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

[Tulessa]

Page 3 http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/6440.6475.pdf

"The duct tape was clearly placed prior to decomposition, keeping the mandible in place."

And decomp starts immediately. Does this mean she was alive when the tape was placed?

 

[Tulessa]

I'm like Zsa. I can't disconnect the two.

 

[The World According]

We never knew how Scott killed Lacey and Conner and you know what his outcome was. The searches on the computer will seal her fate, imo.

 

[ZsaZsa]

We never knew how Scott killed Lacey and Conner and you know what his outcome was. The searches on the computer will seal her fate, imo.

I always thought he drowned her in their pool. She was so petite compared to him, it would be easy for him to do.

 

[LambChop]

I think she had plenty of time and a few experts as well. There wasn't enough of Caylee left to determine cause of death with medical certainty.

Maybe the first piece of tape was placed on her face to quiet her down and she died of fright. Then 2 more pieces were put on her to cover up her face.
I don't really beleive that, but what I am saying is that Dr. G cannot say with medical certainty how she died because she has nothing left but bones to examine. The detail would be in the tissue,eyes, brain and all that is gone.
But, she can get on the stand and say that in her professional opinion it was the tape but she cannot report it with the certainty required to put it on the DC. KWIM? That is what I am waiting for.

And I believe that is the message that JA will relay to the jury. It does not matter how Caylee died. Putting duct tape on a child is child abuse and if the child dies in the process.....you, the parent had a choice and did nothing to stop the child's death. Putting more duct tape on the babies face further confirms she had no concern for this child.

Bottom line is there is just no way anyone can justify the duct tape. The fact that she continues to lie just makes it appear it was premeditated or she would have claimed by now it was an accident. JMO

 

[debbie0604]

Since there was chloroform present in the bag at the crime scene, and the skull had 3 layers of duct tape present, and the car trunk had chloroform (reportedly high levels present), and the fact that there was no tissue present with the body, it is my opinion that Dr. G could not determine the COD of Caylee... she could not determine if death was due to an overdosage of chloroform (because by the time that the bag was found with the chloroform in it, there were trace amounts). This bag had been out in the elements and submerged in water for months. The trunk of the car had been altered by cleaning chemicals from others trying to clean it and also had been aired out in the heat.

There was no human tissue to perform any toxicology testing. She cannot definitively state with certainty that Caylee died by having the duct tape placed over her mouth, however, she can state with certainty that the tape was placed on her face prior to decomposition. Since decomposition begins immediately after death, that tells me that the tape was placed on Caylee's face just before she died. IMHO the tape is what smothered her. It's only logical IMO.

 

[marspiter]

Just thought I would toss this in here as it pertains to premeditation.

According to Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instruction 7.1 (2003)
“Killing with premeditation” is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The
decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the
exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to
kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the
defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing.
The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from
the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the
killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the
existence of premeditation at the time of the killing.
If a person has a premeditated design to kill one person and in attempting to kill
that person actually kills another person, the killing is premeditated.

 

[Jolynna]

I think the fact that at this point the ME was unable to determine a cause death , let alone with medical certainty, it could possibly create a problem. JMHO of course.

There doesn't need to be a body, let alone a cause of death, for prosecutors to obtain a successful conviction. Lots of murderers that have been convicted with the cause of death not known.

 

[debbie0604]

I've wondered if KC made up a weak batch of chloroform and it possibly didn't work very well...perhaps that's the reason for the duct tape... the syringe of chloroform was in between a toilet paper roll in the bottle (I'm assuming to keep it from becoming exposed to too much light). I noticed her reaction in court when JA was giving his scenario of what could have happened to Caylee, it seemed to create a response from her that was really creepy IMO. Anyway....the evidence may seem circumstantial, but it sure looks really really bad for her. JMO

 

[JBean]

There doesn't need to be a body, let alone a cause of death, for prosecutors to obtain a successful conviction. Lots of murderers that have been convicted with the cause of death not known.

I don't disagree at all. I am just answering the question as to whether I think that LE has shown us enough to convict her on Premeditated murder. IMO, I am leaning toward aggravated child abuse aggravated manslaughter or 2nd degree murder and aggravated child abuse. JMHO.

 

[notthatsmart]

*bold by me*

The SA is not required to establish motive for Murder 1. It helps but it's only icing on the cake. Especially with an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence that can be used to prove the 3 elements needed for murder 1.

Not required based on other cases. I think in those cases they may have had direct evidence. I would like to see a case that has no motive and no direct evidence and the person was convicted with a good defense. The circumstantial evidence in this case is questionable. If the circumstantial evidence was solid, I could change my mind.

For instance:
If the duct tape actually matched.(fabric is consistent with coming from a different source/roll no further testing done.
If the hair actually was a post mortem death band and not just a dark end.
If the officers would have acted like the smell of human decomp was there.
If Ym would have said human decomp and not just decomp.(bond hearing)
If Ga would have smelled the human decomp on June 24th.
If Tl would have smelled the human decomp on June 23rd.
If the Vfa could not have come from several different sources.
If the stain was human decomp fluid.
If the adipocere like substance was actually adipocere.
If we knew who belonged to the mystery dna on the duct tape.
If the police would have charged her originally with lieing about June 15th instead of lieing about June 9th
If the chloroform found in the gatorade bottle was high in levels.

I am trying to see how this adds up to a mountain when all of it is questionable. I understand that some believe you will never get 100 percent on anything. I disagree. Kc's dna on the duct tape would be 100 percent. Kc's fingerprints on the duct tape would be 100 percent. Human blood in the trunk would be 100 percent. There is so much more that is questionable and that is why I need to see cross examination. That is why I need to hear the defense side of the story. That is why I need to hear expert testimony.

We can't just pick and choose cases where items were used to convict. Like if we have a smoking gun in a case, like the murder weapon with the perps finger prints on it, and then also have cadaver dogs that alerted on a dead body, for that to mean that if the cadaver dog was right, then they are always right. Or to say that people have been convicted on much less, I would like to see these cases where people were convicted without motive and also without some kind of smoking gun evidence. I know it can happen in a small community where no one is watching big brother, but I doubt it can happen in a high profile case. That is my opinion only.

 

[Eidetic]

My response to this is that Scott Peterson had motive and that motive is used often in murder. It has been proven time and time again when another woman or man is involved. This case is different. The Sa has not put up a motive yet, but if they do and it is one of the motives on this forum like I wanted to party motive or I wanted to get even with my Mother motive or my boyfriend wants girl babies motive, it is not normal and holds no candle to the other woman motive. IMO

Alright, let's talk motive.

Cindy was very much the other parental figure in Caylee's life. When there is a tense relationship, parents kill their children (or each other) all the time to keep the other parent from "winning". Caylee was the weaker, easiest option.
Casey would rather have Cindy alive and without Caylee, than dead. Who would help Casey take care of Caylee if she would have able to take out her frustration on Cindy? Who would help support her? She'd be royally screwed.
The decision to kill her daughter was a win-win for Casey. Even spending the rest of her life in jail at least Caylee isn't alive living with someone (Cindy) else.

You want more motive? You would actually have to watch her when you take her to a party. And when your friends and others start paying attention to Caylee because she actually has a personality and they would probably rather have had a conversation with her...
Conversation, more motive. Caylee was starting to talk. Which meant, she was probably learning at this age, how to challenge Casey verbally. The word "no" comes to mind, choosing where you want to go or who you want to see.
I am sure Cindy interrogated Caylee which must not have ended well for Casey when one parent questions the others decisions on how to raise the child and likely threatened to take custody.

My opinion, as always.

 

[Jolynna]

There is no logical or reasonable reason to put tape over another human's nose and mouth airways except to prevent the other human from screaming and/or breathing.

There is no recorded case of a parent taping over their deceased child's NOSE and MOUTH. Not ever. I challenge anyone to find a single occasion of this happening. There is no reason what-so-ever to do so.

LOTS of murderers have used duct tape as a "household weapon" to suffocate the victim by taping over the victim's face.

 

[Bee Charmer]

And I believe that is the message that JA will relay to the jury. It does not matter how Caylee died. Putting duct tape on a child is child abuse and if the child dies in the process.....you, the parent had a choice and did nothing to stop the child's death. Putting more duct tape on the babies face further confirms she had no concern for this child.

Bottom line is there is just no way anyone can justify the duct tape. The fact that she continues to lie just makes it appear it was premeditated or she would have claimed by now it was an accident. JMO

I think the three separate pieces of duct tape make it much worse for this accused babykiller. Because during the application of each piece, she had time to consider and reconsider what she was doing.

Premeditated? Yes.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

What does it matter whether the motive is to be with another woman or to go out and party/sleep around like Casey, if the result of that motivation is premeditated murder. It doesn't make much difference to the victim.

And besides, aren't these two motives almost twins? They both involve going out, partying and sleeping around. The only difference is that in one case a wife was slowing Scott up and a sweet 2-year old daughter was slowing Casey down.

 

[marspiter]

Not required based on other cases.

*snipped and bolded by me*

Based on Florida statute actually.

Florida Statute 782.04(1)(a) defines First Degree Premeditated Murder. Before
you can find the defendant guilty of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the government
must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was a premeditated killing of (victim).
An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant
to a single design or purpose.

Those are the only 3 elements the SA is "required" to prove. Motive, Where it happened, Cause of Death, murder weapon and such help the case. However they are not required. Technically you don't even need a body as in the case of People v. Scott 176 Cal. App. 2d 458 (1960)

To summarize the findings in that appeal: "circumstantial evidence, when sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis, may prove the death of a missing person, the existence of a homicide and the guilt of the accused".

 

[JBean]

.7 MANSLAUGHTER [section] 782.07, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Victim) is dead.

Give 2a, 2b, or 2c depending upon allegations and proof.

2. a. (Defendant) intentionally knowingly or consciously committed an act that caused the death of (victim).

b. (Defendant) intentionally knowingly or consciously procured an act that resulted in the death of (victim).

c. The death of (victim) was caused by the culpable negligence of (defendant).

In order to convict of manslaughter by intentional act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had a premeditated intent to cause death.

Culpable Negligence - culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing careless disregard for the safety and welfare of another person or persons.

 

[JBean]

Aggravated Manslaughter

(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/ind...3ESection%2007

Aggravated Child Abuse:

2) "Aggravated child abuse" occurs when a person:

(a) Commits aggravated battery on a child;

(b) Willfully tortures, maliciously punishes, or willfully and unlawfully cages a child; or

(c) Knowingly or willfully abuses a child and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child.

A person who commits aggravated child abuse commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

 

[JBean]

Let's not get into the felony murder debacle,, err I mean Debate.

The only reason I posted that information after you posted yours on murder 1, was to show that they also fill the bill and I could see her being found guilty on things other than First degree premed murder KWIM?

 

[marspiter]

The circumstantial evidence in this case is questionable. If the circumstantial evidence was solid, I could change my mind.

*snipped by me*

Circumstantial evidence is like a puzzle. No one piece is going to show you the entire picture on the front of the box. However as you start putting the pieces together they begin to reveal the picture. Now in some cases you may not have every piece of the puzzle but once you have enough pieces the picture is pretty clear even with a few missing. For example you may have a puzzle with the golden gate bridge on it. Despite having a couple pieces missing it's still pretty clear the image is of the golden gate bridge.

That is essentially how circumstantial evidence works. The SA lays the pieces out for the jury and the jury is allowed to interpret the image for themselves using their own reasoning skills. So for example the juror sees the image of a large red colored suspension bridge spanning over a large body of water with a picturesque skyline of San Fransico however a few pieces of the water are missing from the puzzle. That person would know based on their own reasoning "Hey it's the Golden gate Bridge".

Why?, because it's the only reasonable answer. One could argue it's the Brooklyn Bridge all day long however at the end of the day the Brooklyn Bridge isn't red in color and the city skylines are completely different so therefore it's unreasonable to conclude it's anything other then it's the Golden Gate Bridge.

That's basically how it works. Each individual piece isn't going to give you the big picture, but when put together they give a reasonable conclusion that shows every other conclusion to be unreasonable based on the reasoning skills of your average person.

So with all of that said the pieces of this particular puzzle paint us a pretty clear picture. Other then arguing level of murder based on premed or not I would say any other explanation the defense can muster would be rather unreasonable...like RK doing it for example.

All moo