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

[Wudge]

Yes, and this is the other part of the standard Jury instruction.



It's all about the Juror's interpretation of what they, themselves, find reasonable.

What do you think the role of a Jury is Wudge?

An explanation that you find reasonable may not be reasonable to me. This is why we have Jurors.

Correct.

The reasonableness of an explanation is for jurors to decide, and this is entirely consistent with my posts.

 

[Indigo]

Really I am not being snarky but, you need to keep reading on after it says 80%. Causes it goes on to say only 17 of these overlap with known or possible gasoline constitiuents leaving 24 compounds (59%)and soon..... and they only single in on 5!

Hi AutomaticAuttie,

The 5 compounds are associated with human decompostion and are not found in animal decomposition. Add to this that several witnesses said the car smelled like a dead body(or similar statements). Cadaver dogs, which are trained to hit on human remains, hit on the scent. These facts will all be important to the case.

 

[whiteangora]

http://books.google.com/books?id=NG...&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result
Page # 692

 

[Janis396]

Correct.

The reasonableness of an explanation is for jurors to decide, and this is entirely consistent with my posts.[/quote]

Not....IMO

I agree with you. That is NOT what that poster has been saying. He specifically said "As part of jury instructions for criminal trials, judges in all states instruct the jury that if the circumstantial evidence, which goes to any charge, permits two reasonable explanations (one put forth by prosecutors and one put forth by the defense) that jurors must accept the reasonable explanation provided by the defense and, in turn, jurors must reject the prosecution's explanation -- even if that explanation might seem more reasonable."

How is that consistent with "If on the other hand, one interpretation of this evidence appears to you to be reasonable, and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable"? I didn't see this to state it had to be the DEFENSE's reasonable interpretation.

 

[magnolia]

Correct.

The reasonableness of an explanation is for jurors to decide, and this is entirely consistent with my posts.

Not....IMO

 

[AutomaticAuttie]

I disagree with your interpretation. Of the narrowed down 16 compounds found (those not overlapped with gasoline vapors), 7 were associated with human decomp and only 5 of those were USED to draw conclusions. But originally, the 80% of 51 chemicals found were from a decomp event. No pizza in the trunk, and nothing else found in there decomposing. So what would account for the decomp event in 80% of the chemicals found? My bet is the presence of the 17 decomp associated chemicals that were overlapped by gasoline contributed to the big decomp picture.

Trunk Carpet Sample

51 Chemicals Identified but, only 41 are consistent with decompositional events
41 – 17 due the fact that these 17 overlap with gasoline found in the trunk
Now your left with 24 which is 59% not 80%

Air sample

Out of 24 only 16 did not overlap with gasoline found in the trunk
Out of the 16 you are left with only 7 are significant in human decompositional events
But out of the 7 only 5 are being used to draw a conclusion.
(please note page 4 from the body farm there own words about 5 being used to draw the conclusion)

Also note on page 1 It is important to note that gasoline was found in the vecicle trunk!

 

[Wudge]

Incorrect. The jury will not make a decision based upon one element of the case, such as the air sample. Don't be silly. The probability rises as more elements are introduced and digested by the jurors. The probability rises or decreases as the case moves along. There is more than enough probability here already, in my opinion. And more to come. Your math is based on one single element I mentioned, don't be foolin'.

That's false. The probability is a function of the coefficients of the independent evidence that the jury relies on.

If a item of independent evidence has an 80% reliability, that's its coefficient.

In flipping a coin, the coefficient that a heads will come up is 50%. (1 chance of out 2).

In flipping a coin twice, the chance that two heads will come up in a row is 25% (1 out of 4 times). The 25% is the product of multiplying the coefficients of the two flips.

.5 x .5 = .25 = 25% = 1 out of four times.

Please understand that when coefficients of less than 1 (absolute certainty) are multiplied, the resulting product (chances) are reduced.

HTH

 

[lizzysf]

Correct.

The reasonableness of an explanation is for jurors to decide, and this is entirely consistent with my posts.

Cindy: Smells like a damn dead body (notice she doesnt say animal?)
George: I gotta be honest, I didn't like that smell, gotta get down to the bottom of this (Former LE)
Lee: The smell was overwhelming
KC: Car stinks, um, squirrels ( we are to assume the trunk smells cuz she they crawled into the engine and died...oh, and she got rid of the smell HOW? By crawling into the engine or carriage of the car and removing these pesky dead rodents?)
Yuri: It was the smell of decomp
Tow Yard Guy: Smelled like the suicide guy car.

OK...so how many "points" does this scenario add to the probability when digested by jurors? What "percentage" are we at now? Is this just prosecutions "spin" ??

Nanny took her- No nanny, no phone number, no address, no picture of her, no artists sketch, no one else met her, Jeffrey Hopkins doesn't know her, she wasn't hospitalized after a "car accident", no mother Gloria, no Hopkins boy Zach, no 2nd Jeff Hopkins found, no calls made or received from her, no call on the 16th, nada nada nothing. How many "points" will the jurors add to the "percentage" of probability here?
We can start a BEST of LIST now, to point out where the probability points will be added. It's a no-brainer. Do I think she will get the DP without a body? NO, LWOP, maybe not. Manslaughter with extra time for lying and uncooperation, yeah probably. Found innocent? NO WAY IN HE**

 

[Janis396]

Cindy: Smells like a damn dead body (notice she doesnt say animal?)
George: I gotta be honest, I didn't like that smell, gotta get down to the bottom of this (Former LE)
Lee: The smell was overwhelming
KC: Car stinks, um, squirrels ( we are to assume the trunk smells cuz she they crawled into the engine and died...oh, and she got rid of the smell HOW? By crawling into the engine or carriage of the car and removing these pesky dead rodents?)
Yuri: It was the smell of decomp
Tow Yard Guy: Smelled like the suicide guy car.

OK...so how many "points" does this scenario add to the probability when digested by jurors? What "percentage" are we at now? Is this just prosecutions "spin" ??

Nanny took her- No nanny, no phone number, no address, no picture of her, no artists sketch, no one else met her, Jeffrey Hopkins doesn't know her, she wasn't hospitalized after a "car accident", no mother Gloria, no Hopkins boy Zach, no 2nd Jeff Hopkins found, no calls made or received from her, no call on the 16th, nada nada nothing. How many "points" will the jurors add to the "percentage" of probability here?
We can start a BEST of LIST now, to point out where the probability points will be added. It's a no-brainer. Do I think she will get the DP without a body? NO, LWOP, maybe not. Manslaughter with extra time for lying and uncooperation, yeah probably. Found innocent? NO WAY IN HE**

:clap::clap: GOOD post.

 

[AutomaticAuttie]

Hi AutomaticAuttie,

The 5 compounds are associated with human decompostion and are not found in animal decomposition. Add to this that several witnesses said the car smelled like a dead body(or similar statements). Cadaver dogs, which are trained to hit on human remains, hit on the scent. These facts will all be important to the case.

The one dog hit on the right side all items that are being used in the report to try and show decomp were from the left side! How many compounds are listed in the decompostional odor database?

 

[Wudge]

Not....IMO

Let me explain why jurors are instructed that they MUST accept a "reasonable" explanation from the defense.

Assume a hypothetical case that rests entirely on three separate pieces of circumstantial evidence. And for each piece of circumstantial evidence the defense puts forth a reasonable explanation and the prosecution puts forth a reasonable explanation.

Now, strictly for the sake of argument, let's assume that for the first piece of evidence a juror thinks to themselves: both explanations are "reasonable", but I believe the prosecution's argument is more likely to be the truth, and I feel the likelihood is 70% for the prosecution's explanation, but only 30% for the defense's explanation.

And for the second piece of circumstantial evidence, let's assume that same juror thinks to themselves: both explanations are "reasonable", but I believe the prosecution's argument is much more likely to be the truth, and I feel the likelihood is 75% for the prosecution's explanation, but only 25% for the defense's explanation.

Finally, for the third piece of circumstantial evidence, let's assume that same juror thinks to themselves: both explanations are "reasonable", but I believe the prosecution's argument is far more likely to be the truth, and I feel the likelihood is 85% for the prosecution's explanation, but only 15% for the defense's explanation.

Next, the juror looks at his three choices based on weighting and votes to convict.

What the juror will have done is to have used weighting to knowingly vote to convict a person even though they assessed the defense's explanation for each piece of circumstantial evidence to be "reasonable".

Now bring into focus the fact that our legal standard is: proof beyond a REASONABLE doubt.

By logical necessity, a juror cannot say that the defense offered a REASONABLE explanation for each piece of evidence, yet that they were able to find the defendant guilty based on our standard of proof beyond a REASONABLE doubt.

That equation simply cannot ever close. And that is why jurors are instructed that they MUST accept a REASONABLE explanation put forth by the defense.

HTH
_

 

[Indigo]

The one dog hit on the right side all items that are being used in the report to try and show decomp were from the left side! How many compounds are listed in the decompostional odor database?

I see your point, but many of the compounds had overlap and full decomposition hadn't yet been achieved. Another pertinent question in this case could be:

How many compounds associated with human decomposition should be found in the trunk of a mother with a missing child?

 

[AutomaticAuttie]

I see your point, but many of the compounds had overlap and full decomposition hadn't yet been achieved. A pertinent question in this case would be:

How many compounds associated with human decomposition should be found in the trunk of a mother with a missing child?

Now wait, I am going on the forensic report that says 42 and 3 trace = 45 compounds are listed in the decompostional odor database per the body farm. Where does it say that these 45 compounds are only achieved at full decompostion? And as far your question that is a whole other debate. I am stating the sciencfic facts as they are stated in the report.

Trunk Carpet Sample

51 Chemicals Identified but, only 41 are consistent with decompositional events
41 – 17 due the fact that these 17 overlap with gasoline found in the trunk
Now your left with 24 which is 59% not 80%

Air sample

Out of 24 only 16 did not overlap with gasoline found in the trunk
Out of the 16 you are left with only 7 are significant in human decompositional events
But out of the 7 only 5 are being used to draw a conclusion.
(please note page 4 from the body farm there own words about 5 being used to draw the conclusion)

Also note on page 1 "It is important to note that gasoline was found in the vecicle trunk!"
__________________

 

[kiki the parrot]

Indigo: How many compounds associated with human decomposition should be found in the trunk of a mother with a missing child?

AutoAuttie: "What you see and hear depends a good deal on where you are standing: it also depends on what sort of person you are." - C.S. Lewis

About says it all...

 

[Indigo]

I'm sorry, Auttie, I thought you were referring to the full spectrum of VOCs that can occur in human decomposition (over 400 I believe) Signature changes over time, so obviously not all of these compounds would be present at once.

I agee that the conclusions were based on 5 compounds. They may seem few, but they are significant and it's going to be extremely hard for the defense to explain them away. JMO.

 

[Friday]

Friday, it's Wednesday... and I needed some comic relief this am I am CRACKING up. Seriously, this would be hilarious if it weren't so TRUE!!! But I'm right there banging my head along with you...

:banghead:

Thank you, Kiki.

 

[Friday]

Originally Posted by Friday
Personally, I'm thrilled to learn KC intends to tell what she knows at her trial. I just can't figure out how JB intends KC to do that, since he can't possibly let her testify and be subject to cross-examination. (Although, God, how I would love it if he did.)

So, what sort of judicial judo does JB have in mind that would enable KC to tell what she knows without actually testifying to it in open court? Lemmee think. How about if he says,

"Your honor, my client can't possibly testify here to what she knows without endangering her child, but she has written it all down in invisible ink on these 12 identical post-it notes which her mother, Mrs. Cindy Complicit, has sworn under oath are true and complete. If your honor permits, I will pass them out to the jurors....?"

Pause for reply from judge...

"With all due respect, your honor, this is Florida and the sun shines all the time, everywhere. However, I'll be happy to tell our lawfirm's spokesperson, Mr. Todd Tedious, what to do with them when he gets back to his home state...

"Thank you, your honor. Now, since you won't allow my client, Miss Casey O'Cutie, to reveal everything she knows to the jury via her post-it notes, may I suggest we allow her to go over to the jurrors and whisper in each jurror's ear--after she whispers in yours and mine, of course?"

Apologies if this post isn't suitable for this thread or WS, but I'm quite new here and this case is making me crazy because nearly all the major participants are so impossibly IRRATIONAL.

When cross-examining various detectives, the defense can use LE's interrogation tapes that contain Casey's answers to the questions the detective asked her. This technique puts Casey's words and story into the trial record without requiring her to take the stand.

HTH

Thank you very much, Wudge. But I thought JB remarked/implied Casey was waiting for her trial to reveal everything else she knows. My original message was based on that belief.

 

[Marina2]

Indigo: How many compounds associated with human decomposition should be found in the trunk of a mother with a missing child?

AutoAuttie: "What you see and hear depends a good deal on where you are standing: it also depends on what sort of person you are." - C.S. Lewis

About says it all...

Truer words were never spoken. :clap:

 

[Marina2]

respectfully snipped

Originally Posted by Friday
Thank you very much, Wudge. But I thought JB remarked/implied Casey was waiting for her trial to reveal everything else she knows. My original message was based on that belief.

I did too. I think JB said that we would all say "Now I understand." after hearing KC's story.

 

[nancy botwin]

respectfully snipped


I did too. I think JB said that we would all say "Now I understand." after hearing KC's story.

They could actually get a whole new story in via hearsay exceptions, IMO. They wouldn't have to stick to LE tapes and transcripts. If Casey "excitedly uttered" to a witness yet to be named "I just saw someone kill someone and they took my car!" etc. that witness could effectively help tell "Casey's story" at trial.