Premeditation

[Brini]

I think they filed murder charges before the coroner was even involved didn't they?

Yep!

Brain-fart pour moi! :-( Timeline is bass-ackward, 2 nite!

 

[JBean]

If the victim was taped and bound [with tape?] ,then placed in water,she would be unable to swim and save herself from drowning ,therefore the tape is actually an instrument causing the death as much as a gun is an instrument that delivers the deadly bullet.JMO

But the ME could not say with 100% medical certainty what killed her. He said it was reasonable to assume it was either asphyxiation(from the taped nose and mouth) or drowning.
Interestingly Huck was not charged with premeditated murder, but rather felony murder. i do not know if any interesting parallels can be drawn from that or not. (probably not)but since the Huck decision seems to come up in this thread i figured I would throw it out there for the "huck" of it.
I am killing me over here.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

I think they filed murder charges before the coroner was even involved didn't they?

And that tells me a lot. I know some posters here hold a very dim view of the SA (in general, and one wonders if they think a SA serves a good and useful function at all, but I digress.......) ......however, I don't think they filed those charges cavalierly. They know what they're doing, and they know the case they have.

 

[Brini]

But the ME could not say with 100% medical certainty what killed her. He said it was reasonable to assume it was either asphyxiation(from the taped nose and mouth) or drowning.
Interestingly Huck was not charged with premeditated murder, but rather felony murder. i do not know if any interesting parallels can be drawn from that or not. (probably not)but since the Huck decision seems to come up in this thread i figured I would throw it out there for the "huck" of it.
I am killing me over here.

Well, it means the ME saw the burst blood vessals in the eyes, and the blood CO2 was too high. The skin was also cyanotic.

But, maybe he did not find enough water in the lungs to diagnose drowning. There's also something called "dry drowning." The airway gets shut off by water, but there's none in the lungs.

So.. he knew she died from lack or air. But, that's all he knew.

 

[BeanE]

IIRC early on, immediately after the recovery, they did mention the other tape...but why did I think it was more than one "other" piece?

There are a few other pieces of tape, RR, but only 5 are Henckel. 1 - gas can, 3 - on Caylee's skull, and this one. Because Henckel is rare, I think this piece is significant.

I'm eagerly awaiting further lab tests such as comparisons of fibers found at the scene and in the house to see if they can tie all these Henckel tapes together.

 

[Brini]

But the ME could not say with 100% medical certainty what killed her. He said it was reasonable to assume it was either asphyxiation or drowning.
Interestingly Huck was not charged with premeditated murder, but rather felony murder. i do not know if any interesting parallels can be drawn from that or not. (probably not)but since the Huck decision seems to come up in this thread i figured I would throw it out there for the "huck" of it.
I am killing me over here.

LOVE the pun!

 

[Wudge]

SNIP


I am killing me over here.

Jill. that ........................................... was funny.

(salute)

 

[Jolynna]

It's not the strict topic per se, but I do hold the certainty level for proof beyond a reasonable doubt to be in excess of 99%.

As for your saying "the only question will be premediated murder" or not, I'm fine with that, because without such proof murder one is off the table and murder two has never been on the table. Thus, no proof of premediation = no murder conviction.

In Florida...

It is the trial judge’s proper task to review the evidence to
determine the presence or absence of competent evidence
from which the jury could infer guilt to the exclusion of all
other inferences. That view of the evidence must be taken in
the light most favorable to the state. The state is not
required to rebut conclusively every possible variation of
events which could be inferred from the evidence, but only to
introduce competent evidence which is inconsistent with the
defendant’s theory of events.

Once that threshold burden is
met, it becomes the jury’s duty to determine whether the
evidence is sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis
of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The question of whether the evidence
fails to exclude all reasonable hypotheses of
innocence is for the jury to determine, and
where there is substantial, competent evidence
to support the jury verdict, we will not reverse

 

[Brini]

Outta here, for awhile, folks!

Thanks, everybody! You are all the BEST!

OOOOOOXXXXXX

 

[Jolynna]

My opinion........Pre-med. The tape is the factor. IMO, it was not used to staunch the leakage of any fluids---decomp or pool water. I think it was the weapon. As much as it horrifies me to think of what that means......that is what I think happened. JMO

But, she was charged with first degree before they found Caylee and knew about the duct tape.

 

[JBean]

So.. he knew she died from lack or air. But, that's all he knew.

At trial the medical examiner testified that because of the condition of the body, he was
not "one hundred percent" certain of the cause of death. In his opinion, however, the victim
died "within a reasonable degree of probability" from asphyxia either by the tape on her nose​

and mouth or from drowning.

http://www.denverda.org/DNA_Documents/Huck.pdf

 

[The Eunice Burns]

But, she was charged with first degree before they found Caylee and knew about the duct tape.

True. Argh. This case has fried my brain. Sometimes I don't know if I'm comin' or goin'........I do know one thing that has not been "fried" for me, and that is my absolute confidence in the SA and their case. Whether or not she gets the DP, I do think they will get a conviction.

 

[Imbackon]

Originally Posted by Wudge View Post

As for your saying "the only question will be premediated murder" or not, I'm fine with that, because without such proof murder one is off the table and murder two has never been on the table. Thus, no proof of premediation = no murder conviction.

What do you mean by no murder conviction.
What happened to the lesser charges?
Are you saying if she is not found guilty of premeditated murder she will walk?

 

[Wudge]

I especially like the scorched earth theory when it applies to defense throwing innocent victims under the bus. Which this team has and will continue to do. If there are ethics to abide by...why bother if you are a prosecutor when the defense can simply say a random phantom nanny did it...when no such nanny exists nor will ever be proven to exist. KC's check fraud conviction should convince her to stray from her ridiculous notions of a mistrial. She'll be in jail for a while. Which is where someone who has not contributed anything other than grief to the human experience belongs.

BTW, you are cool.

It sounds like you consider Ray Kronk to be an innocent bystander. It's been quite awhile (Furhman comes to mind) since I ran into a more preposterous storyline than his. Kronk should end up under the bus; his claims truly boggle the mind.

It just happens to be that a former bountry hunter accidently collects on the reward in this case? That's a ... Ripley eat your heart out story.

 

[Bittiness39]

It sounds like you consider Ray Kronk to be an innocent bystander. It's been quite awhile (Furhman comes to mind) since I ran into a more preposterous storyline than his. Kronk should end up under the bus; his claims truly boggle the mind.

It just happens to be that a former bountry hunter accidently collects on the reward in this case? That's a ... Ripley eat your heart out story.

Not Kronk. I am talking about a fictious nanny...Tony, JG's entire family, AH...ect...come on...

 

[Wudge]

Originally Posted by Wudge View Post


What do you mean by no murder conviction.
What happened to the lesser charges?
Are you saying if she is not found guilty of premeditated murder she will walk?

Casey is not charged with murder two. The only murder charge is murder one. So, no murder one, no murder.

 

[Wudge]

Not Kronk. I am talking about a fictious nanny...Tony, JG's entire family, AH...ect...come on...

Ah. I would wait a bit. The defense Casey's team offers up could well change.

If it were me, I certainly would look to misdirect and surprise the prosecutors at the latest possible moment.

 

[Imbackon]

Casey is not charged with murder two. The only murder charge is murder one. So, no murder one, no murder.

Than why have others wrote about lesser included charges, and you have not corrected them?

Someone throw me a bone here. Marspiter (spell?) I think wrote about the possible murder convictions. I just don't believe it is all or nothin!

 

[Wudge]

At trial the medical examiner testified that because of the condition of the body, he was
not "one hundred percent" certain of the cause of death. In his opinion, however, the victim
died "within a reasonable degree of probability" from asphyxia either by the tape on her nose​

and mouth or from drowning.

http://www.denverda.org/DNA_Documents/Huck.pdf

Correct. The M.E. has it at 50/50, which nicely supports the potential for the tape having being used to control pool water leakage.

 

[RR0004]

What is the date of death? What behavior prior to the date of death constitutes highly reliable evidence of premeditation?

As regards accident, it's but an option, as is manslaughter. There's no need to prove accident, because the burden of proof for either murder one or manslaughter is entirely on the State to prove their case.

Well, someone has to suggest "accident" and I hope the defense goes that route 'cause the verdict will come in that much quicker IMO.