroborative evidence.

Good post.

We will, as Miracles explained, see.

Inculpatory or corroborative evidence notwithstanding, LE can certainly prove that she did it. Whether they have, as they have said, revealed only about 25% or the evidence is anhother thing that we will see. We will also see whether they can whether they can or cannot prove intent.

However, defendant demeanor is pretty much ALWAYS taken into consideration. In most cases, the one who ACTS guilty IS guilty.

 

[LeLe1953]

The defense needs do nothing at all. The State bears the full brunt of proving its case to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury pool has been severely poisoned. The favorable prejudice the defendant is entitled to cannot be reasonably expected to exist at the start of the trial.

As regards the charge of premeditated murder (murder one), the case will almost assuredly be won or lost based on motions-in-limine and the jury instructions as regards the materiality, relevance, competence, reliability and admissibility of the People's evidence and the inference limits placed upon that evidence by the Judge via jury instructions.

I don't think the jury pool has been prejudiced at all. Although, based on what I know * at this time * I think she killed her child, IF the defense presented evidence to convince me other wise OR create doubt in my mind, I would put aside my personal feelings & vote based on evidence only. I believe in our justice system & I do not think most sitting on a jury take lightly their duty. I mean hey, they found a jury that didn't convict OJ so anything is possible.

 

[kiki the parrot]

First, you ask an excellent question. The truthful answer is we will never know. However, for what its worth, if the prosecutor thought they could reasonably prove Caylee died from parental negligence -- drowning or otherwise -- my experience would tell me to expect to hear a greater charge against the parent in the hope that the greater charge would result in the parent accepting a plea deal to negligence.

Second, you cited an important point (alleged fact) as regards the chloroform search or searches. Any such web searches that took place after Caylee disappeared are far more likely to have their inference value limited by the Judge. Whereas, as regards the element of premeditation, a pre-disappearance web search for chloroform might well be considered inculpatory evidence, a post disappearance web search for chloroform would more likely be limited to corroborative evidence.

Good post.

Thanks for having the patience to answer my questions! If I understand correctly, the fact the State has, in addition to murder included the lesser aggravated manslaughter charge is to afford her this option. (As I said if true it would entail 'copping' to so many related charges it boggles the mind--but it's mindboggling that a person who may have made such a tragic mistake might risk being convicted of premeditated murder in order to maintain total innocence.) I am fairly sure the State could not even charge premeditated murder though without at least a working theory to support this? While the "aggravated child abuse" charge seems on the face to indicate something worse than negligence, perhaps they are the same charge in FL (?) and we are left to speculate just what that theory could be.

 

[TopGunner]

Yes. Absolutely. She's going down. M1:behindbar

 

[mysteriew]

I posed this question before, on another thread I think, but received no response. More than saving her own skin, I believe it's her mother whom KC's lies are intended to protect. For this reason I continue believing she would in fact, rather face the full force of the State of FL whatever it may bring, than to admit negligence--and face her mother's wrath. We shall see what else the State prosecution has but with or without Caylee's body, the one thing it must have in order to proceed with the charge of murder is a working theory. For KC to effectively deny or defend against charges that Caylee's death was intentional and pre-meditated would seem to require ultimately an admission of guilt to nearly every other charge she presumably will face--including but not limited to the neglect and false statements w which she's already charged but obstruction, tampering or destruction of evidence, abuse of a corpse et al. Which is itself a HUGE gamble but has me wondering how many years she would be facing in FL just on these charges? Who knows what else the State has or what it may feel can possibly prove this or another premeditation scenario. But it all brings me to this: IF it was instead initially a drowning negligence scenario, covered up by KC--what would charges have been, if any? Please just bear with me and someone kindly explain, usually are charges brought against the parent(s) of a toddler who wanders into a pool while poorly supervised, eg? (It may prove to be a moot point, but I'm curious because I believe I have heard of situations in which parents, who report, are never even charged.) Which, were it the case (ie chloroform search postdates Caylee's presumed date of death etc) Casey may never have been held legally culpable--had she never in turn concealed, lied, tampered (nor in turn gone on stealing binges). And because, in this scenario, she also likely destroyed the only evidence which could have ever proven this. JMHO

I don't know if this will help but a lot of what LE looks at is willful intent. For instance one situation that happens a lot is leaving a kid in the car, the kid gets overheated and dies. One mother that I read about had a babysitter, the child was expected at the sitters that day. Mom thought she dropped the child off and went to work. 6 or 7 hours later the child was found dead in her car. It was ruled an accident. It was thought that she didn't have an intent to leave her child in a dangerous situation, but was distracted. Another mother didn't have a sitter lined up for that day, she got called in to work. She went to work taking the child, left the child in the car and worked most of the day. The child died and she was charged. It was thought to be an accident in the first case because the mother forgot... she didn't knowingly endanger her child. The second mother was thought to have knowingly intended to endanger her child because she left the child in a dangerous situation.

So in your situation lets say one mother was running after one child and the other fell into the pool. That would be considered an accident. If the mother had gone in to take a nap or talked on the phone for half an hour, that would be something different.

 

[mysteriew]

(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."

Hi Wudge, I thought you might be popping in about now.

You say no body, but that is really going to be at the jury's discretion. I know that I accept decomposition fluids, DNA, and a hair with deaths bands around it as a "body". After all, partial remains are used all the time to prove death.

LOL And before we even get there, your response to so many things is that they don't have any evidence. My response as usual will be that we don't know what evidence they have, LE never releases everything they have until trial.

 

[Wudge]

Hi Wudge, I thought you might be popping in about now.

You say no body, but that is really going to be at the jury's discretion. I know that I accept decomposition fluids, DNA, and a hair with deaths bands around it as a "body". After all, partial remains are used all the time to prove death.

LOL And before we even get there, your response to so many things is that they don't have any evidence. My response as usual will be that we don't know what evidence they have, LE never releases everything they have until trial.

My central point has been and remains that I can't see the foundation for clear and unyielding proof of premeditation given the core sources are void of evidence; i.e., no body, no place of death, no time of death, no cause of death, no mechanics of death, no crime scene, no eyewitness and no confession.

 

[Marina2]

Do any of the legal experts on this forum know if the judge can or will instruct the jury regarding "conciousness of guilt" as evidence in this trial?