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

[TURBOTHINK]

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!"
__________________

The one thing I think is conclusive is;......... in most cases it takes only 2 to draw a conclusion of decomposition and this case has 5. That is significant.

I believe you are making too much out of the gasoline. Even if the air samples have a large amount of gasoline, the other factors are present.

I tend to think they are saying "someone tried to cover up the odor with gasoline" and failed.

 

[Marina2]

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.

Maybe, but I would tend to think that her story told through a witness as an excited utterance would be too long to be considered an excited utterance and, therefore, not admissable via hearsay exceptions. Maybe there are many witnesses with many excited utterances.

 

[AutomaticAuttie]

The one thing I think is conclusive is;......... in most cases it takes only 2 to draw a conclusion of decomposition and this case has 5. That is significant.

I believe you are making too much out of the gasoline. Even if the air samples have a large amount of gasoline, the other factors are present.

I tend to think they are saying "someone tried to cover up the odor with gasoline" and failed.

Do you know of other cases where they tested the air? I would love to read about them if you have a link

 

[gitana1]

When the prosecution puts a detective on the witness stand and asks: "what did the defendant tell you?", that question opens the cross-examination door to everything the defendant told them. That's not hearsay, and I know of no state that limits the use of tapes or transcripts for impeachment only.

A transcript or audio tape or video tape goes to the truth of what the defendant told the LEO or detective. An evaluation of the absolute truth of the answer is left to the finders-of-fact; i.e., the jurors.

HTH

ETA: Another poster noted that this technique was used to get Scott Peterson's story into the trial record. That is true. It's a very common technique when the defense is not sure that they wish to have their client testify.

Actually, it IS hearsay. But, it falls into one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule, that one being "an admission by a party opponent".

 

[nancy botwin]

Maybe, but I would tend to think that her story told through a witness as an excited utterance would be too long to be considered an excited utterance and, therefore, not admissable via hearsay exceptions. Maybe there are many witnesses with many excited utterances.

True-- haha.
I was using that as an example of one of the many hearsay exceptions that could enable the defense to "tell Casey's story," without Casey taking the stand. I think there are a number of exceptions and procedural end-runs which would enable a cohesive defense narrative without Casey's direct testimony.

 

[DotsEyes]

Wudge brings up some of the questions that need to be answered.

Where is there proof of premeditated murder as opposed to an accidental death or death caused by negligence?

I say it is in KC's silence. When facing LWO or the DP, her lies would end and she would explain the accident, the unintentional but nonetheless negligent or careless act on her part that caused Caylee's death. Everyone understands an accident. Accidents happen because people are not paying attention, not being vigilant or the result of a careless act of ommission or commission, but there is no intent to harm. Sentences for these accidents are relatively light in comparison to murder sentences and often there is no prison time. I do not belive she would rather die than let her mother "win" by admitting that her carelessness cost Caylee her life. CA wins nothing in this, there are no winners. Even KC knows this.

The DuPont guy claimed self-defense and explained that he chopped the man up and threw away the body parts because he was afraid no one would believe him. The jury did.

 

[Wudge]

Actually, it IS hearsay. But, it falls into one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule, that one being "an admission by a party opponent".

Counselor, party admissions are not hearsay. They are specifically deemed to be non-hearsay in FRE 801 (d)2.

HTH

 

[Wudge]

Wudge brings up some of the questions that need to be answered.

Where is there proof of premeditated murder as opposed to an accidental death or death caused by negligence?

I say it is in KC's silence.


SNIP

Everyone, including Casey, has a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Prosecutors cannot use pre-arrest silence or post-Miranda silence, including attorney advised silence, as evidence of guilt.

 

[sha-sha]

Wudge, you're still here? Have you been here all night?

 

[magnolia]

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
_

Wudge, once again, Jurors are not instructed to accept any explanations offered by the defense. Nor are they instructed to accept any explanations offered by the prosecution.

The analogy of your hypothetical based on percentages does not work.

My intent is not to start a debate about the SP case here, but I'm going to use the SP case as an example. This exact same issue has been debated on that forum many times.

It has been your opinion that it is entirely reasonable for a fisherman to buy a fishing license and/or a fishing boat.​

Yes Wudge, I agree. It is entirely reasonable for a fisherman to buy a fishing license and or fishing boat (under ordinary circumstances).​

By your standards,a Jury is required to disregard the fact that Scott bought a fishing license and fishing boat.​

Your standard simply won't work Wudge, IMO.There were many circumstances surrounding the purchase of the FL and the boat. When the Jury considered these other circumstances, the purchases were no longer considered reasonable.​

It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge.

Sorry Wudge, if a Jury deliberated by your standards, most, if not all, circumstantial evidence would be disregarded. Therefore, most defendents would walk free. IMO​

 

[Wudge]

Wudge, once again, Jurors are not instructed to accept any explanations offered by the defense. Nor are they instructed to accept any explanations offered by the prosecution.

The analogy of your hypothetical based on percentages does not work.

My intent is not to start a debate about the SP case here, but I'm going to use the SP case as an example. This exact same issue has been debated on that forum many times.

It has been your opinion that it is entirely reasonable for a fisherman to buy a fishing license and/or a fishing boat.​

Yes Wudge, I agree. It is entirely reasonable for a fisherman to buy a fishing license and or fishing boat (under ordinary circumstances).​

By your standards,a Jury is required to disregard the fact that Scott bought a fishing license and fishing boat.​

Your standard simply won't work Wudge, IMO.There were many circumstances surrounding the purchase of the FL and the boat. When the Jury considered these other circumstances, the purchases were no longer considered reasonable.​

​

Sorry Wudge, if a Jury deliberated by your standards, most, if not all, circumstantial evidence would be disregarded. Therefore, most defendents would walk free. IMO​

You're wrong. Included in the set of jury instructions given to the Scott Peterson jury was jury instruction 39, which stated: "If the circumstantial evidence as to any particular count permits two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the defendant's guilt and the other to his innocence, you must adopt that interpretation that points to the defendant's innocence and reject that interpretation that points to his guilt."

In criminal trials, this is a standard instruction that covers what jurors are mandated to do when two reasonable explanations were put forth for an item of circumstantial evidence. Moreover, it fully supports what I explained to you in post #351.

 

[Indigo]

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
_

Thank you for that information, wudge.

 

[Wudge]

Wudge, you're still here? Have you been here all night?

(chuckle)

No. I do sleep. Though I'm in my twi-light years, I still start my day around 4AM.

 

[Wudge]

Thank you for that information, wudge.

You're welcome.

(salute)

 

[Indigo]

Going over the Body Farm results again, Table 2 struck me as very siginificant. Although some of the compounds recorded in the sample could have come from animal decomposition(therefore not used for a basis of conclusion), some were specific to pig/human, dog/human only. I'm wondering how the defense will explain how a pig(not of the pepperoni variety), a dog, and a human were decomposing in Casey's trunk. This doesn't seem reasonable by any stretch.

See Table 2:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...y-anthony-documents-102408,0,5346622.htmlpage

 

[aprilshowers]

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?

 

[magnolia]

You're wrong. Included in the set of jury instructions given to the Scott Peterson jury was jury instruction 39, which stated: "If the circumstantial evidence as to any particular count permits two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the defendant's guilt and the other to his innocence, you must adopt that interpretation that points to the defendant's innocence and reject that interpretation that points to his guilt."

In criminal trials, this is a standard instruction that covers what jurors are mandated to do when two reasonable explanations were put forth for an item of circumstantial evidence. Moreover, it fully supports what I explained to you in post #351.

Wudge, Again,there is another part of that instruction that you failed to post. My post #339
I'm not going to ther_beatingA_Dead
We will have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[Wudge]

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?

If prosecutors fail to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey murdered Caylee with intent, planning, deliberation and malice aforethought, then Casey should be found not guilty on the charge of premeditated murder.

 

[drumstick]

They will not fail.

This prosecutor is one of the best in FL.

That's why I want KC to have the best defense possible.

No appeals ... no retrials .... nothing.

She should have reported her two year child missing on the first day.

She should have never lied to Sgt. John Allen or Cmdr. Yuri Melich.

Now she's going down.......

 

[Wudge]

Wudge, Again,there is another part of that instruction that you failed to post. My post #339
I'm not going to ther_beatingA_Dead
We will have to agree to disagree on this.

Your referenced post covers a situation where one explanation put forth to the jury is reasonable while another explanation put forth to the jury is unreasonable.

My posts covers a situation where two reasonable explanations have been put forth to the jury, which is what the discussion in this thread has been about. And in the Scott Peterson trial, jury instruction 39 covered what the jury was mandated to do in such a situation.

HTH