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

[songline]

MY BOLD

Is it true they definitively ruled out KC's prints? I thought only the other As, but I could've missed that on a doc dump. I, too, believe they knew Caylee was dead, but I still don't think they knew it as early as last June or July. I think they started to think so when they smelled the odor in the car, and as evidence mounted they came to believe, if not accept, that she was really gone. I still think that if any of the Anthonys had been involved in the disposal of the remains, they would have placed them far away from home base, possibly even framing somebody (Jesse? Ricardo?) to allay suspiciouns from KC. They had freedom of movement to bury or otherwise hide little Caylee where nobody would discover her. It just doesn't make good sense to dump her down the street.

The last prints from Casey I prayed for was when they forund the body and that was a wash too. It is all in the doc. dump.
As far as disposal - it is said that people who kill often times leave the body not far from home, not far from the sceen.
They did not expect to even look far in the search, they all looked close to home. I think the smell only confirmed what they knew. JMO

 

[tweety933]

1st degree murder.....with or without premeditation........Yes, I DO! Based upon evidence I've seen released in the document dumps. Unless the defense has a reasonable explanation for all the circumstantial evidence that fits into a theory we haven't heard about yet (The imaginanny defense has be debunked already by the evidence released). IMO

Best chance for reasonable doubt (as is related to the physical forensic evidence, ie duct tape, pontiac trunk, pooh blanket, misc. fibers in hair mass) is to throw CA or GA under the buss! Only someone else in that household committing the murder could reasonably explain away the majority of the physical forensic circumstantial evidence. JMO

Of course that would have to be compatible with a behavioral forensic analysis of the other household members as well to hold water, but, I don't see any other avenue for the defense to take, and that imaginary phone call Casey reported to have gotten from Caylee on the very day 911 was called will be very hard to overcome with an reasonable explaination, just sayin.

But, as it stands now with the Imaginanny explanation the defendant has testified to......I'm not buying it, and the circumstantial evidence points to 1st degree murder, the duct tape proving intent to kill, for ME (although I think the M.E. also infers this as a cause of death).

Whether the first degree was caused by Casey or some other family member is proven by the false exculpatory statements, such as.....Casey received a phone call from Caylee on same day her car trunk had Caylee's decomposing head hair in it! NOT!

 

[KenoshaKid]

Before Caylee was found dead, I doubted whether there was enough evidence to convict of 1st degree premeditated murder, or 1st degree felony murder (the decomposing hair could've been from an accident)....But now that the duct tape has been found, I have no doubt her death was an intentional killing! I wonder what of the evidence the state had prior to Caylee being found, convinced them to charge HER with premeditated murder (in October wasn't it)?

My bold.

Is that true? I was under the assumption that the hair with the death band could only have fallen off of an already dead body.

 

[MissJames]

My bold.

Is that true? I was under the assumption that the hair with the death band could only have fallen off of an already dead body.

I think she meant that,although the hair proved Caylee was most likely dead,it could have been from an accident.Not that an accident caused the hair to come out.
The duct tape ruled out accidental death for many.

 

[Pattymarie]

Is there enough direct evidence to convict?

 

[kaRN]

A juror who hasn't followed the case is going to be blown away by the evidence against KC and we haven't seen everything yet IMO.

 

[momtective]

I think there is enough evidence at this point to pave the way for years and years of appeals...I will probably see the grave before KC does but even at this point, there is nothing, absolutely nothing that could convince me that KC didn't murder Caylee or that she should not be put to death for her crime.

 

[JBean]

Is there enough direct evidence to convict?

Exactly what direct evidence are you referring to? Your title says there is no direct evidence, yet you ask if there is enough to convict. I am cornfused.
I am trying to think of any direct evidence and I cannot come up with any. I am not sure how they can convict on direct evidence if there isn't any, so not sure where to go with this.

If there is direct evidence please someone remind me. I could be forgetting something very easily and won;t be surprised if I am LOL. TIA

 

[logicalgirl]

Hanging my Head, Red Face - guilty of voting yes, just because I really really want there to be direct evidence.....

 

[butterfly1978]

IMO the most direct evidence is Caseys own words. She puts herself dropping Caylee off at "ZFG" at sawgrass and no ZFG ever lived there, she then states that ZFG stole Caylee from Casey at JBP. She then does not report her missing for 30 days, and now no one mentions ZFG no lets blame it on RK, so IMO her own admission is the direct evidence that Casey murdered Caylee. Everything else is just extra nails in Casey's already sealed coffin.

 

[songline]

IF you can remember George said shortly after she was arrested that
there is no DIRECT link to Casey to a murder.
And If you recall I immediately said hmmm he cleaned it up.
All evidence points at Casey but no direct link...
I was hoping that the maggots/flies would be that link...
Unfortunately, they were 2nd or ever 4th generation.

I then prayed that someone will come along that will trip them up.
But that too has not happened YET.

Now the case will not be heard for another year...TOO MUCH DISTANCE.
I am afraid that it will be called time served.
My finger pointed to GA from the start for this evidence tempering.

I know that some such as Scott Peterson got convicted...with no direct tie.
Scott did not have an LE daddy....
I HOPE I AM WRONG but I do not think that I am.....
The longer it takes to get this trial going the further away
the truth will be.

IN the end it will be books and movies.
Lawyers writing them, parents writing them, and Casey may too after her trial.
It is sad
But this one is absolutely sickening. :sick: :sick: :sick:
I stepped away when the Shanya case came in and I only read because the BS
on this case would get me banned.It makes me so :furious:

I hope CAYLEE will be in the court room herself to see that there are no ANTHONY's
there for her not one.

I RATHER BE WRONG THEN RIGHT - HOPE IT COMES TO A FAIR JUDGMENT.

RIP CAYLEE ANGEL :angel::angel::angel:

 

[JBean]

I don;t think direct evidence can be an opinion. Either it is or it isn't KWIM?

Direct evidence is just that, evidence that does not require any inference or assumptions or beliefs into what the lawyer wants to prove with it...Examples include:

A person who testifies that they personally saw someone do something...
A video or audio recording of an event...
A person's confession...
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Criminal-Law-916/Circumstantial-Evidence-1.htm

 

[TorisMom003]

After thinking about it and thinking back on what evidence we know of I voted yes.

1. Duct found on Caylee that was the same as the duct tape found on the gas can that Casey had possession of during at least part of that time frame. Duct tape is rare enough to not be linked to anyone else other than the Anthony family.

2. Decomp in the trunk of the car and two dogs hitting on said car. Casey had possession of the car during this time frame. If George or Cindy would have had access to the car then it would not have turned up at the impound lot.

3. Items found with Caylee that came from the Anthony home. A stranger would not have access to those items or the home. George or Cindy would be able to be pointed at for having access to those items however other factors come into play that exclude them.

4. Casey was the last person that can be proven to have been with Caylee. There is no evidence of a sitter, nanny or friend keeping Caylee during the time in question. If someone had seen Caylee after the "missing" date then some sort of proof would exist.

5. Conflicting stories as to Caylee's whereabouts during this time frame all coming from the same individual, Casey Anthony.

6. Casey's behavior and lack of concern for Caylee during this time frame. Casey showed no concern that Caylee was in danger, that anything was wrong or even hinted to anyone that she had any concerns. Casey never even notified police that Caylee was missing, Cindy did. Then Casey continues to lie not only to LE but anyone and everyone that questions her concerning Caylee and her whereabouts.........think 31 days.

 

[Voodoochild]

So far, I do not think we have seen any direct slam dunk evidence. I am wondering if there is direct evidence that we are not privey to yet. I do believe that Casey will be convicted based on what i consider to be very strong circumstantial evidence.

 

[Jolynna]

Anything short of an eye witness or a confession is circumstantial not direct evidence. Many, many successful convictions are based entirely on circumstantial evidence. Timothy McVey, Scott Peterson and Darlie Routier(all sentenced to death) are high profile case examples.

Do I think there is enough circumstantial evidence for a reasonable trier of facts to conclude that KC deliberately killed Caylee?

Absolutely.

 

[BeanE]

Is there enough direct evidence to convict?

How much do we need?

 

[strawberry]

Oops, I accidentally clicked no instead of yes.

 

[JBean]

How much do we need?

Actually we don't need any. Circumstantial evidence works just fine.

 

[amethyst221]

I think the question seems to assume that direct evidence is required for a conviction, when it isn't, and assumes that circumstantial evidence is inferior, when it isn't.

 

[Pattymarie]

Exactly what direct evidence are you referring to? Your title says there is no direct evidence, yet you ask if there is enough to convict. I am cornfused.
I am trying to think of any direct evidence and I cannot come up with any. I am not sure how they can convict on direct evidence if there isn't any, so not sure where to go with this.

If there is direct evidence please someone remind me. I could be forgetting something very easily and won;t be surprised if I am LOL. TIA

Direct...as in No doubt she did it!