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

[gawdess]

This case just happened in FL in the county I live in and I think we have hope here for Caylee getting justice. A stepdad was just sentence to death for killing his stepdaughter. Guess what they didn't have - A BODY. But the only difference is he confessed to a cellmate who in turn tattled. So hopefully if KC gets put in general pop one nice lady can make her crack. :whip:

http://www.theledger.com/article/20081020/NEWS/810200395/1410?Title=Man_Sentenced_to_Death_In_Stepdaughter_s_Murder

KC will be dancing behind bars, instead of on tables in bars! LOL!:behindbar:behindbar:behindbar:behindbar

 

[Wudge]

Why thank you Wudge dear, I'll take this as high praise indeed as I've hardly ever aspired to be a defense attorney (smile) but rather take considerable comfort in the fact I have a heart as WELL as a brain lol. But many warm fuzzy returns to you too lol.
:blowkiss:

(hugs)

 

[Anniegirl]

Yes, i do.

 

[LCoastMom]

Yes I do, they were under no deadline, no one was pressuring them to hurry up and bring charges.

I believe they feel the evidence is strong enough to convict with or without a body. Either they have a strong idea where the body is and are confident it will be found before they go to trial or they believe the body will never be found (and may have evidence to support this) so there is no point in waiting.

The LEO's in this case have been awesome and I wish them nothing but good things.

 

[leophoenix]

I believe they have enough evidence.

I also believe that I could be a juror even after hearing all this information and speculation as I will rule in whatever the evidence presents and discount what I've seen on tv and groups.

I had to do this before when I was to serve in a drug case. The guy did sell drugs and the police even had a video of him selling crack. The prosecutor though kept saying over and over and kept presenting evidence that it was within 50ft from a school.
The charges they were seeking was distributing illegal substances within 50ft from a school. I asked them how many students were in our town High School after it closed two years ago to move to a new building. They said none, I then asked if it were indeed a school in any fashion now. Their answer was no so I voted not guilty. If they were seeking something as "Distributing illegal substances" without the school added he would have gotten guilty.
There was no school anywhere near his distribution point. Selling near a school gives a higher degree of punishment. This case was in the local papers. Most of the jurors were angry with me...whatever. Do I feel the guy was slime...yes, but he wasn't selling near a school.

 

[Wudge]

I believe they have enough evidence.

I also believe that I could be a juror even after hearing all this information and speculation as I will rule in whatever the evidence presents and discount what I've seen on tv and groups.

I had to do this before when I was to serve in a drug case. The guy did sell drugs and the police even had a video of him selling crack. The prosecutor though kept saying over and over and kept presenting evidence that it was within 50ft from a school.
The charges they were seeking was distributing illegal substances within 50ft from a school. I asked them how many students were in our town High School after it closed two years ago to move to a new building. They said none, I then asked if it were indeed a school in any fashion now. Their answer was no so I voted not guilty. If they were seeking something as "Distributing illegal substances" without the school added he would have gotten guilty.
There was no school anywhere near his distribution point. Selling near a school gives a higher degree of punishment. This case was in the local papers. Most of the jurors were angry with me...whatever. Do I feel the guy was slime...yes, but he wasn't selling near a school.

You believe the prosecutors have the required evidence. Beliefs precede and bias actions and/or conclusions. In voir dire, a competent defense attorney almost assuredly would (and should) ask for you to be excused.

 

[kaRN]

My first post or maybe 2nd so I may be posting in the wrong place, but did anyone notice that she was not exactly crying when her attorney was doing his little talk. L.P. brought that up on N.G. tonight. She did some tears, but oh goodness I thought she was going to wipe her eye out. Bad thing about it she was only upset about herself, not the baby. So selfish. I pray she breaks now and tells where the baby is to bring closure to her family and everyone esle.

I think she was worried about her mascara more than anything else. She flipped her hair back a lot too.

 

[tiredofthis]

Wow, I thought I had no life now, just with the time I spend on this website. Can you imagine trying to keep up with 8 hours of televised trial proceedings every day?? And I won't want to miss a single minute of it! Thank G for DVR's!

My life was just beginning to get back to normal. If they televise the trial (AND I HOPE THEY DO!) I am in really big trouble.

 

[Brini]

Hello Shotzie, LTNS. After Dr. Sheppard's wrongful conviction was overturned and he was acquitted in his second trial, cases I considered to represent wrongful convictions, or have the strong potential to generate a wrongful conviction, continued to attract my attention -- like a moth to a flame. (chuckle) So, yes, I still follow Scott's case.

In many ways, I think a better comparative template for Caylee's case might be Elizabeth's Smart's case. In her case, I kept asking the case followers who knew Elizabeth Smart was dead (most everybody), how the State could prove Richard Ricci murdered Elizabeth without her body or some truly solid inculpatory evidence to that effect.

As always, the old party pooper advocated waiting for the trial and holding to the presumption of innocence until a trial was held and both sides rested their case. However, Elizabeth was most certainly dead. As usual, I was spoiling the fun.

Color me a forever party pooper. I'm far too old to change now.

(smile)

(singing) "Every party needs a pooper, that's why we invited you."

I , too thought ES was dead. AND, Patty Hearst!

But, don't you find the trunk evidence pretty compelling, honey?

 

[LaLaw2000]

I have great faith in what LE has presented to the Prosecutor in this case. The Prosecutor presented the case to the Grand Jury. If he was not confident in his case, I do not think Casey would have been indited.
I have great faith in our prosecutors! LE and the Prosecutors work hand in hand for justice for victims. I admire and respect both!

Wudge, you certainly have a right to your opinion and I sincerely respect that. LE has to go with the evidence, and then the case/evidence is given to the Prosecutors, and they prosecute the case (as all of us know). I greatly admire both of them.

Our justice system is not perfect. There may be a small amount of wrongful convictions, but that is certainly up to the jury. It would seem to me that your disdain has to be placed with the jury. Not LE, and not the DA/Prosecutor.

 

[okiedokietoo]

Yes, just based on the evidence that has been released to the public - yes I think they have enough evidence.
1)
KC is attractive
KC is small, wears size 4-6 clothes
KC has a cute haircut
KC wears stylish clothes
2)
KC is not attractive
KC is overweight
KC has stringy hair that she cuts herself
KC shops a goodwill

If KC fit into catagory (2) would there be as many people questioning the "premeditated murder" theory?

I don't think so.

 

[okiedokietoo]

ok I re read what I wrote and realize it wasn't clear - I think based on what I know that there is enough evidence tor Murder 1.
I think that even if Caylee's body was found and autopsy showed long term exposure to chloroform, that Xanax had been used, an eye witness that KC killed Caylee and a video tape of the crime --- that some people would still think KC was innocent based on: she is too cute, too young, has a lot of boyfriends so she is popular etc etc

 

[natsound]

I believe now more than ever that there's enough evidence for murder 1. It seems LE can release leaks at their leisure and pleasure, so they probably have a lot more than we know in their arsenal.

In a way it almost seems like they're toying with KC.... "See what we got? You know what else we got that we haven't released yet... and you know it's comin', don't ya?"

 

[ziggy]

Hi Wudge: take off your eternal law hat for just a second and dig really deep. I realize this has nothing to do with the law, but I would like a personal reaction from you...
Given what we know, can you come up with any other plausible explanation for what was found? Also, can you think of any possible other scenario as to why Caylee is missing?

Here's my point: I believe that a jury will want to have something to base reasonable doubt on. I think when they are going into such a highly televised case, they almost want to appear SO impartial that they may lean toward "show me the doubt - PLEASE!!" The problem is that as humans, they are going to have a very hard time, as in Laci Peterson, imagining any other possible perp - or any believable alternate theory. Even though the defense is not required to provide other possible theories - as humans it will be hard for them to think that anything BUT what the prosecution puts forth could exist. I don't think they have to understand all the details of when, why, how to believe that KC as the perp is the only believable theory.

I think there is some compelling evidence. It always amuses me to hear that a case is "ONLY" circumstantial. Sometimes, the science is more trustworthy than anything else.

 

[kaRN]

At the end of motions-in-limine (evidence issues have been ruled upon and the Judge is the jury in a bench trial) the defense would move to dismiss based on insufficient evidence to support the charges.

A directed verdict would be the next related motion.

As for your belief that inculpatory evidence from sources beyond the cited sources supports premeditation, what is that evidence?

I'm not a lawyer so I barely understand what you're discussing here (LOL!) but I, as a prospective juror could convict Casey of Murder 1 based on what I know right now.
Premeditation needs only to occur in the second prior to the act doesn't it?
If your negligence contributed to your childs death and in that moment you have to chose between calling 911 and getting your child help to save their life or watching them die and you chose the latter, that's premeditation is it not?
If Caylee drowned, she wouldn't have been declared dead for perhaps hours. EMS and the medical community would have fought as long and hard as they could to save her until it was deemed inappropriate and she would then be legally declared dead at that moment, not 2 hours earlier when she was found. Casey isn't in a legal position to declare her child dead, unless she intended to kill her and didn't care if lifeless was or wasn't death.

Hope I'm making sense. The Mothers on the jury will find her guilty. The defense should try and block all Mothers from the pool or their client's in trouble. JMO- I learn lots from reading your posts wudge!

 

[okiedokietoo]

premeditated murder ----
I base my opinion on the official released evidence and leaks. What else are we going on? At this point? So I figure this poll is based on what the evidence in this case appears to be right Now.
Chloroform in the trunk of the car
Chloroform searches, at time of Caylee missing
Caylee goes missing in middle of the night and CA said she didn't call in the middle of the night for KC to bring Caylee home
ZG searches way before Caylee goes missing
Missing Children website searches before Caylee goes missing
--more but have to run...
Really where is the line, the deciding thought, between premeditated and accidential if you plan to kill someone and right before the act you think maybe you won't, maybe, for instance, you can just drug the person one more time and then make another plan but the person dies. Everything you did that lead up to the moment the person died was a plan to kill the person.
premeditated
IM humble O

 

[kaRN]

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?

An accident involving her child should have triggered her to call 911 at that instant. Whatever day, whatever the accident, if she didn't have the first aid skills to attend to it herself she had that basic obligation to her toddler daughter to find someone who could. She failed to do so. It was a premeditated act to not do what every cell in a normal parent or adult would scream to do and that's call 911.
Doctor's declare death following accidents. It wasn't Casey's call to make unless she managed to decapitate her daughter.

Anyway Wudge, we really don't know what the prosecution has. Personally I think they're playing with the defendant by releasing what they have when the did. If the public had access to all the gory details, Casey might not have survived home confinement and they would have been liable for that. Plus, why tell give Baez anything more than they have to.
I have to believe there's more. Otherwise it's actually terrifying that freedom and presumption of innocence could involve webcams trained on your house, and protesters throwing stones.

 

[natsound]

It was a premeditated act to not do what every cell in a normal parent or adult would scream to do and that's call 911.

That doesn't sound premeditated to me. That sounds like a decision after the fact.

 

[Wudge]

I'm not a lawyer so I barely understand what you're discussing here (LOL!) but I, as a prospective juror could convict Casey of Murder 1 based on what I know right now.
Premeditation needs only to occur in the second prior to the act doesn't it?
If your negligence contributed to your childs death and in that moment you have to chose between calling 911 and getting your child help to save their life or watching them die and you chose the latter, that's premeditation is it not?
If Caylee drowned, she wouldn't have been declared dead for perhaps hours. EMS and the medical community would have fought as long and hard as they could to save her until it was deemed inappropriate and she would then be legally declared dead at that moment, not 2 hours earlier when she was found. Casey isn't in a legal position to declare her child dead, unless she intended to kill her and didn't care if lifeless was or wasn't death.

Hope I'm making sense. The Mothers on the jury will find her guilty. The defense should try and block all Mothers from the pool or their client's in trouble. JMO- I learn lots from reading your posts wudge!

The definition of "premeditation" is somewhat ambiguous and can easily be misleading. The legal definition of "premeditation" is with planning or deliberation. However, the amount of time needed for premeditation, regarding any act, depends on the person and the circumstances. After forming intent, the time must be long enough to act, and it must also allow for the person to have been fully conscious of the intent and to have considered the act.

As far as I know, you must have prior planning to have premeditation. Hence, in this case that lacks: a clear and unyielding motive, a place of death, a time of death, a cause of death, the mechanics of death, the circumstances surrounding the death, a confession and an eyewitness, then unless the words came from the defendant's mouth premeditation would appear not likely be proven to have existed for an instant or otherwise.

Additionally, the words in the legal definition are deliberation and planning. The definition for both of those words indicates that this is not an "instant" process. Although the definition states that it depends on the circumstances and the person and indicates that it could be "instantaneous", those two words indicate that it can not be so.

Still, the key thing is to prove it in court, and that means the prosecutors must prove deliberation and planning beyond a reasonable doubt.

As for the defense trying to exclude Mothers from the jury, I could not agree more. The next best group to exclude would be women, any model will do.

 

[Wudge]

Hi Wudge: take off your eternal law hat for just a second and dig really deep. I realize this has nothing to do with the law, but I would like a personal reaction from you...
Given what we know, can you come up with any other plausible explanation for what was found? Also, can you think of any possible other scenario as to why Caylee is missing?

Here's my point: I believe that a jury will want to have something to base reasonable doubt on. I think when they are going into such a highly televised case, they almost want to appear SO impartial that they may lean toward "show me the doubt - PLEASE!!" The problem is that as humans, they are going to have a very hard time, as in Laci Peterson, imagining any other possible perp - or any believable alternate theory. Even though the defense is not required to provide other possible theories - as humans it will be hard for them to think that anything BUT what the prosecution puts forth could exist. I don't think they have to understand all the details of when, why, how to believe that KC as the perp is the only believable theory.

I think there is some compelling evidence. It always amuses me to hear that a case is "ONLY" circumstantial. Sometimes, the science is more trustworthy than anything else.

It would seem to me that if Casey planned and deliberated Caylee's death, her plan would not have been to ride around with the body in the trunk until the odor allegedly was overwhelming -- to say nothing of the alleged time period of eleven days.