826 users online (120 members and 706 guests)  


Websleuths News

View Poll Results: Should SA add #5 aggravating Factor?

Voters
153. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    18 11.76%
  • No

    118 77.12%
  • Not sure

    17 11.11%

Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 99
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,699

    Should SA seek to prove that "the murder was committed for pecuniary gain"?

    My thoughts are that SA may want to use #5 aggravating factor in order to bring in the evidence that KC sold photos to ABC . This way they can allow the jury to decide if it should count or not.
    What do you all opine? lawyers? what are your thoughts?

    Here is aggravating factor #5 as it reads:
    5) The murder was committed for pecuniary gain or pursuant to an agreement that the defendant would receive something of value

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    5,593
    Not in relation to the photos. If Casey is the guilty party and the murder was committed on or about June 16th. she had no way of knowing there would be future financial gain from selling Caylee's photos.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    36,310
    I agree with strach304. I do not feel the murder was committed with the intent or even the thought of financial gain but rather the finacial gain was a happy (from Casey's persective) additional side effect.

    # 5 refers to that being a part of the original murder and a contributing factor in the decision making to commit it.

    I just don't see it as being a factor in her actions.
    Websleuths now on Facebook

    Welcome to all new members. Thank you for joining the conversation. Please take a moment to become familiar with the TOS and rules, etiquette and information.

    mni wiconi - Lakota for Water is Life.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,721
    Quote Originally Posted by strach304
    Not in relation to the photos. If Casey is the guilty party and the murder was committed on or about June 16th. she had no way of knowing there would be future financial gain from selling Caylee's photos.
    I agree.

    No way did Inmate Anthony know her murdered child would bring that kind of money to her or that she would even have to defend herself against filicide.

    In her mind, I believe she just thought the police would take her word on things. I can't imagine why she didn't think LE would check into her statements, look for this imaginanny...or that lying to police was a crime..

    No, this doesn't fit, IMO..

    Justice for Caylee

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,699
    Quote Originally Posted by strach304 View Post
    Not in relation to the photos. If Casey is the guilty party and the murder was committed on or about June 16th. she had no way of knowing there would be future financial gain from selling Caylee's photos.
    I'm not saying that they could prove it. I'm only suggesting that this may be a way to bring in the fact that she sold photos into evidence...even if the jury does not agree at the end that #5 was one of the aggravating factors

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    778
    I do think that the sale of the pics/videos is something that should be made known to the jury. The sale was said to have been made during the time that Casey was out on bail. That was BEFORE she was indicted in the death of Caylee.

    But I don't think that this can be used to show "the murder was committed for pecuniary gain."

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    362
    I think it is extremely interesting that the SA didn't rule out financial gain as one of the aggravators. IMO there is no way that the sale of the pictures and videos can be used to prove this. If the State uses financial gain, there must be another reason, another possible source of financial gain for Casey if Caylee were to die.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    919
    I had a different thought about pecuniary gain ... more as a loss ... KC couldn't even support herself without stealing, and Caylee was an additional "expense" ... also KC parents spent a lot of money on Caylee that was previously available to her ... the other thing that sticks in my mind with KC going with the kidnapping story is maybe she intended to try to extort money from her parents but was found before she had figured out how she was going to do that ... just throwing it out there but wondering if pecuniary gain can be looked at from a standpoint of saving the defendent money and removing a financial burden .... JMO

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    779
    Quote Originally Posted by Sun View Post
    I do think that the sale of the pics/videos is something that should be made known to the jury. The sale was said to have been made during the time that Casey was out on bail. That was BEFORE she was indicted in the death of Caylee.

    But I don't think that this can be used to show "the murder was committed for pecuniary gain."
    I agree it should be known to the jury,but only as a factor of what her
    actions were and mindset was during the period of time the child was
    "supposedly missing" In my opinion it shows Casey knew Caylee was dead
    and that she would need monies for an atty.The murderer of the child would
    be the only one who knew Caylee would not be coming home and that funds
    would be needed for an atty. Without this money,JB would not have remained
    her atty. She would have gotten a court appointed atty,and we would not
    be here discussing this case today.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    779
    Quote Originally Posted by steadychick View Post
    I think it is extremely interesting that the SA didn't rule out financial gain as one of the aggravators. IMO there is no way that the sale of the pictures and videos can be used to prove this. If the State uses financial gain, there must be another reason, another possible source of financial gain for Casey if Caylee were to die.
    Insurance policy,maybe???????????


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,699
    Quote Originally Posted by denjet View Post
    I had a different thought about pecuniary gain ... more as a loss ... KC couldn't even support herself without stealing, and Caylee was an additional "expense" ... also KC parents spent a lot of money on Caylee that was previously available to her ... the other thing that sticks in my mind with KC going with the kidnapping story is maybe she intended to try to extort money from her parents but was found before she had figured out how she was going to do that ... just throwing it out there but wondering if pecuniary gain can be looked at from a standpoint of saving the defendent money and removing a financial burden .... JMO
    Great points!
    Also...did the computer forensics not show that KC searched for missing children BEFORE Caylee went "missing'? Do we know for sure there was no life insurance on Caylee?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Whome? View Post
    Insurance policy,maybe???????????
    Exactly! do we know if for a fact there was no insurance on Caylee? sometimes this are offered at birth from Gerber, I believe.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Polk County, Florida
    Posts
    7,216
    To collect insurance, you have to have a death certificate I do believe.
    <Click on User CP>
    Scroll down and on the left
    <Click on Edit Ignore List>
    In add a Member to your list
    <start typing the name of the person you want to ignore>
    <Click on OKay>

    IF WE COOK IT THEY WILL COME!


  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,699
    Quote Originally Posted by steadychick View Post
    I think it is extremely interesting that the SA didn't rule out financial gain as one of the aggravators. IMO there is no way that the sale of the pictures and videos can be used to prove this. If the State uses financial gain, there must be another reason, another possible source of financial gain for Casey if Caylee were to die.
    Me too! This is what led me to not rule out. Also the timing of the DP coming in? They can contend that she searched for missing children. found out all the notoriety and publicity gained. Put two and two together...had the Zanny the nanny plan. She waited just to make sure Zanny would be harder to track. Only failed when she didn't think the police would NOT BELIEVE her!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    779
    Quote Originally Posted by lisalei321 View Post
    To collect insurance, you have to have a death certificate I do believe.
    Casey,as the parent of the child,would have eventually been given a death
    certificate,even if her reamins were not found.She would have been presumed
    dead.

    She still would have benefitted if there was a policy I think.

Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. GUILTY OR - Gavin Siscel, 33, stabbed to death, Marion County, 4 June 2013
    By Everyday Grace in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-10-2016, 10:18 PM
  2. Replies: 531
    Last Post: 05-25-2012, 11:33 PM
  3. Replies: 66
    Last Post: 11-06-2011, 02:11 AM