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

[OpenMind4U]

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.......

100% agree! KC's behavior (before/after June 16!!!) will deliver the quilty verdict!

 

[LiveLoveLaughLiza]

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

This may be a dumb comment, but what is reasonable to me, may be unreasonable to you.

 

[Wudge]

This may be a dumb comment, but what is reasonable to me, may be unreasonable to you.

It's not a dumb comment. It's true and frequently occurs in jury deliberations.

One juror can explain to the other jurors that they see two reasonable explanations for an item of circumstantial evidence. Hence, they can't use that circumstantial evidence to support a vote of "guilty", because to do so would violate both the jury's instructions and the oath they took.

 

[heartfortruth]

It's not a dumb comment. It's true and frequently occurs in jury deliberations.

One juror can explain to the other jurors that they see two reasonable explanations for an item of circumstantial evidence. Hence, they can't use that circumstantial evidence to support a vote of "guilty", because to do so would violate both the jury's instructions and the oath they took.

hi...I'm probably one of the slowest horses in the race around these threads but I am so glad that I happened on this website where I can get so much information from people like you .
now this probably WILL sound dumb , but could you site some example from the OJ trial to illustrate what you are saying here......is it something like "if the glove don't fit you must acquit"?.......there were bodies and blood evidence everywhere........what was your take on the "Reasonable doubt" in that case, if you will..
thanks for your input on these threads.....(and also the other knowledgeable folks) (I'm prolly going to be sorry I wrote this ....except for the first and last sentence)

 

[magnolia]

This may be a dumb comment, but what is reasonable to me, may be unreasonable to you.

No, your comment is not dumb. This is why we have Juries.

 

[magnolia]

hi...I'm probably one of the slowest horses in the race around these threads but I am so glad that I happened on this website where I can get so much information from people like you .
now this probably WILL sound dumb , but could you site some example from the OJ trial to illustrate what you are saying here......is it something like "if the glove don't fit you must acquit"?.......there were bodies and blood evidence everywhere........what was your take on the "Reasonable doubt" in that case, if you will..
thanks for your input on these threads.....(and also the other knowledgeable folks) (I'm prolly going to be sorry I wrote this ....except for the first and last sentence)

Thanks! Great idea! I would like for Wudge to post an example from the OJ case as well.

If you will Wudge, will you also cite an example from the Scott Peterson trial.

Maybe this will give us a better understanding.

 

[passionflower]

In a 1st degree murder, can juvenial criminal records be used??? I have a feeling that K might have a record as a teen............IMO

 

[Wudge]

hi...I'm probably one of the slowest horses in the race around these threads but I am so glad that I happened on this website where I can get so much information from people like you .
now this probably WILL sound dumb , but could you site some example from the OJ trial to illustrate what you are saying here......is it something like "if the glove don't fit you must acquit"?.......there were bodies and blood evidence everywhere........what was your take on the "Reasonable doubt" in that case, if you will..
thanks for your input on these threads.....(and also the other knowledgeable folks) (I'm prolly going to be sorry I wrote this ....except for the first and last sentence)

My position on OJ's murder trial has long been that the Los Angeles Police Department tried to frame a guilty man. In some of the blood droppings, a blood preservative (EDTA) was found in large measure. Clearly, this strongly pointed to evidence tampering. Thus, the basis for the framing comment in my position.

However, to better review a situation where two reasonable explanations are put forth for a piece of circumstantial evidence, I think it would be wiser to use a hypothetical.

Hypo: A Mother taught her daughter to knit at the age of seven. Every year, off and on, the daughter would knit until she got married and continued to do so during the first two years of her marriage. Then she stopped knitting for several years.

Four years into her marriage, she found her husband playing around. So she decided to start knitting again to relax, and she bought new knitting needles.

Two days later, her husband is found dead in the kitchen from a knitting needle that was driven through his head.

The wife claims that someone entered the house and used one of her knitting needles to murder her husband while she was sleeping. However, LE found no forced entry or evidence that anyone else was in the house at the time of his death. The D.A. takes the evidence to a Grand Jury and the wife is indicted on premeditated murder.

At trial, the D.A. tells the jury that the wife obviously bought sharp, new knitting needles just before her husband was murdered with one, because she planned to use one of the sharp knitting needles to murder her husband in a cold and calculating manner.

Her attorney claims that the wife is a knitter, and that it is reasonable for a knitter to buy knitting needles.

Should a jury find that it was reasonable for the wife to purchase knitting needles? Or is it reasonable for the jury to find that after years of not knitting, the wife's knitting needle purchase so shortly before the brutal murder of her husband is evidence that supports a guilty verdict.

(In this state, premeditated murder carries the death penalty. Decide wisely.)

 

[kiki the parrot]

While various new patterns or gauges may require knitting in a new, different size needle, personally I don't find it a reasonable argument that any particular size, or new needle would be necessary for stabbing. Thus, on the basis of this evidence alone, it is to me thoroughly unconvincing. JMO

 

[Wudge]

While various new patterns or gauges may require knitting in a new, different size needle, personally I don't find it a reasonable argument that any particular size, or new needle would be necessary for stabbing. Thus, on the basis of this argument alone, it is to me thoroughly unconvincing. JMO

The real key is whether or not the defense's explanation is reasonable. If so, jurors are mandated to accept it.

 

[OpenMind4U]

Regarding reasonable doubt in 'knitting' case. IMO, buying new knitting tools is the REASONABLE action for the wife who start's knitting PRIOR her husband murder. Therefore, as the juror on this case, the prosecutor's claim that she bought these knew knitting tools to commit the murder (aka commit the PREMIDITATED murder) would raised the reasonable doubts.

 

[Friday]

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.

Ah ha. I see. That tells me her parents and brother will do all the "revealing," because I can't imagine anyone else who would be willing to perjure themselves for her.

 

[Wudge]

Regarding reasonable doubt in 'knitting' case. IMO, buying new knitting tools is the REASONABLE action for the wife who start's knitting PRIOR her husband murder. Therefore, as the juror on this case, the prosecutor's claim that she bought these knew knitting tools to commit the murder (aka commit the PREMIDITATED murder) would raised the reasonable doubts.

But the wife had not knitted for two years. What amount of time must pass before a former knitter should no longer be considered a knitter?

 

[Janis396]

But the wife had not knitted for two years. What amount of time must pass before a former knitter should no longer be considered a knitter?

Never. Once a knitter, always a knitter.

 

[heartfortruth]

Wudge, you didn't tell me if she / the killer wore gloves........

(thanks for your opinion on the OJ trial and for your interesting response....I'm mulling it over......)

"knit one / stab one".......(Kiki) .....

you guys are SO funny and smart...
I'm thrilled to be pretty much one of your cheerleaders on the sidelines......
carry on....

 

[OpenMind4U]

The real key is whether or not the defense's explanation is reasonable. If so, jurors are mandated to accept it.

Dear Wudge, I'm closely reading all your postings...so, please let's go back to KC case. And let's play the 'trial' with currently known to us forensic evidences. Let say that both of us are in jury deliberation. And let assume that one juror raised the reasonable doubts that evidences of the death body in the KC's car has not necessarly means that KC did it (we are not talking here if it's Caylee's death body or not. For the sake of the argument, we'll except that the 'death body' was prooven to be in KC trunk. OK?). So, would you support these juror and if yes, what would be your reason to support the reasonable doubts?

Thank you in advance to excepting playing this game...

 

[Wudge]

Wudge, you didn't tell me if she / the killer wore gloves........

(thanks for your opinion on the OJ trial and for your interesting response....I'm mulling it over......)

"knit one / stab one".......(Kiki) .....

you guys are SO funny and smart...
I'm thrilled to be pretty much one of your cheerleaders on the sidelines......
carry on....

The surface on the knitting needles was to small to get anything but what was believed to be a badly smugged palm print.

 

[Wudge]

Dear Wudge, I'm closely reading all your postings...so, please let's go back to KC case. And let's play the 'trial' with currently known to us forensic evidences. Let say that both of us are in jury deliberation. And let assume that one juror raised the reasonable doubts that evidences of the death body in the KC's car has not necessarly means that KC did it (we are not talking here if it's Caylle's death body or not. For the sake of the argumet, we'll except that the 'death body' was prooven to be in KC trunk. OK?). So, would you support these juror and if yes, what would be your reason to support the reasonable doubts?

Thank you in advance to excepting playing this game...

Yes, I would support that juror in their reasonable doubt vote. For even if the entire jury found that a dead (but not recovered) body was in the trunk of Casey's and decided that it was Caylee's body, that fact does not prove that her death was caused by murder, much less prove the State's contention that it was a premeditated murder. Therefore, given the State's charge of premeditated murder, I would find there was insufficient evidence to support the State's charge and vote "not guilty".

 

[TexasLil]

For the knitting theory:

I believe the defense has put forth a "reasonable" explanation for purchase of the knitting needles. However, the prosecution's point is also "reasonable"... however, based on the former jury instructions explained I could not support a guilty verdict based on this piece of evidence because both sides had a reasonable explanation.

Is that correct Wudge?

 

[OpenMind4U]

The surface on the knitting needles was to small to get anything but what was believed to be a badly smugged palm print.

You see, everyone is asking for more information to get the WHOLE picture...I would be interested to know WHERE these knitting tools where usually stored. How accesable they were for the stranger to find/use them.......Again, you need to know the FULL case with other evidences, behaviors, prior history...all factors...JMHO...