"G (Guilty)" vs "NG (Not Guilty)" Where do you stand?

[Wudge]

Seriously unless someone is hard-core pro-defense no matter the situation, evidence, or what have you, I think its pretty much a consensus that Casey is going to be found guilty of 1st degree murder. For those playing devil's advocate and arguing it was some other person or an accident I would certainly love to see the evidence.

SNIP

This is a forum and not a court law so in this case the pro-defense also has to prove their point just like the pro-prosecution stance does if not then its really not a debate with equal evidence on both side but merely an attack on one opinion.

In any case that I follow, I assess the evidence against the charges. Accordingly, that is what I've done in Caylee's case. And my holding has been and remains that the evidence we know of is insufficient to support the People's premeditated murder charge.

No one, anywhere, has laid out what the highly reliable evidence is that prosecutors must and can produce at trial to prove the necessary murder-one elements of: intent, planning, deliberation and malice aforethought.

Net, my center stage spotlights have focused on the inability of anyone to lay out this required evidence and explain how it necessarily proves those four required elements. Accordingly, my position has long been that the proper measure of the first-degree murder charge is "not guilty". I think my focus reasonably aligns with the topic.

 

[Mystic]

Hmm, trying to follow, so KC did not go with the stranger kidnap story, but rather the ZG kidnap story? And the tape was not needed for the ZG story but was for the fake kidnap story?

KC does not follow logic nor by what I've seen any ability to formulate a complete plan (remember Amy was moving in with her at the A's house story... she isn't capable of looking into the future of what she says or does in the present).

She pulled the ZG kidnap story in the moment... which imo makes the duct tape more apt to be part of how the murder occured as it was placed before decomp. She also didn't report a kidnapping thru 31 days but made up stories of Caylee being elsewhere. KC avoided her parents thru that same time. This all to me shows that she was putting distance until she probably left town.

Why would it be premeditated... well, nothing was found to suggest how the baby died. Only duct tape placed on her mouth & nose. If it was an accident, like lets say drowning in the pool, which any normal mother would be frantic to save their child... would she think 'in that moment' to run to get the duct tape and bags and make it look like a kidnapping? Then forget to call LE within the proceeding 31 days to say her child was kidnapped? Nah, anyway I look at this, it looks like a planned murder and at some point, a very long time later she perhaps would have come up with a disappearance story.

I don't put much into KC knowing about leakage whatsoever and if it were an accident, seriously would this come to mind in that moment. Suffocating that little child was the easiest way she could come up with and thats about the only preplanning she did. After that she just did what she always did, lie to the A's and her friends. She's a pretty pathetic excuse for a human being imo. Guilty & DP

 

[Balthazar]

Seriously unless someone is hard-core pro-defense no matter the situation, evidence, or what have you, I think its pretty much a consensus that Casey is going to be found guilty of 1st degree murder. For those playing devil's advocate and arguing it was some other person or an accident I would certainly love to see the evidence.

The majority opinion on this forum has pretty much defended its opinion of Casey's guilt till the cows have come home, turned on the tv and sat on the couch. This opinion has been defended by case citation after case citation. Evidence from this case has been pointed to analyzed and rehashed over and over.

If there is a theory on accident or SODDI which has evidence that can prove as such I would personally like to see it. If you have a link showing this please feel free.

A devil's advocate can stand back and tear apart someone else's opinion all day long (If you want me to argue why the sky isn't blue I can certainly do it all day.) However its much more difficult to defend your own opinion with fact and evidence. So once again please show me the evidence of an accident or SODDI as the evidence to Casey's guilt has pretty much been shown and exhausted. Either you get it and your just playing devil's advocate or you don't.

This is not directed to one person in general. I simply think the topic has been exhausted and I have not seen any evidence showing anything other then Casey's guilt. This is a forum and not a court law so in this case the pro-defense also has to prove their point just like the pro-prosecution stance does if not then its really not a debate with equal evidence on both side but merely an attack on one opinion.

I think you are misunderstanding this thread. I don't believe anyone here is pro-defense - although there may be some I am unaware of. There are many here who are pro-prosecution and a few like me and Wudge who are viewing the case impartially and weighing the evidence we know of in order to assess what the verdict may be. The discussions of points of evidence are to determine how they may impact the verdict are part of that assessment.

 

[Balthazar]

Could be, we may never know, however I do believe she used the tape to murder Caylee.

It is believable that the tape could have been used to murder Caylee, but there is no proof. Most of all there is no proof that it was applied prior to death. That is a huge problem with this case.

 

[marspiter]

Wudge,

According to Florida jury instructions the prosecution only has to prove 3 elements not 4. For some reason you seem to be missing this point.

1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was a premeditated killing of (victim).

Premeditation does not have a length of time. It's only requirement is that it be a reflection of ones actions before the act. Which can be mere seconds.

Mods, I'm sorry as I know this should go in the jury instructions thread but thought it necessary to post in response to Wudge.

 

[Balthazar]

The premeditation of this murder is not dependent on how well concocted was the nanny kidnapping fabrication or how neat the complaint against her, filed by Casey Anthony. The defendant might have said, "I woke up in the morning and Caylee wasn't there." The disposal of Lacy was not well planned either, just transport her to the bay and dump her. Olga Duncan's mother in-law killed her with premeditation and put the body on the floor of a land project. Leah Hickman was stuffed into the crawl space of her very apartment basement. In the Billings murders and the Husted murders, the couples were left in place, just where they were killed. How you solve, plan or do not plan after the fact in no way determines whether you formed the intent to kill at the time of a murder. These two stages of the crime should not be confused even in terms of the thought behind them.

Not all murders are slow and careful like arsenic poisoning but as in "I don't like the way you look tonight", a reach for a loaded gun and firing so that po faced victim dies, is also premeditated.

Agreed, but in Scott Peterson's case, he was telling his girlfriend that he was a widower and would be spending his first Christmas alone 15 days before Laci disappeared. That is definitely premeditation.

In Casey's case, we are having trouble determining if there is any premeditaton at all. If premeditation doesn't exist, then she will not be found guilty of Murder 1 as that is a requirement for a Murder 1 conviction.

 

[Balthazar]

What if a skeleton was found, wrapped in plastic bags with a hole in the skull that was determined to be from a gunshot wound. Is the ME expected to put "undetermined" as the manner of death because he doesn't have proof that this wasn't a self-inflicted wound?

Would a jury question the credibility of a ME if he concluded "homicide" rather than "undetermined" since there's nothing to show that suicide didn't occur?

Add to the scenario that those who should have reported this man missing never did. They went on to lie and deceive investigators in an apparent attempt to prevent inculpatory evidence from being found. Is it really that wrong for the ME to look at all the events surrounding this death and conclude homicide even though suicide has not been ruled out?

I look forward to the cross exam of the ME and I don't expect it to be withering. I think she'll give very logical reasons why she concluded "homicide" rather than "undetermined".

How exactly could this be a self inflicted wound without the presence of a firearm in the vicinity of the body?

 

[marspiter]

I think you are misunderstanding this thread. I don't believe anyone here is pro-defense - although there may be some I am unaware of. There are many here who are pro-prosecution and a few like me and Wudge who are viewing the case impartially and weighing the evidence we know of in order to assess what the verdict may be. The discussions of points of evidence are to determine how they may impact the verdict are part of that assessment.

No I understand looking at the evidence and taking an objective look. However many times I have seen the SODDI and accident theories tossed around on this thread as well as others and personally if one chooses to stand by those theories being an option then I would like to see the evidence that validates those as possible options is what I was saying.

 

[Balthazar]

Actually you are mistaken about the results of the SODDI thread. We determined that an absence of evidence that there might be SOD DOES NOT PROVE that there wasn't SOD. All it proves, as far as we can tell, is that the police did not investigate other potential suspects such as the pedophile with the similar MO who lived within 4 miles of Caylee - I'm sure you remember the "Duct Tape on the 4 year old victim's mouth" pedophile we discovered. I can only hope that police have ruled him out because if they haven't the defense will likely take advantage of that in court. However, SOD is off topic here as we are examing the evidence to determine Casey's level of guilt and the likely verdict in this case. So excuse me for digressing but I wanted to set the record straight on the SODDI thread.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

This list disproves the likelihood that Casey was setting up a fake kidnapping scenario as a part of premeditation of the murder of Caylee. There are many other things that can enter into premeditation, however. I'm being extremely precise as to the interpretation of the list.

OK, I see what you were saying. Your second list disproves premed as it pertains to a kidnapping story. I was confused, my bad.

 

[MissJames]

Actually you are mistaken about the results of the SODDI thread. We determined that an absence of evidence that there might be SOD DOES NOT PROVE that there wasn't SOD. All it proves, as far as we can tell, is that the police did not investigate other potential suspects such as the pedophile with the similar MO who lived within 4 miles of Caylee - I'm sure you remember the "Duct Tape on the 4 year old victim's mouth" pedophile we discovered. I can only hope that police have ruled him out because if they haven't the defense will likely take advantage of that in court. However, SOD is off topic here as we are examing the evidence to determine Casey's level of guilt and the likely verdict in this case. So excuse me for digressing but I wanted to set the record straight on the SODDI thread.

Well there I go being ridiculous again.I was part of the thread ,too.Guess WE see it differently.

 

[Wudge]

Wudge,

According to Florida jury instructions the prosecution only has to prove 3 elements not 4. For some reason you seem to be missing this point.

1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was a premeditated killing of (victim).

Premeditation does not have a length of time. It's only requirement is that it be a reflection of ones actions before the act. Which can be mere seconds.

Mods, I'm sorry as I know this should go in the jury instructions thread but thought it necessary to post in response to Wudge.

I thought this was cleared up after I posted my hypo -- Mother out walking with her young daughter and two young nieces. However, if you do not recall the hypo, please repost to the jury instruction thread, and the mods can erase your post and mine here.

 

[RR0004]

In any case that I follow, I assess the evidence against the charges. Accordingly, that is what I've done in Caylee's case. And my holding has been and remains that the evidence we know of is insufficient to support the People's premeditated murder charge.

No one, anywhere, has laid out what the highly reliable evidence is that prosecutors must and can produce at trial to prove the necessary murder-one elements of: intent, planning, deliberation and malice aforethought.

Net, my center stage spotlights have focused on the inability of anyone to lay out this required evidence and explain how it necessarily proves those four required elements. Accordingly, my position has long been that the proper measure of the first-degree murder charge is "not guilty". I think my focus reasonably aligns with the topic.

Just curious...and this is an honest question...is there any case that you did follow that you agreed that the evidence proved guilt and warranted the charges? Seriously, I'd like to follow your reasoning on both sides so that I can better understand it all.

 

[RR0004]

Actually you are mistaken about the results of the SODDI thread. We determined that an absence of evidence that there might be SOD DOES NOT PROVE that there wasn't SOD. All it proves, as far as we can tell, is that the police did not investigate other potential suspects such as the pedophile with the similar MO who lived within 4 miles of Caylee - I'm sure you remember the "Duct Tape on the 4 year old victim's mouth" pedophile we discovered. I can only hope that police have ruled him out because if they haven't the defense will likely take advantage of that in court. However, SOD is off topic here as we are examing the evidence to determine Casey's level of guilt and the likely verdict in this case. So excuse me for digressing but I wanted to set the record straight on the SODDI thread.

I haven't read that through entirely...but that's not the impression I got. I'll have to go back and see what I missed.

 

[RR0004]

*snipped*

Yes Caylee's age is going to be of special importance. Were not talking about an adult that can take care of themselves. She was less then 2 yrs old and required assistance for even her most basic of needs. She was last left in the care of her mother Casey.

That is going to be the big thing that is running in the jurors heads. One can argue semantics and spout legalese all day long but at the end of the day a defenseless child was killed and the jury is going to want answers not smoke and mirrors.

...there are legal ramifications as well according to Florida law regarding her age.

 

[Marina2]

How exactly could this be a self inflicted wound without the presence of a firearm in the vicinity of the body?

It's probably not. More likely that a ME will conclude homicide based in part on the circumstantial evidence you present. That's a good example of how a ME can conclude homicide without using a scientific fact. She can consider more than scientific facts just as you did in your question to me.

 

[marspiter]

Wudge,

I have moved my response from our discussion over to the the jury instructions thread so as to not be OT here.

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

I think that there will be evidence presented that shows the tape was placed before death. It seems with all the forensic technology we have today there should be some way to determine this. IMO, this is what brought the death penalty back. Duct tape alone wouldn't do it but proof that it was placed prior to death would be pretty good evidence of premeditated murder and enough to legally bring back the death penalty.

Bold is mine. I do believe there is forensic technology to determine this as I have read it somewhere. It seem like it was the Jon Benet case but I could very well be wrong, but the point is this:
The tongue has grooves, valleys and hills much like a fingerprint, when one is alive and fighting for air,lips are moving, leaving impressions, impressions of teeth, maybe bite marks on the duct tape, if able the tongue is pushed against the duct tape trying to get the duct tape off, but leaving an impression of the tongue.
If the duct tape is applied after death over the lips, then that is the marking on the underside of the duct tape, still, silent, unmoving lips.

 

[Wudge]

Just curious...and this is an honest question...is there any case that you did follow that you agreed that the evidence proved guilt and warranted the charges? Seriously, I'd like to follow your reasoning on both sides so that I can better understand it all.

Since the birth of internet in the early 90's and the long-ago days of Mosaic, I've posted online against many high-profile and media influenced cases. Off the top of my head I recall: the Menendez brothers murder case (their parents), the infamous Little Rascals day-care sexual-abuse case, OJ's murder case (Nicole Simpson, Ron Goldman), Richard Jewell and the Olympic park bombing case, the Robert Halsey child sexual-abuse case, Ray Carruth for the murder of his pregnant girlfriend (Cherica Adams), the Baby Sabrina kidnapping case (The Aisenbergs), the Patrick Figuered and Sonja Hill child sexual-abuse case, the Jon Benet murder case (The Ramseys), the Nancy Smith and Joseph Allen child sexual-abuse case, Sandra Murphy and Rick Tabish in the Ted Binion murder case, Gabriel Ferris in the Cheryl Murphy murder case, the Darlie Routier murder case (her children), Mark Unger for the murder of his wife (Florence Unger), Cynthia Sommer for the murder of her husband (Todd Sommer), Cynthia George for conspiracy to commit murder (Jeffrey Zach), Gary Condit in the Chandra Levy case, Scott Hornoff for the murder of his mistress (Victoria Cushman), Andrea Yates for drowning her children, Michael Peterson for the murder of his wife (Kathleen Peterson), David Westerfield for the murder of Danielle Van Dam, Robert Blake for the murder of his girlfriend (Bonnie Lee Bakely), Joran van der Sloot in the Natalee Holloway case, Dr. Dirk Greineder for the murder of his wife (Mabel Greineder), Deanna Laney for stoning her children to death, Richard Ricci in the Elizabeth Smart case (alleged murder found to be a fruitcake kidnapping), Rabbi Fred Neulander for the murder of his wife (Carol Neulander), Louise Woodward in the Au Pair murder case (Matthew Eappen), John Mason in the runaway bride case (Jennifer Wilbanks), Jayson Williams for murder two in the shotgun killing of Gus Cristoffi, the Madeline McCann case (the McCanns), Phil Spector in the murder two case of Lana Clarkson, and Reade Seligman, Collin Finnerty and David Evans in the Duke lacrosse rape case.

But a few pre-internet cases that immediately come to mind are: Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald for the murder of his wife and children -- the oldest and number one case on my list of likely wrongful convictions, Claus Von Bulow for the attempted murder of his wife (Sunny von Bulow), the Prescott Ontario ritualized sexual-abuse cases (117 people), Bambi Bambenek's murder case (Christine Schultz), the Fells Acre child sexual-abuse case, T. Cullen Davis for the murder of his stepdaughter (Andrea Wilborn), and the infamous McMartin pre-school ritualized sexual-abuse case.

In all of the above cases, I would not have indicted any of those who were accused in the media but never been charged.

From the above cases that went to trial, those where I would have voted for a conviction are:

The Menendez brothers (unlike the jury, I would have convicted them of murder one in the first trial)

OJ’s murder trial

Rae Carruth (unlike the jury's murder two conviction, I would have voted for murder one)

T. Cullen Davis

David Westerfield

Dr. Dirk Greineder

Rabbi Fred Neulander

Jayson Williams (Unlike the jury, I would have voted for murder two in his first trial. His re-trial still is in waiting.)

Phil Spector (for murder two in his first trial)

Though I would not have convicted Andrea Yates or Deanna Laney, I would have voted to send them to a mental institution.

 

[Balthazar]

It's probably not. More likely that a ME will conclude homicide based in part on the circumstantial evidence you present. That's a good example of how a ME can conclude homicide without using a scientific fact. She can consider more than scientific facts just as you did in your question to me.

How is the lack of presence of a gun not a scientific fact in analysis of the crimescene? It is an easy and reasonable question to posit, there is definitely a factual answer and there are only two possible answers - yes or no by which to measure the presence of a gun in the crimescene.